Iraq

[Coney]

The key word is instant there. You'd be vaporized in a second.

Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh, I do still hope that the move is towards a veto. That way everything stands of the shoulders of Tony Blair. If he goes to war then we remain America's allies, if he doesn't go to war then our standing with Russia, China, Germany and France is strengthened in the UN...when America does leave the UN, we have allies on both sides......The UK seems to be coming out of this in a win/win situation

Plain and simple, if the UN votes against supporting the war, and the US goes against the UN decision, the UN crumbles. It will then be shown to the world as a weaker organization than it is already seeming to be. Think about it, the only reason the US hasn't declared war yet is because we realize how important the UN is for that part of the world and for stability purposes. That is why we are giving them more time, we know that if we go against the UN that we will also be leaving the UN, most likely, and if that happens it will basically be smacking the UN in the face and showing that it is actually a weak organization. Also, the UN isn't really helping it's own cause by going against regulations and resolutions that they passed, It is like telling the world that their words are only that, words, and those said words will not be followed up with action. Now how is an organization supposed to survive if they treat themselves that way?

[Coney]

Underestimating? I thought your argument has always been that we're just paranoid Americans.

You've been misunderstanding me.....power-mad, not paranoid

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
You've been misunderstanding me.....power-mad, not paranoid

LOL you are unbelievable

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Plain and simple, if the UN votes against supporting the war, and the US goes against the UN decision, the UN crumbles. It will then be shown to the world as a weaker organization than it is already seeming to be. Think about it, the only reason the US hasn't declared war yet is because we realize how important the UN is for that part of the world and for stability purposes. That is why we are giving them more time, we know that if we go against the UN that we will also be leaving the UN, most likely, and if that happens it will basically be smacking the UN in the face and showing that it is actually a weak organization. Also, the UN isn't really helping it's own cause by going against regulations and resolutions that they passed, It is like telling the world that their words are only that, words, and those said words will not be followed up with action. Now how is an organization supposed to survive if they treat themselves that way?

Hmmm...I'm not sure if the UN will crumble if the US leaves.......I can see dramatic changes within' the UN tho', probably the UN will concentrate on looking to the affairs of the member countries instead of trying to police the world.......but hey!, we'll have America to do that for us

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
but hey!, we'll have America to do that for us

No actually you won't and you will be damn sorry we aren't...

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
LOL you are unbelievable

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....

oh well in that case bring on the bomb!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh, I do still hope that the move is towards a veto. That way everything stands of the shoulders of Tony Blair. If he goes to war then we remain America's allies, if he doesn't go to war then our standing with Russia, China, Germany and France is strengthened in the UN...when America does leave the UN, we have allies on both sides......The UK seems to be coming out of this in a win/win situation

Oh - and those countries will really come running to help you if England is attacked by a terrorist or anything? The UN wouldn't be left standing if we left the UN.

NKorea is already a much bigger problem....certainly wouldn't fancy sitting in a Tokyo restaurant at the mo'.

Let's think about HOW they became a bigger problem. I don't know - there were inspectors there. There was diplomacy. There were agreements. It's also amazing - I don't see the UN trying to fix the North Korea problem. Maybe because the UN is irrelavent and can't do anything unless pushed by the US.

By the way - my brother is stationed in Japan. So I'm aware of his situation with North Korea - I just think that we have to deal with Iraq first. If we leave Kuwait - the next time we go to deal with iraq - the problem will be like trying to deal with North Korea.

Iraq is currently disarming, and yes, yes..I know the whole conspiracy theory of hidden weapons....but he can hardly use them can he?....Even Saddam isn't mad enough to let his entire country be destroyed in the backlash.

See tha's the problem - you just view it as a conspiracy theory - even when the UN says they have the chemical and biological weapons. In terms of being prevented form using them - are we supposed to keep 250,000 troops in Kuwait to prevent him from using them? Is France, Germany and Russia going to pay for our military or are they going to continue benefitting from their smuggling operations?

Well, we can hope not....it's usually our lads that end up doing the fighting tho'.

I'm sure that's what your soldiers and media try telling you.

Oh I'm pretty sure that Saddam already has terrorists working for him all over the world......In fact I can see terriorist attacks happing immediatly after the Iraq invasion.....I'd be surprised if they didn't go on for decades.

And if we don't go in.....? You seriously think that the outcome will be any different. Well yeah it will be - but instead of the terrorists not having a ready supply of Hussein's weapons and support from him - they will have to go somewhere else. I guess we really shouldn't go after Bin ladin. We should probably let the person we just captured a couple of weeks in Pakisatn go - the terrorists might get upset and attack us. We don't want to get them all upset at us and take revenge.

JD I just love your use of history to give emphasis on the justification of an attack

I just love how you choose to ignore history.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh - and those countries will really come running to help you if England is attacked by a terrorist or anything? The UN wouldn't be left standing if we left the UN.


Let's think about HOW they became a bigger problem. I don't know - there were inspectors there. There was diplomacy. There were agreements. It's also amazing - I don't see the UN trying to fix the North Korea problem. Maybe because the UN is irrelavent and can't do anything unless pushed by the US.

Also, North Korea only wants to deal with the US and they have specifically stated they don't want to deal with the UN. That right there tells a lot about the weakness of the organiztion that the UN is...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....

I've seen videos of nuclear bomb blasts. If your in the area - it's pretty much instantaneous. And it's a lot quicker than spending a week in agony. I'll just feel sorry for the people who have to live through the radiation poisoning - that'll be similar to the a biological/chemical attack. I'm very glad I'm right in between New York and Philadelphia.

But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

Who said anything about NKorea nuking the states?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

Actually, I don't even think NK has a nuke yet. I believe they are in the process of making one, but from the articles I've been reading it doesn't appear that they currently have one, I could be wrong though *shrug*

Also, it's horrible that the Pres. of NK is more concerned about trying to blackmail the world instead of helping his own people. There is one city in NK that has average living standards, everything else is below the poverty line. An attack would be stupid on their part anyway, because any retaliation from the world would just be at that one city where their nuke plant sites.

Anyway, back to Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Who said anything about NKorea nuking the states?

Well then why can't North Korea wait until we handle Iraq? All North Korea is right now is a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum. We gave them what they wanted before - now they're demanding more. We have military in the region. Stealth Bombers went out there today. We'll handle them after Iraq. While the world is waiting for the US - the UN can take up that problem. We know the UN has done SO much these last 20 years.

[Linaewen]

Linaewen - there ARE links between Hussein and terrorism. He gives $25,000 - $50,000 to each family of a palestinian suicide bomber. He coudl be putting that money into supporting schools or other benefits for his people.

That's not what i was trying to get at. I wanted to show how 'conclusive' their evidence is. Without any solid evidence, the war is illegal. Of course i want to get rid Hussein, but why do they choose to do so now? Especially seeing as the links are not clear. Are they? I'm not sure.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Without any solid evidence, the war is illegal.

Illegal to who? All I have to say is this:

"When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
--George Bush, 3/6/03

[Linaewen]

Illegal for a country to attack another for no clear reason
America is so hyprocritical- they were the ones who wanted the League of Nations to be set up- to 'settle disputes between countries peacefully
Now the ignore the UN
They should at least allow a little more time for the weapons inspectors and for the UN to come up with the best decision, so that the least lives are taken (especially innocent ones). Because we know that America bombs countries, then spends tiny amounts to repair it compared to the cost they spend on military, i.e. Afghanistan

In the words of my fabulous history teacher 'war gives a whole new generation of people another reason to hate', as will this one

[Spock]

The US should return to the policy of isolationism. Return troops from all EU countries, cut foreign aid out, and put troops on our borders to protect our country. Let the rest fight amongst themselves as to how they'll stop a dicator .
As for the UN, it is UNimportant and we should pull out of it and have it shipped to France. We don't need it as it's ineffectual, highly critical of all the US does and is run by such giants as K.A. and giant states like Angola, Cammeron and Syria. What a joke.
Lets see how the world does without our presence.

[Linaewen]

And how will you stop the evil dictator? By bombing innocent Iraqis he evidently cares nothing about? Like in Afghanistan, how you bombed schools etc?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then why can't North Korea wait until we handle Iraq? All North Korea is right now is a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum. We gave them what they wanted before - now they're demanding more. We have military in the region. Stealth Bombers went out there today. We'll handle them after Iraq. While the world is waiting for the US - the UN can take up that problem. We know the UN has done SO much these last 20 years.

That's true..
It's probably best to let an actual dictator who holds nuclear weaponry wait while he happily blackmails your govenment for aid