Clear Link Between Al-Qaeda and Iraq found!

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Ugh... more stupid political views as said by Weltall...



Maybe... but diplomacy and inspections are hardly nothing...

They have amounted to nothing. For twelve years, he's hidden his weapons and kicked out inspectors at will. What has been accomplished in the last twelve years? Nothing. These inspections are just what he wants. It gives him all the time he needs to really get his hands on some working weapons, and what can the UN do then?

The UN is doing something... its just not what Mr. Warmonger W. doesn't like that policy and wants to go in with the army like his daddy did...

Seriously, that sounds weaker every time you say it. The UN is doing nothing of consequence, except giving Saddam more time. Of course, a certain UN member is suspected of giving Iraq a little more than time... and that certain member is very much opposed to us going in there... I wonder why? France's oil contracts with Saddam don't seem to bother you either, although the thought that we might commandeer their oil fields has you scared to death for some reason.

On this one I hardly know where to begin... First, yes, World War 1 was a very different situation, and the last of the wars between the imperial powers that had happened every so often for a really long time. True. But WW2? You honestly believe a word of that? Insane...

Yes, I do. Not only am I right, but it is also proof of the UN's uselessness: Without the United States, there is no hope of a world organization. We ARE the UN's power. They are nothing without us. Europe proved with the League that they are flatly incompetant in handling world affairs, as has been very obvious as of late.

First, the League of Nations. It was a powerless body... and why? Because we refused to join because isolationists had control of the US government. And without the US, it was doomed to be a failure and prove not very powerful...

As is the UN.

Appeasement of Hitler. Did it work? Nope. But did it hurt? Not really... Hitler was going to have war one way or the other (because he wanted vengeance for Germany's loss in WW1, and the brutal peace treaty imposed on Germany by the victorious European Allies), so appeasement was doomed to failure. But was it worth the effort? Yes... Europe desperately didn't want another major war so soon after WW1, and no sane person should even begin to blame them... but at the time the appeasements were a legitimite thing to try and probably did slow down the start of the war a little. I think it was the right thing to do, even though it was obviously, in hindsight, doomed to failure from before it started... the League of Nations was powerless from the minuite it was created without the US in it and had no chance to be a body like the UN with some vague kind of legitimate power... it couldn't do anything substantial, and what it did do was the right thing considering the situation and what they knew at the time. How you think it had any affect on the war, other than not making Germany invade Austria and Czechoslovakia in addition to the rest of Europe, is beyond me.

It may have delayed the immediate war, but what it did is exactly what made the war so much worse than it could have been: They gave Hitler YEARS LONGER to prepare and build his forces, develop new weapons and mass-produce them. Hitler wasn't ready for a fullscale war himself in the early-30's, but he was able to manipulate the spineless French and the similarly spineless Neville Chamberlain into giving him the time to fully become the military juggernaut that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe was. In the mid-30's there was no way Hitler could sustain a Blitz against France. But by 1940 he had enough power to smash them in six weeks. THAT, my friend, is the crime of appeasement. The British were able to hold out against the Germans because they were an island, and had to be smashed almost exclusively from the air, and that was too hard to do, but even more because Hitler was preoccupied with Russia. Appeasement was a total disaster for Europe. Had France and England begun mobilizing as soon as they saw the threat Hitler posed, they would have definitely had an easier time containing him. That policy delayed the war about five years but allowed it to become so much worse than it should have been. And I've never seen anyone until now say it was a good thing. I know you disagree with practically everything I say but this is insane. And appeasement of Saddam Hussein will give HIM the time to acquire what everyone knows he wants but some refuse to admit he has. And if in four years or so he gets a nuke, as some sources say he might, what then? Was the policy a success because it didn't happen in 2003?

Madness.

The inspections are working as well as they can be expected to... they have found some things. Have they found it all? Of course not.. .Saddaam is definitely hiding some things. But its not like they haven't found anything... they have, such as those empty shells (that, it seems, they knew about before when they left and found them as they expected to)... and without inspections I doubt that we'd have any way to really see if Iraq does actually get rid of those missiles we know they have that break the maximum allowed range for Iraqi missiles that was imposed on them years ago.

What do we need to start finding more things that Sadaam is hiding? First, much tougher inspections and a lot more inspectors... that is the logical next step. Keeping some kind of military force in the region, to be able to threaten Sadaam if he slips any more than he already is into not cooperating, is probably smart too... but threatening on the level Bush is is completely irresponsible and doesn't take notice of what the situation is. Tougher inspections can work, if given time, a chance to work, and constant diplomatic pressure on Sadaam to comply... with the use of force only as a absolute last resort that we are nowhere near thinking about yet.

But my whole point is that we shouldn't NEED inspectors. Iraq should be fully compliant without making us going in there and searching under every rock. They were beaten in a war and one of the terms of their defeat was to destroy all of these weapons and deliver proof of it. They refuse to do that. We should not even bother inspecting at all, as it is Saddam's duty to offer proof to the UN, NOT the UN's duty to find the proof. THEY were defeated in the war. Not us. The hell with extra inspectors and inspections. If they want to thumb their nose at us, let them pay the price for it.

Well... getting rid of all nukes is obviously a fantasy that will never happen in the real world. We do need them for deterrance...

Did we warn Japan? Yes... but NO ONE, least of all the Japanese, had any conception of the full scale of what was meant... so you can't honestly and truthfully say they were really warned...

Oh yes they did, do not fool yourself into thinking that. The Japanese were hard at work at their own atomic program, as was just about every nation involved in the second World War. They understood perfectly what was coming, and they defied us anyway. Not to mention, the initial test explosion in New Mexico was filmed and proliferated to America's enemies, to show them that we had this huge new weapon and exactly what it was capable of.

[/b]Oh, and if we're so stable and sane, how come we've got this guy as president?

[/b]
Oh, I might have forgotten, but did Bush's rise to power follow a bloody revolution, a military coup or assassination of the previous president? Non? Oh, that's right, he was elected by due process. Silly liberal. Don't be sad just because your ideology puts out some of the most worthless presidents in American history :)

Yes, the UN has no power to get any government to do anything, no army... not much at all. However, it is a powerful diplomatic force and if the US acts on its own, while it won't be technically illegal, it will be extremely irresponsible to the international community in this day and age when we want to think that we can work together more... (oh, sorry, forgot that that idea was completely alien to Bush...) Bush of course has always disdained the international community and doesn't care in the least about them so I'm hardly surprised that he'd do something as rash as starting a war. But it IS irresponsible... the international community, in the form of the UN, is the power that works like the police do... and us going in alone (Or with the British, Austrailians, and Spanish) is equivilant to the man going and getting personal revenge instead of going through law enforcement. I don't see how you don't see that...

Easily: If the UN is a police force, about 90% of the cops come from America. We are the UN's enforcer because almost every other UN member has no military power whatsoever. And if the administration of the Police Force is trying to keep the police from enforcing the law, it is for the good of everyone if the police force defies the administration and enforces the law anyway. If the administration refuses to do it's job, then it has no use and does not need to be acknowledged. Getting out of the metaphors, there is little reason we should concern ourselves with international opinion either. There is no reason at all we should make sure everyone approves of us in order to protect our own interests. If the rest of the world is okay with Saddam getting his weapons, then the hell with them. We're not okay with it, because we have more at stake then they do. And we're perfectly capable of fixing that problem without anyone's help. It's just stupid to put ourselves at risk just to mainain the charade that other nations actually deserve to have a say in our affairs.

As far as I know, the government (Bush and Ashcroft...) do want something along those lines passed.

Hey, we've already given up some of our constitutional rights... why not more? Who cares about 'freedoms' anyway? Blind patriotism and the pursuit of phantom terrorists are far more important!

What a crock. The whole thing is being overblown by the same pacifist liberal crowd who wants to eliminate freedoms themselves, the second amendment being the most famous but certainly not the only one. The only way those extremes would ever even be considered is if there were massive terrorist attacks constantly happening within the United States, and anyone with half a brain knows that. But, a liberal is a master at scare tactics, if nothing else, and has the misinformed scared to death that we're two steps away from being a police state.

[alien space marine]

regarding the hole nukes thing , I dont like the idea of living in a world were everybody pointing WMD at everyone else.All it takes is one man to make an error and launch nukes and all hell will break lose.Somtimes even things such as weather balloons can be mistaken for nukes if lets russia panicked and launched a few nukes to counter what they thought was an attack the implications would be desasterous.we've had close calls before.
The nuclear arsenal wont be destoryed all at once but if The U.S can make deals with other armed nations and in a treaty promising to dismantle a set percentage of nukes per year.
It can help reduce the threat of nuclear assaults.
Large stockpiles of weapons are dangerous especially if terrorist either buy them off the blackmarket or steal them. That is the problem in russia at this momment as well as pakistan.
smaller arsenals are easier to account for.

As for world war 2 though it is true you did warn them , but it proves the U.S is capable of targeting civilians if under tight pressure.America should take responsiblity stop researching and creatng new weapons of mass destruction, The U.S created An thrax look how much of a problem it is now.it killed more americans then anything else.Stop making viruses built to wipeout populations. Stop adding more stress to the world.

finally.
as for the war in irag get it over with , The canadian fleet is already standing by in the arabian golf to asssist the U.S.
for a posible war though our goverment isnt openly admiting to it.
Its pretty well a fact.

The solution is remove Suddams army without the army he has no power.bassically the U.S could convince The iragi Prime ministry or some other posible candidate to revolt and gain control of the Iragi army to then lead a inssurection agiast Suddam.As seen done to mislovic.
Dont get civilain to revolt if your not gonna back them up
undoubtingly that will fail.Alot more can be done to aid anti suddam iragi rebels.

If the U.S invades Irag it will only seem like the middle age cruisades giving osama bin ladin more supporters.
but unlike france and germany my country is willing to take that risk.

[Weltall]

Anthrax wasn't created by America. Anthrax is a natural bacteria that attacks cows and elephants.

[alien space marine]

it was engineered and modified by humans.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by alien space marine
it was engineered and modified by humans.

That I don't dispute. But America didn't invent it.

[Dark Jaguar]

It's not a bacteria, it's a virus, isn't it?

Here's the thing people miss. Anthrax is NOT contageous! If you catch it, that's just you who caught it once you have wiped off all the white powder. I know it's pretty lethal when you catch it in certain ways, but I'm SO sick of how everyone is acting like there could be an anthrax epidemic, when there CAN'T. Anthrax is the most ineffecient method of a biological weapon I can think of. It's only real purpose is surgical strikes against a single person or a small number of people. It could never "spread like wildfire".

People should worry a LOT more about smallpox or bubonic plague. That's stuff that actually could spread like wildfire.

[alien space marine]

weither america started it or not the fact there still developing it is distasteful.

Anthrax wasn't created by America. Anthrax is a natural bacteria that attacks cows and elephants.

acording to websters dictionary the term "natural" def -Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

Anything not alterd or influienced by man is natural , as in anthrax case it was harvested by man and minipulated into different strains , There is many types of anthrax for that matters.
The mailer Anthrax man was using the non contagous spore Anthrax that you couldnt get infected unless you breathed in spores or touched a object contaiminted by anthrax.
There is also said to be other types of antrax that can be spread into water supplies or food. As well as other types of Bio agents.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by alien space marine
weither america started it or not the fact there still developing it is distasteful.



acording to websters dictionary the term "natural" def -Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

Anything not alterd or influienced by man is natural , as in anthrax case it was harvested by man and minipulated into different strains , There is many types of anthrax for that matters.
The mailer Anthrax man was using the non contagous spore Anthrax that you couldnt get infected unless you breathed in spores or touched a object contaiminted by anthrax.
There is also said to be other types of antrax that can be spread into water supplies or food. As well as other types of Bio agents.

You do of course understand that the only possible way scientists could find a method to counteract weapons-grade anthrax is by creating it and performing tests on it?

And don't you find it just a tiny bit more distasteful that there are a number of elements out there creating anthrax strains that would be far less restrained in using them against others?

[Dark Jaguar]

Eh what do you know, you aren't even FROM Earth! I bet whichever aliens of your race first found us got eaten by sharks or something!

[A Black Falcon]

*sigh* DJ can never stay serious... even in a serious discussion...

They have amounted to nothing. For twelve years, he's hidden his weapons and kicked out inspectors at will. What has been accomplished in the last twelve years? Nothing. These inspections are just what he wants. It gives him all the time he needs to really get his hands on some working weapons, and what can the UN do then?

You honestly think inspections have done nothing at all? I very, very much doubt that... if we didn't have inspections Sadaam would be able to fully operate any stuff he has. With them he can't... plus they have found some things. No, while they haven't worked as they should because of Sadaam's uncooperative behavior, they have hardly done "nothing".

Seriously, that sounds weaker every time you say it. The UN is doing nothing of consequence, except giving Saddam more time. Of course, a certain UN member is suspected of giving Iraq a little more than time... and that certain member is very much opposed to us going in there... I wonder why? France's oil contracts with Saddam don't seem to bother you either, although the thought that we might commandeer their oil fields has you scared to death for some reason.

Its still true, though... and its not just the French. Its also the Germans, Russians, and Chineese...

Yes, I do. Not only am I right, but it is also proof of the UN's uselessness: Without the United States, there is no hope of a world organization. We ARE the UN's power. They are nothing without us. Europe proved with the League that they are flatly incompetant in handling world affairs, as has been very obvious as of late.

They didn't prove they were incompetent. They proved that they didn't have the power to back up their resolutions... the UN is vastly, vastly more successful. It sctually accomplishes things... pretty much unlike the League of Nations.

It may have delayed the immediate war, but what it did is exactly what made the war so much worse than it could have been: They gave Hitler YEARS LONGER to prepare and build his forces, develop new weapons and mass-produce them. Hitler wasn't ready for a fullscale war himself in the early-30's, but he was able to manipulate the spineless French and the similarly spineless Neville Chamberlain into giving him the time to fully become the military juggernaut that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe was. In the mid-30's there was no way Hitler could sustain a Blitz against France. But by 1940 he had enough power to smash them in six weeks. THAT, my friend, is the crime of appeasement. The British were able to hold out against the Germans because they were an island, and had to be smashed almost exclusively from the air, and that was too hard to do, but even more because Hitler was preoccupied with Russia. Appeasement was a total disaster for Europe. Had France and England begun mobilizing as soon as they saw the threat Hitler posed, they would have definitely had an easier time containing him. That policy delayed the war about five years but allowed it to become so much worse than it should have been. And I've never seen anyone until now say it was a good thing. I know you disagree with practically everything I say but this is insane. And appeasement of Saddam Hussein will give HIM the time to acquire what everyone knows he wants but some refuse to admit he has. And if in four years or so he gets a nuke, as some sources say he might, what then? Was the policy a success because it didn't happen in 2003?

Thats's absurd... I know I've heard plenty of times that appeasement was a complete failure and that it didn't help at all in the end, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that if the war had started a year or two earlier (I very, very much doubt that HItler was ready to fight in in 1934 (that would be 5 years earlier than it started), only one year after getting elected... getting ready for war took years. I doubt that the war was delayed by very much...) that there would have been any difference of any significance in the war... do you have anything that remotely defends that position?

What would you want? Western Europe to declare war on Hitler or something? Unlike Hitler, real democracies need a reason to fight... especially when, like in France, Britian, and the US in the 1930s, the people were VERY strongly against any wars after WW1... you just aren't making sense. While Hitler had no problem fabricating the start of the war (with that fake Polish raid on a German radio station) against Poland, democracies aren't supposed to do that... (That fact was lost to the US Government when it created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to start the Vietnam War, but that's another issue...) No, there is no way that in the real world any sane nation would have started a war at that point against anyone... and NO ONE had a clue what Hitler was doing until it was too late... I just don't get how you can defend that position at all... it doesn't even begin to make sense when you look at the historical situation...

Oh, and one more thing. For well over 5 years now, and probably closer to 10, Sadaam has been 2 or 3 years away from getting nukes...

If you want some REAL nuclear weapons programs, look at Iran and North Korea... Sadaam doesn't have any nukes and almost certainly has no real nuclear weapons program...

But my whole point is that we shouldn't NEED inspectors. Iraq should be fully compliant without making us going in there and searching under every rock. They were beaten in a war and one of the terms of their defeat was to destroy all of these weapons and deliver proof of it. They refuse to do that. We should not even bother inspecting at all, as it is Saddam's duty to offer proof to the UN, NOT the UN's duty to find the proof. THEY were defeated in the war. Not us. The hell with extra inspectors and inspections. If they want to thumb their nose at us, let them pay the price for it.

Well, in a perfect world, Iraq would comply and give up everything... but as you know, the world isn't perfect. A bunch of governments hate us, and Iraq is one of the top ones on the list...but that doesn't even begin to justify a war. While Sadaam is clearly doing anything he can to not cooperate while not doing so much that he'd get attacked and removed from power, war still is not justified... we should not be going around attacking countries that dislike us with no real reasons that make sense... but its exactly what we're doing.

Oh, and tougher inspections can work, if given the chance...

Oh yes they did, do not fool yourself into thinking that. The Japanese were hard at work at their own atomic program, as was just about every nation involved in the second World War. They understood perfectly what was coming, and they defied us anyway. Not to mention, the initial test explosion in New Mexico was filmed and proliferated to America's enemies, to show them that we had this huge new weapon and exactly what it was capable of.

That is just false. NO ONE, not even the US nuclear scientists, had a clue that the radiation would do what it did... NO ONE. Not until after Hiroshima. Did we know it was massively powerful? Sure... but we didn't know the full extent of that power. And yes, we did warn Japan we had a superweapon... but at that point in the war, just a warning clearly had no chance of getting them to surrender. I honestly don't know if it was right or not... on one hand they killed a huge number of people, but on the other hand who knows what the extent of the casualties would have been if there had been an invasion? The nuke did lead to radiation... true. And that probably makes it far worse... but if they didn't know how much radiation would do, I can see how they justified using them. It probably wasn't right, though.

Oh, I might have forgotten, but did Bush's rise to power follow a bloody revolution, a military coup or assassination of the previous president? Non? Oh, that's right, he was elected by due process. Silly liberal. Don't be sad just because your ideology puts out some of the most worthless presidents in American history

Well, no, he got to power by the laws of the country. But he sure wasn't democratically elected either... the conservative-controlled Supreme Court appointed him. Denying that is stupid.

Easily: If the UN is a police force, about 90% of the cops come from America. We are the UN's enforcer because almost every other UN member has no military power whatsoever. And if the administration of the Police Force is trying to keep the police from enforcing the law, it is for the good of everyone if the police force defies the administration and enforces the law anyway. If the administration refuses to do it's job, then it has no use and does not need to be acknowledged. Getting out of the metaphors, there is little reason we should concern ourselves with international opinion either. There is no reason at all we should make sure everyone approves of us in order to protect our own interests. If the rest of the world is okay with Saddam getting his weapons, then the hell with them. We're not okay with it, because we have more at stake then they do. And we're perfectly capable of fixing that problem without anyone's help. It's just stupid to put ourselves at risk just to mainain the charade that other nations actually deserve to have a say in our affairs.

True, a lot of the UN's police force is American... but not 90%. It might that high if we wanted it to be, but we don't because Bush hates peacekeeping. Remember one of his campaign promises was to get us out of peacekeeping everywhere we were doing that... clearly 9/11 changed that a little, but he's still doing a good job at avoiding peacekeeping jobs we VERY clearly should be doing, like Afganistan... all our troops there are doing is hunting terrorists, not peacekeeping with a larger force like they should be...

Also, I just don't see how it is a good idea to do it ourselves... all it does is anger the international community (I know Bush the cowboy (and a lot of Europe sees him that way, for very obvious and correct reasons...) doesn't care, but most people do, or at least should...)

And the UN isn't refusing to do its job. Its trying to do its job... and the majority of the organization thinks that more diplomacy and inspections are the way to go now, not war... and they are absolutely correct.

What a crock. The whole thing is being overblown by the same pacifist liberal crowd who wants to eliminate freedoms themselves, the second amendment being the most famous but certainly not the only one. The only way those extremes would ever even be considered is if there were massive terrorist attacks constantly happening within the United States, and anyone with half a brain knows that. But, a liberal is a master at scare tactics, if nothing else, and has the misinformed scared to death that we're two steps away from being a police state.

Trying to deny the fact that Ashcroft is trying to get rid of the rest of our civil liberties and freedoms (and already's done a pretty good number on a lot of them) doesn't make it any less a fact... it just proves you ignorant of the facts.

Unless you don't mind fewer civil liberties and closed trials against any so-called terrorists? Because that's exactly what they want... and it isn't a scare tactic. Its the truth.

Regarding the hole nukes thing , I dont like the idea of living in a world were everybody pointing WMD at everyone else.All it takes is one man to make an error and launch nukes and all hell will break lose.Somtimes even things such as weather balloons can be mistaken for nukes if lets russia panicked and launched a few nukes to counter what they thought was an attack the implications would be desasterous.we've had close calls before.

That isn't realistic. We've had nukes for over 50 years now and no one has shot any by accident... and in this world now I think that the likelihood of it happening is extremely, extremely low.

The nuclear arsenal wont be destoryed all at once but if The U.S can make deals with other armed nations and in a treaty promising to dismantle a set percentage of nukes per year.
It can help reduce the threat of nuclear assaults.

We are currently doing that with Russia...

As for world war 2 though it is true you did warn them , but it proves the U.S is capable of targeting civilians if under tight pressure.America should take responsiblity stop researching and creatng new weapons of mass destruction, The U.S created An thrax look how much of a problem it is now.it killed more americans then anything else.Stop making viruses built to wipeout populations. Stop adding more stress to the world.

During WW2, everyone targeted civilians in mass numbers. The Germans with their death camps, as well as bombing raids and army occupation deaths... the Japanese with their extremely brutal reign over east and southeast Asia that killed millions of Chineese civilians, among others... and the Americans and British with our mass bombing raids that killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the enemy countries. Everyone did that... but no one used chemial or biological weapons, even though I'm sure most everyone had some.

As for Anthrax, it wasn't made by the US... we did make some, but mostly for rescearch. Its Russia that made and kept a huge chemical/biological weapons stockpile... the US had/has some, but not anywhere near as many...

The solution is remove Suddams army without the army he has no power.bassically the U.S could convince The iragi Prime ministry or some other posible candidate to revolt and gain control of the Iragi army to then lead a inssurection agiast Suddam.As seen done to mislovic.
Dont get civilain to revolt if your not gonna back them up
undoubtingly that will fail.Alot more can be done to aid anti suddam iragi rebels.

The army may be low in morale, but they're not THAT low... that won't work.

Oh, and the anti-Sadaam rebels are weak, heavily divided groups, unlike the Afgan Northern Alliance.

If the U.S invades Irag it will only seem like the middle age cruisades giving osama bin ladin more supporters.

Probably true... though I still think that until there is solid proof that Bin Laden has anything to do with Sadaam's regime that there is no connection, as it sure seems from any measurement that I can see.

[OB1]

*sigh* DJ can never stay serious... even in a serious discussion...

Oh don't be so cranky.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
*sigh* DJ can never stay serious... even in a serious discussion...



You honestly think inspections have done nothing at all? I very, very much doubt that... if we didn't have inspections Sadaam would be able to fully operate any stuff he has. With them he can't... plus they have found some things. No, while they haven't worked as they should because of Sadaam's uncooperative behavior, they have hardly done "nothing".

No, they haven't done anything except give Saddam more time to do what he's doing. Inspectors will NEVER be able to find anything because he's going to keep moving things around. Or he may kick inspectors out again, and why not? It's not like the UN would do anything about it. He's screwed with the UN a number of times and he knows they lack the balls to punish him for it. These inspections are a useless farce.

Its still true, though... and its not just the French. Its also the Germans, Russians, and Chineese...

The Germans are suspected of selling them weaponry, definitely the reason they don't want us in there... imagine what might happen if we discovered proof of that?

But of course, THAT'S just fine, right? It's probably America's fault anyway.

They didn't prove they were incompetent. They proved that they didn't have the power to back up their resolutions... the UN is vastly, vastly more successful. It sctually accomplishes things... pretty much unlike the League of Nations.

It's not accomplishing anything now. And it has rarely accomplished anything of consequence lately. Who brought down the Soviet Union? Not the UN. We did. By ourselves. Who ended the threat of Libya? Not the UN. We did alone. The UN is, in spirit if not in letter, supporting terrorists. They support the Palestinians, and they're doing their best to protect Uncle Saddam. They are of no use and the sooner the UN is dead, the better things will be. Or perhaps, the sooner the UN is in greater control by those who actually live by the ideals of the UN. Let's not also forget that there are quite a number of European nations defying Germany and France and offering support to us. They're not all stupid.

Thats's absurd... I know I've heard plenty of times that appeasement was a complete failure and that it didn't help at all in the end, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that if the war had started a year or two earlier (I very, very much doubt that HItler was ready to fight in in 1934 (that would be 5 years earlier than it started), only one year after getting elected... getting ready for war took years. I doubt that the war was delayed by very much...) that there would have been any difference of any significance in the war... do you have anything that remotely defends that position?

Don't be such a simpleton. It has nothing to do with war. It has everything to do with Britain and France showing their weakness to Hitler. They gave him whatever he wanted, and did NOTHING to curb his ambitions. They wouldn't even mobilize, to offer any real defense for themselves. Hitler had them so scared that they gave him whatever he wanted. They allowed him to take over some of his neighbors without having to fire a shot. They helped Germany become the power they eventually were. Fortunately, the British wised up and elected Winston Churchill, who like Bush recognized the threat posed to his nation. Chuchill was right, and Bush is as well. Churchill ended the appeasement and built the RAF up because he knew what Hitler would do. He was right. Had he listened to the pacifists and continued to appease, England would most certainly have fallen. Just like France did.

And just re-read what you wrote: Hitler would have been far less ready for war had it started a few years earlier. Therefore he would have been much less of a threat. You admit this yet say it has no consequence? What are you on? Does common sense evade you completely?

What would you want? Western Europe to declare war on Hitler or something? Unlike Hitler, real democracies need a reason to fight... especially when, like in France, Britian, and the US in the 1930s, the people were VERY strongly against any wars after WW1... you just aren't making sense. While Hitler had no problem fabricating the start of the war (with that fake Polish raid on a German radio station) against Poland, democracies aren't supposed to do that... (That fact was lost to the US Government when it created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to start the Vietnam War, but that's another issue...) No, there is no way that in the real world any sane nation would have started a war at that point against anyone... and NO ONE had a clue what Hitler was doing until it was too late... I just don't get how you can defend that position at all... it doesn't even begin to make sense when you look at the historical situation...

They HAD a damned good reason to fight Hitler! He was expanding! He was openly defying the Treaty of Versailles by building a military force! That was strictly prohibited to Germany... and yet they did nothing about it for YEARS. And they paid the price for it. They should have gone after him when he began forming the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, because by the terms of the treaty that was expressly forbidden. They ignored him, let him do it, and because they failed to enforce the law, Hitler was able to lay waste to Europe and kill millions of people.

Are we drawing any parallels to Iraq yet? They're painfully obvious.

Oh, and one more thing. For well over 5 years now, and probably closer to 10, Sadaam has been 2 or 3 years away from getting nukes...

And the only ones who will be surprised if it happened would be you pacifists. And it's your type who want to give him these years to do it. One might almost say you're encouraging him by not wanting to stop him.

If you want some REAL nuclear weapons programs, look at Iran and North Korea... Sadaam doesn't have any nukes and almost certainly has no real nuclear weapons program...

Yes, of course. And if we had tried to stop them before they got those nukes, you liberals would have decried America for doing what it's trying to do now.

Well, in a perfect world, Iraq would comply and give up everything... but as you know, the world isn't perfect. A bunch of governments hate us, and Iraq is one of the top ones on the list...but that doesn't even begin to justify a war. While Sadaam is clearly doing anything he can to not cooperate while not doing so much that he'd get attacked and removed from power, war still is not justified... we should not be going around attacking countries that dislike us with no real reasons that make sense... but its exactly what we're doing.

Saddam is breaking the terms of defeat imposed on him. He is breaking them constantly. THAT is more than justification for war. He should be totally candid with his weapons. You seem to think it's okay that he isn't. You seem to think that we should waste our time looking. We shouldn't. Waste Saddam now, put the country under very close examination, and then we'll know for sure that the weapons are destroyed or confiscated.

Oh, and tougher inspections can work, if given the chance...

Keep dreaming, champ. France thought that appeasement would work too. Not that they had any problem with having Germany ruling them.

That is just false. NO ONE, not even the US nuclear scientists, had a clue that the radiation would do what it did... NO ONE. Not until after Hiroshima. Did we know it was massively powerful? Sure... but we didn't know the full extent of that power. And yes, we did warn Japan we had a superweapon... but at that point in the war, just a warning clearly had no chance of getting them to surrender. I honestly don't know if it was right or not... on one hand they killed a huge number of people, but on the other hand who knows what the extent of the casualties would have been if there had been an invasion? The nuke did lead to radiation... true. And that probably makes it far worse... but if they didn't know how much radiation would do, I can see how they justified using them. It probably wasn't right, though.

You should really cure your ignorance. To help you to that end I implore you to do a little research on a French scientist at the turn of the 20th century named Marie Curie. She and her husband did much research with radioactive materials and the effect of radiation on living beings. She, in fact, died because she did not know to properly shield herself from the material she worked with. Do you honestly think the scientists in Chicago's Metallurgical Laboratory had no clue whatsoever what the radioactive fallout would do to people? They took tons of precautions, including lead shielding and coolants, because they knew damn well what would happen if they were exposed directly to uranium radiation. Now, it goes without saying that since Japan had it's own nuclear program going at the time, they were also extremely aware of what a functional atomic bomb would do to it's target. I find it funny that this common knowledge is so totally foreign to you. Regardless of whether it was right or not (and even I have doubts to that effect), it did what it was intended: it smashed Japan's will to fight. I tend to agree that it saved more lives in the long run, though I also think that the second bomb was unnecessary. The atomic attacks on Japan were also used to prove to America's other nemesis, the Soviet Union, what this thing could do. The Soviets, of course, knew, and they had their own A-bomb four years later.

Well, no, he got to power by the laws of the country. But he sure wasn't democratically elected either... the conservative-controlled Supreme Court appointed him. Denying that is stupid.

They had to appoint him because Gore, despite having lost the election fair and square, kept contesting the matter. It was because of Gore that the matter went that far. I recall quite clearly that on election night Bush had been declared the winner by a single electoral vote. All that the Supreme Court did was verify that after Gore contested. He was very much so elected by the laws of the US constitution. Gore tried to cheat his way into the office by using all sorts of fancy tricks. Fortunately it didn't work. Sore loser.

True, a lot of the UN's police force is American... but not 90%. It might that high if we wanted it to be, but we don't because Bush hates peacekeeping. Remember one of his campaign promises was to get us out of peacekeeping everywhere we were doing that... clearly 9/11 changed that a little, but he's still doing a good job at avoiding peacekeeping jobs we VERY clearly should be doing, like Afganistan... all our troops there are doing is hunting terrorists, not peacekeeping with a larger force like they should be...

We are doing peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Terrorist hunting is something done on occasion, when they have information to go on, but what do you think those troops do there when they're not hunting terrorists, sitting on their asses and playing gin rummy?

Also, I just don't see how it is a good idea to do it ourselves... all it does is anger the international community (I know Bush the cowboy (and a lot of Europe sees him that way, for very obvious and correct reasons...) doesn't care, but most people do, or at least should...)

Why? What difference should their opinion matter to us? They have no power to do anything about what we do. We have a right to protect our interests, and we also have the duty to enforce the UN mandates, even if the UN themselves don't care.

And the UN isn't refusing to do its job. Its trying to do its job... and the majority of the organization thinks that more diplomacy and inspections are the way to go now, not war... and they are absolutely correct.

Oh sure, they're absolutely correct. They've been doing a bang-up job for the last twelve years, too. The UN has done such a great job that Iraq is acquiring WMD without problem.

Trying to deny the fact that Ashcroft is trying to get rid of the rest of our civil liberties and freedoms (and already's done a pretty good number on a lot of them) doesn't make it any less a fact... it just proves you ignorant of the facts.

If you insist. Way to dispute me with that solid proof you so rarely offer.

Unless you don't mind fewer civil liberties and closed trials against any so-called terrorists? Because that's exactly what they want... and it isn't a scare tactic. Its the truth.

I certainly support it for KNOWN terrorists. No need for bleeding heart lawyers to get them off the hook now. Besides, when you're a foreign enemy, you don't get the protection of the US constitution. Now, for domestic terror suspects, there should be due process if they have only suspicions. But if they find solid proof, then they are enemies of the state and do not deserve a trial jury. If, for instance, they raid a house and find Ricin, then it's fairly obvious what's going on. You're making like they'll be picking random people off the street every day, on hearsay, and you know that's bullshit. Scare tactic, indeed.

[Dark Jaguar]

"I would not risk war."

"War has come, whether you would risk it or not!"

I love Two Towers...

[OB1]

Have you noticed that Ian McKellen's recent movies have the same line in it? "The war has begun". He said it in TTT and he said it in the X2 trailer.

Count Dooku also said that at the end of AotC. Funny, huh?

[alien space marine]

Originally posted by Weltall
You do of course understand that the only possible way scientists could find a method to counteract weapons-grade anthrax is by creating it and performing tests on it?

And don't you find it just a tiny bit more distasteful that there are a number of elements out there creating anthrax strains that would be far less restrained in using them against others?

there a big difference between making a vaccine for anthrax then actually making a completely new strains resistant to the vaccine and engineering it for deployment.why is your goverment creating bio weapins that could potentially harm civilians?
same goes with russia and there nerve agent that killed the hostages in the threatre last year trying to kill chetchen rebels.


Docter pastor didnt make super viruses when he crated the vaccine for rabbies.He just collected already existing strains and developed a vaccine.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by alien space marine
there a big difference between making a vaccine for anthrax then actually making a completely new strains resistant to the vaccine and engineering it for deployment.why is your goverment creating bio weapins that could potentially harm civilians?
same goes with russia and there nerve agent that killed the hostages in the threatre last year trying to kill chetchen rebels.


Docter pastor didnt make super viruses when he crated the vaccine for rabbies.He just collected already existing strains and developed a vaccine.

Because unlike rabies, we have to be prepared to combat new anthrax strains that others could be making. Thus, we have to make new anthrax strains. And I really doubt we're actively creating weapons-grade anthrax for weapons deployment, as it's overly costly and of no use to us.

[alien space marine]

off the anthrax topic , more on Irag.
The stupid Oil tycoon saudies are raising the price of crude oil to put pressure on the U.S over Irag , sadly for us canadian were almost at a buck a Litres as it is and it sopposed to get worse.
Its pretty obvious suddam hiding the weapons under his pillow.
probaily laughing at us!

As a person who wrote into Time magazine recently .
qoute "I hope he trips and dies"

one last thing to weltall , theres alot of things your goverment keep secret.

[alien space marine]

more bush pics.

http://pages.ivillage.com/shaysrebellion...80h220.jpg

[Dark Jaguar]

A lot of government secrets eh? Proove it!

[alien space marine]

The Auhora air craft .
even the atomic bomb was top secret for a long time despite the large evidence (mushroom clouds in nevada).
aliens and UFO space craft.
secret bases "area 51"
who really killed JFK.
the two nukes that are still unaccounted for 40 years still lying in mud probaily.

theres about as much of a chance that the U.S has chemical biological weapons as does Irag.
what do you think the special forces droped on Al'qeada other then explosives.

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by alien space marine
1.The Auhora air craft .
2.even the atomic bomb was top secret for a long time despite the large evidence (mushroom clouds in nevada).
3.aliens and UFO space craft.
4.secret bases "area 51"
5.who really killed JFK.
6.the two nukes that are still unaccounted for 40 years still lying in mud probaily.

7. theres about as much of a chance that the U.S has chemical biological weapons as does Irag.
what do you think the special forces droped on Al'qeada other then explosives.

1. Never even heard of that.
2. That was years ago.
3. Pure speculation, nothing more.
4. There was that.
5. Let me guess it was the gunman on the grassy knoll?
6. Never heard of that either.
7. You'll need betten than just "a chance".

I'm sure the U.S. government is keeping all kinds of secrets, but all governemnts do, it's hardly a new concept.

[Dark Jaguar]

"Who really killed JFK"? Proove they are keeping that a secret! Come ON now, thinking it's a government conspiracy is the bigger claim, so the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case.

Two unaccounted for nukes? What's the story on that? Is that just more made up stuff that "just makes sense" to conspiracy theorists like you?

Lemme guess, you think we didn't land on the moon too.

As far as secret weapons, would you please think about it for a second? Do you honestly expect any nation at war, EVER, to tell the world about all their military tactics? Because telling their own people is just like telling the whole world.

Again though, the past is nothing, if it's a secret, you must proove it, thus meaning it's not a secret any more. Therefor, claiming "secrets and lies" is pretty much always illogical until there's proof, at which point it's not a secret any more.

Edit: Haha, I just skimmed by the alien conspiracy stuff! Mr. Alien Space Marine is nuts if he actually believes aliens have visited us. Proove it!

[OB1]

I wonder if they fly around in Gundams in Japan. That would be so cool.

anwer me, dj!!! i want to know!! from you!!

[Dark Jaguar]

According to "the Book of Dilbert" all Swedens are actually aliens. After all, we all know that in the future, the greatest society will be the one that makes the most accurate clocks, the most delicious chocolate, and of course they would dress in weird outfits that only kinda look human to fool the rest of us.

[OB1]

That didn't answer my Gundam question.

[Dark Jaguar]

You never asked the question, you just made the statement that you wondered it :D.

[OB1]

No I was specifically asking you, DJ. Read it again.

[Dark Jaguar]

It's a statement! It ends in a period, like this very sentence. Now, to ask you need to say something asky.

Argue argue argue! Wacka yackey wack wacka!

[OB1]

Highlight the entire post.

[Dark Jaguar]

Waiaaait a second! I bet you edited that! Why, the edited time is after my post time! Unless, you time traveller you! I KNEW things weren't like they "aught to be", I just felt it!

[OB1]

No! You found out my secret!!

*runs away, trips over a moose, lands flat on face*

Damn you!!!

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay, that's one species restored... What about the fantastipotomus? Where are all those?!

[OB1]

I had this really weird dream last night where I was being attacked by a Stegosaurus who had antlers, a rhino horn, and fur like a moose, and I befriended it. Well temporarily, anyhow. He was a wild beast, and you can only be friends with a stegomoorhinoelk for so long before it tries to eat you.

Pretty weird dream, huh?

[Great Rumbler]

They're all dead! They were killed by the infamous Joseph Stephamose, who in 1962 went on fantastipotimus killing spree. He destroyed the entire population in one liquer induced rampage, which ultimately led to his demise by being impaled on by moose's antlers that he believed to be his wife. It's a tragic story no matter how you look at it.

[OB1]

Wait... what was he doing to the moose when he thought it was his wife?

[Great Rumbler]

Well, the records are some what fuzzy about that part, but we can only assume that it was extremely innapropriate and highly illegal in most states [except Arkansas, but we won't go into that].

[OB1]

Oooh.

[Great Rumbler]

Quite.

[Dark Jaguar]

He wasn't renting a carpet shampooer under age was he? That's just obscene...

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
He wasn't renting a carpet shampooer under age was he? That's just obscene...

He was a very troubled young man...

[alien space marine]

Originally posted by Great Rumbler
1. Never even heard of that.
2. That was years ago.
3. Pure speculation, nothing more.
4. There was that.
5. Let me guess it was the gunman on the grassy knoll?
6. Never heard of that either.
7. You'll need betten than just "a chance".

I'm sure the U.S. government is keeping all kinds of secrets, but all governemnts do, it's hardly a new concept.

cant you people see a joke when its in front you!

As for Auhora I dont know if I spelled it write but it was a secret goverment project that had a air craft capable of going moch 6 ,
knowledge of existence was leaked to due to large amounts of money missing off your budget and many countless eye witness accounts.Even a leaked document containing proof of its existence.See the discovery channels show forbidden places.

The U.S did land on the moon as the russians confirmed it.
They guy who started that rubbish was appearently beaten by Edwin Buzz the second man to walk on the moon after the man commented that Edwin Buzz was a great actor and should have worked for hollywood.The Edwin later sluged the man across the face.

[Private Hudson]

Didn't anybody find my little tribute to GW even slightly amusing?

It took over 15 minutes to make that!!

[alien space marine]

yah I did.
nice job.
how did you do it?

[Dark Jaguar]

Using the marquee tag and the background music tag.

Oh, and yes I must apologize anyway for what I said. I guess I shouldn't just assume such things really are what ya think.

[OB1]

Yes that was very funny, Hudson. I even copied what you did with the song thing. It worked at first, but not again for some reason.