War with Iraq, for or against?

spaceman-spiff · Post by **spaceman-spiff** » 08 Feb 2003 05:40

SHADOW-XIII wrote:The same in Poland .. our President is 'for' war ... and the most strange is that most of Europe is against ...

Lucky enough Belgium is against too, our Mr.Michel is strongly against war

sordid · Post by **sordid** » 08 Feb 2003 09:30

spaceman-spiff wrote:
Raichase wrote:I'm worried here in Australia, because our PM is sucking up to Mr. Bush, so that if there is a war, we will become a target along with Amercia...
Well after that horrible bomb with all those Australians who were killed, I can imagine your Pm and others want some kind of retaliation

Our PM wants nothing more than what's in our interest economically. That also includes the military protection our alliance with the US would provide us if we get into a big problem. And probably the reasons I will outline here as well.

I object to this war because its high risk to us and to the US and to the stability of the world more than anything else imo. I don't care about how many people in Iraq its going to kill as much as I care about the stability of the world in it's current form and the impact it will have on my life. I think they are playing with fire, and there is the risk they (and us) will get burnt. If you provoke you can't expect something bad not to happen back.

Something I have learnt with dealing with people in life is being more of a pacifist.. that way people don't bother you. Obviously this was not the case with Hitler etc, but Sadam (no matter how evil he is) hasnt massed huge armys to take over and dominate other countries since kuwait. I believe you retailiate when they pose a direct threat, but I can't see that happening at the moment with Iraq.

On the other side, there is the view (which is what I think they believe) that now is the time that they are in power to clean up these problems the world has. To stop nuclear and chemical proliferation, to kill a few more dictators and establish good control of vital resources such as oil so the world doesn't fall into crisis. To ensure the economic stability of countrys such as south korea and japan. I think these kinds of things really do need to be addressed for the stability of the world in the long term. But I don't agree with their methodology and their capacity to make this change.

It is the time that we live in that things will only get worse because technology is increasing and knowledge flows more freely. More dangerous weapons technology becomes more readily available. For instance, if nano technology gets in the hands of the wrong people in the future, imagine what kind of dangers we could face?

In my opinion it's something that should not be left just to one government or group of people to make the decisions on how to tackle these problems.

GoneWacko · Post by **GoneWacko** » 08 Feb 2003 10:16

I don't really know/care...

All I do know, is that America has used 'proof' from 1991

Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Prolly...
Does Iraq have Chemical Weapons? Prolly...

Does America have nuclear weapons? HELL YEA!i!
Does America have Chemical Weapons? HELL YEA!i!
why should Iraq disarm and the USA shouldn't? I say they both should disarm those missiles...

mp3Pro · Post by **mp3Pro** » 08 Feb 2003 12:08

Actually the war with Iraq is someting to distract trhe (US) population while the goverment passes and enacts more restrictive and draconian laws in its move towards a totalitarian goverment..The laws already passed and the things proposed in the name of homeland security(read secret police) are going to limit american liberties in ways the general population does not understand at the moment... personally I find it Ironic that in the last quarter of the 20th century countries that have traditionally had repressive regimes are moved towards more individual freedom, while the US, traditionaly a bastion of freedom and individualism moved towards more restictive goverment.

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 08 Feb 2003 12:14

US President raise an alert status against terrorist

mp3Pro · Post by **mp3Pro** » 08 Feb 2003 12:18

Call me paranoid, but have you ever wondered why sept 11th casulties were so light? why so many were late to work that day? I think that the US goverment, while not acting directly, probally had a hand in the events of that day.

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 08 Feb 2003 12:19

You are paranoid

.. anyway .. US governament was not prepare .. many books were writed about that by paranoic writers

mp3Pro · Post by **mp3Pro** » 08 Feb 2003 12:24

hmmm maybe you are right I am paranoid..
heres trhe way i was thinking
911 gave a convieniant excuse for the economic problems that were coming anyway
911 made the american public to where they would accept new restictive laws in the name of "homeland security"
and BTW was the WTC making money or losing it?

and isnt it odd that the pentegon was hit on the EMPTY side?

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 08 Feb 2003 12:26

mp3Pro wrote: BTW was the WTC making money or losing it?

and isnt it odd that the pentegon was hit on the EMPTY side?

WTC was makig MUCH, VERY MUCH money

and this with pentagon is really strange

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 08 Feb 2003 13:38

Some people see a conspiracy in everything. The whole Middle East is convinced that the terrorist attacks were performed by the Israeli Secret Service to give Muslims a bad name.

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 08 Feb 2003 13:50

yes... but Middle East governaments are covering terrorists

sultana · Post by **sultana** » 09 Feb 2003 05:43

@ Sordid, does it really matter about our PM though? It's not like he sends a hug amount of troops. Remember Afghanistan(sp?) we send a whole 3 planes and a troop carrier (maybe 200 or so troops).

Raichase · Post by **Raichase** » 09 Feb 2003 06:18

I still want no part of it.

sultana · Post by **sultana** » 09 Feb 2003 06:28

Yeah I guess so too, but to me it doesn't really matter, hopefully it'll just blow over, and John Howard will lose the next election... I still hate him for bringing in the GST

Raichase · Post by **Raichase** » 09 Feb 2003 06:48

Don't get me started on the GST...

My hobby is very very recreational, and so it was hit hard... It's already expensive enough, what with all the costs and now the GST!

ARGH!

RaptorTycoon · Post by **RaptorTycoon** » 09 Feb 2003 15:23

I hear that allot that people argue that the us should disarm to if iraq has to. logical huh?, well not really being that the us and iraq are totaly different countrys. Saddam is a very wacky person, he shoots/hang/shoots/gasses/bombs every one that stands in his way. Mostly that being people in his own country. Somebody remember that group of people he gassed....NO does somebody remember 1991...NO.
War is the last thing that people want, but there is no chance that Saddam will give up his weapons by talks. If the us does not attack, Saddam will keep deluding the inspectors and finally kick them out again just like he did in 1998(6?).

well enough about this, stop talking what we should not do and talk about what we should do.

spaceman-spiff · Post by **spaceman-spiff** » 09 Feb 2003 15:36

OK
We shouldn't go to war, a ban on everything is much worse than a war
Keep Iraq out of everything and in a few years Saddam will be forgotten

Paranoid Android · Post by **Paranoid Android** » 09 Feb 2003 15:43

I don't think it will work like that. After the media have spent the last year or so ramming it down our throats about how evil Hussein is, he won't be forgotten in a hurry. War's inevitable, you might as well just face it. and it's scheduled for early April, as I have said.

GoneWacko · Post by **GoneWacko** » 09 Feb 2003 15:43

Space... 1 problem... What if Saddam DOES HAVE nuclear weapons... he'd simply bomb the USA or some other UN Nation... little bit too risky ey

spaceman-spiff · Post by **spaceman-spiff** » 09 Feb 2003 15:45

Just bomb the hell out of everybody then, see if I care

Transport Tycoon Forums

War with Iraq, for or against?

War with Iraq, for or against ?

Hey

Who is online