Nuke 'em all.
Nuke 'em all.
The large and the short and the tall.
There'll be no promotion
Till we cross the ocean.
So come on my friends, nuke'em all.
This goes to music - and, for a fee, I'll come and sing it to you.
A world gone mad for the sake of political expediency.
and all god's chillin' gots shoes
Responding to request of the U.S. administration, Israel intends to keep a profile as low as possible in the forthcoming war. Israeli participation may occur only if she is attacked by non-conventional weapons. By all means, President Bush declared that he recognized the Israeli right to defend herself.
steissd, If Saddam attacks Israel to try to get other Muslim countries to help with his war, how successful do you think he will be? Many neutral Arab countries are against the US war with Iraq, but wonder if they will react if Israel is forced into this war? c.i.
I do not think that any of the Arab/Muslim country will render military support to Iraq. The only one that possesses sufficient military potential is Egypt, and its authorities make impression of being mentally sane, moderate and willing peace. The same refers to Jordan. Syria is not strong enough to start a military offensive against Israel, this may bring her to a national disaster: Israel controls Golan Heights, and all the Syrian strategic targets are accessible to the Israeli artillery deployed there (that is why Syria has never attempted to attack Israel directly since 1973; Syrians limit their anti-Israeli policies to support of the Lebanese terror groups, mainly Hizballah). Libya does not have a common border with Israel, and potential of her air force is negligible. The same refers to Iran.
Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, but she is not involved in the Mideastern conflict: she has more than enough problems with neighboring India.
Therefore, such a scenario does not seem to me being probable.
In other words, Saddam gains nothing by attacking Israel, except, maybe, political gains with the Arab world. c.i.
He really gains nothing. There are no Arab countries in the American coalition in 2003 (in fact, there is no coalition either), so Saddam has no one to persuade to leave it.
I'm not so sure, steissd. There are many in the Arab world that kind of looks at Saddam as their hero, because he's standing up to the almighty US of A. We know it's all fluff, but that doesn't matter, because that's the only way they can claim some dignity - if I can call it that. Otherwise, their voices are not heard nor considered. c.i.
To describe moral law beyond imaginary limits within our herd instinct is a daunting task. To develop a code of ethics always in agreement with the rule of right conduct may seem impossible and unexciting as well, by doing which we may lose the very perspectives that hold us back in the comfort to our own herd instinct. Whether it is a general subject of moral law or ethical behavior in context, we may have a second thought about actually talking about it, because we really do not seem to know where to begin.
In peacemaking, not necessarily in a form of military action, deterrence gives an objective towards ideal defense mechanism that concerns both strategic effectiveness and the magnitude of consequences of such an act. Ethical concerns of deterrence, both in effectiveness and consequences, have two big agendas - just cause to be sustained, and appropriate outcome to be guaranteed. When there is a conflict between two groups both holding nuclear weapons against each other, anybody who comes in between must know whose idea of just war is proper and whose action may result in bringing peace to both sides. One may have to take side against the other, but any prospect of destruction needs be assessed in order for the end to satisfy the purposes of the means to be carried out, as the just cause of deterrence dictates such an action.
It would be very difficult for the current administration to present a just cause for a war with Iraq, and therefore we might as well shift our focuses and standards downwards and argue how we can still suppport our government while the government is not up to our expectations. As long as a government body represents the moral authority and power of knowledge essential to our deity, people have moral obligations to support such a government by definition.
For or against any war, let us seek the effects that can be less harmful. Because an effect never exceeds the significance of its cause, and because our government may be incapable of presenting such a cause, it is at this point humane as humanly possible to minimize the tragic effects, not to undermine them, by making the possible war or conflict more measurable.
This is just as in trying to minimize the possible side effects of killing people by vaccinating them, while our government is trying to implement a nation wide smallpox vaccination program, for which many of you may support the government to do so as long as the cause of vaccination is just. Does this analogy make sense to you?
C.I., they have another ways to claim their dignity: to reform their societies in the way that will make the economical and techological development possible, and to compete with the USA and Europe the way Japan or South Korea do. I do not think that Japanese or South Koreans experience any dignity problems, they do not feel themselves retards in comparison to Americans and Europeans.
Under the current pretenses, Bush goes to war it is immoral - anything happening within that war is on Bushee's watch (he'll blame it on Clinton, some way). Iraq is defending itself!!!!!!!!!!
Iraq could defend herself better in August 1990: just by abstaining of conquering Kuwait.
I hope in 12 1/2 years we will not be saying the "USA could defend herself better in March 2003: just by abstaining of conquering Iraq."
Does one not learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!
USA will win this war. And victors are not eligible to judgment.
This action may easily be the shift - there is no guarantees. Also, you can win the battle and lose the war, so goes Viet Nam! Who won that war and still pays the price?
I do. I have never heard about a war winner being condemned either domestically or abroad.
The USA condemned (almost singly - Dole) Viet Nam for over 20 years in the USA and in some arena's still does.
Well, Vietnamese did not win the war. Americans lost it to the USSR and China, just like Soviets lost the Afghan campaign to the USA.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/872342.asp?vts=021420031310
There has never been this kind of out cry before a war even begins. After the killing starts it will get louder, this is the most absurd event in World history and it is getting world wide attention.
IT IS IMMORAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
