The Official Iraq War thread (country, American, bling, member)

[MHDTV]

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape

Obviously not, but people still say "lol it wuz part of the war on terrer!!!11!"

Its just another excuse like the whole "humanitarian intervention" bull****.

That was in response to MHDTV, I posted that before Voice of the Soul posted.

I honestly don't see how Saddam was a threat to our power.

Invading North Korea would have been stupid. If they had nuclear weapons they would have used them as soon as we invaded, and then the world would have ended.

No they wouldn't, because of the very reason you stated.

[i get high sometimes]

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

We invaded to remove Saddam from power. We can't have anyone threatening our power. And I have no problem with this logic, except for the fact that the US was being scared ****tless when Korea started doing nuclear tests; we should have attacked them right then and there, but that would ruin our little "Home of the Free" illusion.


YEs I'm ****ing serious.

Call me evil, stupid, not in touch with reality. THIS is what I believe.

You aren't in touch with reality, you are stupid, and I honestly believe, that what you are saying is what you believe.

Saddam was not a threat to our power. Saddam was our trial run of our right to preemptive war.
It was an illegal, unjustifiable act of aggression.

Originally Posted by MHDTV

No they wouldn't, because of the very reason you stated.

1. You are 12, read some books, take a history course or two. Until then, don't try to spew your opinion into a thread you know nothing about. You were 8 when this war was declared.

2. So us invading North Korea wouldn't have led to a nuclear assault? Do you think that the moment we invade we are going to completly immobilize their nuclear missles? Are we going to kill Kim Jong Il in one fell swoop? How do you propose this is going to work?

I think that 12 year olds in decision-making positions in Bush's cabinet put us in this situation in the first place.

[MHDTV]

Assuming you aren't history major, I've probably read more books on the subject than you. I don't think North Korea's leaders aren't really stupid enough to start a nuclear war against what is essentially the U.N. Also, there are ways of disabling their supply of nuclear weapons.

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

Originally Posted by MHDTV

Assuming you aren't history major, I've probably read more books on the subject than you. I don't think North Korea's leaders aren't really stupid enough to start a nuclear war against what is essentially the U.N. Also, there are ways of disabling their supply of nuclear weapons.

I am loling at you.

[MHDTV]

I'd say North Korea loses to the U.N. in a nuclear war. You're crazy if you think otherwise.

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

Get your ass on Glenn Beck son.

[MHDTV]

I'm hardly a conservative.

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

I don't care. /:

[i get high sometimes]

Assuming you aren't history major, I've probably read more books on the subject than you. I don't think North Korea's leaders aren't really stupid enough to start a nuclear war against what is essentially the U.N. Also, there are ways of disabling their supply of nuclear weapons.

I'll disregard your first statement. Elementary school textbooks don't count as scholarly historical literature.

"I don't think North Korea's leaders aren't really stupid enough to start a war against what is essentially the U.N"

Well, assuming the double negative is intentional, you are saying that you believe North Korea's leaders are stupid enough to start a war with what is essentially the U.N (?). Which is obviously absurd. What North Korea has is a nuclear deterrant. It is the same thing that kept the world out of oblivion during the Cold War. Other nations realize that defying American desire for global hegemony is dangerous, and nuclear deterrant is needed to avoid becoming the Phillipines. This is the reason why Iran agreed to stop its enrichment of uranium for military purposes in an agreement with the E.U., in exchange for unilateral protection in the event of an attack (aka, when the United States invades us because they don't like the way we run our country, we need you to back us up). Of course, this agreement was blocked by the E.U. under pressure by the United States.

So, if it is true that Kim Jong Il is a complete lunatic who wants nothing more than to end the world, why hasn't he launched a nuclear assualt on Japan? He has developed nuclear missiles with the capability of reaching mainland Japan, whose only source of defense in the event of an attack is the United States due to the demilitarization of Japan after World War II. So, if it is Kim Jong Ils desire to randomly end the world, and thus, his reign and life, why hasn't he attacked Japan? The answer is obvious, Kim Jong Il does not have any desire to end the world, and he also has no desire to engage in war with the United States, which is the reason he is proliferating nuclear arms in the first place. Your insinuation that he wants to start a war with the international community, more specifically a nuclear war with the international community, is irrational to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Back to my inclusion of parenthesis around the question mark at the point where you claim that a war against the US would essentially be a war against the UN. Why would you say that? Because it sounded intelligent or something? The United States has essentially lost international support. Obviously, however, if Kim Jong Il were to launch a nuclear assualt against the United States, it wouldn't be a war at all. It would be armageddon.


So anyway, what books have you read on the subject?

EDIT:

I'd say North Korea loses to the U.N. in a nuclear war. You're crazy if you think otherwise.

You mean there is a winner in a nuclear war? Is that the side that burns to death last, or what?

[MHDTV]

Originally Posted by i get high sometimes

I'll disregard your first statement. Elementary school textbooks don't count as scholarly historical literature.

"I don't think North Korea's leaders aren't really stupid enough to start a war against what is essentially the U.N"

Well, assuming the double negative is intentional, you are saying that you believe North Korea's leaders are stupid enough to start a war with what is essentially the U.N (?). Which is obviously absurd. What North Korea has is a nuclear deterrant. It is the same thing that kept the world out of oblivion during the Cold War. Other nations realize that defying American desire for global hegemony is dangerous, and nuclear deterrant is needed to avoid becoming the Phillipines. This is the reason why Iran agreed to stop its enrichment of uranium for military purposes in an agreement with the E.U., in exchange for unilateral protection in the event of an attack (aka, when the United States invades us because they don't like the way we run our country, we need you to back us up). Of course, this agreement was blocked by the E.U. under pressure by the United States.

So, if it is true that Kim Jong Il is a complete lunatic who wants nothing more than to end the world, why hasn't he launched a nuclear assualt on Japan? He has developed nuclear missiles with the capability of reaching mainland Japan, whose only source of defense in the event of an attack is the United States due to the demilitarization of Japan after World War II. So, if it is Kim Jong Ils desire to randomly end the world, and thus, his reign and life, why hasn't he attacked Japan? The answer is obvious, Kim Jong Il does not have any desire to end the world, and he also has no desire to engage in war with the United States, which is the reason he is proliferating nuclear arms in the first place. Your insinuation that he wants to start a war with the international community, more specifically a nuclear war with the international community, is irrational to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Back to my inclusion of parenthesis around the question mark at the point where you claim that a war against the US would essentially be a war against the UN. Why would you say that? Because it sounded intelligent or something? The United States has essentially lost international support. Obviously, however, if Kim Jong Il were to launch a nuclear assualt against the United States, it wouldn't be a war at all. It would be armageddon.


So anyway, what books have you read on the subject?

No, the double negative was not intentional. Meaning I don't believe that they're stupid enough to start a war against the U.N. I've read several histories of the Napoleonic Wars, and several histories of WWII and WWI. Not to mention a few on the 20th century in general.