International Protests today 15/2

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:31 pm

Well see now you have just made yourself the enemy of a bunch of people on here because they would never go for anything that involves starving kids. If we stopped everything with Iraq including food aid then the first thing Saddam would do was starve his people. Then there would be a massive outcry to help the poor starving kids etc You cannot win. We need to move hard we need to move quick and we need to go in now.

Mr Oni

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:33 pm

Well see now you have just made yourself the enemy of a bunch of people on here because they would never go for anything that involves starving kids. If we stopped everything with Iraq including food aid then the first thing Saddam would do was starve his people. Then there would be a massive outcry to help the poor starving kids etc You cannot win. We need to move hard we need to move quick and we need to go in now.

Mr Oni

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:34 pm

Mroni wrote:Well see now you have just made yourself the enemy of a bunch of people on here because they would never go for anything that involves starving kids. If we stopped everything with Iraq including food aid then the first thing Saddam would do was starve his people. Then there would be a massive outcry to help the poor starving kids etc You cannot win. We need to move hard we need to move quick and we need to go in now.

Mr Oni

So you'd rather we butchered their parents and destroyed their homes? Probably leaving them starving anyways?

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:18 pm

akatoro wrote:Why not go out against Korea in that case which are posing a larger threat just some day ago going out in the media and saying that they're ready for an attack, will answer it offensively and are prepared to burn the 'peace-treaty' from -53 or whatever.

Technically the Koreas are still at war. They signed a cease fire agreement, meaning that hostilities are not active, they're just kind of smoldering, but they are still there. Why are we not going after North?

Because, unlike Iraq and its neighbors, the North has the means to level the South Korean capitol of Seoul (both long range with missiles and closer range with conventional artillery, which they have quite a lot of close to the DMZ border). South Korea is one of Asia's economic powerhouses, and the US has quite a lot of material and business interests there, and the same thing goes for much of Asia.

Additionally, if the North were provoked, they could take out cities in Japan (a US ally, and also a WORLD economic powerhouse), and, if the boys in Pyongyang are feeling suicidal enough, they could lob a few into China (possibly into Beijine, no less). China, of course, after bringing the heat down on the North, would then turn its attentions onto whoever provoked North Korea, and if it's the US (or the West in general), goodbye Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C., as well as most of the people unlucky enough to get fallout.

This is why we're not marching the 37,000 troops we have in South Korea over the DMZ. Frankly, I say move our boys out (and there's a lot of dislike of our forces being there anyhow) and let the South deal with the North. If things get ugly then, hey, it isn't our fault. Ingrates many of them, anyhow. We beat the Japanese and indirectly free them, keep them from becoming the way the north is now, help them get on their economic feet, and they dislike us, most recently over an ACCIDENT, involving two high school girls WHO WERE BEING STUPID IN TRAFFIC in the first place, apparently.

Anyways.

SSJVegita0609 wrote:
kthulhu wrote:"War for peace" isn't necessarily an oxymoron. Just having a military can be considered "war for peace", for instance. Why? Because an aggressor country can be made to think twice about invading, if they're going to encounter resistance. It's not as black and white oxymoronic as it sounds.
But in this situation the US IS the aggressor country.

That was one instance. "War for peace" isn't a perfect thing, but then, nothing is (including total pacifism).

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:03 pm

SSJVegita0609 wrote:
Mroni wrote:Well see now you have just made yourself the enemy of a bunch of people on here because they would never go for anything that involves starving kids. If we stopped everything with Iraq including food aid then the first thing Saddam would do was starve his people. Then there would be a massive outcry to help the poor starving kids etc You cannot win. We need to move hard we need to move quick and we need to go in now.

Mr Oni
So you'd rather we butchered their parents and destroyed their homes? Probably leaving them starving anyways?

Those are harsh words for civilian casulties. I don't beleive there will be that much fighting.

Mr Oni