PDA

View Full Version : Safe from Iraqis



Hiraghm
03-21-2003, 02:28 PM
Just heard on the news that they are looking for 6 Iraqis in the southern U.S./Mexio carrying deadly chemicals, presumably with the intent to use them.

Iraq has no chemical weapons. Even if they did, they wouldn't use them on us. Americans aren't in any immediate danger.

As someone living in a large population center of the southern U.S., I can state categorically that I don't feel safe from Iraqis. But I will soon.

JohnD
03-21-2003, 03:04 PM
Kinda like the Scud missles that Saddam said he didn't have...yet he launched half a dozen at allied forces.:rolleyes:

Rory_L
03-21-2003, 11:55 PM
Hello. Devil`s advocate here.

Wouldn`t it be awful if we found out later that American forces took confiscated scuds with them into Iraq and fired them at Kuwait to legitimise their invasion?

Oh, but we`re the good guys; we`d never do anything so underhanded as that!

Just a thought, guys.

R

Panikos
03-22-2003, 02:33 AM
Its all about manufactured news, to maintain people's attention.

Personally, as a human being, I hate wars and terrorism. In year 2003 there is no room for such activities.

The phenomenon of "terrorism" is due to lack of justice.
Whoever claims justice, as he subjectively realizes it, tries to make his voice louder, sadly causing death of innocent people.

Sadly too, instead of trying to see WHY these actions take place,
entire nations are bombed, poluting all neighbouring countries, causing Cancer that will show up 10-20 years later to innocent people.

Media present a distorted version of truth, as it fits to the owner of the media, or the political party behind, or the financial sponsor.

I never believe them.

Hiraghm
03-22-2003, 05:06 AM
What a sadly cynical view, born of an overdose of moral relativity.

We wouldn't take scuds into Iraq to fire into Kuwait because there'd be no point. And if we did, we sure as hell would make sure one got through to Kuwait city.. and that it had a biochem warhead. Or we wouldn't fire them at all, but "capture" them. It's too little for the former, and too much for the latter.

We are indeed the good guys.

Terrorism is *not* due to a lack of justice, but due to a lack of character. It embodies the view that two wrongs make a right. "Because someone behaves in a fashion of which I disapprove, I am justified in harming non-combatants." goes the reasoning.

Lest we forget, Al Qaeda is not attacking the U.S. for Israeli tanks knocking down Palestinian terrorist safehouses, nor for not paying reparations for slavery, or for taking the "native Americans" land from them, nor for any other perceived injustice. It's because we dared despoil a hunk of worthless desert with our non-Allah-worshipping boots.

Terrorism is born of envy as much as it is born of perceived injustice. What injustice was repaired by flying a passenger jet into a populated skyscraper?

We attack military targets, and regret the inevitable civilian casualties, and we are equated with those whose intent is to create civilian casualties.

And of course, in these lands where, according to this theory of the cause of terrorism, they hate us for our lack of justice, they torture and kill people for such transgressions as being in public without a veil, traffic violations, and opposing the party in power.

If there is a lack of justice, it exist within the realm of the terrorists. Not by the wildest stretch of imagination can justice be achieved by attacking the most just nation on the planet.

While pissing-and-moaning about our military exercises, which thus far even by Iraqi accounts have killed at most 250, keep this thought in mind...

Over six thousand nuclear warheads, and the missiles to deliver them.

Is there anyone reading this thread who would rather they were in the hands of Hussein?

-------------------------
"Peace is our Profession" - motto of the Strategic Air Command

JohnD
03-23-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Rory_L
Hello. Devil`s advocate here.

Wouldn`t it be awful if we found out later that American forces took confiscated scuds with them into Iraq and fired them at Kuwait to legitimise their invasion?

Oh, but we`re the good guys; we`d never do anything so underhanded as that!

Just a thought, guys.

R

Gee Rory,
I hope you're not that far out there on all of your beliefs. If so, you're probably teetering on the edge of the solar system.

hrgiger
03-24-2003, 07:34 AM
I don't think Rory's thoughts are that far out there. Do you think John that our government doesn't do things to manipulate the situation? This one might be a bit extreme but I don't think implausible. Our government tells lies just like everyone else.

JohnD
03-24-2003, 09:51 AM
Of course I think our government maniupulates certain situations, however, I'm not about to conceive that every situation is an X-Files conspiracy. Damn, I'm not that extreme, nor paranoid.

hrgiger
03-24-2003, 09:56 AM
You have to consider the repurcussion though JohnD for Bush, if they go into Iraq, liberate it, and find no forbidden weapons. You can bet that it would be his last term in office (even though I hope it is anyway) It wouldn't surprise me if they had fired a few stray scuds themselves. Believe me, that's not anywhere near as far fetched as an episode of the X-files.

ted
03-24-2003, 04:57 PM
Rory, It's a possibility, but funny you'd entertain that, AND believe Sadam is telling the truth???

Rory_L
03-24-2003, 09:07 PM
WAIT guys! Does no one know what Devil`s Advocate means???

I was putting forward a thought for you to consider. It did not necessarily conform with MY thinking on the subject!

R

ted
03-24-2003, 10:32 PM
Rory, sorry for misreading your post.
I'ts always good to look at both sides. Especially if you're crossing the road!:p