Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I wonder why our military hasn't invented some sort of A.I. military robot for warfare instead of using humans? If we somehow create a war-machine type of robot, use bullet proof armor with an anti-granade type of system, then we could just send a few hundred robots over there with cameras, weapons, and ammo... let 'em do the dirty work! How 'bout them apples? That'd be zero lives lost! If only... They're working on it. Though I'm not sure if automated warfare is entirely a good idea. Having a human cost means that democratic societies will remain loathe to enter into war lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Liberals actually believe that the region and the world would be more secure with Saddam in power.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Liberals actually believe that the region and the world would be more secure with Saddam in power.... I don't think it would be LESS secure with Saddam than it is currently. I guess it depends on whether you prefer tyranny or complete mayhem as the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The cause they voluntarily risked their lives for would be the defense of the ideals that the United States is founded upon. The shame and the disgrace is that the current administration holds those ideals in low regard and needlessly puts our soldiers in danger. We (meaning the American public) were not sold this war as a means of freeing an oppressed people from a tyrant's yoke; we were told that Iraq was an IMMINENT threat to US security (whatever that means - heck, China and dependence on foreign oil are bigger risks to our security and perhaps our sovereignty than Iraq ever could be) - and let's just say the imminence of whatever threat there may have been was grossly exaggerated, not to mention the specious existence of the threat itself. And another point is that while removing tyrants from power is all well and good, it's a never-ending task. You need the support of the people and it would also be nice to have a broad-based international coalition to share the burden; both of which are sorely lacking Iraq. This is actually a great argument. If we had a tier system to rank the countries that need to be bitch-slapped and put back into the proper place, I'd say Iraq is not the #1 threat the United States faces today. While their imminent threat was either exaggerated or misunderstood by not only our current administration, but many democrats bashing the administration today -- such as Hillary Clinton, for example. Even she was on Bush's side during the very initial stages of the war. Things went downhill after the country didn't stabilize once Saddam was taken out of power, and many jumped band-wagons to use this against Republicans and President Bush. So while the core reasons in which our country went to war with Iraq (not for means of freeing oppressed people, but for US security concerns) turned out to be wrong, does that mean that two wrongs will now make a right? When I say two wrongs don't equal a right, I mean that if we actually packed up and left Iraq today, what exactly do you think will happen in Iraq? Will everything just quiet down and become peaches and cream for Iraq? I doubt it. I think a lot more chaos and destruction will take place in a very short amount of time, causing the whole middle east to possibly turn into an even worse off situation than it is today. At this point we're stuck with what we've started, and our country isn't built on the premise of quitting when things go bad. We stick it out and improvise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Last time I check there hasn't been one war where anyone's been particulary happy about, or could call or moral booster. If you think the loss of US and enemy life is high during this war, try looking at some of the previous major wars in our history. No war is a moral booster. We destroyed Germany and Japan in 5 years in WW2. The cost of life was tremendous, but we weren't just babysitting a country that clearly doesn't want the help we are giving them. What positive goal have we accomplished in 5.5 years since 9/11? Did we even catch the one guy responsible for the attack? Don't dare compare one of our historical wars with this clusterfnck of a police action. A better comparison would be the Jon Benet Ramsey investigation. Edited February 17, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 They're working on it. Though I'm not sure if automated warfare is entirely a good idea. Having a human cost means that democratic societies will remain loathe to enter into war lightly. This is true. There is a saying that at some point or another in our lives, weapons will become so powerful and so fearful, that even terrorists won't want to use them. Somehow I doubt terrorists will not want to use them, but you get the idea. The fear of what will happen when going into war should be good enough reason to not want to do it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I don't think it would be LESS secure with Saddam than it is currently. I guess it depends on whether you prefer tyranny or complete mayhem as the lesser of two evils. Saddam would have dropped a Nuke on us or Israel. You know deep down that would have happened. it was inevitable. He could not be left in power. That was an untenable situation going forward. And yet, liberals act like all was well with him there. It was not. He had to go. But liberals never seem to have the stomach to do things that are difficult. That is why they arent trusted on national security matters. Weakness sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Though I'm not sure if automated warfare is entirely a good idea. Having a human cost means that democratic societies will remain loathe to enter into war lightly. This is the reason why we shouldnt be so timid in using nukes. Lets say we threatened Saddam. he told us to go f@ck ourselves. Instead of invading, we nuke their entire country back into the stone age. Terrorists et al, will ge the message fairly quickly that we will wipe out your entire race of *** if you f8ck with us. Get it? Good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Saddam would have dropped a Nuke on us or Israel. You know deep down that would have happened. If I had a magical fairy that would fly out of my butt and go poke Chavez in the eye, I would definitely use it. Want to know how my magical eye-poking fairy relates to Saddam's nuclear weapons? C'mon... take a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 This is actually a great argument. If we had a tier system to rank the countries that need to be bitch-slapped and put back into the proper place, I'd say Iraq is not the #1 threat the United States faces today. While their imminent threat was either exaggerated or misunderstood by not only our current administration, but many democrats bashing the administration today -- such as Hillary Clinton, for example. Even she was on Bush's side during the very initial stages of the war. Things went downhill after the country didn't stabilize once Saddam was taken out of power, and many jumped band-wagons to use this against Republicans and President Bush. The Dems are not exactly on my Christmas card list for their behavior during this whole Iraq mess. So while the core reasons in which our country went to war with Iraq (not for means of freeing oppressed people, but for US security concerns) turned out to be wrong, does that mean that two wrongs will now make a right? When I say two wrongs don't equal a right, I mean that if we actually packed up and left Iraq today, what exactly do you think will happen in Iraq? Will everything just quiet down and become peaches and cream for Iraq? I doubt it. I think a lot more chaos and destruction will take place in a very short amount of time, causing the whole middle east to possibly turn into an even worse off situation than it is today. At this point we're stuck with what we've started, and our country isn't built on the premise of quitting when things go bad. We stick it out and improvise. I see your point as far as Iraq degenerating into an absolute mess, but I don't see the US presence doing anything but delaying the inevitable - much like Vietnam (oh no, the V word!), what will happen is going to happen regardless of HOW long the US stays. I don't believe in quitting easy, but at some point, you have to say "all we can do is all we have done, let's boogie" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If I had a magical fairy that would fly out of my butt and go poke Chavez in the eye, I would definitely use it. Want to know how my magical eye-poking fairy relates to Saddam's nuclear weapons? C'mon... take a guess. They're both in your butt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 This is the reason why we shouldnt be so timid in using nukes. Lets say we threatened Saddam. he told us to go f@ck ourselves. Instead of invading, we nuke their entire country back into the stone age. Terrorists et al, will ge the message fairly quickly that we will wipe out your entire race of *** if you f8ck with us. Get it? Good! spain wins the "missing the point of a post entirely" award for this month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If I had a magical fairy that would fly out of my butt and go poke Chavez in the eye, I would definitely use it. Want to know how my magical eye-poking fairy relates to Saddam's nuclear weapons? C'mon... take a guess. You liberals are a punch of fairies and enjoy poking each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Saddam would have dropped a Nuke on us or Israel. You know deep down that would have happened. it was inevitable. He could not be left in power. That was an untenable situation going forward. And yet, liberals act like all was well with him there. It was not. He had to go. But liberals never seem to have the stomach to do things that are difficult. That is why they arent trusted on national security matters. Weakness sucks. Exactly! At least one man here is willing to admit this truth. This is exactly what I was referring to when I kind of went all out in this thread here. Many won't realize that a lot of those Scud missiles that were "shot down" by our patriot missiles, they were shot down right above Kuwait city. Meaning the explosions above this city probably left fire and debris falling directly into the heart of this city. Saddam hated Kuwait, and it was almost inevitable that someday if/when he had a nuclear weapon you know exactly where he would have fired it. He had the capability and means to do so, but apparently we got to him early because he either is an excellent hider, or didn't yet have all the means to build a nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 He had the capability and means to do so, but apparently we got to him early because he...didn't yet have all the means to build a nuke. The second part of your sentence contradicts the first part. (and yes, I edited out the "either he is an excellent hider" because we reportedly had intelligence that showed that Saddam HAD WMDs, and we've had plenty of time to torture...er, interrogate Saddam loyalists, and have been occupying the country for over 5 years, and have yet to turn up ONE single shred of evidence that Hussein was anywhere near nuclear-capable; you can't prove the absence of something, but I think that given the situation we went to war under, the failure to prove the existence of an active nuclear program speaks volumes) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The second part of your sentence contradicts the first part. (and yes, I edited out the "either he is an excellent hider" because we reportedly had intelligence that showed that Saddam HAD WMDs, and we've had plenty of time to torture...er, interrogate Saddam loyalists, and have been occupying the country for over 5 years, and have yet to turn up ONE single shred of evidence that Hussein was anywhere near nuclear-capable; you can't prove the absence of something, but I think that given the situation we went to war under, the failure to prove the existence of an active nuclear program speaks volumes) obviously the intelligence was faulty. was it a real mistake or on purpose, that is the real question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The second part of your sentence contradicts the first part. (and yes, I edited out the "either he is an excellent hider" because we reportedly had intelligence that showed that Saddam HAD WMDs, and we've had plenty of time to torture...er, interrogate Saddam loyalists, and have been occupying the country for over 5 years, and have yet to turn up ONE single shred of evidence that Hussein was anywhere near nuclear-capable; you can't prove the absence of something, but I think that given the situation we went to war under, the failure to prove the existence of an active nuclear program speaks volumes) Turns out I wrote it wrong. I'm sure if you really tried hard to think about what I said you'd know what I meant. He was capable of firing the Nukes into neighboring countries (which is not something he is supposed to have been able to do because he previously invading Kuwait), but you are right, as of now there is pretty strong evidence that he didn't have a nuclear weapon. But he certaintly acted like it when he kicked out UN inspectors and went into mode on the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 It is not politically correct today to allege that Saddam could ever pose a danger to us or the region. The far left is actually attempting to scuttle the candidacies of folks whoever advocated over throwing his Hiterlesque regime. But lets get back to reality for a second my left wing nutbird friends. Saddam had already successfully bribed the French, the Germans, and members of the United Nations. He himself believed that he was developing nuclear weapons. Now, because we havent found any, doesnt mean he didnt want to go down that road. And for anybody to now claim that he wasnt then or wouldnt in the future, based on his own words, attempt to harm Israel, the US, or Kuwait, is just insanity. So, please cling to the left wing dogma that says we had him contained and he was a toothless tiger. That sort of thinking is flawed and stupid and not based in reality. It is based in political correctness and left wing politics. Thats it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 This is the reason why we shouldnt be so timid in using nukes. You completely disqualify yourself from any rational discussion with this kind of tripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 You completely disqualify yourself from any rational discussion with this kind of tripe. I understand the pacificity of the far left. But that sort of thinking will get us obliterated by radical muzzi's going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 He was capable of firing the Nukes into neighboring countries (which is not something he is supposed to have been able to do because he previously invading Kuwait), but you are right, as of now there is pretty strong evidence that he didn't have a nuclear weapon. But he certaintly acted like it when he kicked out UN inspectors and went into mode on the rest of the world. Sure, he had a delivery system - aside from the fact that Scuds are pretty well about as accurate as launching a Buick at the enemy. But you don't have to drop it right in the pickle barrel when you're talking about nukes. Hussein booting the UN inspectors was him trying to look tough and the son of his old nemesis. I think his true nature was revealed when he realized that he had played DIRECTLY into what W wanted to do and he bent over backwards to avoid being invaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 It is not politically correct today to allege that Saddam could ever pose a danger to us or the region. The far left is actually attempting to scuttle the candidacies of folks whoever advocated over throwing his Hiterlesque regime. But lets get back to reality for a second my left wing nutbird friends. Saddam had already successfully bribed the French, the Germans, and members of the United Nations. He himself believed that he was developing nuclear weapons. Now, because we havent found any, doesnt mean he didnt want to go down that road. And for anybody to now claim that he wasnt then or wouldnt in the future, based on his own words, attempt to harm Israel, the US, or Kuwait, is just insanity. So, please cling to the left wing dogma that says we had him contained and he was a toothless tiger. That sort of thinking is flawed and stupid and not based in reality. It is based in political correctness and left wing politics. Thats it. He WAS contained and WAS a toothless tiger. Did he present a threat? Sure, in the way that the first-grader you beat up back in 3rd grade might grow up to be Ray Lewis. And if Hussein WAS a threat to anyone, he'd be more likely to be a threat to the region, then Europe, based on proximity. And since you want to nuke the Middle East into glass and hate Europe, why would you care that Saddam was a threat to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Sure, he had a delivery system - aside from the fact that Scuds are pretty well about as accurate as launching a Buick at the enemy. But you don't have to drop it right in the pickle barrel when you're talking about nukes. Hussein booting the UN inspectors was him trying to look tough and the son of his old nemesis. I think his true nature was revealed when he realized that he had played DIRECTLY into what W wanted to do and he bent over backwards to avoid being invaded. I might be wrong, but I've heard that it is in the Middle Eastern culture to embellish certain things or attempt to intimidate others with the use of tactics such as this. What you said is a theory, but definitely not out of reach. Especially considering what we didn't find in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Now, because we havent found any, doesnt mean he didnt want to go down that road. And for anybody to now claim that he wasnt then or wouldnt in the future, based on his own words, attempt to harm Israel, the US, or Kuwait, is just insanity. So, please cling to the left wing dogma that says we had him contained and he was a toothless tiger. That sort of thinking is flawed and stupid and not based in reality. It is based in political correctness and left wing politics. Thats it. Um....he WAS contained and he WAS a toothless tiger. That much is obvious to anyone paying even minimal attention. You do know what it actually takes to create a nuclear weapon, don't you? I mean, you do know you can't just shoot down the road and pick one up at Home Depot, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 He WAS contained and WAS a toothless tiger. Did he present a threat? Sure, in the way that the first-grader you beat up back in 3rd grade might grow up to be Ray Lewis. Um....he WAS contained and he WAS a toothless tiger. That much is obvious to anyone paying even minimal attention. Hey, is one of us the other's alias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.