Song of the Season

Some people need to just appreciate the humor sometimes. Im with fargin on the whole moving this to the smoking room so people can bitch there.

[Sidekick Floppy]

Originally posted by Xenius
Some people need to just appreciate the humor sometimes. Im with fargin on the whole moving this to the smoking room so people can bitch there.

I do appreciate the humor Xenius. That song is hilarius
But I was a little distracted for a minute here, so I forgot to mention that. My apologies

[FarginMofo]

Hey Floppy,

Isn't it ironic that we enjoy playing BF1942 which reflects a period in our world history that was a direct consequence of many nations across several continents attempting to AVOID WAR for several years.

Here's an interesting question to ponder: What if Europe and America had not looked the other way during the 1930's while Hitler began to rebuild the German military in clear violation of the treaty of Versailles? Had the "allies" of WWI stepped in and "nipped it in the bud" then what would Europe and the rest of the world look like today?

[JAG]

Well said Havoc, Ralph and Fargin.

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
I am an opened minded person. I can understand people being opposed to a war. War is a terrible thing.

What I cannot understand is sympathy for Saddam and Iraq from the same people that verbally assasinate the President of our great country.

Sympathy for a dictator that is the only leader in the world to use chemical weapons on people since World War I, and denouncing the leader of your own country is a very shamefull thing.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it sympathy - I hate Saddam as much as anyone. I just don't think that we have exhausted all options yet and can jump into this war at this moment. I mean, did you watch Colin Powell's presentation to the UN - he was grasping for straws! He was drawing very questionable conclusions from very thin eveidence!

I'm not anti-war by any means and I do believe that we need to do something about Saddam. I also believe there will be a time when war is the last remaining option, I just do not think that the time is now - it should be put off as long as possible to allow for that small chance that things can be brought to a peacefull resolution. At the very least, we need better support for our cause on the world stage. Unfortunately, I feel this war is being hastened by re-elections, sagging economies, budget issues, and a host of other unsightly domestic problems. It _does_ make a nice diversionary tactic, you have to admit - even if you are a Bush booster.

As far as denouncing the leader Shrub (a.k.a. Little Bush) - that's what this country is all about! We were fouded on the principle that if we don't like our leaders, we have the right and some would even say the _responsibility_ to criticize them. It's a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which means that our leaders are not to be held up as idols or in a god-like stature. They're citizens just like the rest of us. That's one of the key differences between our country and one like Iraq.

Anyway, that's my .02

And please don't think I'm denouncing any of your viewpoints. You all have very valid opinions that have been eloquently put. It's nice to see some decent, intelligent discussion on a mesage board for a change!

Oh . . . and admins - if we should move this thread, by all means let us know!

[Sidekick Floppy]

You couldn 't express it better RCinator, because its just what I tried to say. Don't rush into a war, but consider it as a possibillity when everything else fails.
In the beginning when the US first announced that Saddam was a theath, the idea was to disarm Iraq by sending in weapon-inspections: All mass destruction weapons would be destroyed. But now, when Iraq finally begins to admit (a little) that it has the weapons, I have the feeling that the US and GB uses that as an excuse to say: "Look, he's got the weapons, now we gonna bomb him". Now, do you think Saddam will would reveal any more weapons, keeping in mind that when he does that, his country will be attacked? I dont think so.
Let me resume:
If Saddam doesnt reveal the weapons of mass destruction to the US, the US will attack.
If Saddam DOES reveal his weapons, the US will attack Saddam for admitting.
Thats my idea of the situation.
Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong, because I'm only human (and no bot )

Fargin: You're totally right. But you have to see the real reason why Hitler was succesfull: It was because of that treaty that Germany was punished so bad, and for the people of Germany it was a real humiliation. Then add the recession as an ingrediënt and you have a country where people are very unhappy. And then, one man gives Germany new hope. If Germany wasnt punished that badly, Hitler would NOT have a field day to reach his evil goal.

[-HaVoC-]

Originally posted by FLOPPY
I only know only one country that used atom bombs on people. And for my opinion, that is as horrible as using chemical weapons. It might have been the enemy back then, but it were still people.

The atom bombs were dropped in response to an invasion by Japan on us. REMEMBER, they attacked Pearl Harbor without warning or a declaration of war. That attack left the USS Arizona on the bottom of Pearl Harbor along with her men and many others.

Saddam used those chemical weapons as a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the Kurds to the North.

I am not condoning the use of Nuclear weapons, but the two situations are not the same. Not even close...

[-HaVoC-]

Originally posted by FLOPPY
Well, with the nukes dropped it were only the million Japanese that died, but that is probably not so terrible for you, right Ralph? You dont have to live in a country full of radiation.
Here it is proved again that there are no real winners in a war. Same thing in Iraq. Better thing is to find a peacefull solution first , and then a aggressive one. And that "sympathy for Saddam" isnt really sympathy for that man, but just that little sane voice in their head that says: AVOID WAR.

Yes avoid war. Now remember once again. Saddam invaded the sovereign nation of kuwait. Murdering and pillaging innocent woman and men. The United Nations drove him back to Baghdad. He then surrendered and stated he would disarm in accordance with a cease fire. 12 years later he still has not done that. What was the cease fire for? He surrendered. He was defeated for invading Kuwait. Once again a pre-emptive strike by Saddam.

Not to mention the oil wells he lit on fire are the worlds worst ecological disaster. And who put them out? Well sh1t, we did. And did we steal his oil? No. Did we crush his counrty? No. We asked for a disarmament and peace. He's complied with non of the resolutions he signed. Those resolutions were signed in exchange for his ability to continue to lead Iraq. WE stoppped and opted for peace.

This whole mess is an issue because of his pre-emptive strike on Kuwait.

[Sidekick Floppy]

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
The atom bombs that were dropped in response to an invasion by Japan on us. REMEMBER, they attacked Pearl Harbor without warning or a declaration of war. That attack left the USS Arizona on the bottom of Pearl Harbor along with her men and many others.

Saddam used those chemical weapons as a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the Kurds to the North.

I am not condoning the use of Nuclear weapons, but the two situations are not the same. Not even close...

You're right, the situations are not the same indeed. But that wasn't really my point. There was mentioned: "Saddam was the ONLY leader in the world to use chemical weapons ( weapons of mass destruction) after WW1." and I wanted to say he WAS NOT the only one. The nukes are indeed a bad example, but if you want another example of chemical weapons, I just have to start talking about Vietnam...

Oh and I absolutely do not approve ANY preemptive war, just like you. So I do not approve a preemptive war with Iraq, because that's just what it is. I still hear Bush talking: "He may launch his missiles against the US or any ally of the US..."

Originally posted by FLOPPY
Fargin: You're totally right. But you have to see the real reason why Hitler was succesfull: It was because of that treaty that Germany was punished so bad, and for the people of Germany it was a real humiliation. Then add the recession as an ingrediënt and you have a country where people are very unhappy. And then, one man gives Germany new hope. If Germany wasnt punished that badly, Hitler would NOT have a field day to reach his evil goal.

Very true, but the problems with Versailles were water under the bridge by the 1930s. The issue fargin raises is whether more could or should have been done at that time to stop Hitler (the answer to both is quite obvious).

I know it is not what you are suggesting, but a similar argument has been made against doing anything about Iraq because the United States once supported him. For me, this fact should not prevent us from taking action if necessary, but instead gives us even more of a responsibility to get rid of him.

I know it is not what you are suggesting, but a similar argument has been made against doing anything about Iraq because the United States once supported him. For me, this fact should not prevent us from taking action if necessary, but instead gives us even more of a responsibility to get rid of him.



they did support him publicly, they also privately funded his enemy, the ayatolla in iran. both at same time

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
The atom bombs that were dropped in response to an invasion by Japan on us.

Pearl Harbor was onloy part of it (though it was a large part). The bomb was also retaliation for the attrocities committed by the Japenese in their internment camps (Bataan) and death ships. The Japanese treatment of POWs rivaled the tratment that the prisoners in Hitler's concentration camps received. In all some 230, 000 POWs were tortured and killed by the Japanese before we dropped the bomb. They consisted primarily of American, British, and Fillipino soldiers.

And for the record, Japan did have numerous, well-documented reasons to attack the US - it was hardly unprovoked. During the 30s and 40s, Japan was on a mission to colonize and conquer much of Asia proper, but the US, Russia, and Britain stood in their way. Also, Japan, being basically an island nation, had extremely limited access to oil. The US and Britain at the time also controlled much of the oil trade, and were interfering in Japan's attempts to increase their supply. This interference was fairly well justified though, since Japan needed the oil primarily for its war efforts, for various types of fuel, and the numerous types of oil required to keep military equipment running.

I'm not defending Japan by any means - they were dead wrong in Pearl Harbor. Just wanted to add some more background that is often overlooked.

[-HaVoC-]

Well talk on. I would love to hear about the chemical weapons used in Vietnam.

And let me clarify, our country is not perfect. I have issues with our leaders policies and some things in our past. Especially how Vietnam was handled. Sh1t the leader of South Vietnam was assinated three weeks before Kennedy was. Then LBJ fired up the war machine weeks later. Terrible lies by our government in that whole campaign.

However, I feel that people are too quick to criticise anything and everything without giving any credit. I blame the press because it's all they highlight, so people only focus on those issues.

Did we or did we not rebuild Japan at our expense? We did. A country that invaded and attacked without even a declaration of war. How yellow bellied was that attack in Pearl Harbor? Thank you for reminding me about the treatment and murder of our POW's. Mkaes me sick to think of the pictures I've seen. We dealt them a blow they d@mn well deserved.

Did we or did we not rebuild Germany? We did.

Did we or did we not save Europe from utter annialation? We did?

we didn't take over these country's and plunder them. We gave them back to the people and helped them rebuild.

Saddam's rule is riddled with bad decisions and invasions and attacks on every country around him. Every Arab nation wants him gone they just don't have the balls. 12 years after his surrender he plays the world off against a spineless UN and a ton of liberal tree huggers. After 12 years the time for talk is over. The people of Iraq are lucky it's the USA coming and not another country, because I can guarantee you no one but us would hand it back to the people and offer to help them rebuild and be the masters of thier own destiny.

Originally posted by seigfreid
they did support him publicly, they also privately funded his enemy, the ayatolla in iran. both at same time

I don't think that you can call trding arms for hostages support exactly. It's more like extortion.

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
. The United Nations drove him back to Baghdad. He then surrendered and stated he would disarm in accordance with a cease fire. [b]12 years later he still has not done that. [/B]

One key difference between then and now is UN support. Had it then, don't yet have it now.