Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on March 11, 2003, 06:08:41 am
-
Honest question: http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694
Looks like a tabloid, but I wanted to be sure.
-
Erm... No idea. Sounds strange, tho.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Erm... No idea. Sounds strange, tho.
Actually, from the briefings I've received in my time in the IDF, it sounds like the caliber of soldiers that Syria places along her border with Israel - weakest first. :doubt:
-
The Mirror is a british tabloid and probably the one who prints the most correct stories out of the tabloids so it's probably true. Kind of shows how willing the average Iraqi soldier is to fight.
I remember hearing stories of them surrendering to unarmed drones too :)
-
what I find funny is that those guys are described has weak, with little equipement, terrified, etc, but still:
"The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches"
hem... I guess those soldiers were indeed not very dangerous, so I think somebody should think those "fortifications" over again :doubt:
-
:lol:
So much for Hussein's threats about how great Iraqi resistance will be.
-
...and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
:doubt:
Ow and this site is like
"What should we write about today?"
"Ah, that sounds good! Lets make it a little bit more 'spectacular!'"
-
Originally posted by venom2506
what I find funny is that those guys are described has weak, with little equipement, terrified, etc, but still:
"The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches"
hem... I guess those soldiers were indeed not very dangerous, so I think somebody should think those "fortifications" over again :doubt:
Maybe they were no longer dangerous AFTER having marched across the desert, cut through barbed wire fencing, ducked out of the view of watchtowers and climbed up and down huge trenches.
I know it would take the fight out of me :D
-
[color=66ff00]
Note that this is the paper that made a huge scandal over what was going on in the storyline of a completely fictional british soap.
"One character murders another character SHOCKER!!"
etc., etc., et braindeath...
[/color]
-
Well, I don't blame them. They're just delaying forces and they know it. The Coalition will roll over everything until they reach Baghdad. Then they lose their advantages in range, firepower and moral justification and it gets really messy.
-
Tabloid or no, that's damn funny :lol:
-
Would YOU fight for Saddam?
;7 :ha: :ha:
(Me thinks, barring Rep guards, US Forces have little to fear)
-
I doubt thats true. It would've been on CNN by now if it was.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The Mirror is a british tabloid and probably the one who prints the most correct stories out of the tabloids.
i.e. it's probably still utter pish.
NB: I saw footage of Iraqi troops surrendering to a US drone during a proggy on channel 5 a few weeks ago.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
i.e. it's probably still utter pish.
NB: I saw footage of Iraqi troops surrendering to a US drone during a proggy on channel 5 a few weeks ago.
:nod: :lol:
-
Maybe thats why the French want to deal with them. Misery loves company. ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
i.e. it's probably still utter pish.
NB: I saw footage of Iraqi troops surrendering to a US drone during a proggy on channel 5 a few weeks ago.
Well I wasn`t going to say so but.... :)
-
You know, it'd actually be pretty believable except for the "sending them back because it wasn't time to surrender" bit, which ranks up there with a giant meteor crashing into the Earth because God hates gays on the believablity scale. I mean, US forces technically have started attacking Iraqi installations and towns already- call it pre-preemption.
-
Whats with the anti-French sentiment around everywhere? Here, there, the PC Game I just got, on TV, in the stores where french fries are freedom fries...come on here. They are allowed to have another position and be bloody stubborn about it. In Canada, the "french" in Quebec have tried to separate from us a whole bunch of times and we've had a referendum and Quebec is still in the country and frankly nobody around here is seemingly seething about trying to split our country up and then changing all the food names so that they don't say French or Quebec in them....goodness!!! All of you guys need lessons in how to be a Canadian :D
-
Soo many things wrong with that paragraph.. :p
-
Well, IceFire, I'll speak for Australia and say that most of us pretty much love France - as well as Russia and Germany for that matter. Pretty much anyone who'll stand up to Bush's war gets our thumbs up (you can imagine what we think of our Prime Minister... *sharpens knives*).
-
it's not that they have a diferen't position, it's that there seemingly on the Iraqis side,
is this all just becase Bush is in power,
if Clinton could have gotten a third term would you all be in suport of the war?
and I've herd of this story from a number of diferen't sources
-
But aren't the French and indiviuals allowed to have our own opinions even if they do go againest Bush et al? You can not support the US (with respects to the war) and still be not support Saddam - despites Bush's 'you're either with us or against us.'
What I think many people find is that this crisis seemed to blow up of nowhere. Yes, Saddam is evil but he's been been evil since Bush got into power. And I don't recall him saying the US should go to war 2 years ago. Yes, he's broken UN resolutions, but so has Israel and other countries. Now I'm not saying we should go an bomb Israel, far from it but you see what I'm getting at.
If the threat of force causes Saddam to 'accept' weapons inspector and they force him to disarm, shouldn't we allow Hans Blix's and his inspectors the more time they wish?
I will now go and hide in a deep hole.
-
Besides those of you complaining about the French might as well start calling Americans and Brits names too cause most of those two countries don`t want a war either.
In fact Blair's whole cabinet is slowly unravelling around him with all kinds of people threatening to resign if Britain does go to war.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it's not that they have a diferen't position, it's that there seemingly on the Iraqis side,
is this all just becase Bush is in power,
if Clinton could have gotten a third term would you all be in suport of the war?
and I've herd of this story from a number of diferen't sources
Of course Clinton would've got more support - Bush hasn't got that support because when Republicans go to war its always seen as negative. When a Democrat does, its considered as a necessary evil. :rolleyes: Mind you, Clinton would've been more subtle that George W.
-
as much as we need the suport I don't th8ink blair should have been such a hawk, he has totaly killed his political future, and probly made pulic opinion worse,
we arn't demanding you come and fight and die, we just want you to not help the other guy, wich is what you are doing, weather it is you're intention or not,
this is a war, there is our side and there is the other side, pick one
and while yes most brits don't want to go to war (without UN) most (60% at the least) americans do, without a UN resolution
and I think Blix has proven himself useless when he failed to mention all that stuff they found that we had to dig out of his writen report, you see if Iraq isn't going to disarm the inspectors can't verify it, and verification is all they are suposed to do.
why are you allfrends with _anyone_ who want's to get in our way,
do you not realize we are all in danger, of getting killed, all of us?!?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
do you not realize we are all in danger, of getting killed, all of us?!?
oh, yes, I can't even sleep anymore :rolleyes:
Icefire, I've given up on the "french subject", if the others want to make all a fuss coz we make our own decisions, that's their problem, not ours.
-
there is a diference between haveing a diference of opinion and blocking someone when they feel there lives are in danger
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there is a diference between haveing a diference of opinion and blocking someone when they feel there lives are in danger
yeah, and there's also a definition for the word paranoia. give me a break will you?
Anyway, as far as we know, we're not blcking you, since you ( by you I mean the US gvt, heh ) keep claiming you'll go on your own if you have to. you do what you want, so leave the others alone if they want to.
-
we could live with that, but you all (the government at least) has declaired they will veto, and they are lobying all the other contries to vote us down,
thoughout the entire 12 year proces France has been very pro-Sadam
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we could live with that, but you all (the government at least) has declaired they will veto, and they are lobying all the other contries to vote us down,
thoughout the entire 12 year proces France has been very pro-Sadam
we're not lobying or whatever. the veto thing is our right, if other countries want to do it, they surely won't just because Chirac asked them to. the other way around isn't as true :doubt:
as for the pro-sadam thing, I only have one reaction: :wtf: yeah, WTF makes you say that? In case you didn't notice, afaik france -took part in the gulf war 11 years ago, and we weren't on Saddam's side, right?
That is complete nonsense :doubt:
But I'm not gonna be dragged into that kind of discussion again, I've had the ass full of that **** already on this forum, thank you.
-
someone look up france's voting history in the UN for the last 18 resolutions with Iraq,
I've got to go to work
-
You can not support the US (with respects to the war) and still be not support Saddam - despites Bush's 'you're either with us or against us.'
Well, in the geopolitical world, that is how things are; you are either with one party or the other, and if you stay in the middle, you are looked upon as enemies by both sides.
If the threat of force causes Saddam to 'accept' weapons inspector and they force him to disarm, shouldn't we allow Hans Blix's and his inspectors the more time they wish?
Well, they cannot force him to do anything really, simply because they are far too weak and there is no penalty at all for disobeying them. For example, why would Hussein bother to destroy any of his missiles, which could be useful to him very soon, when he could just as easily smuggle them out of the nation for the moment and import them back later? Anyone with half a brain would do exactly this, and he is no exception.
why are you allfrends with _anyone_ who want's to get in our way,
This part is pretty obvious; remember my earlier posts on this topic? The US is the most powerful nation at the moment, so naturally everyone else wants to team up against it so that they might have a chance at themselves becoming the superpower of the future. Friends are only there when there is a mutual objective, and when that objective is met the friendship is gone, which is what has happened with NATO and the USSR.
someone look up france's voting history in the UN for the last 18 resolutions with Iraq,
I've got to go to work
Actually this is probably because many French companies have considerable business interests in Iraq.
Also, about this "different position" stuff, why isn't the US entitled to have its own position where it says that all the other positions are stupid? :D That's just as much of a position itself. :D The problem here is that, sure, everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, but not everyone has the power to put that opinion into practice, and this is what matters. For example, Iraq is obviously saying that they don't want a war, but does their opinion matter at all? It is because they have little power to enforce that opinion.
-
Its like a game. The country with the biggest army wins. The country with the biggest mouth gets heard.
And when someone disagrees with them, its war. Its the fate of man as long as we desire to disarm the world this world will be at war. Simply because no country really wants to disarm. its like asking people to stop eating, just wont happen until you force them.
-
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
But aren't the French and indiviuals allowed to have our own opinions even if they do go againest Bush et al? You can not support the US (with respects to the war) and still be not support Saddam - despites Bush's 'you're either with us or against us.'
What I think many people find is that this crisis seemed to blow up of nowhere. Yes, Saddam is evil but he's been been evil since Bush got into power. And I don't recall him saying the US should go to war 2 years ago. Yes, he's broken UN resolutions, but so has Israel and other countries. Now I'm not saying we should go an bomb Israel, far from it but you see what I'm getting at.
If the threat of force causes Saddam to 'accept' weapons inspector and they force him to disarm, shouldn't we allow Hans Blix's and his inspectors the more time they wish?
I will now go and hide in a deep hole.
Israeli resolutions come under Chapter VI of the UN Charter ("Peaceful Settlement of Disputes"). Which are non binding under international law.
Iraqi resolutions fall under chapter 7, which means the Security council is empowered to take effective colletive measures against would-be aggressors, including the use of force.
For the full story, which point out, Israel is not in breech of international law in regards to "occupation"
http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml
and also
Successive resolutions against Iraq, all passed under Chapter VII imposed such sanctions on Iraq and then authorized the use of force when Saddam Hussein refused to comply. Currently, Iraq is in violation of numerous other Chapter VII resolutions including those concerning its weapons of mass destruction program.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there is a diference between haveing a diference of opinion and blocking someone when they feel there lives are in danger
Go and walk through a Lunatic assylum, many people there will believe their lives are in danger, it doesn't mean they're right. Belief means nothing, evidence does.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Go and walk through a Lunatic assylum, many people there will believe their lives are in danger, it doesn't mean they're right. Belief means nothing, evidence does.
*Points to Hans Blix's multiple reports* :D
-
*points to the fact that you could hit a baseball almost as far as you can launch an al-Samoud II*
150mi is a pathetic range. That could barely hit Israel, and Israel can take care of itself well enough that if Saddam wanted to start something there he'd be deader than the US ever could make him. Also, keep in mind that Pakistan, known harbor of the remaining Taliban and big man Osama, has advanced nuclear warheads and a greater than 450mi range. That North Korea, who makes no bones about hating us, can hit San Francisco with all number of nasty things. That China, which is easily the greatest threat to the US today, could turn Washington into radioactive dust right now. The difference? They'd either make us look bad (Pakistan), be too dangerous and likely make us look like the assholes when they irradiated the region because of us (Korea), or, worst of all, might even win (China). Iraq makes a convenient soft target, nobody likes it, it'll be just tough enough to distract from the fact that Bush has ****ed up cataclysmically on the home front and that thanks to him we no longer have any allies, and it'll make about a dozen would-be tyrants and oil barons into billionaires and dictators.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, they cannot force him to do anything really, simply because they are far too weak and there is no penalty at all for disobeying them. For example, why would Hussein bother to destroy any of his missiles, which could be useful to him very soon, when he could just as easily smuggle them out of the nation for the moment and import them back later? Anyone with half a brain would do exactly this, and he is no exception.
He tried it before. Before the start of the Gulf war he sent a bunch of MiGs to Iran. Iran said "Thank you very much" and kept them ;7
Originally posted by Stryke 9
150mi is a pathetic range. That could barely hit Israel, and Israel can take care of itself well enough that if Saddam wanted to start something there he'd be deader than the US ever could make him. Also, keep in mind that Pakistan, known harbor of the remaining Taliban and big man Osama, has advanced nuclear warheads and a greater than 450mi range.
Pakistan are not habouring Osama. Some people in pakistan may be habouring him but the governement want him caught (Hell he is worth 100 Million why wouldn`t they want to turn him in?)
-
ya, if the government of pakistan was realy trying to help Al Qeda and Talaban, we never would have caut Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, though if all of pakistan was with us we never would have had to look for him
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
For the full story, which point out, Israel is not in breech of international law in regards to "occupation"
http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml
Good article, that. Never knew some of that stuff. :yes: