Iraq: Debate

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i]
[B]Yeah... I heard there's been a few kidnappings going on in the Japan Sea lately...
I read it on this Korean/Japanese news website that they've been taken off ships and had to labor for the North Korean. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think there were three people who were kidnapped by the North Koreans and forced to teach Japanese among other things... their families were allowed into North Korea as well. Then the three were allowed to visit Japan, and they decided to stay there. However the families were not allowed back and are still residing in North Korea... and Japan is really pissed about this.

[Jesus Chicken]

I think this whole war thing is just America's way of making sure everyone has less power then they do. America has a larger army, more nukes and more biological weaponary then any counrty on the Earth, and I don't mean, just a difference of one or two.

I think it's just a big act of hypocrisy my America, to go on and send in weapon inspectors, when they won't let any into their country.
It's all a big one-sidded to me.

[liamc2]

I'm going to have to agree with JC, but the rest of you do have good points.

First of all, America has done some amazing things for the world...like invent the hamburger...o.o;

I just can't shrug off the nagging feeling that George Bush is really only continueing his father's failed war.

And really, do you trust a man that says, 'Most of America's imports come from outside of America,' with that much firepower?

o.O;

Isn't this odd?

Australia used to be considered a pathetic military force and no one would ever, ever pay any attention to it and make jokes about it. Now suddenly America's interested in Australia's SAS forces, all of them have been called back to duty, taken off leave and some even have been pulled out of retirement...

As I was trying to say before, George Bush wants a war, a smokescreen as it were and wants everyone else to join in and 'get the bad guys.'

[Kent]

Oh thats bull, austraillia is putting forces into the same efforts as the U.S. because they have a common enemy. Both the U.S. and Austraillia are "capitalist" countries who are constantly under the threat of attacks like the hotel attack that claimed a sizeable number of aussies lives a couple months back.

Plus, w. Bush's father didnt fail a war. Im not even gonna bother wasting the knowledge on you, but go learn the military history of the gulf war from the americans, british or french if you must, all of them will show an honestly amazing victory by allied forces.

The fact is, Bush 41 was merciful and allowed huesain to stay in power in Iraq if he kept his word to the U.N. and the U.S.

If he did or not, thats not for me to decide, but, I do not see any reason to act like the liberation of kuwait was a failed war effort.

[liamc2]

[quote][i]Originally posted by gokents[/i][b]
like the hotel attack that claimed a sizeable number of aussies lives a couple months back.[/b][/quote]

Good thing you told me that, after all, I'm not Australian, I'm really just a cold hearted piece of rock lying in the bottom of the ocean. Thick and blind to match.

[quote][i]Originally posted by gokents[/i][b]
Im not even gonna bother wasting the knowledge on you,
[/b][/quote]

How [i]very[/i] merciful of you.

[quote][i]Originally posted by gokents[/i][b]
but go learn the military history of the gulf war from the americans, british or french if you must, all of them will show an honestly amazing victory by allied forces.[/b][/quote]

Heyup, didn't you say you were going to spare me the details?

And I wouldn't say amazing...after all, Saddam is still in power isn't he? Not to mention he torched very valuable oil fields in his retreat.

However, if you mean 'amazing' as in Saddam didn't decide to kill everyone with his weapons of mass destruction, yes I'd agree with you there.

Oh, wasn't there something a while back about 'Allied' soldiers suffering from radiation poisoning from the depleted Uranium warheads the 'Allied' forces used?

Or have I gone and gotten my wars messed up? It's so hard you know, with all these unnecessary bloodbaths going on and all...


[quote][i]Originally posted by gokents[/i][b]
I do not see any reason to act like the liberation of kuwait was a failed war effort.[/b][/quote]

Excuse me? Did I mention Kuwait? Or have I suddenly developed astral projection and impressed my mighty thoughts upon your mind?

[James]

[color=#507AAC]This thread is still active? o_O

Oh well. I don't think that the situation with Iraq is going to change anytime soon. Even though no WMD have been found, you have to remember that Iraq probably has very little of any old weapon stockpiles left.

My reasoning for going to war with Iraq is twofold; first, Saddam has [i]got[/i] to go. His very presence destabilizes the entire Middle East.

Second, imagine if no weapons are ever found (regardless of whether they exist or not). And then imagine, as a result of that, the economic sanctions are lifted and relations with Iraq are normalized.

What would happen? The very same thing that is happening now in North Korea. The core problem is [i]still[/i] there; the national leadership. With obstacles put aside, what will Saddam do before anything else? He'll begin selling oil at ten fold what he does now...and he'll use most of that money to develop a highly advanced military. We've seen it before. When given the opportunity, he invaded both Kuwait and Iran. If he had the opportunity again, he'd shoot down every one of the Allied jets that patrol the no fly zone...and he'd probably take any opportunity to attack Israel while he's at it.

He must go. I don't necessarily believe that the whole WMD thing has a point -- he clearly doesn't have nuclear weapons and probably has fairly small stocks of biological and chemical weapons. But he still terrorizes his own people. Just like the Taliban (who never really attacked anyone as such), Saddam should go for the sake of peace.

Having said all of that, North Korea is a much, much bigger danger right now.

NK can't lob missiles at the United States yet. But it [i]can[/i] fire missiles at China, South Korea, Japan and possibly even Australia. As a resident of this part of the world...that concerns me greatly. Japan is probably Australia's biggest ally in this region of the world. If Japan were attacked, it would cause a massive shockwave that would devistate many other countries. Not just in terms of the life lost, but also the potentially enormous economic impact. I mean, most of our exports go to Japan for example.

North Korea's army is large enough that it could probably invade both South Korea and China at the same time. Remember, it has around one million troops in [i]active[/i] service. But it has approximately 3 to 4 million reservists. It also has more than 1,000 pieces of major artillery.

Considering that North Korea launched a missile in 1998 that almost veered off course and hit Japan, I think that the world's concern should focus on North Korea first. Fix that situation and then do what you will with Iraq. And it's all very well to talk diplomacy, but for those who are pacifist...I want you to remember one thing here. North Korea entered into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty in the early 90's and signed a number of agreements with the United States and the Allied nations at that time. And now, it has been violating those agreements for months (if not years). It has also now just torn up the NNPT. Do you [i]really[/i] think that you can negotiate with a psychopath? I would really be surprised if you think that a total nutcase is going to say "Oh well, we have a written agreement...we must [i]not[/i] violate that! Oh no!". That's almost ridiculously naive. War is utterly horrible, but sometimes war is necessary. Waiting and procrastinating (and allowing North Korea to blackmail everyone) will have far worse results. It will make everyone else totally subject to the will of North Korea. And a war in ten years would have [i]far worse[/i] consequences than a war today.

So, take those things into consideration. Also bear in mind that if you are in America, you really aren't in North Korea's range. If you were in this region though, you might feel differently about things.[/color]

[Kent]

Unfortunatly, America is well with in range of the North Korean inter-continental "Dong Missile" supplied by the technology of the communist Chinese.(communist love to share that sort of thing. Im willing to bet the chinese version is a copy of the russian ICBM.)

There is a difference between North Korea and Iraq. Since Im realy on the boards for now to go see my gran turismo thread, I will try a metaphoric explanation of their differences.

Iraq is like a rabid dog, unpredictable, dangerous, and worst of all, Saddam is expecting a reigm change to take place. Saddam knows that people want him out and he may well have to leave. So when he thinks, he is thinking in the moment and more likely to engage in rash thinking.

Where as, North Korea is like a bad house pet. Always causing trouble, but always thinking as an established presence that must plan for the future. This pet knows its got it nice, so it is trying to milk it.
North Korea knows that they recieved vast quantities of material to sustain its self, while secretly pursuing missle tech. illegally. All of those food shipments and monitary hand outs came from the united states over the last 8 years. (everyone knows this stuff, its the 1994 treaty we are all hearing so much about.)

so the bottom line.

North Korea wants a cold war.

Saddam wants to deal with his pressing "issues" and try to hold on to his absolute power at any cost.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]I don't think that difference is valid. North Korea is less unstable than Iraq's regime, but North Korea has the capability to strike out at many countries at once. And unlike Iraq, it's very close to a nuclear warhead.

Once again, it's all very well to talk about containment. But when you live within direct range of unconventional weapons (as many in this part of the world do), you will come to understand why North Korea is the more immediate danger. Iraq simply can't do anything to anyone right now. North Korea can. I think North Korea needs to be dealt with first and [i]then[/i] Iraq. A war with North Korea would be messy, for sure...but diplomacy won't work in the longterm. Either the North Korean people will have to rise up against their leadership or someone else will have to deal with the leadership for 'em.[/color]

[Red]

[b][color=003399]I agree with James on this one. North Korea should be dealt with first. Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons (according to UN inspectors) and have not shown any plans to.. North Korea has.

I heard today that North Korea pulled out of a nuclear arms treaty, which I suppose means they've broken their promise to not fire nuclear weapons. I count this as a pretty clear display that the government of North Korea is certainly willing and will soon be able to make nuclear strikes.

As James said, North Korea also has a sizeable military at it's disposal, so fighting a war on North Korea would be a lot more difficult than the Afghanistan "war" or a war against Iraq.[/b][/color]

[TheShinje]

[size=1] [font=century gothic] [color=crimson]

I believe there should be a war on Iraq. Someone has to defuse that ticking time bomb that is Saddam Hussein. You can tell, that if he is left unchecked. He will leave his mark upon the world. He is possibly a nuclear threat, and a biological threat as well.

However, the situation in North Korea is far worse. Since I live in New Zealand, in the same pacific area as Australia, I feel James' concern over the North Korean threat. In my opinon, we need to deal with the fact that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, and violating that 1994 agreement. And to so blatantly do that indicates that they want a war with someone.

North Korea could use their weaponry on South Korea, Japan, China, Australia or New Zealand. And we would be unexpecting. Or unable to do anything to the effect of preventing it. the best friend we have right now is the U.S. and, like James said, the way they have handeled the other wars has been good. and they did give the land back to their respective nations, so they will with Iraq and North Korea.

Heaven forbid, If Korth Korea use their nukes, then the U.S would immediately halt their regime. Their would be no argument. and you would be staring down the barrel of a third World War.

[B] I have just heard over the news thatn New Zealand is now condemming North Korea for the violation of the non proliferation agreement saying that Pyonyang is playing a dangerous game[/B]

Well, in light of this, I would like to say that I agree with my country's decision. North Korea Is a very dangerous, Stalinist regime, and must be stopped, diplomaticaly or war.

btw, Nort Korea's army, like them or hate them, is a very impressive machine. And that's why i once had a north korea flag in my sig. Not that i have ever supported thier regime one bit[/size] [/font] [/color]

[osiris_215]

i think that the whole iraq thing is really screwed...i am sure a lotta people already said that but...it's true

[James]

[color=#507AAC]What do you mean by "screwed"? Please try to put more effort into your posts in the future. ^_^[/color]

[Mnemolth]

Here's some food for thought... ;)

[b]
This is the actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian
authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. Radio
conversation released by the chief of naval operations, 10-10-95.

CANADIANS: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the south to
avoid a collision.

AMERICANS: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the
north to avoid a collision.

CANADIANS: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15
degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

AMERICANS: This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert
YOUR course.

CANADIANS: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

AMERICANS: This is the Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. LINCOLN, the second
largest ship in the United States Atlantic Fleet. We are accompanied with
three Destroyers, three Cruisers and numerous support vessels. I DEMAND
that you change your course 15 degrees north. I say again, that's one-five
degrees north, or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety
of this ship.

CANADIANS: This is a lighthouse. Your call.
[/b]

Come on now, even Gokents should be able to have a cackle at this one.

Thought I'd throw this into the debate. Amusing, insightful, and true, regardless of the veracity of the communique. :)

[Kent]

What is the point in going to war with an already established nuclear power, and trying to talk with a power that hasnt obtained that power yet.

I figure diplomacy is the answer for korea and for Iraq... we should deal with them before they become part of the nuke club.

I mean... rushing into war with N.K. and talking with Iraq?

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Mnemolth, you're only illustrating the course of a normal discussion. I don't quite see why you'd post something so obvious. o_O

Oh well.

I'm not saying that we fight North Korea and talk with Iraq.

I agree wholeheartedly that something should be done about Iraq in terms of force. And I've always held that position.

Of course we should primarily focus on diplomacy for North Korea. But right now it looks like the United States is backing down on the issue. This is what's called "nuclear blackmail".

Nobody is suggesting that we "rush into war" with North Korea. I'm just saying that North Korea is the most immediate danger here. Simple logic dictates that the most immediate threat should rank higher on the priority scale. Wouldn't it be horrible if a war with Iraq had just started and North Korea decided to take advantage of the shift in focus and launch an attack? Considering the totally insane nature of North Korea's leader, it wouldn't surprise me.

North Korea [i]knows[/i] that Iraq is in the crosshairs. That's the main reason why this is happening right now. North Korea knows that it can get away with nuclear blackmail, because the world's focus is on Iraq. And so far, North Korea is succeeding.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the most immediate thread ranks higher on the "Holy crap, we must do something quickly" scale. Once again, to reiterate, I'm [i]not[/i] suggesting an immediate war with North Korea. I'm just saying that we need to focus heavily on North Korea until the problem there is solved. Then, by all means, take action against Iraq. Even if you completely ignore Iraq, it would take that country years to even get anywhere near the threat level that North Korea poses.[/color]

[Kent]

I believe North Korea wants the cold war, nothing more. They have had over 60,000 artillery pieces aimed at the south since the Korean war ended.

If they are even thinking of putting energy into a military attack, it will be on south Korea. Even then a military attack will take a level of "nation energy" Korea doesnt have,to supply an army and maintain control over a poverty strictend, starving country.

I believe North Korea wants to play in the big game of cards.

This is a time when the largest communist nation (china), is part of the wto. At this time (N) Korea is at its lowest and needs buying and loaning power in the world economy.

Iraq is completly a different scenario, and (james) we both agree some action should be taken in some way.

[SuruBlu]

I think Mnemolth was trying to illustrate the stupidity and arrogance of the U.S. (or at least that one ship)

[QUOTE]First of all, America has done some amazing things for the world...like invent the hamburger...o.o;[/QUOTE]

actually the hamburger was invented in Hamburg, Germany...(sorry just had to throw that in there)

I'd like to say that as an American, I have absolutely no faith in our government. Sad huh? But it's true. I won't restate the many things that have already been said. However, what makes you all think that you can trust the U.S. If the gov't wanted to they could probably take out most of the world before anyone knew what hit them. Of course the remainder would retaliate, but that's why there's a nuclear bomb shelter in the whitehouse that can sustain the whole staff for years, and airforce one is nuke-proof(so to speak). I personally think that the U.S. plays big brother way too much, and it's starting to tick everyone off. Eventually we're going to get kicked out of power, and I can almost look foward to that day. And there will ALWAYS be more world wars, humans are incapable of living in peace.

As for Iraq and North Korea:
Saddam's going to die pretty soon anyway, sooner or later things over there will get fixed. North Korea however, could be dangerous. While most of you think that North Korea is threatening the rest of the world, I think they MAY be saying "hey, give us some space and don't treat us like little children". If they begin to take aggressive action, then I think it would be justifible to take action and subdue their gov't. And one last note on the U.S., although I think someone said this before, we have too many problems here already, why go to war when thousands of people are jobless/homeless/dying of starvation and disease in our very own country.

[Jesus Chicken]

Damn straight... Look, they have only attacked us since we have started to become George Bush's lapdog. If John Howard had any sense, he would forget America andlet them take care of thier own problems, god knows they are capable. If America really wanted to, they could take them all on, single-handed, and win easily.
If you ask me, America want some oil, which is quite abundant in Saddam's area.
I also think that America is dragging everyone else in, to make sure that if anyone does a fire a nuke, there are less chances of it being aimed at them. Sorry, but I think it's a big power trip for the Yanks.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]

Saddam Hussein is like a constant problem that has never properly been dealt with. Part of that is America's own fault; there were two seperate rebellions in Iraq over the last decade. America "supported" both, but never provided any [i]tangible[/i] support.

As a result, both rebellions were crushed by Saddam and all those involved were tortured and killed. I don't have any use for Saddam Hussein and the sooner he's gone, the better. Whether or not Australia is involved is really kind of irrelevant. We certainly won't be providing the kind of support that we did in the Gulf War.

[/color]

[DuoMax]

I agree that Saddam is a bad person. BUt in my philosophy, violence is bad NO MATTER who does it. That includes the man who has hijacked the Presidency of my country.