One thing, the world is predominantly determined to NEVER follow any lead the US makes on general principles that they hate us.  We can all collectively develop 290 million perfect American citizens full of light, peace, and understanding for all mankind and I guarantee there are gonna be 3 billion people calling us arrogant showoffs as they eat our wheat and watch our movies. So, we can never do anything right.  EVER. As for whether or not Saddam & Co. have these weapons, they sure as hell did once, they can't prove where they went off to or just won't tell us.  What does that leave you?  A whole lot of lies or at least supposition. Personally I think the whole concept of a war is to make it really incredibly viable for a UN Peacekeeping force to move in once someone finds Saddam's broken corpse somewhere near Tikrit.  I mean, you kill the guy, there is a huge power vacuum as he's offed anyone even remotely in opposition with him internally. Obviously no one is willing to let the place be occupied by US troops, and the British have some leftover bad blood in the region too for that matter.  So, and this is giving a LOT of credit to the Bush administration for planning ahead (so its probably just coincidental), you attack as quickly as possible, you kill the guy in charge and some pesky generals (and maybe the devil spawned sons of Saddam - yeah, those are REALLY nice guys, go read up on them), and hopefully not too many Joe Blows on either side. Then, every nation climbs over themselves to occupy this country until it gets stabilized, the UN rushes in as many inspectors as it can find, we probably find some horrible stash of stuff (if it hasn't already leveled Tel Aviv) that no country run by a sadistic dictator who executes any opposition should have. We gloat, the world gets pissed because we were actually right for once, and the French Foreign Legion opens up a Baghdad office for the next twenty years. I know its well-meaning to let a-holes be a-holes because conflict is not a great ideal.  I like the idea of pacifism...it is the universal application of the practice I'm not counting on. If you have a solution that doesn't involve sitting on our collective asses for the next twenty years, then I'm willing to hear it.  I'd rather not see a war either, but more inspectors in a non-compliant country is not going to help, especially when economic sanctions and violations of a nation's sovereignty by the no-fly zones haven't appeared to have slowed them down much.  Time has already been wasted on efforts that have not produced results.  Or maybe you want to see San Francisco or Haifa or maybe London or Madrid go up in smoke first before you think we should do something?
 
-----------------------
PRF/MG Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [SCP][PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Stormtrooper Corps Prefect
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

Well, I can pretty much prove that Iraq does not yet have a nuke, because if it did, it would expel inspectors and announce "I have a nuke" to try to force a stand off like the one in North Korea (not even Bush is dumb enough to invade a country that can nuke somebody...).  That just leaves us with bio and chem weapons. First off, if they do launch them, I'm all for attacking the guys, it's the initiation of force that I oppose. Now, we all know that Iraq has one of the worst armed militaries in the world (if you count countries that actually care about their militaries), so there's not too much threat there.  If it came down to it, the troops the US already has stationed in Saudi and Turkey could take care of any invasion Iraq is likely to launch.  Once again, this only leaves us with bio and chem weapons. Now, I don't mind them using that as an excuse for war, but I'd prefer it if they were a little more consistant.  For example, Iran is not exactly known for its human rights record, neither is Pakistan.  If we're attacking them to protect their own people, then we should be attacking half the world right now.  As we know, that's logistically impossible. If it's the threat to the neighbors we're worried about, we have the same situation.  The biggest threat to any neighbor is the Pakistan/India system.  Both have nukes, and both are engaged in arms races with each other.  In addition to this, both frequently come nearly to blows over any slight little thing.  Maybe we should take care of that before a big thing happens and Nepal starts complaining about nuclear fallout. Once again, I have no doubt that Iraq is an oppressive nation, and probably dangerous to its neighbors, but it's not the biggest thing in the world, and I'd like to see us deal with the big things first. For that reason, the blockaded "non-country" idea will suffice to keep Iraq contained, and maybe even provoke a revolution solving the problem, while we deal with the things that are much larger threats. To sum it up, my complaint isn't about Iraq being a peaceful nation (because it's not), but I'd like to see a little of consistancy in our government.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

Now that this Star Wars topic has turned into a debate for war. Time to crack my political knuckles and do some typing here while on spare (ok so the fact that I’ve just been in a 3 hour lecture on this matter helped me respond too) “And the whole attacking after someone has launched a weapon?  What is that?  They killed half a million people so NOW it’s okay to attack?  That's not preventive maintenance, that's the same bloodlust you currently accuse others of having." Have you seen the movie Minority Report? That movie is a good example of an opinion on preemptive thinking of a criminal. Preemptive strikes are not legitimate for a reason. For 1) attacking a country because you think it will hurt you in the future is one of the stupidest things to do in a turbulent system of politics in this time and age. It may look find and dandy on paper, but it will not work. Then you get copycats across the system. What would then warrant a preemptive attack? What if tomorrow Russia says it will strike Germany because it may attack it in 50 years, claiming that it did in the past and can do it again. How about China suppressing Taiwan because it has a tugboat that could harbor a machine gun in the future. What if Bob comes and shoots Dave because Dave may grow up and fight him when he gets older. How about a preemptive strike against Home Depot, where box cutters can be bought for a few bucks and are easily accessable. Those tools were deadly enough when used on Sept. 11. Those examples are extreme, yes, but it’s the same scenario. Exactly the same. Note: http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/12/02/australia.terror.un/ is Australia planning to do the same. 2) The preemptive strike method, not only causes fear, but increases other countries hostility. Who knows, the next country could be next. What is stopping them? The people *insert laughter*. 3) http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/02_columns/092402.htm . A very good article on preemptive strikes and why this is stupid. How about http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/12/03122002173407.asp on this.  I have a few dozen more. Or should I say a few hundred more. You get a lot of sources writing essays everyday on the topic. “Anyway, aside from financial reasons, no one likes Saddam and the Bully Boy Club yet everyone seems to dislike Cowboy George and the OK Corral Kids just as much.  Funny thing is, Iraq keeps trying to take over their neighbors when the US hasn't added any property to its borders in decades.” There is no proof that Iraq is a threat to the homeland United States at its present state. The world doesn’t want to hear 1991 figures, they are useless in 2003. If we want to go there, we can talk about US ballistic missile testing with nuclear weapons in that period. How about the communist system of Russia, which existed then but not today. “Point is, I haven't heard one reasonable argument against attacking Iraq other than "we don't like the US."  And you wonder why Bush is on this whole "you are either with us or against us" argument.” There is not one factor that says “declare war”. There is no proof he still has weapons of mass destruction. The evidence given so far has shown nothing but exaggerated attempts to make the Bush plan look legitimate in this day and age. He is only in this because of his father’s legacy. If there were something there, why haven’t they shown it? Why haven’t the inspectors found them? Why would the US bring nothing good to the UN Security Council? If it was there, they would show it. Photographs spread out in far timetables is not evidence. That is why so many around the world laugh at this war. That is why many countries are turning away from it. That is why 750 000 people protested in London on the weekend, over a million in Rome, and half a million in Berlin and several other countries. To end my statement here, I’ll share this quote from a political professor of mine. “The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence.” Side note: Which country funded Al-Quedi during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Who channeled money in during the Iran / Iraq war? Did that preemptive planning work?
 
-----------------------
Rafran Matok;
[GM Matok/CO/AC/ARMY/FES]

Could everyone take a look outside please and tell me if the apocalypse is coming?  SOmeone actually agreed with me...  On this forum?  That's incredible!!  Also, Matok brought a good point to the table that I didn't even think about (several actually, but let's take these one at a time, shall we?). Okay, everyone in the US who actually listens to Bush "knows" that Iraq has nuclear weapons, right?  Keep going, usually "knowing" that somebody has something leads to at least some vague ides of where they are kept, right?  In that case, why did the inspectors come back about a week after Powel's presentation to the UN and tell him flat out that most of his information was complete bogus? Anyways, my main point on this entire thread has been, not to show that Iraq has nothing, but to say that fighting him won't do anything to alleviate the problem. Fighting a pre-emptive war will only serve to make us more paranoid and violent.  Now it's "Iraq has WMDs and may use them!"  Tomorrow, it'll be "Syria is mad at us for the war on Iraq and may attack us!"  The next day it'll be "Libya is mad at us for attacking Syria for getting mad at us about Iraq!"  Violence is a cycle, and it takes a lot more courage to break the cycle than to continue it.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

He's right, this is fun, arguing with someone who bothers to back up their points and come up with original ideas.  So much better than school  Anyways, he's right about the international community (abbreviated hereafter as "IC") not wanting war on Iraq.  Every country in the world besides the US has an overwhelming majority who favor not going to war with Iraq, and even in the US, it's only a majority when you add the phrase "with consent of the UN", so it's not like something that a vote would agree on. I personally think it's a stunt to put Bush in a good spot for reelection.  If he can show that he's not following in his daddy's footsteps (anyone notice yet, War on Drugs=War on Terror, War on Iraq=War on Iraq?) by finishing off Iraq instead of letting it go, then he might boost those approval ratings that are starting to dip lately (something like 60% now...). Please forgive me for being cynical, but when it comes to American presidents, we haven't exactly had the best luck in the world.  Might explain why a 50% voter turnout is a miracle for us yet it's below any rational expectation for most other nations in the world... Anyways, back to the topic, if there was a good reason to go to war, I would not mind it (I would never favor it, being a pacifist, but I would not argue against it).  Unfortunately, the Prez and his staff have yet to make a good case.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

First off, if you think that is too much to read, you should see my latest story for the DJO. Secondly, going way back to something Argon said, Iraq does not have a tee witty bitty military. Although they are no longer close to having the 4th largest army in the world, like they did in the late 1980s, and they have no navy to speak of, they still are a strong military power when put up against most other nations in the world. Third, the issue here isn't Iraq having nuclear weapons. Drop that issue. Lastly, don't be so quick to diss American presidents. Not all of them have been too, too bad. And although I'm not skewed to one political side or the other, take a moment to think about what would be going on right now if Clinton were still in office. We probably wouldn't even be worried about Iraq, and if we were, Clinton would be working with the UN in full force. He wouldn't be as cocky as to brush off other nations and act as if the USA can do what we want when we want with no fear of it coming back to kick us in the ass in the long run. If Bush keeps up the way he's going, we're only going to piss more and more people off, and isolate ourselves from the whole of Europe. Sure, the little NATO countries like us, but the more powerful nations are slowly drifiting away. Even the UK might not be on our side if Tony Blair wasn't the PM. All in all, Bush needs to definitely rethink his policies before we all wind up no longer being the world's lone superpower, but turn into an isolationist country attempting to rebuild its economy while Europe begins to domintate world politics and fiscal affairs. That being said, if Clinton were still in office, we'd also have more scandals to entertain us. What has Bush done? Choked on a pretzel and passed out. Wooee.
 
-----------------------
ADJ:NTO/FM/COM Darkhawk/Kaph 3-4/Phoenix Wing/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)(=SA=)(=JCPA=)(=SCPA=)(=FCO=)[LoC][LSM][BRC][MC:1st][CBV*][VC:Ebony][KC:oc]

DLS/CL/SG Darkhawk/Eagle 1-4/mSSD Atrus/VEDJ/VE/[CR]

The issue here is not whether or not Saddam Hussein has chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. We already know he has chemical weapons. We've seen em. We've looked at em. Hell, we've still got the invoices. The issue here is whether or not Saddam Hussein is willing to destroy them, or at least the vast majority, leaving the standard amount you would expect a country to have to defend itself. Saddam Hussein is being told "get rid of your weapons". The Inspectors are not in there to see if he has any; we know damn well he does. They are there to make sure he begins to destroy them, and if he has started to destroy them already. The Inspectors ARE there to look for NEW weapons - to see if he has attempted to develop new chemicals, or start a nuclear program. Saddam Hussein, as a person, is not a big threat. Infact, he's easily the most stable leader in the region (perhaps overtaken by the Saudi King, and several of the smaller countries - UAE, Bahrain, Qatar etc). It would not be in Americas best interests to dispose of him, as they would then have to do one of two things: 1) Install a puppet dictator 2) Install a democracy A puppet dictator would provoke international outrage. We could expect terrorist activity to rocket; protests outside US millitary bases in Europe; a crashing stock market; etc. There isn't a chance that the US will try that one. Perhaps a variation, but not a puppet dictator. Installing a democracy wouldn't exactly work either. In a country with around about 15 main ethnic groups, imagine the chaos of a government - about four parties would need to form a coalition to take control, and its unlikely they'll stay together for more than six months. In addition to this, the US doesn't exactly have a perfect record for organising elections Therefore, Bush has only two options: 1) Invade Iraq and pray that Saddam Hussein flee's. If he does, they can send in spies to help a high-ranking Iraqi seize control. This wouldn't be installing a dictator, as there would be no proof that the US helped - it would be a millitary coup, and would have to happen before the war finishes. So pretty damn quickly. 2) The Franco-German option, which seems to me to be the most viable. Vastly increase weapon inspector numbers (they suggested quadrupling it; sarcastically, the British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, suggested increasing it a thousandfold - which would be useful ), and, most controversially, bring in thousands of United Nations Peacekeeper forces, from around the world. If Saddam Hussein agrees to this, fantastic - we've now got 25,000 soldiers inside the country, many of them experts in weapons disposal. Six months, max, and everything will be flattened. Trouble is, this IS a Franco-German plan. Which means it ain't an election winner for American and British leaders. If, and it is possible they might, the US can manipulate this idea to make it seem like their own, and put it in a new UN resolution, and, if in the unlikely event it is vetoed by the security council, Bush will be a hero. If Bush invades, and Saddam flee's, Bush will be a hero. But if Bush invades, and the Iraqi Army fight to the last drop of blood (which would probably happen, as he has threatened to execute Iraqi officers who use chemical weapons against US troops), hundreds, even thousands of Americans could come home in coffins. Is that really the price to pay to get rid of a dangerous dictator? We can finish it in a week at the cost of a thousand young American lives, plus over $15billion. Or we can finish it in six months at the cost of $10billion. Which would YOU choose?
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Hmm, so people are opposed to pre-emptive strikes. Did you guys know that more Americans were killed in our civil war than in all of our other wars COMBINED? /me studies the Amer. Civil War /me realizes a pre-emptive strike on Charleston, South Carolina might have prevented that war. Hmm.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

North Korea: Not really anything to say about this one. If you've seen the news (I don't know if CNN sends reporters into North Korea.. all the British ones do), you'll see what its like. It will be an absolute massacre. Turkey: France, Belgium, Germany AND Turkey, I think you'll find. The Turkish government were up in arms when they heard of plans for NATO troops to move into their country to defend them - I seriously doubt the US would allow British troops to move into New Jersey if Canada started getting aggressive. Now, facts: 1) Missile interception: There are several British bases in Cyprus and Greece already equipped for this. There are also the Israeli's. 2) Troops to defend them: Well, erm.. they have an army, you know.. 3) Air defence: British and American bases already in Turkey. Troops, aircraft, helicopters and so on. The Turkish populace already object strongly to this. Allowing these numbers to triple would destroy the Governments credibility, which would threaten something they are trying VERY hard to get into.. 4) The European Union: Turkey is joining in 2006, provided they meet human rights standards by then. They are desperate to get in, and would much rather side with the two main powers of the EU (France, Germany) than with the US. Turkey seem to realise whats good for them.. basically, the interest on EU loans is a hell of a lot less than on US loans. One question: Do the American news agencies send reporters into these crisis zones? It seems to me that they don't.. whereas British journalists make up about 5% of Baghdads population by now, and a nice chunk of North Koreas. When I was in the US, I never saw any American reporters reporting from Afghanistan. There was a British reporter doing a live news report from Kabul, and the building next to him was blown up by a bomb.. and the wall smashed down on top of him. And it was live. And he survived
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Gotta agree with WM, it's getting nuts in the US trying to make fun of France and Germany rather than face their ideas directly. Also, I'm starting to laugh at people who tell me "well, Britain's on our side...".  Get used to it, Blair is on Bush's side, but Britain itself hates the idea of war on Iraq. Also, Germany, France, and Belgium did not refuse to help Turkey, they're already doing it.  They just don't want a NATO resolution on it, which would be a sign that war is inevitable.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

*start transmission* Recent news is that they accepted a new NATO deal on the matter and have agreed to a different policy on the matter. They did not accept the policy outright because it would have shown that those countries support the war on iraq. They dont. The new agreement they setup was declared as a humanitarian order and some defense equipment if a formal war is announced. The new policy shows that the NATO organization is not promoting a war, and is waiting on a diplomatic decission.' *end transmission* Also on Germany, kicking it out of NATO would be utter stupidity. You know who provides the US military with about 75% of its equipment, including tanks, artilery and bullets? [edit] forgot my source -> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/sprj.irq.nato.turkey/index.html   ----------------------- TRP/LC Kjerri/2SQD/1PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR] "I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day...tomorrow isn't looking good either."

To be fair to the French who i am not that keen on. Its been mainly Britian and the US that have been arming Iraq.
 
-----------------------
FM/WO2 Sheepy/Elite Viper 3-1/Phoenix
Yes, still PO1 (when i put this i got WO2)
Yes, still WO2
WING/mSSD Atrus/VE/VEN (=A=) (=JCPA=)

Ironically, I'm opposed to France's position on the war but still like them. I think they have gotten a bad rap when it comes to surrender simply because they had the short end of the sticks in WWI and II. We Americans need to remember that we wouldn't even have a country if it hadn't been for the French. As to the aftermath of the war, just look at what we did in Afghanistan. We've managed to put up a democracy there that includes all the various tribes (or whatever you like to call them). Sure, they're not 100% stable yet, but they're working on it. There has to be some way to do the same in Iraq. Maybe use Teddy Roosevelt's motto, "speak softly and carry a big stick."
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Warmaker - if you had actually listened to anything I said, you would realize that I actually am agreeing with the French-German side of this. I never meant that Fr., Ger., or Bel. should be kicked out of NATO. That's madness. What I meant was that if Turkey is attacked, they had better damn well be there to help - that is what NATO is all about. And, fine, kick the USA out. haha See what happens if someone like Hitler or Napolean ever rises back up into power in the near future and tries to take over Europe. And before you start completely ripping into everything American, I will admit that we have done a lot of stupid things in the past. I'm not all too proud to be an American sometimes, but we have done good things, too. Just think for a minute what Europe would be like today if the USA hadn't done things like the Marshall Plan and help form NATO after World War II. Like I said, I'm on your side. I can sit here and criticize my own country and I'm proud to do it - that's what democracy is all about. Now get off my case about being anti-Germany or something, please.
 
-----------------------
ADJ:NTO/FM/COM Darkhawk/Kaph 3-4/Phoenix Wing/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)(=SA=)(=JCPA=)(=SCPA=)(=FCO=)[LoC][LSM][BRC][MC:1st][CBV*][VC:Ebony][KC:oc]

DLS/CL/SG Darkhawk/Eagle 1-4/mSSD Atrus/VEDJ/VE/[CR]

oh sorry i forgott something, about critic well im one of the first who would critism my country in a lot different questions, just not in this case. Give me the right topic and i rip into my own country without Problems