Sadaam was bad, but....

[DJ-CHRIS1]

The reason they don't attack China is becuase China has a much larger military, invading Chiniesse soil would be an immidiate loss for the US.

 

[root]

cold war again...? I don't think that sort of political atmosphere exists anymore where that sort of thing could happen.

why not attack China? Thats really quite a stupid question and I think that u already know the answer but u just didn't think about it. They have nukes! Bush/the whole US government are not probably the smartest guys there is, but they are not going to attack a country like China. They attack China, it's 100% certain that China will defend, which would probably mean hundreds of nukes going of around USA in a matter of days. And I don't think I need to explain how much damage that would do.

that's the exact point I'm talking of... there are travasties of justice in China, but nobody does anything because attacking a nuclear armed country is tanamount to suicide for the people of your own country...
it's not really a cold war with china. in fact the exact opposite, rtade and relations with china is encouraged as is a massivly inducstrial/technological country... I bet everyone here has at least 10 things in their house that say made in china somewhere on it...

<< Courtesy of Get Smile

loved that picture... pretty much summs up exactly what I was saying about the pointlessness of attacking someone else with a nuke... cause at the end of the day, you'll probably end up worse off!

yes, it was Einstein who said that...
you may also be interested to know that one of the worlds most prolific anti nuclear campaigners was actually a scientist that helped to develop the first nukes in the 40's... (forget the guys name, but if someone cares to google then they'll probably find it).

 

[Nik00117]

why not attack China? Thats really quite a stupid question and I think that u already know the answer but u just didn't think about it. They have nukes! Bush/the whole US government are not probably the smartest guys there is, but they are not going to attack a country like China. They attack China, it's 100% certain that China will defend, which would probably mean hundreds of nukes going of around USA in a matter of days. And I don't think I need to explain how much damage that would do.

Don't believe you understood my point quite right. China doesn't have a A+ Human rights record, worse then Iraq in fact if we went in for moral reasons of saving Iraqis cause of violation of civil rights then we are the morally high road and we don't care for the cost therefore lets go after a even larger violater and hit china. A war of America VS China would be extermely costly, and prob the most bloody war this world will ever see. I'm saying that if it was worth it to take down Saddam, then isn't it worth it to take down China, if you Answer no then your not so self righteous all are you?

Yes, it's true that Saddam hasn't killed the most people. But just because there are a few people who have killed more means that Saddams was ok?
All of the numbers are ofcourse estimates, but I think we can all agree that Saddam killed more than one million people. (well his actions led to the death of over a million people).

I just don't know what u are thinking when u say that he wasn't that bad. Maybe u should try thinking clearly for a moment.

I am thinking clearly, and my thought process leads me to believe Saddam was a bad man, but not worth the cost which he has, and will cost us. Do you believe this Iraq issue if over? Lets say we stay in the long run until everything is resovled, how many lives do you think will be directly lost or directly lost over lets say 6 to 7 more years? A million doesn't sound too far fetched to me if you include casualties on all sides. Therefore is it worth to kill one man, cause other mans humans rights were violated in the process violating his human rights?

What I am saying Saddam simply isn't worth the ammount of lives we must take to take him down.

 

[mammikoura]

Don't believe you understood my point quite right. China doesn't have a A+ Human rights record, worse then Iraq in fact if we went in for moral reasons of saving Iraqis cause of violation of civil rights then we are the morally high road and we don't care for the cost therefore lets go after a even larger violater and hit china. A war of America VS China would be extermely costly, and prob the most bloody war this world will ever see. I'm saying that if it was worth it to take down Saddam, then isn't it worth it to take down China, if you Answer no then your not so self righteous all are you?

Yes I understood ur point, and yes u are right about the situation in China. And yes, I think something should be done. But as I said, the reason nothing is done is the nukes. No one can attack them without getting hundreds of nukes up their ass. So there is no way that USA would go to "liberate" the Chinese. A few hundred a-bombs here and there and there wouldn't be a single human being on this planet.

I am thinking clearly, and my thought process leads me to believe Saddam was a bad man, but not worth the cost which he has, and will cost us. Do you believe this Iraq issue if over? Lets say we stay in the long run until everything is resovled, how many lives do you think will be directly lost or directly lost over lets say 6 to 7 more years? A million doesn't sound too far fetched to me if you include casualties on all sides. Therefore is it worth to kill one man, cause other mans humans rights were violated in the process violating his human rights?

What I am saying Saddam simply isn't worth the ammount of lives we must take to take him down.

It's not just about killing one man. It's about bringing democracy into a country, and saving hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yes, at the cost of hundreds of thousands soldiers. If it really was worth it, well I gues only time will tell.

Lets look at omaha beach. Something like 3000 US soldiers dead in a few hours. Now if u had just heard that 3000 American soldiers died in a few hours trying to take one of many beaches in Normandy. Would you have thought that the beach was really worth that much? I know that I wouldn't. And I still doubt it was. And the whole ww2 in europe, do u think that right after the war the US citizens thought it was worth millions of allied soldiers to destroy Germany. I doubt that everyone was like HOORAY, Germany is defeated! And we only lost a few million! What a great war! But I think that right now most of us realize how important it was that Germany was defeated.
What I'm trying to say is just that we can't really say if it's worth it when the fighting is still going on. It's going to take a lot of time before we can see all the aftermath of this war.

 

[root]

interesting point to bring up the war... (especially since Nik lives on an American base in Germany, (American presence in Germany established in the war)...

It's amazing how many people do think like Nik is describing, as to whether something is worth doing compared to the cost of doing it.

If america had joined the Allied war effort in 1939 when it started for the rest of the world, do you really think it would have gone on for so long, do you think as many people would have died? would 3000 people have died in a few hours trying to take a beach that wasn't even occupied when the alies first asked the Americans to join the war effort...

There are far to many people who live on a moral high ground of supposed rights and freedoms but think that it's not worth the cost to get involved when they see things going on that goes against their beliefs.
If you saw an old lady being robed you'd do something about it even at your own risk, or would it be because you see that happeneing? does the distance away from Iraq, and the relative comfort of your civillised surroundings meant that you are happy to rest in your own comfort and let others suffer, (so long are you are OK what's the problem?).
and what about the time when the day comes that your freedom is endangered, I suppose you'll be crying out for people to help you, but if you won't help anyone, then why should anyone help you?

IMO if saddam was that bad he should have been taken and captured after the first gulf war whilst there were troups in the country and whilst he was commiting these attrocities, not some ten years later once he's had time to do a little more evil...

 

[DJ-CHRIS1]

Yes I understood ur point, and yes u are right about the situation in China. And yes, I think something should be done. But as I said, the reason nothing is done is the nukes. No one can attack them without getting hundreds of nukes up their ass. So there is no way that USA would go to "liberate" the Chinese. A few hundred a-bombs here and there and there wouldn't be a single human being on this planet.


It's not just about killing one man. It's about bringing democracy into a country, and saving hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yes, at the cost of hundreds of thousands soldiers. If it really was worth it, well I gues only time will tell.

Lets look at omaha beach. Something like 3000 US soldiers dead in a few hours. Now if u had just heard that 3000 American soldiers died in a few hours trying to take one of many beaches in Normandy. Would you have thought that the beach was really worth that much? I know that I wouldn't. And I still doubt it was. And the whole ww2 in europe, do u think that right after the war the US citizens thought it was worth millions of allied soldiers to destroy Germany. I doubt that everyone was like HOORAY, Germany is defeated! And we only lost a few million! What a great war! But I think that right now most of us realize how important it was that Germany was defeated.
What I'm trying to say is just that we can't really say if it's worth it when the fighting is still going on. It's going to take a lot of time before we can see all the aftermath of this war.

If the US attacks Iran, they got China too. If Iran goes down China has no oil for all their production facility's.

 

[Brookfield]

a small point, after root speaking about an old lady being robbed, the BBC have just carried out an experiment, one of their staff, a young attractive women posed as a motorist broken down, she had the bonnet [hood] up peering into it, only three people in an hour stopped to see if thy could help, one of them was a pedestrian, a man out shopping, exactly opposite to the old lady example, the police said motorists didn't stop, wary of it being a trap, a so-called "honeypot" where when the helper approached, men in hiding would come out, do serious injury, then nick their car, wonderful world we live in, ain't it?

 

[root]

If the US attacks Iran, they got China too. If Iran goes down China has no oil for all their production facility's.

The oil will all run out soon anyway... so what does it matter?

 

[Brookfield]

The oil will all run out soon anyway... so what does it matter?

I sincerely don't mean to keep coming up with things, just to annoy you, you are, as I've said before, the most outspoken, yet fair contributor we have, but haven't I just read that they are finding more & more big deposits, mostly at sea, but far deeper than the present-day oil platforms can reach, but desperation added to advanced techniques ensure that in two or three years time, we will be reaping the rewards, one of the latest ideas, albeit very costly is a giant, high-powered laser instead of a drill.

 

[root]

indeed, technology will always prevail,

but, (according to *some* scientists), we've already reached peak oil consumption.

within the next 20 - 50 year, (apparantly) there will be so little oil in such reomte places that it's going to be more expensive, (in terms of energy required) to get and refine oil than the energy that can be gained from it...

everyone knows that oil is not unlimited...

even bush...
edit... added video links...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXprZkfYVBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4fgvp-ladI

actually maybe bush doesn't know that the fossil fuels will run out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc7-IVWinAA