Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on March 12, 2003, 05:50:15 pm
-
just wanted the numbers again,
if you must close this, could you leave the poll open?
BTW, I don't want this closed so if you want to argue let's make another topic
-
I'm American, but don't live in continental US, so I'm putting myself down as American ;)
BTW, I agree, we should go to war, but not the way Bush is handling it.
-
well how would you rather we did it,
more international suport?
-
yes and no...
See, if the other country's would help, that would be great. However, if they don't, Bush should make up his mind, and go to war, and leave the commanding to people smarter than he.
Also, he should stop focusing on Iraq so much, and at least commit our navy to take care of Korea. I mean they have ****ing NUKES and we've seen the proof! We haven't even seen any in Iraq.
I, personally, think that Iraq has the weapons, but we haven't seen them, and the US is making an absolute laughing stock of themselves in the international community. In two years, Bush has changed world-wide sympathy into universal hatred and amusement.
This stupid-ass game Bush is playing is gonna end with too many people dead on both sides.
-
More international support is a must. The government's attitude of "We are the supreme country: Friends, we could use your help, but if you aren't going to help, then **** off." Is so wrong and anti diplomatic..
That and yes, Sadam is perhaps an insane dictator who tortures his own people, but that should be something along the lines of crimes against humanity, and should be persecuted by an international community. Batman is great, but I don't think the US (and specifically, the US as the country I live in) needs to become the big bad super vigilante that nobody trusts or likes at this point.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: We have em'. China has em'. Korea has em'. Russia has em'. Pakistan has em'. India has em'. Iran (probably) has em'. We are being hypocritical. We can't go around pushing everyoen else who has them. Saddam could still be the Satan the press makes him out to be and more (I say this because I am only reuttering what I have heard and not experianced/seen/heard/read myself) but this si the sort of thing that should be pressed internationally not just by One Super Country with a One Sided mind as leadership.
Hell bush or even America as a whole can and is viewed as worse than Saddam or Bin Laden by other countries around the world. Now wether they would (given that they could ) try to pull the same **** we are pulling, I dunno. But the point is, We've stuck our nose where it didn't necasarily belong before and the results weren't pretty. Someone up high needs to brush up on their history.
Bottom Line: Matters like this should be pressed internationally or at least have some kind of support. Leaving him there could do damage, but Going it alone and all could and I beleive will deffinitly be for the worse. I guess we'll all see in the next week or so (17th?)
-
I'm a not-american living in the US who thinks this whole Iraq business is trash.....
Funny thing is, even Britain decided to pull its support from Bush... haha, now the US is simply a terroist country that's going to invade without any allowance or approval. :lol:
-
The US has the power to take on Iraq by itself. If it wants to, it should. Diplomatic solutions ended when Bush started to act like a moron. Now, he's dug himself so deep a hole, that he has to go to war by himself.
NOTE: I'm not saying that that's a good thing.
Also, we have nukes, and so do a lot of other country's. But those country's have mostly re-formed, and realize that they have a lot to lose if they try to use those nukes. If they haven't reformed, like China, then they have the brains to see that if they use those nukes, they are signing their own death warrent. Also, like I said before, they have too much to lose. Korea and Iraq don't. Also, Iraq does have a history of using this weapons. There are only two country's, to my knowledge, that have ever used a non-conventional weapon in anger: the U.S. (who did it to end a 6-year-war), and Iraq, who did it to terrorize it's own people.
But the stupid amaeture hour antics of Bush and Co. leave me wondering for my safety. Hell, I live next to the second biggest Oil Refinery in the Western Hemisphere.
-
BTW, admins, you should probably lock and/or delete this before it gets too nasty ;)
-
Just like Bush said, we've given them 12 years to disarm. Why should we give them more? A lot of people think he is handling this all wrong, but think of it as we're the only ones who actually care. People make the argument that the US has nukes so we are we being hipocritical? Yes, we have nukes and so do many countries (Like Uknown Target said), but we are not selling these nukes or weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or have used these weapons on our own people.
I personally don't think we're handling this wrong. If Bush was being so hardlined for war, why would he be still waiting for the UN backing? If he was the way everyone is saying, Iraq would have been a dust cloud and a us flag jutting out the center a while ago. Bush understands the importance of the UN, he's not an idiot (although the press and certain comments/actions on his part would say otherwise, c'mon guys, he wouldn't be in that position of power if he was as half as dumb as people claim he is), but he has to look out for the best interest of this country. He may look to other countries as someone who is pressing too hard and too fast, but those other countries haven't recently been attacked with terrorism or have a country so fueled with hatred for them that they would do anythign to hurt them. Now,you may cite countless countries who suffer terrorist attacks every day, but these countries (unfortunately) do not have the ower to actually do something about it.
The United States does, and is doing it for the benefit of the world, and we're looked at as bad guys. Yes, the war is going to be messy. People are going to get hurt. Some of our men and women won't be coming home. We'll be looked down upon by the world for a while. But I'm telling you right now, when this is done, everyone would be better off that Sadam is not around. And everyone is going to be thankful that it was the United States who started it.
Just my two cents. :wink:
-
How will everyone be better off? Colonies never did anyone any good except the colonizing country, and they sure don't help the colonized. Saddam isn't bothering anyone, except maybe his own people, and them not much- actually, he's keeping them alive right now, when US embargoes would have lead to them starving to death otherwise. Remember that 60% figure? That's more than just an inconvenience for colonization.
I'll agree that it doesn't seem Bush really is doing this for personal gain (except in the political sense, in which it's apparently backfiring and thus doesn't count), but good intentions alone don't keep people from dying or living in misery.
-
We wouldn't be colonzing them, by no means. Yes, in the beginning there will be an American presence in Iraq until the people of that country can formalize a government that is suitable to Iraqs needs. And yes, we'll probably have a hand with reconstruction. But I guarantee you, we won't be the only ones trying to put their hands in that cookie jar. All these countries who are trying to slap our hand for ridding the region of a monster are all going to put their pinky's to their mouths and ask, "Can I have some pwease?" ;7
Now, to answer how would we be better off. We'll be better off because for one the region would be a lot more stabilized. Economies around the world will benefit because of free enterprise (and I don't mean just in Iraq, but any country who joins the world market efficiently and follows the "invisible hand" of supply and demand makes the world economy better). Not just the world, but including Iraq.
Second, we'll be ridding the world of a government that harbors and condones terrorism. That in itself shouldn't need explanation.
Third, we'll be ridding the world of one more oppressive dictator. A government that freely tests their biological weapons on their own people is beyond excuse and we (as the world) have a moral obligation to do something that they themselves can't do. Anyone who has EVER lived under an oppressive government will know how that feels.
-
that's all crap.
Iraq has done nothing to us, and suddenly the United States gets involved with them. doesn't that seem a little suspicious?
Sure, we're "peace-makers"... doesn't that seem a little pathetic that we're doing something to Iraq, when much worse things have been going on with the United States knowing about them for years and years without the US doing anything.
America says "but they have weapons of mass destruction".
Everyone says "but so do you, so does Korea, so does Britain, so does Russia and a handful of other countries, why can't they?"
America says "two reasons:
1) They were not authorized to have them
2) They'll use them against us
Everyone else says "
1) So who the hell "authorizes" countries to be allowed to carry nuclear weapons? Who "authorized" the US to be able to produce them? God? hell no...
2) America has no room to talk. America is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons / weapons of mass destruction against anyone. the only country. if anything, they should be the ones not allowed to have them.
That's what i think
-
oh, and just so everyone knows.
Tomorrow, March 13th. The United States is going to declare war on Iraq.
watch.
-
J3etc.:Of course they will. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq's gonna be a colony, or that we'll be hesitant to share. Did you miss out on that whole spiel about using Iraqi oil to "compensate" the US for the war?
The region would be "stabilized" in that a somewhat unstable dictator would be out of the way, but as it is he's no longer in any position to invade anyone. Problem is, that won't really be any good at stabilizing when it means that every other Arab state is suddenly going to become quite convinced that they're on the hit list (Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia already KNOW they are) and be polarized accordingly, that with the new wave of utter hatred towards the US that will naturally come to any occupied region terrorism will flourish (look at Palestine- ****, that's the CAUSE of all this- now multiply that many, many times), and that the local governments will instantly lose popular favor (as indeed they are now), be severely weakened, and many many times more likely to be taken over by some militant group or other- a militant group that will most certainly not be so willing to bend over and let the US stick its big military * in there. In fact, militant groups that will be many times worse than Saddam ever was- most of the prime contenders resemble a better-organized Taliban in politics.
There's no evidence that Saddam supports terrorism, other than the fact that he recompenses the families of some Palestinian suicide bombers- which is pretty weak evidence, considering.
And finally, you forget that every country used to be under one oppressive regime or another. They all had revolutions, deposed the king/dictator/premier/czar/whatever, and are doing just fine on their own. Isn't it kinda patronizing to assume that the people still under dictatorships can't be trusted to make a good government on their own?
Think about what would have happened if, instead of America having its revolution, it was seized by an army of, say, heavily armed Japanese spouting all sorts of stuff about freedom and democracy, and saying that the American region needed to be placed under a Japanese-controlled military dictatorship for the time being until the then-colonists were grown up enough to be entrusted with a real government. Though I'd be slightly more inclined to trust the sushi, you'd better believe we'd never get to even the limited representative government we have now.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
oh, and just so everyone knows.
Tomorrow, March 13th. The United States is going to declare war on Iraq.
watch.
I thought Bush said he'd give till the 17th before he declares war or the next UN resolution or summat..
:blah:
-
I'm not making any more predictions. There've been too many that turned out wrong already.
-
*Bows* I must say that was an excellent reply, Stryke. Although I still feel very strongly about what I said, you made excellent points that have merit. As such I will concede *bows again*.
Thanks guys for taking the time to read my opinion, even though many do not agree ;)
And I think we'll at least wait til the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me if that actually did happen.
-
Um......International Support? Why does america need international support? Apparantly many are not willing to commit..so they shouldn't ... The only thing is..when the Iraqi gov't is on their own they have the ability to become one the most prosperous countries in the world (next to Vatican City).
Why would anyone want help from the UN in the first place?
THEY PUT LYBIA IN CHARGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR GOD'S SAKE!
And you know who they're planning to put in charge of disarmerment? IRAQ. UN says...disarm yourself..LOL
BTW: if it was just about oil, America could just declare victory in Kuwait right now. (it's not like they have any military;7 :ha: !)
As for those protestors, they aren't really against war, they're just against Bush. I mean, only a week ago on Meet the Press, one of those protesting leaders said that there's no proof Sidam had weapons of mass destruction...but then turned around and said that if we went to war, that he would use those weapons on the troops! (those exact weapons which he just said didn't exist)...
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Weapons of Mass Destruction: We have em'. China has em'. Korea has em'. Russia has em'. Pakistan has em'. India has em'. Iran (probably) has em'. We are being hypocritical. We can't go around pushing everyoen else who has them. Saddam could still be the Satan the press makes him out to be and more (I say this because I am only reuttering what I have heard and not experianced/seen/heard/read myself) but this si the sort of thing that should be pressed internationally not just by One Super Country with a One Sided mind as leadership.
Yeah, but who's most likely to use em? India/Pakistan had a stint about a year back or so..but they both backed off because they both came to their senses and realized what war would mean for the reason..even Nukes lobbed at each other. Siddam isn't so reasonable and he probably won't come to his senses if backed in a corner.
I'm going to support my fellow americans who are in the armed services right now.
-
Originally posted by Dan1
As for those protestors, they aren't really against war, they're just against Bush.
Wow. Way to summarize an opinion you utterly don't understand. IN YOUR FACE, VIETNAM PROTESTORS! YOU JUST WERE BITTER YOU DIDN'T VOTE LBJ!
-
I heard on the radio that Israeli Intelligence estimates that Iraq has about 20 working scuds. 20.
Probably the number one thing that makes me sick of Bush is that he claims that he is using military force as a last resort, yet he has said repeatedly that he can give Iraq "no more time". Why is he rushing it? I suspect he really does think Iraq directly threatens us. But that's still no excuse.
Military power should only be used as a last resort, and maybe even not then. I'm going to call up "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" again. If you can't get achieve your ends by diplomacy, etc., then get the hell out of the way and let someone better do it. We are making progress, still very slowly, but it is progress nonetheless, into disarming what few weapons Iraq has, which means no force is required. I don't care how much Iraq threatens anyone, if you can solve the problem by any other means than force, then call off your bombers. There's my 2 cents.
America is, in a sense, uniting the world.:)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
America is, in a sense, uniting the world.:)
Now there's a thought.
[commerical] Brand new! World Unity! Brought to you by Daisycutter Inc.
Slogan:
~If you're not with us, then your probably one of the other 190+ countries that are against us~
:sigh:
-
First option, of course. I don't have time to respond to everything in the thread, but I'll get some of the funnier ones: :D
America says "but they have weapons of mass destruction".
Everyone says "but so do you, so does Korea, so does Britain, so does Russia and a handful of other countries, why can't they?"
Actually, I am pretty sure the reason that this is exactly the real reason they are going after Iraq first and not the others. Iraq is much weaker than the rest and thus easy to get rid of quickly so you can deal with the others in the future without any possibility of disturbance from these guys.
More international support is a must. The government's attitude of "We are the supreme country: Friends, we could use your help, but if you aren't going to help, then **** off." Is so wrong and anti diplomatic..
Call that approach whatever you like, but the experimental truth is that it is exactly what the winners have used throughout history. :D Remember that these "friends" are really your enemies in general, and both sides know it well; for example with the US and EU, their common goal has already been met (destruction of the USSR), and so they are enemies once again. All of these international "friendships," are like that with Germany and the Soviet Union in WW2; as it is commonly depicted, each is shaking the other's hand with one hand and holding a knife behind his back with the other hand. :D International support has some chance of actually hindering US operations here, since then they would have to be subject to the constraints placed by the others and share the spoils of war, so there is no point of creating additional problems when they are quite capable of doing it alone.
I'm going to call up "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" again
And as I said before, that statement has two completely opposite interpretations. :D You see, if it is the last refuge, then they would use all other options first, so the peace guys are the incompetent ones, eh? :D (which is actually probably true, since in the past they have been smashed up by the others; just look at the infamous Gandhi)
America is, in a sense, uniting the world.
Exactly, that is what imperialists are there for. Everyone wants a world government; it is just a competition of who gets to run it. :D
-
Two of my close friends are in the Marines, two more in the Army, one going Navy, and another going Air Force. I'm not really in favor of going to war for the sake of going to war, but honestly, what if we did wait? What if we postponed everything like we did back in WWII? What if we kept backing up an inch at a time until finally, Iraq not only has nuclear warheads but also the means to deliver them to any location around the globe? When do you stop giving concessions and when do you go to war?
The way I see it, if we waited a few years, or even one year, things will only get nastier and dirtier and more people will die in the end before the smoke and ash clears. War is never a good thing, but when you know its coming, you might as well get it over with before the other side has the ability to wipe out half the world.
Just to put things into perspective, there were studies performed prior to the dropping of the two atomic bombs over Japan. If the U.S. had invaded the islands with troops, the Japanese would have - without a message of surrender from their emperor - fought to the last man, woman, and child. By the time the Emperor surrenders, half of Japan would have been destroyed along with half of its population. He wouldn't have given in after just 2 cities, perhaps he wouldn't have waited till half his country was in ruins by he certainly would have held on far past 2. Casaulties would have been astronomical. I say this not to necessarily justify what the U.S. did, only to put it into perspective.
-
What the quote means is that violence is the last thing the incompetent can hide behind before they have to face the truth.
-
I know that's how Hardin meant it in Foundation but it can be interpreted just as easily in the other way; just having a little fun there. :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I thought Bush said he'd give till the 17th before he declares war or the next UN resolution or summat..
:blah:
Bush has said a lot of things.
The Government lies on a regular basis. even a 14 year old should know that. You think they're going to broadcast "We're going to war next week on the 19th"? hell no. they'll lie to the public rather.
oh, and another thing that was brought up here and that's quite true: Americans are hypocrites, in a way they're actually cowards. If Russia did something like what they're accusing Iraq of doing (all the reasons) they wouldn't do anything to Russia. It's funny how the biggest world power picks on the smallest and most undefended country in the middle east.
Now that my friends, is a display of the biggest peace-keeping nation there is.
-
That is very smart, like I said. Any sensible nation can see that the others are easier to get rid of while still weak, so take them out before they become strong and are able to threaten you; that's the logic in all this. Just like the world of business actually, where the big corporations focus their resources to eliminate emerging small ones.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Wow. Way to summarize an opinion you utterly don't understand. IN YOUR FACE, VIETNAM PROTESTORS! YOU JUST WERE BITTER YOU DIDN'T VOTE LBJ!
Have you been to one of those crazy rallies? Those people are utterly insane. Here in chicago some buddies of mine went to one and we were almost attacked because we didn't share the "love and togetherness" of what they were feeling.
Let me ask you this. WITHOUT the united states ever existing....where would the world be right now? Can you HONESTLY say it would have worked out better if America wouldn't have existed..cause that's what it sounds like you people are saying. Or just bring in any WW.. yeah..maybe america shouldn't have gotten involved in those either...i mean..it's another national conflict on the other side of the world, some dictator is using his weapons to inflict his views on others and is/has invaded nearby countries..i mean..it's not America's right to get involved in anything like that. :mad:
-
All of the people who are involved in the rallies are already morons right there; even if they are opposed to a war, demonstrating is a total waste of their time and is not going to do a thing other than make everyone else laugh at them. :D They must be pretty bored if that's the best thing they can find to do; they should start doing some math instead. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is very smart, like I said. Any sensible nation can see that the others are easier to get rid of while still weak, so take them out before they become strong and are able to threaten you; that's the logic in all this. Just like the world of business actually, where the big corporations focus their resources to eliminate emerging small ones.
no, it's not.
believe it or not, America shouldn't be aiming to take over the world, "getting rid" of nations while they're "still weak"... America claims it's all about peacekeeping and helping others... which is another lie.
-
hmm actualy where do i fit in in the poll
hers my problem
fathers american mothers austrian im turkish
but all of my remaining relatives are in usa i sped 3-4 weeks each year in the usa and of cource im in close contact with em
and why i dont think usa should bomb iraq to the stoneage (again)
in 1982 usa provided billions in aid to saddam for him to kill the iranians
1983 usa gave iran weps to kill iraqis
iraq decides to get to kuwait in 1990 with us weps
and well all know the storys from gulf war 1
other reasons
iraq has so much oil
(give the fuel prices america citicens pay its realy important, we europeans pay a whole lotta more than others do )
iraq is the perfect staging area for short n medium range weps to control the middle east
and frankly i think its none of your bussines
iraq has no weps at all that could reach usa
usa hasnt show any conclusive proof that iraq is planing to attak usa or has bio weps or has nukes or or or or or
only the ol there are 3 houses and a truk that looks like .....
now if iraq decides to attak one of their neighbors and they ask usa for help
or iraq honestly realy thretens usa (comon who would be so stuped ?!?!? ) go knock ur self out , bomb them to whatever age you desire
why i think thats all a play n usa gona attak anyway:
there are howmany , 5 aircraft carriers , allotta troops and stuff based now all arround iraq they have been preparing and gathering troups for months now u think us administration will say
okidoki thats all come back => money sped for nothing and possibility to return again n do whateveer needs to be done in my book thats a total waste
and second durring the summer months there are sandstorms n such wich makes it nearly impossible to fight a war unless they start soon
+ reasons given above
i think its prety obvious
on another topic what i find especialy amusing about politics
if somebody says :" the average people who will get "pension" (dunno if its right word , if somebody stops working and gets his interest blablabla) will rise while the people who will be working will decrease but out "pension" level will be stable for the next 10 years " youd think that guys a ripoff or hes just plain stuped
but if a politician says that people go out n vote for him
hmmmmmmmmmmm
i rest my case :D
-
Isn't it time for the new season to start already ? Damn I'm tired of all these reruns :(
-
I'm behind Blair (for those Americans reading, he's our prime minister :))
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I'm behind Blair (for those Americans reading, he's our prime minister :))
(Priding himeself on being an informed american)
:D
Tony Blair is the smartest man in the entire British organization. He understands the complexities of the Mideast Situation better than most over in all of Europe.
-
i bet he doesnt even know what a falafel is :D
-
I just love how "understanding the complexities of the Mideast situation" is synonymous with "agreeing with me" these days.:D
****, none of these armchair sociologists understands the complexities of the Mideast situation for ****. The Palestinian getting rocket bombed by an Apache helicopter, the Israeli settler kid who has to go to school with a rifle, the Iraqi soldier standing on the front lines waiting to get killed so that Bush can save face- THEY understand the complexities of the Mideast situation better than anyone in Europe or the US, and they don't know nothin'.
-
amen
-
Well, currently 64% says we shouldn't (32% American, 32% non-American) And 42% says we should.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting...
-
The figures pointed roughly the other way a while ago, though.
-
Why does it say we then (you) in brackets? Unless im mistaken, there are 45,000 British troops in Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Isn't it time for the new season to start already ? Damn I'm tired of all these reruns :(
I agree with Warlock. :(
-
I am not american, and think you shouldn't. At least not without the UN's backing. Maybe not with them backing either.
Let's solve crime by killing the victims, shall we?
-
I'm not an American and I think the US shouldn't be like some cowboy and go around saying "either you other countries join us or we will goahead with the war on Iraq anyway". I mean, if that is your attitude, then why bother being part of the United Nations anyway? Bush can very well go ahead and be the king of the world! Man...he is one whacko.
About Korea. Why is everybody afraid of North Korea having nukes? Why? The US can have nukes for defense. Pakistan can have some for defense. The Indians have them too. Why North Korea can't? Because they are communists? Because they are people whom you think will nuke South Korea? Nuke Guam? Please! What year is it now? The world's attention is neither here nor there. I say we go after terrorists all the way. Petty stuff like these can wait. When the world governments are doing all this petty squabbling among themselves, the terrorists are regrouping, rearming and recruiting. They are growing in strength while you ignore them. I say go for the terrorists! Kill them all first then settle the other stuff.
-
Originally posted by kode
Let's solve crime by killing the victims, shall we?
:blah: That was sarcasm right? RIGHT!? :p
-
No point in me voting really, seeing as not only does the US Government fail to think they need the UK, nor does Bob - as there is no option for "I am not american and I think we (not just you) should".
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Why does it say we then (you) in brackets? Unless im mistaken, there are 45,000 British troops in Kuwait.
the intent was for you to say ether yes you can/should go ahead and do it, 'OR' we will help you do it
the UK has untill just the last few days seemed a defanant 'we will help'
now here is an interesting question, why is blair commiting political suicide?
could he posably, truely beleve that Iraq is an international mortal danger
-
Pah, this whole disarmament thing is absurd and is obviously a veil to keep everyone bogged down and hide is just a pretext for doing whatever....
the only thing that really matters here is "should people let Bush do what he wants?" (It's kinda apparent Bush does stuff for personal gain, look at anthrax and smallpox... the ONLY company that makes vaccines for both is the company that Osama and Bush invest in... coincidence? I think not!) rather than "Should we disarm Iraq? Should we wage war on them?" (Iraq is hardly much of a threat to international peace anyway, even if they do have WMDs)
Notice that Iraq may have WMDs, but how the hell are investigators going to find them? Investigation's a pointless excursion as invasion is (in terms of diplomatic relation), however going to war simply for that is just a bad excuse. Also notice that the UN found missles (short ranges ones at that) in Iraq that didn't violate UN ruling, but what does the US tell 'em? Get rid of them. Then Iraq nicely complies because it doesn't want the US spurting "they aren't cooperating" bull****.
no, it's not.
believe it or not, America shouldn't be aiming to take over the world, "getting rid" of nations while they're "still weak"... America claims it's all about peacekeeping and helping others... which is another lie.
You're approaching the issue from a moral standpoint, which doesn't work here. The US doesn't give a **** about what ethical codes or ideaologies it breaks, it's fine as long as the dumb poulace is still convinced that they're the nicey-nicey people. Look at the WTC, was that moral? of course not! but it was a helluva useful propaganda machine...
The world's attention is neither here nor there. I say we go after terrorists all the way. Petty stuff like these can wait. When the world governments are doing all this petty squabbling among themselves, the terrorists are regrouping, rearming and recruiting. They are growing in strength while you ignore them. I say go for the terrorists! Kill them all first then settle the other stuff.
Well the world's supreme terroists are government ya know?
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html
So it boils down to "should we shut down national government, conspiracy, propaganda, and evil politicans?", which, considering the current social system, is absurd.
-
no, it's not.
believe it or not, America shouldn't be aiming to take over the world, "getting rid" of nations while they're "still weak"... America claims it's all about peacekeeping and helping others... which is another lie.
And if they do? Who is going to stop them, people like you? :D Sure that's a lie, but its truth or falsehood is actually quite irrelevant here. Every country is aiming to take over the world eventually in some way or another, so if the US (or any other nation) is to win, of course they "should" do all that and whatever else. :D
-
this http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html == this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,13848.0.html)
thank you for proveing you're oppinon doesn't matter :)
-
lol I just saw that, some great laughs there. :D :yes: As usual, we have the wonderful combination of possibility correct observations and wrong final deductions. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
lol I just saw that, some great laughs there. :D :yes: As usual, we have the wonderful combination of possibility correct observations and wrong final deductions. :D
In reply to Bob and CP....
Errr.. I didn't say I agreed with the whold thing y'know... there were quite a few things I didn't agree with in there. However it does delve a bit deeper into the topic of terroism and propaganda and whatever than many people seem to do... which was my point (manufactured pretexts).
-
you say the government is the supreem terrorist and post that, it certanly looks like you suport that view to me
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
About Korea. Why is everybody afraid of North Korea having nukes? Why? The US can have nukes for defense. Pakistan can have some for defense. The Indians have them too. Why North Korea can't? Because they are communists? Because they are people whom you think will nuke South Korea? Nuke Guam?
Yes, that's why :p
heh, it's widely known koreans are stupid and would gladly nuke a country that is on their border, and would irradiate themselves along with them ( coz you never know, I prefer to point out that what I just said is ironic: I.R.O.N.I.C. - with the current level in the forums lately, I prefer to make sure people don't take it wrong... ).There's only one target the north korean might, maybe, someday, be willing to nuke, and obviously they can't.
Btw, Neohunter, you're worried of Bush's next step? :D
Bush won't go after North Korea exactly BECAUSE North Korea has nukes.
-
Terror is relative to your perspective.
-
In reply to Bob and CP....
Errr.. I didn't say I agreed with the whold thing y'know... there were quite a few things I didn't agree with in there. However it does delve a bit deeper into the topic of terroism and propaganda and whatever than many people seem to do... which was my point (manufactured pretexts).
I think their physics observations might be correct. The rest of it is just good for some laughs. :D
-
[edit]North Korea[/edit] and becase we have only been fighting with them over this for the last year or so, we did have an agreement with them untill recently, now if there still doing this stuff four years from now, then we'll start talking war but so far this is still in the diplomatic stage,
unlike Iraq wich is 12 years in the makeing
-
Oh, well that's what you meant... well if you'll care to explain your rationale in the contrary.... (Not particularly pleasing to just get "no, you're wrong" instead of a proper argument)
Governments are made to serve the people, but as an0n said somewhere in some thread, they seem to think of the populace more a s a resource than say (for lack of a better term) a cusomter or client.
-
nah, it's the other way around (and always has been actually); people are made to serve the governments. :nod: :D
-
but it should be the other way ;) :p (not that that'll happen.... soon)
-
wait I thought we were all under the influence of propaganda, and thus we were the cusomter of the government's BS department
-
no it should be this way because I say so, and my idea of what should be is better than yours, so you suck! ph34r! :D
-
No, you're wrong and you know it 'cause I have uber-missles! *boom* ;) :p
-
only problem is, that could have gone in any direction. :D
I say you should be dead! therefore, you are dead! because my should's are better than anyone else's!
-
ok, i've read the thread, but i'm not gonna respond to everyone individually, because that's going to get a bit to complicated.
IMHO these are the reasons for Bush going to war:
1) to distract is citizens from the failing US economy
2) to get some oil in the proces
3) to make it look like he's actually doing something
4) because is nice advisors told him to do so.
actually, i doubt that Bush knows what he's doing, because in the process of killing a lot of people in Iraq, he and Blair are slowly tearing the UN down.
i have a lot of debates about this subject at school, but those don't go well because of my friends, who constantly yell i'm pro-iraq, while i'm just against what Bush is doing right now. so i'm pretty relieved if i can talk about this in a civilized manner now.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well how would you rather we did it,
more international suport?
My choice: Not American (meh, everyone knows my nationality here) and should NOT do it.
You have to realize that Iraq will not attack you (first) that easely because you would of course (logically said) attack back but however, if you attack first they are certenly gonna strike back. Don't think they wouldn't because that's where you fail.
Conclusion: Forget about everything and mind your own buisness and replace Bush as soon as possible. His politics will certenly either destroy America and it's people or even start a new world war. Don't you see? He doesn't have any decent respect for UN or it's security council. He ignores the opiniopn of majority. He doesn't care about you, (not really :rolleyes: ) he only does things that are in his own interess (power) and...he acts as well (if you know what I mean).
-
I fully expect an Iraqi counter atack, and on our soil, I am still in suport for the war becase it is only going to get worse.
you know if we had any people going for the war that were running against the presedent, I think I would vote for them.
I have never denied that bush is an idiot.
(BTW 60% of Americans are in favor of the war without UN approval, so he isn't ignoring the majority of the people he is representing)
-
I should close it, but I won't, because you people are funny when you pretend to know something.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I should close it, but I won't, because you people are funny when you pretend to know something.
:lol: agreed
Ow, and I won't make a Pro/anti war statement. But Bobbau, ignoring 40% of the American populous isn't too smart. Its not like America has 10k inhabitants.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:lol: agreed
Ow, and I won't make a Pro/anti war statement. But Bobbau, ignoring 40% of the American populous isn't too smart. Its not like America has 10k inhabitants.
http://www.census.gov/
290,466,961 by last check.
-
Sorry Bob, I just had to add a poll option for myself. :D
-
So, he's "ignoring" 116,186,784 Americans... Very smart. He should have a limit at like 10-15% opposition when it comes to something this big.
If he goes through with it, he might lose more then his allies.
but MEH! I couldn't give a rats ass. He does what he does. If it comes back to bite him in the ass I';ll be sitting here, laughing at him.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I should close it, but I won't, because you people are funny when you pretend to know something.
Yes children listen to elders because they know stuff.
(BTW 60% of Americans are in favor of the war without UN approval, so he isn't ignoring the majority of the people he is representing)
Welll then go for it. :yes: Why the heck do you need international support when you can do it yourself eh? ;) ;7
I would just love to see the UN make an example of the US if Bush would pull this off.
-
www.cnn.com ;)
POLL FINDINGS
Percent of respondents who are certain that Iraq ...
Is hiding evidence: 66
Is obstructing inspectors: 57
Has bio/chemical weapons: 56
Has weapons facilities: 55
Is seeking nuclear weapons: 47
Has ties to Osama bin Laden: 39
Source: CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
President Bush's approval rating remains at 61 percent
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/10/sprj.irq.iraq.poll/index.html
hmmm
-
Originally posted by Tiara
So, he's "ignoring" 116,186,784 Americans... Very smart. He should have a limit at like 10-15% opposition when it comes to something this big.
If he goes through with it, he might lose more then his allies.
but MEH! I couldn't give a rats ass. He does what he does. If it comes back to bite him in the ass I';ll be sitting here, laughing at him.
If he goes through with it, he might lose more then his allies.
:nod: True True Very true. But I don't think he would care. Hey who needs allies when he can always push Da Red Button™ if they oppose him. ;7
If it comes back to bite him in the ass I';ll be sitting here, laughing at him.
:lol:
Believe me, I would laugh at him as well.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
that's all crap.
Iraq has done nothing to us, and suddenly the United States gets involved with them. doesn't that seem a little suspicious?
Sure, we're "peace-makers"... doesn't that seem a little pathetic that we're doing something to Iraq, when much worse things have been going on with the United States knowing about them for years and years without the US doing anything.
America says "but they have weapons of mass destruction".
Everyone says "but so do you, so does Korea, so does Britain, so does Russia and a handful of other countries, why can't they?"
America says "two reasons:
1) They were not authorized to have them
2) They'll use them against us
Everyone else says "
1) So who the hell "authorizes" countries to be allowed to carry nuclear weapons? Who "authorized" the US to be able to produce them? God? hell no...
2) America has no room to talk. America is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons / weapons of mass destruction against anyone. the only country. if anything, they should be the ones not allowed to have them.
That's what i think
Genius! Absolute genius.
I agree absolutely with everything Stealth said. If anyone should be dissarmed that would be the USA. USA does also have nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (see you tested a new bomb in florida). I absolutely aprove Korea's weapons development because they need to deffend themselves from USA if they are attacked in any case. So what will it be? (US + weapons of mass destruction) - weapons of mass destruction = peace ;9
-
Yea he's right,...we're known for using WMDs on our own ppl,......quiote often even.
*shrugs*
Anyways not like a damn thing anyone in here says really makes a diff.
-
Originally posted by Razor
:nod: True True Very true. But I don't think he would care. Hey who needs allies when he can always push Da Red Button™ if they oppose him. ;7
Well, I doubt he'll push it when 100+ million American go against him...
On second thought... :nervous:
-
How many people have actually been to the Middle East? It's easy to say..."oh bush is just after oil ..etc" sitting from your computer and just reading polls off of websites etc. Try visiting the region sometime, visit a Kurdish (:confused: hope i spelled it right) town sometime. Or try going to one of their prisons and tell the people inside that you want to wait longer becasue you don't know if it's right. Also consider that the reason america has "waited " as it were is because that EVIL Clinton was in power for eight years. Just food for thought..
(Lobs bomb at Bobboau from Edwardsville;7 j/k)
-
what the.. someone ****ed with the... Sandvich!!!!
well Styxx, if you must close it would you be able to keep the poll open?
you know there is a reason why some contries have UN demands that they disarm, and many others don't
like the USA; France, UK, Russa, hell even China have nukes and nobody has asked them to get rid of them, out of this groupe only the UK can be considered a real allie of America (I'm not makeing a stink with the French, they simply arn't part of the military part of NATO), China is (as has been said) the greatest single military threat to America, and Russa doesn't exactly have the frendliest history with us ether, especaly when it comes to nukes.
but I think the only thing that we need is to prove that they haven't dismantled there biological chemical and (not or) Nucular weapons, becase that is the demand of our little cecefire agreement, and if they don't live up to there end we shouldn't live up to ours. whether we have other reasons for going over there in addition to that is irrelevent
-
Titbit of information for you:
For the last two or three months, the daily poll on Sky News has concerned Iraq, at least five days a week. The questions are variations on the themes of 'should we have a war', 'do you trust Saddam', 'does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction', 'should Saddam be given more time' - that kind of thing.
Every single time, the result favours removing Saddam the way the Americans want to do buisness, and sooner rather than later. It varies between a mjority of only a few percent to an almost total agreement, but the message is clear - the people voting want shot of Saddam right now. OK, it's not the most scientific of population samples, but I've yet to see one of their polls say no to war.
I can only imagine that whilst the peacenicks are out protesting, the pro-war guys are staying at home an voting on their TV...
-
sky news is the sister station of Fox news
so probly not the most nutral voteing pool, I would like to think we had popular suport but most of what I've seen tell me that Blair is going to lose his next election, becase of us.
-
Originally posted by Dan1
How many people have actually been to the Middle East? It's easy to say..."oh bush is just after oil ..etc" sitting from your computer and just reading polls off of websites etc.
It's nice to see your re-gurjatation of someone else's charges against you phrased so incoherently and without any evidence that nobody in their right mind could possibly be influenced by them. With you making the more radical claim (The Notion of the US as a Philanthropic defender of humanity and 'democracy' throughout the world and Saddam Hussain is Pure Evil (whatever one's definition of evil may be) who has very nasty weapons which he almost certainly will use to attack American civilians with if left alone (despite it being a certain act of political and probably personal suicide) and can be ousted via a foreign invasion which will cause next to no 'collateral damage' and will be gratefully received by a thankful public) the burden of proof is on you. However, your belief in such an extraordinary claim with no such extraordinary evidence, whilst employing quite advanced sociological phrases nestled amongst a very inarticulate bulk of the rest of your posts, coupled with a kind of naive, childish like narrow-mindedness would suggest that you're an ideal candidate for the title of armchair sociologist.
Originally posted by Dan1
Try visiting the region sometime, visit a Kurdish (:confused: hope i spelled it right) town sometime. Or try going to one of their prisons and tell the people inside that you want to wait longer becasue you don't know if it's right.
Selective thinking comes into play here in this highly emotive piece of drivel. I am in no doubt that the Organs of the Iraqi state have been brought to bare against the Kurds, as have been the Turkish and British, and prison and police brutality is certainly not Unique to Iraq. By all means support the war as a war of plunder, a giant piece of propaganda, an example to other states of the destructive power of the US, a sadistic supression of the will of another people, at least the logical case for them would be sound whatever people's/your philosophical issues with them may be.
-
:rolleyes:
-
:ick
-
;7
(just to keep the trend going)
Anyway, it looks like we have some more fun stuff here:
1) to distract is citizens from the failing US economy
2) to get some oil in the proces
3) to make it look like he's actually doing something
4) because is nice advisors told him to do so.
1) The economy is failing because people are paying attention to it, since it is primarily psychological; if they stop doing that, markets will rise again. But people are actually paying more attention to the economy than ever before because of the prospects of uncertainty that go along with any war.
2) Which is a good thing eh? oil is better than no oil, simple common sense. (although the oil idea is just a silly excuse invented by the common rabbles for lack of anything better; it simply does not stand up to economic scrutiny)
3) Everyone is doing something all the time; you cannot do absolutely nothing, so he doesn't really need to show anything there. Besides, he is obviously serving the interests of the nation by conquering others.
4) See, he listens to others! he is a man of the people!
:D
I would just love to see the UN make an example of the US if Bush would pull this off.
Actually what would happen in that case is that it would go the other way; the UN would be the one to lose credibility (which is already happening anyway), since the plan they were opposing turned out to work fine. :D
The thing about the UN is that they can only talk; they don't have the power to actually take any actions.
...an example to other states of the destructive power of the US...
This is one of the big objectives actually. :yes: This reputation means a lot in the international world, since it increases the credibility of threats the nation makes in the future.
-
*Thinks of a Wierd Al song, sung to the tune of "Bom-bom-bom-bomaram, or whatever):*
Kurd, Kurd, Kurd, Kurd is the word.
Bomb Bomb Bomb, let's bomb Iraq
Saddamed if I do, Saddamed if I don't,
bomb bomb bomb, let's bomb Iraq.
When I am Through
What will I do
Why I'll bomb a country nastier than you!
Bomb Bomb Bomb, let's bomb Iraq...!
-
This is one of the big objectives actually. This reputation means a lot in the international world, since it increases the credibility of threats the nation makes in the future.
Well, yeah, but you seem to miss the fact that demonstrating this will only incur the wrath of the rest of the world. 300 million vs. 6 billion. And opposition to the US is only getting stronger.
-
Somehow ...I doubt the 'rest of the world' would 'unleash it's wrath' upon the US. :doubt:
Last reports I saw still only had France, Germany, and Russia actually stating the didn't agree with the US attacking Iraq, the rest just want to wait and give Sadam a little more time.
-
My point is showing off power right now is probably going to fuel rebellions instead of causing nations to cower. Not that Bush has the ability to try such a thing intentionally.
-
Indeed. And if not rebellions that mass protests, like Hyde Park a few weeks ago.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually what would happen in that case is that it would go the other way; the UN would be the one to lose credibility (which is already happening anyway), since the plan they were opposing turned out to work fine. :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
OMG please stop this! You are killing me! Hey why don't you kill us to death with math orientated comments instead of this? At least they are boring and make us mad but this...this is just histerically hillarious. :lol:
No serriously dude, do you really belive that it would be that way? US wins over UN? One nation against all the other nations of the world. Hey you are a math genious you do the math and tell me the odds.
-
Oh joy, let's play "burden of proof" volleyball!
At any rate, while "only" France, Germany, and Russia's governments oppose the war (Never mind all those piddling nations in the rest of the world. Bush can't pronounce 'em, we don't care about what they have to say), that's just the governments. You'd be exceedingly hard-pressed to find a single country outside of the US and maybe Israel (of course) where the people supported the war. And keep in mind that when the government starts overtly acting regardless of what its populace wants, the masses get shooty, mobby, and stabby. Which means that such an unpopular war greatly increases the odds of a coup in several major countries installing a reactionary government that hates the US unequivocally and makes no bones about it. It's called international politics, and it's why no other US president short of Roosevelt has gone cowboy.
-
Like in Vietnam for example ?
and honestly I don't think any war could called popular,.. thus they're all unpopular wars.
On a completely different note:
Kinna funny when you think about Desert Storm,...ppl all over with yellow freaking ribbons tied to every-damned-thing in support,......yet 12 years later when Saddam has still failed to comply with the treaty set forth from DS,... ppl ***** and whine.
God I love this country! :D
-
Hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, you can look at it all you like for lessons for the future, all you can see is your behind.
I think I need a new pack of toilet paper.
-
Hmm it seems like a lot of non-american people who frequent here are from France/Britain. Actually right now Sushi is in Romania and says support for the US is very strong. Besides think about all the French ties to Saddam. It is no wonder why they don't want him to go with all the deals they have with him. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Silver_Scythe
Hmm it seems like a lot of non-american people who frequent here are from France/Britain. Actually right now Sushi is in Romania and says support for the US is very strong. Besides think about all the French ties to Saddam. It is no wonder why they don't want him to go with all the deals they have with him. :rolleyes:
:nod:
-
'Course, it's hardly fair to assume the French have ulterior motives and that Bush doesn't, seeing as both are just as strong, and in fact center around effectively the same things (shoring up popular approval and oil, to name the two most significant)
-
Why would we go to war for the oil when it would use more oil then we would gain by going to war.?
-
Well the first thing i need to say is "US stop the presure to my country in the Security Council in the UN" and i think my country says NO to the war in the votation.:nervous: well i think that.
-
Because it's not about getting the oil itself, dude, it's about getting the oil money.
Think of it this way- he starts a war. Oil prices shoot through the roof. Everyone's paying through the rectal cavity for fuel, but what are they gonna do- stop driving? This is the US- outside of some major cities, not only are things often well beyond walking distance (particularly for physically inactive, lazy people like we apparently are) but you take your life into your own hands by becoming a pedestrian. I've been nearly hit more times than I care to remember, and it wasn't always by accident that the car clipped me. Okay, so then the war's over. Oil prices go back down, but the companies made a fat profit. Now, guess what? Free oil! And they can still charge the same they always did for it! Yay! Everyone wins! Except for the Iraqis. And the consumers. But then, they didn't get Bush into office, and if you toss 'em a bone and a couple fine-sounding sentiments, they'll be grateful all over again, so they hardly matter.
-
Sorry, Stryke, and no offence, but I feel dumber after reading that post. :rolleyes:
-
I think many people here are missing the point, especially those comparing Iraq to China, the US, France, GB, and Russia in terms of nuclear powers. Those nations, with the exception of Iraq, are democracies (or whatever China is this week). This imparts an inherent stability to those governments ass far as "going to war" goes. The US ain't gonna spontaneously invade Mexico (or Canada! :lol: ) just because they thought it would be to their benefit. France ain't gonna invade Spain, Russia ain't gonna invade Mongolia, and GB certainly ain't gonna invade the Chunnel! :lol:
But all kidding aside, Iraq doesn not have that kind of track record - the opposite is true. Add to that the fact that they are headed up by a dictator who cares not for the lives of his own fellow Iraquis, and you can go figure what he'd do with WMDs. :rolleyes:
Bottom line is this: If the US attacks Iraq or not, won't make much of a difference in the end. Saddam will be ousted, one way or another. Israel's fully capable of doing with a couple of flights of F-15s what it's taking the US upwards of 200,000 soldiers so far. We've taken out strategic targets in that area before (nucear reactor, anyone?), and we can do it again. Heck, I'm almost hoping Saddam lobs a chemical warhead over here - have it land in the middle of the desert, but let it be chemical. We've already stated that NBC weaponry in our direction will bring about a singular response from our end - nuke 'em. That should make the US's job just a bit easier. :doubt:
Still, you gotta admire Saddam - the man's a genius in the international politics arena. "Oh, look - he destroyed 2 missiles! HE'S COOPERATING!!!!!!!" :rolleyes:
-
Thank god for sensible people like you sandwich
-
See, now I wouldn't have nearly so much of a problem with Israel doing the attack. Israel is actually being threatened by Saddam's regime (quite overtly in fact), and he could potentially pose a threat, and the Israelis would have to live with the consequences of potentially turning the Middle East into an anarchic swamp of warring nutjob groups and terrorist factions, so I'd trust the Israeli government a bit more than Bush to take the consequences seriously, and do the "right" thing, as opposed to the "politically expedient at the moment" thing.
-
I want to know is there more evedence for
Sadam haveing weapons of mass destruction
or
Bush doing this war specificly for makeing oil profit
and CP in the future we would rather you explain why we aren't doing this for the oil, not why that isn't a bad thing. you do agree Bush isn't realy doing this for the oil don't you?
it makes no sence to wage war when we could just bribe him
-
There's no solid evidence, but it's pretty much an assumed by most parties. Even most of the peace protestors admit that it's a bit more than a likelihood he still has 'em.
It's whether that actually means anything that is the sticking point. After all, there are only maybe a couple dozen countries left in the world that don't have some form of MDW (****, it's not like it's hard to cook one up), and none of them are nearly on the scale of Iraq. It'd take not only a moron, but an insane moron to actually use them, particularly when the only viable target would return the favor a hundred times over if you did- and Saddam's neither insane nor a moron.
-
so it's more likely that Bush is right when he says that sadam has weapons of mass destruction than everyone else who says Bush is doing this war just for the oil
also
if you trust Isrial with Iraq, and they are one of only a.. hand... full....... :doubt: the only contry in the entire planet that realy fully suports us, does that mean that we might have some idea what we were doing?
-
Sadam, insain, moron
you know i would think massing the entire Iraqi army on the kuwait shore and leaveing the flank open like he did would be a sign of insain moronicy,
also torching the oil feilds and launching scuds at Isrial when we said we fould flaten him if he did, not exactly a omen of stability and sainity,
and the actions over the last twelve years, if he wasn't unbalencedly stupid woiuld not have taken place, he would have roled over and did what ever the world told him rather than inciteing the wrath of us and (potentualy) every one else again.
-
Of course Israel supports the US. Otherwise, Bush might stop sending all those nice shiny helicopters and bombs.
And you're missing the point- it's not an argument about whether Saddam has MDWs or not, it's an argument about whether that's reason enough to pitch into an opportunistic war of aggression that threatens to utterly destroy several regimes, not just Saddam's, bring the terrorist thing to whole new heights, alienate the US from the entire rest of the planet (except Israel and Tony Blair- note I don't say Britain), and otherwise just **** us over nicely. Personally, I'm inclined to say that a few anthrax bombs don't come even close to being a reasonable reason to wage a war (****, the US has tons of them, and can't even keep tabs on the ones we have. The old Soviet states have stuff so nasty it makes smallpox sound like a trip to the circus. Korea and China are outright threats to the US, and have enough weaponry to kill millions of people.)- which would mean that Bush has other reasons, ones which he couldn't exactly admit to if he wanted support.
In other words, it's like a cop shooting somebody for a parking violation. When everyone's feeling kind of edgy about that particular cop, can't drive for ****, and is very heavily armed.
And tactics are the job of generals, Bob, not the President. He doesn't bother with things like covering flanks or securing cities. Which will be fortunate if we get into a war, because I can guarantee from the evidence that Bush has all the strategic savvy of a rubber duck. Same for the scorched-earth policy, though that was neither stupid nor insane- it severely demoralized the UN forces, symbolically gave the old Bush the finger, and made sure that Kuwait would be sorry it made a noise about being invaded. The SCUD was largely a political gesture, and at the time a relatively safe one, since Israel couldn't have gotten away with nuking Iraq at that point.
Your equating US-bashing in a notoriously anti-American region with stupidity or insanity calls into question your understanding of the fact that not every place is like Illinois, or that there may be other concerns for a Middle Eastern dictator than appeasing the US. I don't think I'll bother explain how politics works to you, but I will note that without his constant vilification of the US, Saddam would almost certainly have died a long time ago at the hand of one insurgent/general or another.
-
but wouldn't you like to see America sink into the sea? :p
any way
yes I think it is reason enough.
I think there are other things at play, for instance, terrorism and Israel, Sadam suports terrorism, ever hear of the Arab Liberation Front, there one of the key distributers of Iraqi cash to suicide bombers, Iraq is funding terrorism in Israel and thus, there will be no peace in Israel as long as Sadam if funding it, and we will not win the much clichéd war on terrorism as long as Israel an Palistine are trying to kill each other
that alone is a perfictly good reason to go after Iraq next,
in my humble opinion
-
Uh huh. Tell me, do you get the news off of gum wrappers?
FYI, the "terrorist support" Saddam gives is to send the families of suicide bombers a pittance after their working young men blow themselves to bits, so they don't starve to death. It usually isn't much, it doesn't go to every family, and it's poor compensation for a member of the family exploding (and not exactly inducement to do so in and of itself). It's more of a politically motivated charity, and even Bush is smart enough not to say that that in itself is evil- he makes up pipe dreams about al Qaeda which have effectively been disproven time and time again.
Until you actually know what you're talking about, don't bother me, all right? Well-informed, thought-out opinions are one thing, regurgiating what you heard from Fox News or your parents is another. No offense, but it annoys the **** out of me and isn't exactly doing you any good.
-
And no I am equating a man making stupid decisions that are quite likely going to get him killed in an unbelievably embarrassing defeat, with stupidity and insanity, he was told by his generals that we were going to attack through the desert he ignored them, not even Bush is stupid enough to do that
And seeing as you don't agree with me you obviously have no grasp on the situation, so please stop arguing with me :rolleyes:
-
there famelies get $10,000 to $20,000 in a land that most people are thought of a rich if they make $1000 in a year, do you think that maybe that would help these people chose to blow themselves up and become martyrs,
and you know just becase you can resite NPR talking points does _not_ make you God
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
And seeing as you don't agree with me you obviously have no grasp on the situation, so please stop arguing with me :rolleyes:
Classic sig material. "You don't agree with me, so you're just plain stupid!"
Just so you know, anyone who disagrees with me is a dogrimming mutant byproduct of twenty generations of incest, with a grotsquely shrunken forebrain and damaged logic centers that render them essentially a walking vegetable. Also, they all have incredibly small manhoods. Just thought you'd like to know that.:p
-
glad we've cleared that up :)
you do take great pride in you're ocupation
-
My boss says if I took pride in my occupation I'd show up for work on time. I'm inclined to agree.
-
[removed]
-
why dont assasinate him and his generals ?
i mean america has done that plenty times before whats stopping em now ?
*blam* story over happy ending not extensive prolonged blodshed
-
no, then one of his sons will sease power
-
You have no idea how hard the US government has TRIED to do that. The thing is, it's very nearly impossible. I'm sure you've heard of how he never sleeps in the same bed on two consecutive nights, and how nobody ever really knows exactly where he is at any given time... well, that's only part of it. Suffice it to say he's suitably paranoid.
And an American agent would never even get close. The government's tried it with his generals and staff, too, but no dice- even they don'r really get to see him much.
-
ive seen high res sat pictures where u allmost could make out a pimple on somebodys nose (okok not that detailed but still very detailed)
i mean all those multi million dollar sats should be able to find out something :)
and why not train an iraqi ?
im 100% sure that not all iraqis love him ....
and 1 or 10 whers the diffrence
still better than 10.000 or 100.000 or a million people just to get rid of him and his guys isnt it ?
-
Clearly those sattelites, like so many wonderful pieces of military gadgetry, aren't all they're cut out to be. After all, they didn't do much for us in Afghanistan, either.
And I think I answered your second question. Nobody gets to see him except his personal guard-types and staff, and they're hardcore. No buying them out- ****, no contacting them in the first place.
I suppose during one of those speeches someone could make a try with a rifle- and I'm sure they have- but one of the things dictatorships are known for is their excellent security.
-
horay for russian 2km+ high percision sniper rifles :)
ok its a tad bit bigger than a "rifle"
or drop a bomb on his palaces n bunkers untill you get him
sry for the lack of realy good ideas but im not getting payd and i dont serve in the army u know :)
but my point is removal of him and the "evil doers" is much better than going to war with iraq just to get to him
and shouldnt it be in all our interests to save lifes ?
-
Yeah, except for that assassinations don't occupy as much headline time as war, and thus Bush isn't interested. It may or may not be marginally feasible as an alternative, and I'd certainly say if there was a chance go for it, but I'm not the one trying to get reelected despite having done nothing quantifiably good while in office.
-
humm possible yes
besides making war with afganistan and going to make war with iraq real soon what has he done for the us people ?
-
Two words: "Patriot Act".
Oh, you said for. I thought you meant against.
-
He says he's killing taxes on dividends (I think he was lowering other taxes too)... guess who that's good for, yep all those rich white peeps. He's working on that "trickle-down economy" which doesn't work 'cause it doesn't account for greed, big miss eh? Of course it could be that trickle down economy was made specifically not to work.. hmm :p (yeah, who cares about plebians, just feed the rich)
-
man I love this thread. :D
Well, yeah, but you seem to miss the fact that demonstrating this will only incur the wrath of the rest of the world. 300 million vs. 6 billion. And opposition to the US is only getting stronger.
People are not the only thing that matters; tech level, production capability and economic power/influence are possibly more important. The main idea here is to make guys like North Korea stay low by threatening to go after them next. Still, the US does still have a considerable percentage of its own population following them, which is really what matters on the propaganda front.
No serriously dude, do you really belive that it would be that way? US wins over UN? One nation against all the other nations of the world. Hey you are a math genious you do the math and tell me the odds.
Sure, I will tell you everything; don't worry, you do not need to know any math for this. :D First of all, the UN most certainly does not represent all the other nations, or even any majority of nations; its permanent members comprise of the WW2 winners alone, and it has been that way ever since it was formed, which already is a possible indication of how outdated it is. And it is not just a matter of these small technical issues either; the entire concept of the UN is flawed at its very core. This is because the existence of an institution acting in the interests of all of the nations indefinitely is simply impossible, because they all have different objectives, and the temporary "alliances" change every couple of decades based on the need to face new problems. Even its title, "United Nations" is a contradiction in terms; you can only have a "United Nation." Now back to the present situation, the UN is facing the same problem that the US faced in the days of the Articles: it has no power to enforce anything it demands. Laws are practically nonexistent unless there is a penalty for disobeying them, which is why I said earlier that the UN talks but does not act.
Anyone living near DC read George Will's column in the washington post today? As he put it, the UN is not just a good idea with a bad implemetation, but simply a bad idea to begin with.
And keep in mind that when the government starts overtly acting regardless of what its populace wants, the masses get shooty, mobby, and stabby.
how about Iraq? I don't think everyone exactly likes Saddam there, and he has been around for a while. :p :D
Still, you gotta admire Saddam - the man's a genius in the international politics arena. "Oh, look - he destroyed 2 missiles! HE'S COOPERATING!!!!!!!"
Exactly, and this is after waiting for so many months first. The entire world (including the EU, no doubt) can see that all he is trying to do is delay things and buy himself more time to build up his forces, but that will cause trouble for the US, so it is a good thing from their point of view.
and CP in the future we would rather you explain why we aren't doing this for the oil, not why that isn't a bad thing. you do agree Bush isn't realy doing this for the oil don't you?
it makes no sence to wage war when we could just bribe him
lol, I'm just pointing out that the oil argument is flawed either way, which is about the worst thing that can happen to an argument; not only is it probably not true, but even if it was, it would still be ridiculous. :D Anyway, I am not completely familiar with the details of the economics involved, and on that particular point I am just regurgitating what I have heard; it seems that in the long run, any benefits they get from the oil prices would be far outweighed by the recessive effects caused by the psychological uncertainty of war. My dad was giving me some very long explanations about the economics of this whole thing a few days ago (he is some IMF advisor bigwig), but it was rather boring and I cannot remember much of what he said; maybe I should get him to post here. :D
-
CP- I think you're missing the point. A skilled politician can do whatever he likes, so long as he makes it LOOK LIKE that's what everyone wants- such as rationalizing everything to the Iraqis because it will, among other things, kill the Jews and Americans. Bush hasn't bothered to do that in his big grandiose speeches, so it's pretty clear to people that this isn't what they want, and they'll act on that.
I'll agree that it's not the primary goal of the war, but the gains to be had from free access to Iraqi oil aren't exactly negligible either.
Problem is, everyone seems to be thinking of oil in terms of the stuff you put in your car. That's only one use- it's a political and economic pawn unparalleled in modern times. It's much like gold was back in the day- the universally prized barter item. With indirect control of such a good oil reserve, the US could exert influence on the world by getting a membership on OPEC by proxy, controlling a big part of the European fuel market (if the US plays it right- it can't do this right now, obviously, because the US needs most of the oil it produces, and because it'd be too obvious a takeover if done with American oil- the EU nations wouldn't go along with it) and thus largely regaining control of Europe, and making gobs of cash besides.
-
comment on oil part :
lets just put it this way oil is one of the reasons
how important we will prolly know in 20 years
-
CP- I think you're missing the point. A skilled politician can do whatever he likes, so long as he makes it LOOK LIKE that's what everyone wants- such as rationalizing everything to the Iraqis because it will, among other things, kill the Jews and Americans. Bush hasn't bothered to do that in his big grandiose speeches, so it's pretty clear to people that this isn't what they want, and they'll act on that.
Hussein is not exactly a skilled politician either, you know. He has been saying that he is representing the Arab world, which is excellent popular stuff, but his history with the common people there is so bad that most of the population is not going to believe him there simply because of their previous experience with him (bin Laden they will certainly go for, but not this guy). I think Kym is far superior at some of these political tactics; Saddam should learn from him.
I'll agree that it's not the primary goal of the war, but the gains to be had from free access to Iraqi oil aren't exactly negligible either.
Tell you what; I will get back to you on this oil thing when I learn more about it. You are completely right that oil can be used to control the world economically, just like any other resource that has become necessary, but I still don't see why it must be Iraqi oil; for example, why not Saudi oil instead, since they have much weaker military forces and ten times the amount of oil.
comment on oil part :
lets just put it this way oil is one of the reasons
how important we will prolly know in 20 years
Then again, testing newly developed technology (e.g. the sea lions :D) and equipment is also one of the reasons; a very minor one certainly, but still a reason. :D
-
Saddam's a bit blustery, and tends to sound pretty bad to us, but I think the fact that he's still alive in spite of how un-neighborly he's been is a testament to his rabble-rousing abilities. It certainly has nothing to do with any tactical advantage.
And after all, the approach he has is in a way quite similar to the thing that's made Bush so popular, and it certainly worked for him. Look at all the crap he's crammed down Americans' throats in the past few years, with not a complaint. It's proletarian to be a cowboy, whether you've got spurs or a turban.
-
who has the largest oil reserves? i always thought it was saudi arabia and kuwait, not iraq
-
I think the Saudis come way ahead, followed by Iraq and then Kuwait. I could be wrong, but it'd be a close one either way, and a not inconsiderable reserve.
-
yeah, actually Saudi Arabia has several times the amount of oil that Iraq does. Norway also has a lot underwater.
Saddam's a bit blustery, and tends to sound pretty bad to us, but I think the fact that he's still alive in spite of how un-neighborly he's been is a testament to his rabble-rousing abilities. It certainly has nothing to do with any tactical advantage.
No, it is more of a testament to the effectiveness of his domestic police force. There have been many attempts at rebellions and overthrows, but all of which have failed.
And after all, the approach he has is in a way quite similar to the thing that's made Bush so popular, and it certainly worked for him. Look at all the crap he's crammed down Americans' throats in the past few years, with not a complaint. It's proletarian to be a cowboy, whether you've got spurs or a turban.
uh, you just said that Bush is not a good liar/politician, right? So then how does he make people think that his "crap" is good? :wtf: :D
-
[ot]You seen the MOAB? whoever gave it that name has a twisted sense of humour although it isn't without merit, it's more or less stating the obvious. [/ot]
-
I said he's terrible abroad. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. People seem to be drinking it up and begging for more here, but nobody outside of the country is fooled. It's likely much the same with Saddam, seeing as his technique of strident nationalism and doing whatever the **** he likes very noisily is almost identical.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
uh, you just said that Bush is not a good liar/politician, right? So then how does he make people think that his "crap" is good? :wtf: :D
well, don't ALL politians nefarious or otherwise lie about something at one point or another? it's all a matter whether or not the general populace believes it or not.
-
I said he's terrible abroad. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. People seem to be drinking it up and begging for more here, but nobody outside of the country is fooled. It's likely much the same with Saddam, seeing as his technique of strident nationalism and doing whatever the **** he likes very noisily is almost identical.
That's not so important though; he only needs steadfast support from within the nation, since that is primarily where he gets his resources to fight. But like I said, I seriously doubt that the average Iraqi is as supportive of Hussein as the average American is of Bush, seeing as how many rebellions the police there have put down in the last several years.
well, don't ALL politians nefarious or otherwise lie about something at one point or another? it's all a matter whether or not the general populace believes it or not.
Of course, but that implies that it is dependent on whether or not the lies are good ones, so it depends on how good a liar the politician is. :D
-
precisely..
-
hmm lets try this
Saudi Arabia 261.7 billion barrels
Iraq 112.5 billion barrels
Kuwait 96.5 billion barrels
Iran 89.7 billion barrels
blablablablabla
middle east Total 683.5
United States 22.0 billion barrels
Mexico 28.3 billion barrels
Canada 4.7 billion barrels
north america
Total 55.0
btw
Austria 0.1 billion barrels :D
incidently
(http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/menewnew.gif)
some world map thing
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/deployment.map/new.base.map.6.10.gif)
from cnn obviously
there u can see us is lacing "influence" in that region
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Uh huh. Tell me, do you get the news off of gum wrappers?
FYI, the "terrorist support" Saddam gives is to send the families of suicide bombers a pittance after their working young men blow themselves to bits, so they don't starve to death. It usually isn't much, it doesn't go to every family, and it's poor compensation for a member of the family exploding (and not exactly inducement to do so in and of itself). It's more of a politically motivated charity, and even Bush is smart enough not to say that that in itself is evil- he makes up pipe dreams about al Qaeda which have effectively been disproven time and time again.
Until you actually know what you're talking about, don't bother me, all right? Well-informed, thought-out opinions are one thing, regurgiating what you heard from Fox News or your parents is another. No offense, but it annoys the **** out of me and isn't exactly doing you any good.
Oh, my, how wrong you are - it's even funnier because it's in a post about how right you are. :lol:
When I was in Jenin last year, at one point we went to make some arrests. One of the arrestees was reportedly in the family home. This family had already "contributed" one of their sons to "the cause", and he blew himself to smithereens, taking a few people along with him in the process. Undoubtadley he's now in Paradise enjoying the company of the 70 (71? 72?) eternal virgins he receives for taking "the Zionist enemy down with him." :rolleyes:
ANYWAY.... this house was in the middle of slums - down some alley in the middle of Slumville, Jenin. But the house itself..... done up in expensive rugs, golden rimmings, decorations, expensive furniture, etc etc. You get the point.
Out of all that (which I'm sure some soldiers were tempted to take for themselves), we came out with one thing: a gold-plated plaque commending the family and thanking them for their contribution to the cause.
Remember Minority Report? That stand-in kid-napper, who demanded to be killed so that his family would be taken care of, be well off, etc? Scarily true. :blah:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Just so you know, anyone who disagrees with me is a dogrimming mutant byproduct of twenty generations of incest, with a grotsquely shrunken forebrain and damaged logic centers that render them essentially a walking vegetable. Also, they all have incredibly small manhoods. Just thought you'd like to know that.:p
Now isn't that much better than screaming about how so and so is so *****ing **** that they wouldn't be able to tell if a **** was shoved up their *****? :D Much more artistic. ;)
-
Sandwich, I heard on local news (one that has a history of really exagerating things for ratings) this morning that Iraq is moving its forces and surface to surface missiles closer to it's border and will soon be in missile range of Israel. The report said that Iraq sees that war is inevitable and only thinks he can make an impact if he does a pre-emptive strike. Apparently he wants very much for Israel to be taken down with him.
Since you live there, have you heard anything of this nature? I don't trust this particular news program, and I can't seem to find anything to that affect on cnn.com or msnbc.
And, how is the general mood and day-to-day living there? Are people going about their daily lives, or is something that is constantly on everyones mind?
-
I wonder if he has figured out that I was mocking him with that statement that he has quoted in his sig
-
Bob: If ineptly, yes. What do you think I quoted it for?
If you'd actually taken the time to read with comprehension (which you apparently don't do ever, judging from some of the things you've said here), you'd see the rather important distinction that my original comment had nothing to do with whether you agreed with me or not, and everything to do with the fact that you've displayed as nuanced and well-read understanding of geopolitics and current events as a watermelon. I love to talk (or argue) politics with people, and rarely make the mistake of getting personally offended by a correction or retort, but when they haven't taken the time to know something about what they're talking about and insist that your opinions are more valid than anyone else's, it's annoying as all hell, in the same sense as a newbie storming onto the SCP board and demanding that you make agressor shields that magically shoot electric beams that can blow up a Ravana in one hit from any part of the ship within the week is annoying. Read a smegging newspaper, dude, and ideally don't make it the Weekly World News.
Sandwich: And do all of these bombers' families get that compensation? Is it enough of a guarantee that the suicide bomber can safely assume that his family will be rolling in it, as opposed to starving in the streets 'cos nobody in their family can get a job?
I probably estimated the value of $10G abroad (it's hardly enough to eat on here or have a house for a relatively small family here, and certainly not enough for more than maybe four years at absolute most) wrong, but it's still not exactly an inducement in and of itself, and at any rate it's the wrong kind of "terrorism" for Bush- it's the kind that Americans can't get paranoid about, 'cos poor Palestinian suicide bombers can't cross that inconveniently large and well-defended ocean.
-
:rolleyes:
-
poor Palestinian suicide bombers
sorry, but this just sounded incongruously funny. :D I read some article about week ago in which Hussein was referred to as a nice and cuddly neighborhood dictator, which is kind of what this sounds like. :D :D
-
I have an odd feeling that this thread has run its course soon.
Why can't we all just get along?!!!:(
-
Doh :doubt: double post.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
Why can't we all just get along?!!!:(
Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, some Nietzche or 'Imperialism' by lenin.
-
CP: I meant "poor" in its literal sense. I never feel sorry for someone who intentionally gives up their life, regardless of politics.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, some Nietzche or 'Imperialism' by lenin.
I'm quite partial to reading the Science of Discworld. :D
Why bore over Lenin? He screwed up in the end anyway. :D
-
No he didn't. Stalin screwed up after he died. There's a huge difference.
-
good idea bad "implemention" just like UN
-
UN is a bad idea, a bad implementation, and to top it all off, a bad name. :D
-
NWO is much catchier.
-
yes, that sounds much better. :yes:
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
Sandwich, I heard on local news (one that has a history of really exagerating things for ratings) this morning that Iraq is moving its forces and surface to surface missiles closer to it's border and will soon be in missile range of Israel. The report said that Iraq sees that war is inevitable and only thinks he can make an impact if he does a pre-emptive strike. Apparently he wants very much for Israel to be taken down with him.
Since you live there, have you heard anything of this nature? I don't trust this particular news program, and I can't seem to find anything to that affect on cnn.com or msnbc.
And, how is the general mood and day-to-day living there? Are people going about their daily lives, or is something that is constantly on everyones mind?
Here ya go, from a national Israeli newspaper (the country's so small, there ain't such a thing as "local" papers, really. :p)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/273130.html
As for the general mood, I dunno about the rest of the country, but here in Jerusalem, with the mixed Jewish / Arab population, I'm about to head out for a picnic in the park in a few minutes. :D Gotta go make me a PB&J sandwich ( :nervous: ).
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Sandwich: And do all of these bombers' families get that compensation? Is it enough of a guarantee that the suicide bomber can safely assume that his family will be rolling in it, as opposed to starving in the streets 'cos nobody in their family can get a job?
Yes, they all get compensated. That's fully half the reason they do it, you know.
-
Funny how Saddam can afford to fork over million upon millions of dollars a year then to sponsor suicide bombers, and yet can't afford to get a single weapon for his army that's not a Soviet Cold War hulk.
No comment.
-
actualy allota weps are from the US :D
remember all that iraq iran thing ?
btw
whats NWO ?
national world organisation :confused:
-
I think he means New World Order :p
-
(http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003120562,00.jpg)
"Eight thousand troops gathered in a makeshift parade ground in northern Kuwait to hear a stirring address by US Lt General James Conway"
Dramatic, huh? Its been on the front page of nearly every newspaper in the UK today.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/15/sprj.irq.main/index.html
look a few paragraphs down, just before the bold text
apparently the Iraqis are more afraid of Bush than Saddam :lol:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Funny how Saddam can afford to fork over million upon millions of dollars a year then to sponsor suicide bombers, and yet can't afford to get a single weapon for his army that's not a Soviet Cold War hulk.
No comment.
His Mirage's are French
-
My point was, he's got the military equivalent of a "MADE IN TAIWAN" sign stamped on all his crap, when with the money he sends to Palestine he COULD be amassing some VERY nice hardware right now- depending on what Korea's selling for, probably even the parts to a nuke, seeing how anxious they are to force the US into responding. I understand it's a popularity thing, but right now it'd be much more important for him to have some weaponry that isn't about 40 years old (yeah, Mirages aren't 40, but they aren't very nice planes, either) than it is to keep up an undeserved image as the "Liberator of Palestine" (what I wonder is how he got THAT from invading Kuwait, too). Not suggesting anything, so don't bother read **** into my posts, I'm just noting that something freaky is going on.
-
An article I read in New Week the other day about the interview between Saddam and Dan Rather made a good point. As everyone knows Saddam controls Iraq through fear, everyone spies on everyone for him. The point they made was the invasion of Kuwait was meant to start a war with outside forces, in order to have yet another form of fear,... Iraq already had fear within,...now they gained fear from without. It also made an major effort to point out just how calm and stress-free Saddam was about the entire situation going on currently.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Funny thing is, even Britain decided to pull its support from Bush... haha, now the US is simply a terroist country that's going to invade without any allowance or approval. :lol:
and you base this statement(one that is quite beyond doubt, fanciful nonsense) on what?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
and you base this statement(one that is quite beyond doubt, fanciful nonsense) on what?
:wtf:
The UN gives approval for this kinda thing riiiight? Therefore if they don't give reach a positive consensus it's unapproved riiiight? Then can't we conclude it's an unapproved act (assuming UN doesn't approve it soon or at all)?
Don't you call an unapproved show of force terroism?
In case you can't understand or accept what's said above
ter?ror?ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Note also CP's post
People are not the only thing that matters; tech level, production capability and economic power/influence are possibly more important. The main idea here is to make guys like North Korea stay low by threatening to go after them next. Still, the US does still have a considerable percentage of its own population following them, which is really what matters on the propaganda front.
Do you think that the only people who are terroists are those who the media, populace or your beloved political leaders exclaim wildly to be?
Tell me, what do you think this is and what it's for? (Bush's lil' war)
-
The UN gives approval for this kinda thing riiiight? Therefore if they don't give reach a positive consensus it's unapproved riiiight? Then can't we conclude it's an unapproved act (assuming UN doesn't approve it soon or at all)?
Don't you call an unapproved show of force terroism?
bah, the US approves of it and decides that it is lawful, and since they are the ones with the power to carry it out, it is indeed approved and lawful. You might as well ask Saddam whether or not he approves of it and decide its lawfulness based on that. :p :D
-
pfff, don't wreck my idealogical world! :p
-
but my idea world is better than your because it has math! ;7
-
Well... my world has math too... I'd just like it to be a world without nasty omega-inconsistencies. The idealogical formal system world. ;)
-
alright, then go by my stuff! no approved, lawful, etc. nonsense = no consistency problems. :nod: :D
just noticed this by the way: :D
Don't you call an unapproved show of force terroism?
Unapproved sitting in chairs is an act of terrorism against the chairs.
-
w00t :D *has turned it into a math thread* :lol:
though really.. the world of math is infinitely better than the world of politics :nod: :ha:
-
yes indeed, the world of math is better than the rest of the universe. :yes:
Now if we really want a math thread here, I have hundreds of pages of special function proofs on my hard drive; just need to select some stuff from that... ;7
-
CP... U R SO WEIRD :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
w00t :D *has turned it into a math thread* :lol:
I find no end of amusement that this political thread might, after 8 (standard) pages, get locked because it turned into a math thread. :wtf: :lol:
Go ahead, call it terrorisim against math. See if I give a hoot. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Now if we really want a math thread here, I have hundreds of pages of special function proofs on my hard drive; just need to select some stuff from that... ;7
If I were an admin, I would have banned you for a week if you would do that.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
CP... U R SO WEIRD :wtf:
Congratulations! You are person number 13536 to realize that.
-
:wtf:
MEH! No russian font here! *kicks BB*
-
:wtf:
i think we should just have a forum where CP does all of our math homework, but instead, he pays us. :)
-
you eddited you're post without an eddit message getting pasted to the bottom
-
The editing system isn't very consistent as far as I can tell... I seem to be able to get away with most first edits without a little message for it......
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
The editing system isn't very consistent as far as I can tell... I seem to be able to get away with most first edits without a little message for it......
yeah, usually you have five minutes to fix mistakes.
-
Originally posted by kode
yeah, usually you have five minutes to fix mistakes.
Regular forumites have 2 minutes to edit a post before an "Edited by..." notation appears.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Regular forumites have 2 minutes to edit a post before an "Edited by..." notation appears.
So I was wrong by 3 minutes...
-
well, it looks like its about to happen, I give it a 36 hours
-
Bush is addressing the nation tonight.
-
maybe less then,
4:00am Baghdad time is 7:00pm central (8:00pm eastern)
looks like that would be a good time to start, tacticly speaking.
-
This is quite odd. When was the last time that the world KNEW when the next big war was going to start to the specific hour? To the specific day even? Perhaps counterstrikes and reinforcement placements, but never like "in 36 hours a war will begin". Thats quite profound in my oppinion. But so is war. And so are Freedom Fries...
-
If you have been watching the news you will know that war is now inevitable, as diplomacy has failed. Once again. It's like te League of Nations all over again.
When war is declared, there will be much unrest, believe me.
-
Beh, the UN will lose half the power they had now, after the war.
-
It will crumble. What we really need is UNATCO, no kidding.
-
what we need is somesort of gathering where all countrys have equal voices who actualy can make a diffrence
oh and we need a working society
perhaps something that doesnt surpress our natural instincs
perhaps a society where you dont work your ass of 16 hours a day deliver half of your earned money to the goverment and end as a wreck at age 40
boyhowdy that would be great
ahhh
a man can dream :o
-
"...and thus began the age of great strife and misfortune. Humanity in its infinite wisdom, decides to resolve issues in old archaic ways, creating much toil and sorrow. Lives will perish as the gains of the few cause the misfortunes of the many... Civilizations will crumble, nations will fall. People will cower in fear under the mighty mongol king as it finally comes over the montain. Mortal man will war for four scores and twenty-seven years. Nations will be cleansed by nuclear fire, for armageddon is upon us! The dead shall rise! The moon will go blood red! There'll be eternal darkness!!! THE SEAS WILL BOIL! SAURON WILL ONCE AGAIN HAVE HIS RING! SYLVESTER WILL EAT TWEETY BIRD!!! MICROSOFT BUYS LINUX! FREESPACE 3 COMES OUT FOR GAME CUBE!!!! ALL WILL PERSIH AS WE LAY FLAT ON THE BACK OF OUR SELF IMPORTANCE!!!" :blah:
*Degrades into shouting cryptic and confusing dialogue as he runs around in white tattered robes.*
-
I'm going to get myself some robes.
Anyway. This will be like Vietnam again, I think. It will go on for bloody ages, and have no real winner.
They won't be able to introduce conscription (in the UK at least) because no-one will go.
-
*sits infront of dark*
well id think the open are fighting will be over real quick after all the iraqi army isnt exactly well equiped
whats gona be boody sloughter will be the city fighting especialy saddams elite troups they wont surrender
-
I'm now convinced that the buttheads leading US have finally, officially gone nuts.
There are so many things that are wrong with them that I would need the whole day to write this post, so I'll just say this again, they're nuts, stupid and arrogant, and I hope they all choke to their prezels.
No smilies, I'm pissed.
-
I quite agree with you, Pera. Not all of the US, though, just Dubya and his cronies.
Colin bloody Powell is one of the doves! What hope does that give anyone?
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
"...and thus began the age of great strife and misfortune. Humanity in its infinite wisdom, decides to resolve issues in old archaic ways, creating much toil and sorrow. Lives will perish as the gains of the few cause the misfortunes of the many... Civilizations will crumble, nations will fall. People will cower in fear under the mighty mongol king as it finally comes over the montain. Mortal man will war for four scores and twenty-seven years. Nations will be cleansed by nuclear fire, for armageddon is upon us! The dead shall rise! The moon will go blood red! There'll be eternal darkness!!! THE SEAS WILL BOIL! SAURON WILL ONCE AGAIN HAVE HIS RING! SYLVESTER WILL EAT TWEETY BIRD!!! MICROSOFT BUYS LINUX! FREESPACE 3 COMES OUT FOR GAME CUBE!!!! ALL WILL PERSIH AS WE LAY FLAT ON THE BACK OF OUR SELF IMPORTANCE!!!" :blah:
*Degrades into shouting cryptic and confusing dialogue as he runs around in white tattered robes.*
:wtf:
Uhh....what just happened? Last I heard, Bush agreed to postpone the attack...
-
When? Which Bush are we talking about?
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I quite agree with you, Pera. Not all of the US, though, just Dubya and his cronies.
Good point, post edited.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
When? Which Bush are we talking about?
"...the very foundations of time and space began to collapse and create compound fractures. Dimensional and alternate realities began to co-exists and events of different space but of same times began to happen simultaneously...."
*Continues his preaching to his followers.*
-
uh well saw it coming
honestly told you so 1 month ago..
still pisses me off
but question am i the only one who thinks that blair looks a bit like bush ?
-
Originally posted by Fetty
but question am i the only one who thinks that blair looks a bit like bush ?
Not really, but... (http://www.zen15631.zen.co.uk/bb.mpg)
-
I'm sure some ppl will say "old" but I hadn't seen it yet :lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I'm going to get myself some robes.
Anyway. This will be like Vietnam again, I think. It will go on for bloody ages, and have no real winner.
They won't be able to introduce conscription (in the UK at least) because no-one will go.
nah, they'll just bomb every damn factory they see to the ground, then send in the marines. with the amount of troops they have in there I think it'll be over soon enough. I fear though, that it'll be like Afganistan. They go in, change the regime, then go out, and everything will turn back the way it was.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
nah, they'll just bomb every damn factory they see to the ground, then send in the marines. with the amount of troops they have in there I think it'll be over soon enough. I fear though, that it'll be like Afganistan. They go in, change the regime, then go out, and everything will turn back the way it was.
Iraq has placed anti air defenses on all important building/sites etc. Though they'll be bombed anyway, not without losses.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Iraq has placed anti air defenses on all important building/sites etc. Though they'll be bombed anyway, not without losses.
never said there wouldn't be losses
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
never said there wouldn't be losses
I mean SEVERE losses. Especially with the civil armament that Saddam ordered. The US soldiers will be facing not only Iraqi soldiers but also the citizens. And when the US attacks the citizens Saddam will scream ATROCITY!
Remember, most civilians WILL fight the US as they see Bush as a greater enemy then Saddam as Saddam has given them food, free education etc. Bush Sr. and Co. has violated their trust SEVERELY.
-
US is going to bomb the hell out of Iraq.
You're forgetting: we have stealth bombers.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
I fear though, that it'll be like Afganistan. They go in, change the regime, then go out, and everything will turn back the way it was.
Saw a show with Blair talking about the 'plan' (read hopw but it's not been completely discussed within the UN yet) was to assist Iraq in setting up a new Gov. and continue to assist until they're able to stand on their own without fear of "Saddam Part 3"
Now what exactly is everone freaking out about ? Watching CNN right now and I've heard nothing more than "Bush to brief ~~" or some ****. and "War seems to be ineveitable" which if noone knew this a month ago they weren't paying much attention
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I mean SEVERE losses. Especially with the civil armament that Saddam ordered. The US soldiers will be facing not only Iraqi soldiers but also the citizens. And when the US attacks the citizens Saddam will scream ATROCITY!
Remember, most civilians WILL fight the US as they see Bush as a greater enemy then Saddam as Saddam has given them food, free education etc. Bush Sr. and Co. has violated their trust SEVERELY.
Just so ya know... once they point a weapon at soldiers...they are not civilians.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Just so ya know... once they point a weapon at soldiers...they are not civilians.
And you reaslly think Saddam cares? He'll do everything in his power to discredit the US with this.
This is just one of the things the US severly underestimates. the Iraqi's aren't exactly fond of the Americans and won't let them occupy their houses/cities without a fight.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Saw a show with Blair talking about the 'plan' (read hopw but it's not been completely discussed within the UN yet) was to assist Iraq in setting up a new Gov. and continue to assist until they're able to stand on their own without fear of "Saddam Part 3"
Now what exactly is everone freaking out about ? Watching CNN right now and I've heard nothing more than "Bush to brief ~~" or some ****. and "War seems to be ineveitable" which if noone knew this a month ago they weren't paying much attention
That what they said about Afganistan. Look whats going on there now. As for a month ago, I kinda hoped Bush was bluffing, since the troops he bought to Iraqi borders, and the carriers he mobilised crapped Saddams pants, so I was hoping that when Saddam finally stepped down, Bush would go away happy.
I know, I'm naive
-
Originally posted by Tiara
And you reaslly think Saddam cares? He'll do everything in his power to discredit the US with this.
This is just one of the things the US severly underestimates. the Iraqi's aren't exactly fond of the Americans and won't let them occupy their houses/cities without a fight.
Never said Saddam cares, my point is the fact that the world knows he will knowingly and willingly place civillans in danger. Being as human shields, arming mommy and daddy and telling them to go off and shoot something, gassing his own cities, etc etc. The US and whoever else is going in will try to avoid harming civillians,....but not at the cost of their own lives.
I'm personally in the mind that this is going to go alot like DS did. Yea they'll be a few new tricks by Saddam...but we've got quite a few new tricks ourselves.
-
Well just annouced, they've said if Saddam and his crew step down and willingly except Exile we won't be attacking.
:doubt:
Worst thing that could happen...like he wouldn't just go right back.
-
Well, no matter how you twist or turn this, massacre is inevitable.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
That what they said about Afganistan. Look whats going on there now. As for a month ago, I kinda hoped Bush was bluffing, since the troops he bought to Iraqi borders, and the carriers he mobilised crapped Saddams pants, so I was hoping that when Saddam finally stepped down, Bush would go away happy.
I know, I'm naive
Well what I heard wasn't Bush saying it, it was Blair. Donno if thatmakes any difference. Only thing I'm concerned about are all my friends that are still on active duty.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, no matter how you twist or turn this, massacre is inevitable.
Yea, war's not a pretty or clean thing like games ;) But not alot can be done about it. They're still trying to kept from sending troops in.
-
I'd just like to point out that they are now talking about using "E" Bombs, which cause EM interference and permenately shut dow electronics systems. Did bush and Rumsfeld ever think about life support in hospitals? I have noticed that it is mainly Bush against Iraq... not the Americian people as a majority. I don't know... Im at the PERFECT age that i can't vote against bush in 2004, but i can be drafted later that year...
Bad Bush, verry Bad... :trout:
-
The sloganizer never lies :D (http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/bushslogan001.JPG)
The day that will mark a new era of peace (http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/bushslogan002.JPG)
:p
-
The US doesn't exactly have a lot of supporters for this in the world either. I mean, it boils down to him and Blair. Yesterday, even Putin said, that he didn't want a war. Which I don't really give a damn about, because he's been fighting in Tchetchenia for the last 5 years. But still
-
Originally posted by Hippo
I'd just like to point out that they are now talking about using "E" Bombs, which cause EM interference and permenately shut dow electronics systems. Did bush and Rumsfeld ever think about life support in hospitals? I have noticed that it is mainly Bush against Iraq... not the Americian people as a majority. I don't know... Im at the PERFECT age that i can't vote against bush in 2004, but i can be drafted later that year...
Bad Bush, verry Bad... :trout:
If they're using something to that effect it would be low-yield so that if wouldn't affect anything outside of the target zone.
And I really don't think you've got to worry about a draft anytime in the near future ;)
-
Un failed?
Why.....that doesn't surprise me. This really sucks. I bet that if this turnes into a nuke war, UN will probably do nothing. Anyway, I just wish that my country stays away from this but if I remember, US offered us to take part into this but we of course refused. Who would like to side with NATO anyway?
-
Originally posted by Razor
Un failed?
Why.....that doesn't surprise me. This really sucks. I bet that if this turnes into a nuke war, UN will probably do nothing. Anyway, I just wish that my country stays away from this but if I remember, US offered us to take part into this but we of course refused. Who would like to side with NATO anyway?
for the one last time: NATO ISN´'T America
-
From CNN I see that Saddam has destroyed his wweapons of mass destruction and that he is ready to cooperate with the UN but still Bush is acting like a real idiot. SH did his work now and Bush ( a psycho) still wants to bomb him even though Sadams weapons are destroyed. You know, I think Bush is really really mad. If someone should step down here, that would be the US.
From CNN:
The United States and Britain say Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions requiring it give up nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to develop nuclear weapons
Nuclear? :wtf: Nuclear weapon efforts? :wtf:
Where did they get this crap? Do they know how much a nuclear warhead costs?
What about US? If anyone should give up weapons of mass destruction, then that would be none other than US. It is actually US and Bush who are threat to the world, not Sadam.
-
I want to know when/if we find huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and when/if we find hard evedence of a link between Sadam and Al queda (or some other equivelent faction(s))
will you say you were wrong?
if we don't I will say I was.
-
This is the third or fourth time I have heard all this. If they are finally going ahead with it, great, although it is rather late by now and they have lost some credibility; this should have been completed back in november. At least the UN is losing power; it has outlived its time by about half a century. :p
I fear though, that it'll be like Afganistan. They go in, change the regime, then go out, and everything will turn back the way it was.
uh yeah, that's the whole idea; keep things the way they are except with a new government, since the country is fine otherwise for the most part. :p
Remember, most civilians WILL fight the US as they see Bush as a greater enemy then Saddam as Saddam has given them food, free education etc.
And I suppose their way of thanking him for this incredible generosity of his is lynching his republican guard officers if they try to go out on the streets alone? :D
This is just one of the things the US severly underestimates. the Iraqi's aren't exactly fond of the Americans and won't let them occupy their houses/cities without a fight.
A majority of local fighters will probably only stand up in Hussein's hometown, and even there they will hardly put up a fight; groups of mobs cannot really stand up to cruise missiles. Then there is also the fact that if this were all actually true and Iraq really would put up a hard fight, warning the US would be the very last thing that the rest of the world would do. Everyone knows that this will be likely be a cakewalk but they don't want American influence to spread even more than it already has, so they are coming up with some reasons to preserve their own interests.
More of an issue is holding Iraq together after a new government has been set up, since the ethnic conflicts have been going on for some time there. Up to now any rebellions have been quickly beaten down by the military police, but some of the groups will likely see this as their chance to secede and form independent nations. Still, that's not so much of a problem because as long as the others are are fighting amongst themselves, they cannot unite against you. :D
I'm personally in the mind that this is going to go alot like DS did. Yea they'll be a few new tricks by Saddam...but we've got quite a few new tricks ourselves.
I read somewhere that in terms of raw numbers his forces are just under half of what he had back then.
Well just annouced, they've said if Saddam and his crew step down and willingly except Exile we won't be attacking.
I don't know who is making a more stupid decision here; the US for offering such a choice, or Hussein for not accepting it. :D He can control the nation just as easily from outside it as he is now by simply buying out whoever the US puts in power, so unless the US has reason to believe that he will do otherwise and is only giving the option for diplomatic reasons, this is definitely a bad idea.
for the one last time: NATO ISN´'T America
I'm not even going to bother with him on any political issue... :D
I want to know when/if we find huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and when/if we find hard evedence of a link between Sadam and Al queda (or some other equivelent faction(s))
will you say you were wrong?
if we don't I will say I was.
I'm not sure we will find either one (first one has some possibility, but second one is very unlikely), but it doesn't really matter; there are other reasons to go with the war option.
-
Originally posted by Razor
From CNN I see that Saddam has destroyed his wweapons of mass destruction and that he is ready to cooperate with the UN but still Bush is acting like a real idiot. SH did his work now and Bush ( a psycho) still wants to bomb him even though Sadams weapons are destroyed. You know, I think Bush is really really mad. If someone should step down here, that would be the US.
From CNN:
Nuclear? :wtf: Nuclear weapon efforts? :wtf:
Where did they get this crap? Do they know how much a nuclear warhead costs?
What about US? If anyone should give up weapons of mass destruction, then that would be none other than US. It is actually US and Bush who are threat to the world, not Sadam.
A little coherency would go a long way buddy. They want Saddam out, plain and simple, it's not about WMD, it's about them not wanting him (preferably) alive anymore. Thing is, he's used chemical weapons before and most probably will again, he's killed over one million of his own people and is plainly a not nice piece of work. I can understand why they want him out and personally wouldn't mind seeing all this money that goes into military funding used at least once in a while.
Personally I don't care particularly what happens, in the grand old scheme of things this will have very little effect on my life and as selfish as that is, I just don't give a flying ****.
-
there may be other reasons, but that is the one we have promoted,
hell if they don't find anything they had better give a half assed frameup at the least. :lol:
-
Oh come on. :rolleyes: Why does every one of these threads turn into Let's Bash America?
Food for thought: Read up on the 1930s, when everyone was getting mad at Churchill for blowing the whistle on Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Food for thought: Read up on the 1930s, when everyone was getting mad at Churchill for blowing the whistle on Hitler.
True, but Churchill wasn't a dumb-ass who can't pronounce words with more than 3 syllables.
I'm American, and agree with this war, just not the way Bush is handling it.
-
you know what'd just be intresting? If they finally got the war started, somehow got Saddam out of one of his uber underground fortresses and he was killed, Iraq falls, then the CIA for the good fo the country, dissposed of Bush and his posse Kennedy Conspiracy style, and then had some guy that has such a nice track record and has been so quiet that no one noticed him, whom they installed in the government years ago, step up and lead as the only one left in the chain of command..
That'd make a weird movie.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
you know what'd just be intresting? If they finally got the war started, somehow got Saddam out of one of his uber underground fortresses and he was killed, Iraq falls, then the CIA for the good fo the country, dissposed of Bush and his posse Kennedy Conspiracy style, and then had some guy that has such a nice track record and has been so quiet that no one noticed him, whom they installed in the government years ago, step up and lead as the only one left in the chain of command..
That'd make a weird movie.
They made that already....it's called Star Wars ;)
Palpy being the little guy with a good track record that sat back and slowly crept up to power.
Hmmm makes ya wonder,.. You might hate Bush now... but it could be worse.
-
IF Bush's speech is to announce the war,.. it would be to say something to the effect of "An hour ago we started military action against Iraq".
Being CNN has repeatedly commented on them (Bush/Blair) planning to give Iraqi one last chance to avoid war,... I doubt it's starting tonight or tomarrow,... best guess is either it starts before his speech, or 2-3 days from now.
-
Yes, we could have Nader..
:blah:
-
True, but Churchill wasn't a dumb-ass who can't pronounce words with more than 3 syllables.
eheheheheheheheheheh :D :D :D:D:D :D
-
"True, but Churchill wasn't a dumb-ass who can't pronounce words with more than 3 syllables."
Tell me chief... can the renouned scientist Hawking pronounce ****? No he can't. Therefore according to your logic he is a dumb-ass.
For those of you who think this will be a massacre I advise you to consult recent and all of history. I am not meaning to brage... I'm intending to clear something up.. The USA is the most powerful nation in history when it comes to sheer contest and ability to reach out and touch someone. Europe told us how it would be a bloody battle in Afghanistan that we couldn't win... with a fraction of our force we toppled the government in a matter of days. Keep in mind that was ONLY air power. We now have arrayed a massive amount of force near Iraq. It is estimated that the amount of munitions that will be dropped in the first three days of this war will equal the total amount dropped in the Gulf War.
I will admit one thing that could cause problems... Saddam using WofMD. But Europe and the rest of the world is content thinking he doesn't have them so they aren't an issue are they?
The people are against us? There are reports of people revolting and his mayors leaving. Brainwashing only goes so far. He is a dictator; he leads by fear not information. He murdered a mayor to keep them from leaving yesterday. Give me a few minutes and I will find the article.
Plain and simple: The USA is bearing a great deal of her arsenal... this she has not done this in years.
-
very true Falcon, but remember that the US may just be underestimating "war" as a whole.
In the history of the United States, not once has she been bombed during war. Britan was bombed non-stop for months... Germany for weeks... and almost, if not all, every European country at some time.
America has never had an attack (other than the WTC attack) on its mainland. it's never had an airstrike on Washington, it's never had a bomb dropped in California. i think if that happens (hopefully it won't)... Americans will get a different feeling about this war.
-
True. Very true. But what has happened when we have been attacked? RAGE. You do not enrage this country. You know what we could do if that happens. Afghanistan was nothing. We haven't used our full force since WWII.
-
Bush just gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country.
-
Yup
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Tell me chief... can the renouned scientist Hawking pronounce ****? No he can't. Therefore according to your logic he is a dumb-ass.
But is Bush paralyzed in everything except a finger and an eye, and speaks through a mechanized voice box? No.
Besides, Hawking is, as you said, a renouned scientist.
Dubya is dumber than my left toe.
Not my RIGHT toe, mind you, my LEFT toe! My RIGHT toe got a 4.0 GPA average during college :D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
In the history of the United States, not once has she been bombed during war.
two words Pearl Harbor
And for those that have been worried about a bloodbath ,... notice Bush made a point to annouce the military will give the Iraqi military a clear set of things to do to avoid being attacked as long as they choose to allow the US/Brit forces to destroy any WMDs.
-
Ok, this (thread) is turning into a bloodbath...
-
Scratch out. Didn't see the thread remark.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Ok, this (thread) is turning into a bloodbath...
Oh ... really ?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
two words Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor wasn't one of our states during WWII, thus it wasn't in the US...
-
It was a sneak attack (thus cheap shot) on the US herself. Historically we don't take kindly to attacks.
-
Originally posted by Hades
Pearl Harbor wasn't one of our states during WWII, thus it wasn't in the US...
well pearl harbor is in hawaii which is US territory.. and the US has a major naval base there..
-
Originally posted by Hades
Pearl Harbor wasn't one of our states during WWII, thus it wasn't in the US...
Tisk tisk
1898
Hawaii is annexed to the United States
1941
December 7th, Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. The U.S. enters World War II. Martial law is imposed in Hawaii until October 24, 1944.
Knowledge is a terrible thing to fake ;)
-
1959
Hawaii becomes a state
Probably what they meant.
-
48 hours
or I guess it's more like 45 now
tick tock Sadam :devil:
-
told u so :rolleyes:
-
ooooh I can't wait. :drevil:
we finally get to see some action. Now if only the media weren't so controlled and showed something different. Every news show on every channel every hours says exactly the same thing over and over..
:blah:
-
well i guess the US forces can't wait to test out thier new toys :drevil:
-
we will and have waited,
we will and have take great pains to use them as little as nesicary,
and besides we did just test them, remember, Afganistan,
it was a pretty good test
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
For those of you who think this will be a massacre I advise you to consult recent and all of history. I am not meaning to brage... I'm intending to clear something up.. The USA is the most powerful nation in history when it comes to sheer contest and ability to reach out and touch someone.
A). I am in my final year of my study on the uni. Guess what? I study history.
B). The US thinks that it'll be a walk-over. NOT! No war is like that. This is what will claim the most victims. If Saddam manages to absorb US blows (by flooding swamps in the south near basra, torching oil fields to mislead infra red missiles, etc etc etc) Bush will need to look for otheroptions and it WILL get nasty.
C). Again, dont try to lecture me about history. :p
D). There has never been a war like this. The closest thing to this is Vietnam, and that wasn't a real success. It had quite some massacres on both sides.... Exactly what i suspect that will happen here.
My point of view:
I totally agree that Saddam has to go. But the way the US is handling this is absurd. They are causing a breakdown in the intercontinental community. Russian, China AND France were ready to put in their veto right. Thats why Bush never put the new resolutioin on the table. It'd create "problems" or his war. This is a war that affects us ALL. The US has no right to bypass the opinion of all other nations.
-
I think only France was _going to_ use there veto, Russia and China probly would have if there was any need to (france is doing it already so why bother) but they were (at least officaly) open to negotiations.
I keep hearing people saying this is going to be a bloody horror then I hear people saying that they keep hearing the same things and point out that the same things have been said for the last ten years and we have yet to encounter one.
but, over the last year or so I think this has gone from cake walk to (probable) blood bath due mostly to the amount of time that has been aforded Sadam,
I realy don't know wich way it's going to land, and thats just it, nobody knows how this is going to turn out.
but you know I think I have prepared for the worst,
I just want to be far enough from the epicenter of the counter atack that I can live long enough to hear all the people say
"oops, I guess he did have them after all"
if that is the last thing I hear I will die happy
-
D). There has never been a war like this. The closest thing to this is Vietnam, and that wasn't a real success. It had quite some massacres on both sides.... Exactly what i suspect that will happen here.
Yes there has been something exactly like this, the 1991 Persian gulf war; same enemy, same location, doubled enemy forces, etc. and that was one of the most one-sided large scale victories in US military history. Besides, look at my other post again; if that was really your point of view, you wouldn't be telling anyone, would you? :D
I totally agree that Saddam has to go. But the way the US is handling this is absurd. They are causing a breakdown in the intercontinental community. Russian, China AND France were ready to put in their veto right. Thats why Bush never put the new resolutioin on the table. It'd create "problems" or his war. This is a war that affects us ALL. The US has no right to bypass the opinion of all other nations.
The US, and anyone else, has every right to do anything they please if they have the capability to do it, and so they are doing it. If you don't like it, well, too bad. :D This "international community" is one of the worst oxymorons ever invented (and if you are studying history, you should know this better than anyone else), so it's about time that people are waking up to what the world is really like. :p
I keep hearing people saying this is going to be a bloody horror then I hear people saying that they keep hearing the same things and point out that the same things have been said for the last ten years and we have yet to encounter one.
but, over the last year or so I think this has gone from cake walk to (probable) blood bath due mostly to the amount of time that has been aforded Sadam,
That is another thing to keep in mind. Hussein has gotten seven months to prepare and the harsh Iraqi summer desert climate has set in. This is exactly why the EU wanted to delay the US all this time, and we fell into their trap. It still probably will not be that hard since there are numerous other factors working toward the Americans' advantage, but it could definitely have been easier.
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html - The transcript of Bush's latest... ...show.
Bush: "Do not destroy oil wells" - Could you possibly get more obvious?
Bush: "... it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." - Spot the ludicrous lie. Last I heard, Al Qaeda hated Iraq...
(And americans did originally train Bin Laden, how did they suddenly become friends in their books? Of course, they didn't, it's just something qute to accuse them about. Sinks in to the panic-influenced masses perfectly... Rest of the world will never buy it, but they don't matter to them anyway.)
I fully agree with Tiara. I don't expect them to get it over in a week, and the whole situation will not be resolved for a very long time - this adventure of theirs will quite probably wreak havoc in global politics and the middle east situation for years to come. Saddam needs to be overthrown, but such things can never be accomplished succesfully by a totally outside force. It has to be their own people - a colonialistic outsider can't create a fully working government in Iraq. Sure, they (the people of Iraq) can and should be supported when possible, but an illegal invasion like this... sigh. What next, will they march in North Korea too, and then every single dictatorship on the face of the planet? Where does it end? (Of course, they won't - they don't have oil or any other resources worth acquiring.)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think only France was _going to_ use there veto, Russia and China probly would have if there was any need to (france is doing it already so why bother) but they were (at least officaly) open to negotiations.
Nope, Russia said they'd use him. And China is not a country that will support the US above Russia.
I keep hearing people saying this is going to be a bloody horror then I hear people saying that they keep hearing the same things and point out that the same things have been said for the last ten years and we have yet to encounter one.
but, over the last year or so I think this has gone from cake walk to (probable) blood bath due mostly to the amount of time that has been aforded Sadam,
I realy don't know wich way it's going to land, and thats just it, nobody knows how this is going to turn out.
And whos fault is it we are now in this mess? Family Bush. Saddam shouldn't be in power anymore ten years ago.
And I hear you people talk about Iraq (Not all people mind you) as if they have any clue on whats really happening. At least I have investigated it myself and know something about Iraqi capabilities.
Yes, Iraq is outnumbered BY FAR. But always remember that it is their ground, their belief they are fighting for, Saddam is a very clever man when it comes to these situations.
- After the US take Basra the Iraqi's will use the "scorched Earth"tactic (probably) and burn any bridge in the south. With Basra surrounded by rivers, it will slow down US advancements.
- Oil fields with burn, thus throwing any infra red missile off course. This limits the US striking ability.
- All major cities have anti-air defenses.
- Citizens have been armed
- Volunteer training camps for fanatics have been set up around Bagdad, kirkoesk, etc. (Don't underestimate fanatics)
- A general that is known to uyse gas attacks is stationed in the noprth at a key posistion.
I could go on and on and on with this list, but this will get nasty. The US shouldn't have done this. they practically tore down the international community, and will now cause many deaths. More then Saddam would cause in 10 years.
but you know I think I have prepared for the worst,
I just want to be far enough from the epicenter of the counter atack that I can live long enough to hear all the people say
"oops, I guess he did have them after all"
if that is the last thing I hear I will die happy
Typical egocentric behaviour. You are ok with the war cause you are not inb it. If you were an innocent Iraqi citizen you'd be crying for peace right now or fleeing to Iran.
Also, if now every single moslim terrorist movement will scramble theree bombs on Times Square its the US own dumb fault.
-
Robin Cook said it well; if the invasion is firstly made possible by the fact that Saddam Hussein is now weak in military terms, how can they at the same time claim he's a threat and must be attacked?
Iraq has no means whatsoever to threaten U.S., so the war simply means just the latest reality TV show to fill the american televisions. Those who cheer and shout for war aren't touched by it in any way. If there was *any* threat whatsoever to american people, I wouldn't criticize one bit, but this circus is simply an illegal invasion in violation of every international agreement ever made. Those who think US can do whatever they please are unbelievably naive - the rest of the world exists and it's big (contrary to what american kids seem to be taught in school). Bush administration is taking the world on an express elevator to hell. :ick
-
Okay a ton of things to reply to...
"(And americans did originally train Bin Laden, how did they suddenly become friends in their books? Of course, they didn't, it's just something qute to accuse them about. Sinks in to the panic-influenced masses perfectly... Rest of the world will never buy it, but they don't matter to them anyway.)"
Did you see the Iran-Contra Senate hearing with Oliver North testifying? For maybe a second we trained him but we dumped him. Way too looney and Oly recognized it. In that hearing North said we should eliminate him as soon as possible. The senator that questioned him laughed at that... guess who it was... Al Gore.
Tiara: Bush (sr) stopped because of the UN charter. We did what the UN wanted. We stopped then... we thought that the UN could handle it... wrong. Tell me how long does it take a country to disarm? Just answer that. Now I'm not talking about "hunts" for weapons, I'm talking about honest disarment.
I respect people's opinions about how this will be bloody and long... but look back at the gulf war... that's what they said then too. I'm not saying it most definetly won't be, but I highly doubt it. This is not vietnam. We are not going half assed. We're using everything. (Linebacker I and II when used made N. Vietnam come crawling back to the peace table. That's the only time we took the gloves off.)
-
"Iraq has no means whatsoever to threaten U.S., so the war simply means just the latest reality TV show to fill the american televisions. Those who cheer and shout for war aren't touched by it in any way. If there was *any* threat whatsoever to american people, I wouldn't criticize one bit, but this circus is simply an illegal invasion in violation of every international agreement ever made. Those who think US can do whatever they please are unbelievably naive - the rest of the world exists and it's big (contrary to what american kids seem to be taught in school). Bush administration is taking the world on an express elevator to hell. "
IF you read international law, resolutions, and the gulf war peace treaty... we have the full legal right to do this.
"Those who think US can do whatever they please are unbelievably naive - the rest of the world exists and it's big "
Yeah we're dumb asses. That's why everyone usually comes here for college.... and about 40% R&D is done by us... yeah we're just morons. Congratulations Mr. Jealous.
-
Originally posted by Terorist
Bush: "Do not destroy oil wells" - Could you possibly get more obvious?
:sigh: You hear what you want to hear. :doubt: The reason Bush said this was that the oil fields belong to the Iraqi people, and he doesn't want them to be torched because it'll make it that much harder to rebuild Iraq.
Bush: "... it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." - Spot the ludicrous lie. Last I heard, Al Qaeda hated Iraq...
Who do you trust to tell the truth - al Qaeda or Bush? Both al Qaeda and Iraq will say anything if it furthers their own ends.
-
"And whos fault is it we are now in this mess? Family Bush. Saddam shouldn't be in power anymore ten years ago."
:rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes:
"Saddam shouldn't be in power anymore ten years ago"
yes, you are absolutly right,
I think a more corect statment has never been said in this forums history
but I think we should look into what the situation in the UN was to place blaim, from what I remember it was a mixture of Bush pussing out and desperate to not have a ten year long problem ( :lol: ), the UN mandate not calling for it, and the coalition not suporting it, I was 9 at the time so my first hand memories arn't very good
"- After the US take Basra the Iraqi's will use the "scorched Earth"tactic (probably) and burn any bridge in the south. With Basra surrounded by rivers, it will slow down US advancements."
sounds about right
"- Oil fields with burn, thus throwing any infra red missile off course. This limits the US striking ability."
most of our bombs are JDAMs they use GPS, so you're right but wrong(ish)
"- All major cities have anti-air defenses."
F-117, B2, cruse missle
"- Citizens have been armed"
and will probly shoot anyhting that threatens them, wich would include Sadams army, I doubt they are going to be itching to make themselves into valid military targets, but who knows maybe they will
"- Volunteer training camps for fanatics have been set up around Bagdad, kirkoesk, etc. (Don't underestimate fanatics)"
first off, agreed, fully,
second, I thought Sadam didn't suport fanatics/terrorists :)
"- A general that is known to uyse gas attacks is stationed in the noprth at a key posistion."
yup, bloody
"More then Saddam would cause in 10 years."
will it be more than he has killed in the last ten?
"Typical egocentric behaviour..."
what I said I expect to get hit back, I said I have prepaired for this to get personal to me, I don't think a suburb of St. Louis is a real prime terror target, but I have many famely members that fly alot/are in the military/live in big cities, and I live less than ten miles from Scott AFB, I go to school within I think about a mile, it is (remotely) posable that I could get killed,
what is so important about SAFB you may ask? well it is our national air mobility comand, the logistic center of the air force, I don't realy think Sadam will be looking for good military targets but if he was this would be a good one.
hell, I could get offed by a suicide bomber, wich I expect to start showing up in every major (and some minor) US city
"Also, if now every single moslim terrorist movement will scramble theree bombs on Times Square its the US own dumb fault."
in a sence you are right, this is a war, that is the only way they can hurt us, but if they do that you can bet it won't make us back down
I don't think I would be crying, probly ether getting the hell out of Baghdad or getting everyone together and getting redy shoot anyhting that tries to enter my home be it Iraqi or American
also it may be of note I have heard there are a number of fairly promenent Islamic clairics in suport of us, maybe I heard wrong, maybe this is the begining of a change, maybe they signed there own death warents
-
"Who do you trust to tell the truth - al Qaeda or Bush? Both al Qaeda and Iraq will say anything if it furthers their own ends."
the difernce is that Bush's staments are scrutinised and looked over by millions, no billions of people, all looking for his lies
-
Alright, I'm looking for a fight here. let's go! :D
Sure, they (the people of Iraq) can and should be supported when possible, but an illegal invasion like this... sigh. What next, will they march in North Korea too, and then every single dictatorship on the face of the planet? Where does it end?
When the world has been conquered, of course. oh, and it is quite legal, because we say so. :D
And whos fault is it we are now in this mess? Family Bush. Saddam shouldn't be in power anymore ten years ago.
Indeed, so they are now merely correcting that error. After making a mistake, is it better to recognize and correct it or keep it that way? These anti-war arguments are so inconsistent. :p
Yes, Iraq is outnumbered BY FAR. But always remember that it is their ground, their belief they are fighting for, Saddam is a very clever man when it comes to these situations.
Then why didn't he do better in 1991? He made a mess out of the attack from his point of view and could definitely have utilized his forces much more effectively, even if he had not quite won; what kind of fool lines up his tanks and men in the open desert for defense, even contrary to all of the recommendations of his generals? :p
Hussein is not a very smart man (if he had any sense, he would have left the country long ago and would be operating things remotely behind the scenes), but his subordinates certainly are, so that will not be much of an asset to the US.
- After the US take Basra the Iraqi's will use the "scorched Earth"tactic (probably) and burn any bridge in the south. With Basra surrounded by rivers, it will slow down US advancements.
- Oil fields with burn, thus throwing any infra red missile off course. This limits the US striking ability.
- All major cities have anti-air defenses.
- Citizens have been armed
- Volunteer training camps for fanatics have been set up around Bagdad, kirkoesk, etc. (Don't underestimate fanatics)
- A general that is known to uyse gas attacks is stationed in the noprth at a key posistion.
- Why would the US take all of its men to one city so to be cut off like that? come on, they are not that stupid. :p
- This only occurs with traditional heat-seeker projectiles; most of the larger types are guided to their destinations by geosynchronous satellites.
- These aren't very effective against cruise missiles.
- See earlier post; what is this, some sort of jacquerie? :D
- That's exactly what they said before Afghanistan; these are not much of a match for tech.
- This is the main credible threat I see, which is why all of the US soldiers have oxygen masks in such an event.
I could go on and on and on with this list, but this will get nasty. The US shouldn't have done this. they practically tore down the international community, and will now cause many deaths. More then Saddam would cause in 10 years.
once again, international community = contradiction in terms.
Also, if now every single moslim terrorist movement will scramble theree bombs on Times Square its the US own dumb fault.
That is to be expected at some point regardless of any war; this will not do anything but instigate the incidents, and it's best to get them over with when you are prepared for them. Do you think that the way to stop these guys is to simply do nothing and hope that they will improve? Ask Gandhi about that. :p
Typical egocentric behaviour. You are ok with the war cause you are not inb it. If you were an innocent Iraqi citizen you'd be crying for peace right now or fleeing to Iran.
That would also be equally egocentric behavior. :D We are talking about this from the viewpoint of the US as a whole; it does indeed make sense for them to do this for their own purposes, just as it makes sense for Iraq to defend their nation and regime, once again for their own purposes.
Robin Cook said it well; if the invasion is firstly made possible by the fact that Saddam Hussein is now weak in military terms, how can they at the same time claim he's a threat and must be attacked?
He can be a threat in one way while being vulnerable to something else, you know (suppose he has one nuke and one ICBM to move it around; he cannot defend his own nation with that, but he can certainly attack others). But actually, it is not certain that he is a threat right now, only a possibility; the certainty is in his becoming a threat in the future. There is no point in taking such a chance here when there is little to lose; as Bush put it (one of the few sensible things he said yesterday), the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action.
If there was *any* threat whatsoever to american people, I wouldn't criticize one bit, but this circus is simply an illegal invasion in violation of every international agreement ever made.
For the third time, any "international agreement" = teh suck. :p
Those who think US can do whatever they please are unbelievably naive - the rest of the world exists and it's big (contrary to what american kids seem to be taught in school).
I wouldn't be talking about being naive; those who use things like "international agreements" in their arguments should look in the mirror for naiveness. :D The rest of the world exists and it's big, but it is not united at the moment; if it does become so, we can worry about it then. If anyone wants to try and directly stop us, nobody is standing in their way, so why is nobody doing that? The reason is that the US is powerful at the moment, so they need to weaken it first in more subtle ways.
-
A reply to Falcon X.
I can't possibly know how long it would take to disarm Iraq. I'm not an expert on that field and won't claim anything (unlike you who seem to think there is no other way than force). Sure, the disarming has been going on for years and has had problems, but it is working nevertheless. Bush administration has been claiming they still have lots of weapons of mass destruction, but can't provide a shred of evidence. Neither side can claim moral high ground here, and no way there's a reason for invasion!
About the legality... Read this article (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-war-legality-qa,0,5792929.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines). I hope you're not surprised when others say you don't have a legitimate reason to start a war.
What was that about "dumb-asses"? Not 'everyone' goes there for college either. Where did you get that R&D figure from? I wasn't calling anyone moron or using other such insults. Let's try to keep this clean, shall we?
Goober5000:
"Who do you trust to tell the truth - al Qaeda or Bush? Both al Qaeda and Iraq will say anything if it furthers their own ends."
I trust... neither! Both will lie whenever they want to! Which one do you trust? Bush, simply because he's your leader? Give me a break... Do a little research on that specific matter, you'll find out the truth soon enough. Don't listen to me, Bush or any other side, just look at the facts and history!
-
About the legality... Read this article. I hope you're not surprised when others say you don't have a legitimate reason to start a war.
We do now: a shivan told Bush to do so in a dream. You cannot say anything now. :D
-
I beleve this comment
"(contrary to what american kids seem to be taught in school)."
is what implied the all americans are stupid dumbasses
though I will give you that our (public grade) schools are crap
-
Originally posted by Terorist
A reply to Falcon X.
I can't possibly know how long it would take to disarm Iraq. I'm not an expert on that field and won't claim anything (unlike you who seem to think there is no other way than force). Sure, the disarming has been going on for years and has had problems, but it is working nevertheless. Bush administration has been claiming they still have lots of weapons of mass destruction, but can't provide a shred of evidence. Neither side can claim moral high ground here, and no way there's a reason for invasion!
About the legality... Read this article (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-war-legality-qa,0,5792929.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines). I hope you're not surprised when others say you don't have a legitimate reason to start a war.
What was that about "dumb-asses"? Not 'everyone' goes there for college either. Where did you get that R&D figure from? I wasn't calling anyone moron or using other such insults. Let's try to keep this clean, shall we?
Goober5000:
"Who do you trust to tell the truth - al Qaeda or Bush? Both al Qaeda and Iraq will say anything if it furthers their own ends."
I trust... neither! Both will lie whenever they want to! Which one do you trust? Bush, simply because he's your leader? Give me a break... Do a little research on that specific matter, you'll find out the truth soon enough. Don't listen to me, Bush or any other side, just look at the facts and history!
If you wish to keep it clean than please refrain from the "lazy stupid americans" view.
Hmm that article didn't do anything for me. IT puzzles me that everyone loves bosnia and kosovo when we didn't even go to the UN and we interdicted in something we had no business in. Should we have? Probably yes.
Bush said it clearly... Iraq has not complied with the ceace-fire. That's true even your article says that.
One more thing, just because we're in the UN doesn't mean we lose our sovergnity.
In many respects Europe tries to take the moral high ground all the time. We're doing this wrong, or that... we may be but could you guys be?
I believe the British Foreign Minister put this best, "the role of the inspectors should not be detectives, but auditors." He is not complying and will not comply. You know that. That is cause for war. Sure Hitler wasn't a threat when he took the Rheinland... "Peace in our time." I love that one.
-
That is the commonly held view in much of Europe actually, but it doesn't really matter; although the public school systems are terrible, the US research facilities are the ones producing the results. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is the commonly held view in much of Europe actually, but it doesn't really matter; although the public school systems are terrible, the US research facilities are the ones producing the results. :D
Not all public schools are terrible. I and many others actually had a good one.
-
and that article is hardly what I would call conclucive, all it realy says is some conties disagree with our interpetation of the situation, and that we have been sparing with some contries over the interpetation 1441
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Not all public schools are terrible. I and many others actually had a good one.
you must have gotten REAL lucky
I was in three or four of them and I still have pyhcological damage.
(probly not a good thing to say that you are pyhcologicaly damaged in the middle of a debate thread were my mental competency will be called dinto question... oh, well :wink: )
-
CP5670: You talk about not recognizing any international organization or treaty. That is so clearly a troll that I'm not going to go there... There is this thing called the UN that should be allowed to work, but U.S. won't let them, and now they're going to war on their own.
Bobboau and others: If my lines in any way came across as insults to american intelligence, I apologize. The latest line on that simply meant that they don't seem to receive enough information about the world - ignorance has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. I can only hope CP5670 will some day learn more about international relations... His comments leave me confused and conserned for him. (I hope it's just his young age - and no offence there either!)
I'm not looking for a fight, I don't have the time or any desire to put up with flames or heated arguments. I've stated my opinions, hopefully clearly enough, and will let them speak for themselves. I'll post again if something comes up and I check this thread (there's a lot going on right now and there simply are better places to spend my time on this subject - expect me when you see me).
-
the scary thing is that is CP5670 sincere belefes, he denies all morality as being basicly wishfull thinking, and consiters sitting in his room doing math problems to be by far preferable to going out and haveing some sort of contact with girls.
I must say that I fully respect but utterly disagree with his interpetations as haveing a fundemental flaw, but we have had this discusion and I would rather we stayed on the topic of Iraq, if CP5670 wishes to discus this again he can make another topic ;)
-
CP5670: You talk about not recognizing any international organization or treaty. That is so clearly a troll that I'm not going to go there... There is this thing called the UN that should be allowed to work, but U.S. won't let them, and now they're going to war on their own.
I don't know what "should" or "should not" be allowed to work, but this is the way things are; it is not a question of what "should" work. This is how the world has always been since the dawn of civilizations and will be for some time to come, which is why initiatives such as the UN have failed to work correctly; an international treaty, just like any other law, only has any meaning at all if it is backed by force or some kind of penalty for disobeying it. If you want to go into the theoretical aspects of why this is so, look for some of my older posts on this topic; it has been brought up many times around here.
I can only hope CP5670 will some day learn more about international relations... His comments leave me confused and conserned for him. (I hope it's just his young age - and no offence there either!)
Come on, is this the best counterargument you can come up with? This is like my saying that "I can only hope Terorist will some day learn more about special functions;" it simply makes no sense on its own.
I must say that I fully respect but utterly disagree with his interpetations as haveing a fundemental flaw, but we have had this discusion and I would rather we stayed on the topic of Iraq, if CP5670 wishes to discus this again he can make another topic
sure thing. :D
only, problem is, you have never pointed out that fundamental flaw. :p :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Terorist
Goober5000:
"Who do you trust to tell the truth - al Qaeda or Bush? Both al Qaeda and Iraq will say anything if it furthers their own ends."
I trust... neither! Both will lie whenever they want to! Which one do you trust? Bush, simply because he's your leader? Give me a break... Do a little research on that specific matter, you'll find out the truth soon enough. Don't listen to me, Bush or any other side, just look at the facts and history!
I had a feeling I would get this kind of a response. :doubt: How can you possibly draw moral equivalence between Bush and al-Qaida?!? :wtf:
I don't trust Bush simply because he's my leader. I evaluate a person based on his or her deeds. Clinton was our leader a few years ago, and I wouldn't trust him with a crayon.
-
you know now that I think of it, didn't you allways say that the concept of morality would be replaced by cold law, isn't that something like what the suposed international comunity is composed of?
a whole **** load of treaties that nobody realy cares about for the most part but follow them simply becase there the law
(this was directed at CP, I don't expect many other people to agree with much/any of it)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think only France was _going to_ use veto....
If that is so, Bush can not possibly go to war with Iraq because if any member of the SC, even if one gives a veto, no decission can be taken. Tht counts for action too. So if Bush is going into this war WITHOUT an approval from the UN and the SC, he is thus violating who knows how many conventions. Tell ya what people, America should be removed from the SC as soon as possible because if it continues this way, the only thing we will end up with, will (in 99% chances) be a new world war.
-
:rolleyes:
OH.
MY
GOD
turn on MSNBC, I can not beleve it has a minute by minute count down clock running
that is too much for me,
**** why don't they start takeing odds on a body count or something :doubt:
now I see were we get our reputation from :sigh:
this would be worth a lol if it wasn't real :no:
-
we already have a new world war
and I think the UN should be more worried about us leaveing them, as they have proven themselves impotent
-
turn on MSNBC, I can not beleve it has a minute by minute count down clock running
that is too much for me,
:lol: I just saw that; quite ridiculous. :D
you know now that I think of it, didn't you allways say that the concept of morality would be replaced by cold law, isn't that something like what the suposed international comunity is composed of?
a whole **** load of treaties that nobody realy cares about for the most part but follow them simply becase there the law
well, the laws made by this "international community" are kind of a strange infusion of traditional ethics and an attempt to keep the world power balance static in the post-WW2 position. They used to be obeyed to some extent by most of the major countries, I suppose one of the reasons being that people were made to think that it was morally correct. Now the US is going against all of them, but all anyone else can do about is whine, because these laws were not backed by any threats, and thus they were not really laws at all.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
:rolleyes:
OH.
MY
GOD
turn on MSNBC, I can not beleve it has a minute by minute count down clock running
that is too much for me,
**** why don't they start takeing odds on a body count or something :doubt:
now I see were we get our reputation from :sigh:
this would be worth a lol if it wasn't real :no:
:lol:
and bush went on and on explaining how the deadline was only the deadline before we get serious and make up an arbitrary deadline.. to keep them guessing.. :p
-
in you're talks of the new morality you never mentioned anything of the laws haveing to be backed by threats, you mearly said people would do what the laws told them to do whatever the laws were, they would do this as naturaly as people get sick at the sight of perceved atrocities, you never said that they would in fact be acting out of fear of the reprecusions of breaking the laws but rather that the laws would become there new religon
so in fact you're new morality is mearly resorting to a facist state were everyone lives in perpetual fear of the governing body.
I can not see this world lasting very long in that state if it were ever to reach it, not with the humans we have today (biologicaly speaking, though perhaps you could engeneer something basied on the human genome)
again directed entierly at CP, everyone else ignor... unless you want to help me :D
-
well my point was that I couldn't beleve how far they have pushed this into the pay-per-view super-hype get-the-kids-and-some-pop-corn-and-watch-the-entertainment format, I understand they need rateings but couldn't they reserve some sort of illusion of dignity, I'm not going to commit to a full boycott but I have now lost what very very little respect I had for that station and will only look it over briefly between comercals on other stations and then only when I have forgoten about the clock and if it's there away I shal go
-
CP, one question.
If I smashed in your head with a very large hammer('cause I'm urging to), would that be ok and right just because I can do it?
-
in you're talks of the new morality you never mentioned anything of the laws haveing to be backed by threats, you mearly said people would do what the laws told them to do whatever the laws were, they would do this as naturaly as people get sick at the sight of perceved atrocities, you never said that they would in fact be acting out of fear of the reprecusions of breaking the laws but rather that the laws would become there new religon
so in fact you're new morality is mearly resorting to a facist state were everyone lives in perpetual fear of the governing body.
I can not see this world lasting very long in that state if it were ever to reach it, not with the humans we have today (biologicaly speaking, though perhaps you could engeneer something basied on the human genome)
It's a combination of both really; for the most part the people are made to think that, but this doesn't always work perfectly since criminals still exist, so that's what the threat of punishment is there for. But actually, the world is in something of that state even today (and has always been so), just in a somewhat disguised form to make people think otherwise, which is how it must be in order to work. Just think of what crime in the US would be like if there were no punishments for anything; the gangs would end up ruling the nation. :D
If I smashed in your head with a very large hammer('cause I'm urging to), would that be ok and right just because I can do it?
Certainly; I mean, what does it matter whether or not it is "okay" or "right" if you can do it? I may not like it and may retaliate, but that doesn't make it any more wrong (or right).
-
"Just think of what crime in the US would be like if there were no punishments for anything; the gangs would end up ruling the nation."
and what would be "wrong" with that :D
-
nothing, that's just the way things would be. ;7 :D
-
then why did I sence that you consitered that to be less than desierable?
-
undesirable, sure, but that's only from our point of view; it still doesn't make it any more universally right or wrong.
-
MSNBC is getting killed by FoxNews. They need ratings badly.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
IF you read international law, resolutions, and the gulf war peace treaty... we have the full legal right to do this.
...
Just because they have the right doesn't mean they should. They will have China (!), Russia and France + another buttload of opposed countries. This is what we will have after the war. This war isn't the only thing that matters. The US just tackled the entire international community.
Yeah we're dumb asses. That's why everyone usually comes here for college.... and about 40% R&D is done by us... yeah we're just morons. Congratulations Mr. Jealous.
Then again, tests have proiven that 40% of the US population (about 110 million) has a lower IQ then the average European.
And it isn't too strange that the US has tall the R&D. Thats just cause they have money. Money to hire 100 of the best scientists. That doesn't mean that the US is "smart". Sorry, don't take this personally but just taking your achievements and say you're smart is a dumb move on its own :doubt:
Originally posted by Bobboau
most of our bombs are JDAMs they use GPS, so you're right but wrong(ish)
I only said it would "limit" strike capabilities. Not nullify.
F-117, B2, cruse missle
Yes, and some will go down. I never said it would be impossible. i still think the US will win. But at a HIGH price.
and will probly shoot anyhting that threatens them, wich would include Sadams army, I doubt they are going to be itching to make themselves into valid military targets, but who knows maybe they will
They've been in more wars. They know what to do by now.
first off, agreed, fully,
second, I thought Sadam didn't suport fanatics/terrorists :)
They came to him as volunteers. The US also enlists volunteers. No difference here.
will it be more than he has killed in the last ten?
Probably not, but why kill more? Kinda against the whole "we want to avoid casualties" policy.
BLEH! :p
-
Ok how the hell can ppl sit here and agree Sadam needs to be removed yet not agree with force ? I mean do you really believe he'd just up and leave ? :lol: Sad thing is he's been given that option.
And for that whole "The US needs to let the UN do it's job and handle this" mess,. .. what 12 years isn't enough time ? Shall we wait until 3000 for Sadam to disarm ? :rolleyes:
But seriously, I've got more respect for Bush simply because of the speech last night were he poointed out the Iraqi army will be given ways to avoid being targetted. Everyone loves to whine about Bush is after Oil and just invading Iraq, yet completely misses the fact we don't want to kill anyone we don't have to.
Then again reading the last few pages that appeared over night,...I see most practice alot of selective hearing/reading.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Then again, tests have proiven that 40% of the US population (about 110 million) has a lower IQ then the average European.
Doesn't an average IQ mean that approximitely 50% of people have less than average IQ? ;7
Originally posted by Warlock
But seriously, I've got more respect for Bush simply because of the speech last night were he poointed out the Iraqi army will be given ways to avoid being targetted. Everyone loves to whine about Bush is after Oil and just invading Iraq, yet completely misses the fact we don't want to kill anyone we don't have to.
Wow.
"Hey you! Give us your oil freely and we don't have to kill you."
This man is clearly a saint. I stand in awe of his immense goodness.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok how the hell can ppl sit here and agree Sadam needs to be removed yet not agree with force ? I mean do you really believe he'd just up and leave ? :lol: Sad thing is he's been given that option.
I totally agree that he should be removed. And with force if necessary. BUT the way the United States have handled this is just stupid and ignorant. they will lose more then gain.
I am just pointing out that if the US had waited till solid proof was there for weapons and **** then they'd have a legit reason to attack and not causing an international breakdown of security and alliances.
And Iraq had enough time to prepare before, a few months more wouldn't matter. But they were too impatient. Hence the hostilities towards the United States. They just didn't think when they did this.
And for that whole "The US needs to let the UN do it's job and handle this" mess,. .. what 12 years isn't enough time ? Shall we wait until 3000 for Sadam to disarm ? :rolleyes:
When and IF solid proof of severe violations are found in Iraq then an attack is warranted. But so far no severe things have been seen that warrants a war that will kill more peoiple then Saddam would in 10 years. Iraq is NOT a threat to anyone at the moment.
But seriously, I've got more respect for Bush simply because of the speech last night were he poointed out the Iraqi army will be given ways to avoid being targetted. Everyone loves to whine about Bush is after Oil and just invading Iraq, yet completely misses the fact we don't want to kill anyone we don't have to.
Bush will never have my respect.
Then again reading the last few pages that appeared over night,...I see most practice alot of selective hearing/reading.
I am merely pointing out why the US is wrong on this particular matter. They have been right as well. I will never deny that, but now they have acted in a wrong manner. Therefor I I have only said what I have said.
-
Originally posted by Pera
Wow.
"Hey you! Give us your oil freely and we don't have to kill you."
This man is clearly a saint. I stand in awe of his immense goodness.
Are you normally ignorant ? It's been said many times that the Oil is Iraq's and that it will be used to rebuild Iraq afterwards. Bush said it, Blair said it, wtf you want God himself to say it ? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I totally agree that he should be removed. And with force if necessary. BUT the way the United States have handled this is just stupid and ignorant. they will lose more then gain.
I am just pointing out that if the US had waited till solid proof was there for weapons and **** then they'd have a legit reason to attack and not causing an international breakdown of security and alliances.
And Iraq had enough time to prepare before, a few months more wouldn't matter. But they were too impatient. Hence the hostilities towards the United States. They just didn't think when they did this.
The US is the only one that wants this eh ? I guess Brittain doesn't count ?
When and IF solid proof of severe violations are found in Iraq then an attack is warranted. But so far no severe things have been seen that warrants a war that will kill more peoiple then Saddam would in 10 years. Iraq is NOT a threat to anyone at the moment.
Part of losing DS was he had to show PROOF that he's disarmed. The fact that a country that writes down everything has nothing, repeat nothing, to show the weapons have been disarmed is a violation.
Bush will never have my respect.
Which from what I read is most of the reason you disagree with everything the US has done/said.
-
Which from what I read is most of the reason you disagree with everything the US has done/said.
I'm sorry, but I think you read someone elses posts. I stated the reasons multiple times. I couldn't care if God himself did this. i'd say it would be WRONG.
It is not about 1 man, its about the entire world. This is what most people forget.
Its not about Saddam, not about Bush, not about you and not about me. Its about all of us. And going to war without proof or support of the rest of the world (besides England and Spain) is something that will have major repurcussions.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Are you normally ignorant ? It's been said many times that the Oil is Iraq's and that it will be used to rebuild Iraq afterwards. Bush said it, Blair said it, wtf you want God himself to say it ? :rolleyes:
Hey, they don't take the oil, they just plant in a government which sells the oil to them. Right now countries like France and Russia have contracts to buy oil from Iraq, and US wants them too.
What, you thought France and Russia were against the war because they like peace? Sheesh, the people want peace, war is always ok to governments as long as they benefit from it, but when they don't, they suddenly become peace-loving angels.
There are not many things I hate as much as hypocrisy, and currently the leaders US, Britain, France etc. are so full of it their eyes are floating.
-
Originally posted by Hades
Pearl Harbor wasn't one of our states during WWII, thus it wasn't in the US...
Oh, so what, that means if I get bombed, it's ok? I live in a U.S. territory, but I'm not a state, so if I get bombed, it's all right?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Oh, so what, that means if I get bombed, it's ok? I live in a U.S. territory, but I'm not a state, so if I get bombed, it's all right?
...Don't talk like that! You can't die, you have a duty to the HLP community to write your stories.
*send UT her spare Universal Remote Detonator*
I usually use it to remotely blow off someones head when my axe can't reach it, but its also perfect for remote detonating bombs :D
-
Why ? When has their been a war that had the support/ approval of most of the world aside from the two WW's ? Just how many of those in the UN have already been involved in wars of their own in the last 2 decades ? Yea War sucks, it's not the best solution, but it's the only one sometimes. It ticks me off seeing ppl here acting like the US is just jumping around giddy over going to war to "play" with Sadam. Yet we;ve given him every chance we can. Sitting back and waiting will only give him that much more time to prepare/get even more weapons/get more of those weapons into locations to strike neighboring countries/etc.
Yea all this happy happy joy joy world would be a great thing , ... but it's not the way this world is. Ppl obey laws not because it's the right thing to do,... it's because they'll get punished if they dont. Need proof ? Look at Kazaa. We all download from it. We all know it's illegal. We still do it. Why ? Because we don't fear the penalty.
It's not like we can slap a fine on Iraq for not showing proof. A simple way to look at it. If a cop pulls you over while you're driving and you don't have your Drivers License on you... you get a ticket, it's on you to prove that you have one,...not the cop,...not the court. Iraq is the same only on a much bigger scale.
-
You do play with Saddam and you like it :D
You can at least TRY to make it a joy joy world :p
KazAa isn't illigal. ;7
As youi have noticed, I am no longer going into detail as I've said all I wanted to say. And besides, its not like we are going to have any effect on the situation :D
-
Originally posted by Pera
Hey, they don't take the oil, they just plant in a government which sells the oil to them. Right now countries like France and Russia have contracts to buy oil from Iraq, and US wants them too.
What, you thought France and Russia were against the war because they like peace? Sheesh, the people want peace, war is always ok to governments as long as they benefit from it, but when they don't, they suddenly become peace-loving angels.
There are not many things I hate as much as hypocrisy, and currently the leaders US, Britain, France etc. are so full of it their eyes are floating.
They've already said several times the replacement govnerment will be made up of iraqi people. And France, Russia, and Germany have another reason,... they also have sold parts for various weapons to Iraq. Funny we're doing all this for Oil....yet Gas prices have only gone up even more since it became a fact that we will be going to war. Hell yseterday they announced Oil prices were going down, yet gas still going up.
Heh besides if we wanted the Oil we'd have gone in long ago, or simply not have stopped in DS when we did.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You do play with Saddam and you like it :D
You can at least TRY to make it a joy joy world :p
I thought we have :p You know the whole "we'll give you instructions on how to not be targetted by our military bit. I do hope folks here realize just how dangerous to US troops this is.
KazAa isn't illigal. ;7
Since when was downloading copyrighted materials legal ? :P
As youi have noticed, I am no longer going into detail as I've said all I wanted to say. And besides, its not like we are going to have any effect on the situation :D
Finally someone sees that :) I've only said it since these threads first started ;)
-
Since when was downloading copyrighted materials legal ? :P
Well, Kazaa isn't illigal, the ones that put in there shared folder are the ones that are performing an illigal act. The program itsself is legit.
-
*shrug* Depends on how you look at it. It's basically the same as Napster, Audio Galaxy, etc etc. Point was we both know most ppl use it to gain copyrighted matieral ;)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
They've already said several times the replacement govnerment will be made up of iraqi people.
Of course it will, but it'll still probably be a US controlled puppet. Of course I may be wrong, and I hope so. We'll see. But still, it will sell oil to US, no noubt about that.
And France, Russia, and Germany have another reason,... they also have sold parts for various weapons to Iraq.
True, who would want to lose a good trading partner. As I said, hypocrites.
Funny we're doing all this for Oil....yet Gas prices have only gone up even more since it became a fact that we will be going to war. Hell yseterday they announced Oil prices were going down, yet gas still going up.
There isn't an endless supply of oil you know? US simply wants to make sure they will have loyal oir producers in the future. After all, a lot of oil is produced in middle east, and that is not the most stable region in the world. Anything could happen.
Also, prices may actually go down after the war.
Since when was downloading copyrighted materials legal ? :P
It has always been legal here in Finland. Only music and movies though, downloading software is no-no. :p
-
Originally posted by Pera
Of course it will, but it'll still probably be a US controlled puppet. Of course I may be wrong, and I hope so. We'll see. But still, it will sell oil to US, no noubt about that.
True, who would want to lose a good trading partner. As I said, hypocrites.
There isn't an endless supply of oil you know? US simply wants to make sure they will have loyal oir producers in the future. After all, a lot of oil is produced in middle east, and that is not the most stable region in the world. Anything could happen.
Also, prices may actually go down after the war.
It has always been legal here in Finland. Only music and movies though, downloading software is no-no. :p
Well you believe the major reason is oil. I don't.
Well if it's legal there, try emailing a US film company and asking them how legal downloading their product is :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Well if it's legal there, try emailing a US film company and asking them how legal downloading their product is :D
As long as they get paid by gramex, I doubt they can claim it as illegal :p
-
33 and counting... :drevil:
-
This is still so odd for me. Counting down the hours to war...
-
I just hope I'm not counting down the hours to yet another stint of reserves. :doubt::nervous: :shaking: :blah:
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
This is still so odd for me. Counting down the hours to war...
and ppl wonder why the military hates the media so much :) I'm just hoping they keep to plan and don't let the media get as much information as they want,... those fools would love to be able to do silly **** like "Tonight at 10, the attack plan for tomarrow!" :rolleyes:
-
Yeah, I know what you mean: "Secret spy sattelite launched today. Planned to observe Iraqi troop movements in the eastern border." :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
and ppl wonder why the military hates the media so much :) I'm just hoping they keep to plan and don't let the media get as much information as they want,... those fools would love to be able to do silly **** like "Tonight at 10, the attack plan for tomarrow!" :rolleyes:
I don't want the battle plans, but I'd pay big bucks for a pay-per-view channel with live footage from the war. :D
-
Originally posted by Pera
Of course it will, but it'll still probably be a US controlled puppet. Of course I may be wrong, and I hope so. We'll see. But still, it will sell oil to US, no noubt about that.
That seems off to me, surely the whole point of giving the Iraqi people back the oil fields is so they can sell it? So if the US or whoever was buying then isn't that how simple economics works?
-
Originally posted by 01010
That seems off to me, surely the whole point of giving the Iraqi people back the oil fields is so they can sell it? So if the US or whoever was buying then isn't that how simple economics works?
No- No.... :blah:
*Is confused.*
:p
-
I love how this global community **** comes around when the US wants to do something. The fact is this: The UN has NOT been able to stop any major conflict peacefully.
Just remember this: "Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism and some communism, war has never solved anything! "
-
Originally posted by Warlock
two words Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor isn't the MAINLAND. it's some island out in the Pacific.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
It was a sneak attack (thus cheap shot) on the US herself. Historically we don't take kindly to attacks.
haha, yeah we do.
if it was Russia that were Terrorists and the US wanted to "liberate" them or the same reason they're going to attack Iraq... they wouldn't do ****.
i mean, it's pathetic actually
"IRAQ! DISARM!"
*once Iraq is disarmed*
"ATTACK, ATTACK!!! WE"LL SHOW THEM OUR POWER!!!"
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I don't want the battle plans, but I'd pay big bucks for a pay-per-view channel with live footage from the war. :D
*shudder* God no man. They pulled some of that with 'Nam,.. your average person,...note average,...isn't ready for actually seeing war. I mean look at 'Nam as the example... ppl saw daily just enough to see what was going on... then the poor guys that were sent over there came home as "baby killers" and got spit on by the same country they fought for.
**Note** I'm not trying to get into a debate on the "ethics" of 'Nam ,..just citing examples my Father told me of from his experience.
-
oh, and has anyone seen what the Afghanistan looks like? America apparently goes in there to destroy their government and free the people... but have you heard what happened when they left? it's apparently worse off than it was! they didn't destroy the poppy fields and stuff, so the warlords have taken over.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
"IRAQ! DISARM!"
*once Iraq is disarmed*
"ATTACK, ATTACK!!! WE"LL SHOW THEM OUR POWER!!!"
Yea if that was actually true and not fiction it might be bad.
-
I totally agree that he should be removed. And with force if necessary. BUT the way the United States have handled this is just stupid and ignorant. they will lose more then gain.
And if you really believed this, you would not be saying it. :D The only way you (and all of the anti-war governments) would be saying such a thing is if you really thought otherwise, for the reasons given earlier.
I am just pointing out that if the US had waited till solid proof was there for weapons and **** then they'd have a legit reason to attack and not causing an international breakdown of security and alliances.
the heck? You just posted this exact same thing in different words and I responded several posts ago. :p As I said before, it is not at all undesirable to cause this "international breakdown" because the current axes have outlived their time (WW2 and cold war) and are no longer beneficial to any of the involved parties, so it is time to form new alliances to face new threats. As for proof, once again, see my last response to your stuff. I suppose that when they nuke Washington, it would be solid enough proof, but since the EU wants that, they need to keep us from winning in Iraq, but that means we should do exactly that. We need to do it before there is solid proof, because by then it will be too late.
And Iraq had enough time to prepare before, a few months more wouldn't matter. But they were too impatient. Hence the hostilities towards the United States. They just didn't think when they did this.
Alright, we finally have something new here. A few months more will make all the difference here because for those 12 years he has not been expecting an immediate conflict and has adjusted his operations accordingly. He is not going to spend all those years building up on conventional forces when there is no reason to expect an attack soon; rather, he will build up on his chemical bombs and other things to deal with the then immediate issues at hand. As an analogy, suppose that you are told you have a big final exam in school just the next day, but you are also told that you should not have any trouble because you have gotten the whole year to prepare. That year doesn't mean anything unless you knew that it would be coming very soon, since you spent that time doing other things that required more immediate attention.
But you are right about the last part, for a change. They indeed didn't think when they did this; as I said before, they fell into the trap the Europeans had set for them. It should have been done immediately in November without going to the UN at all; Cheney and Rumsfeld predicted exactly what would happen, but they lost out to the rest. Still, even now is better than later. :D
Are you normally ignorant ?
I think the answer is yes. :D :D
Well, Kazaa isn't illigal, the ones that put in there shared folder are the ones that are performing an illigal act. The program itsself is legit.
What about the ones downloading the stuff? I'm not sure if that is legal, but if it is, then warez is equally legal. :D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
oh, and has anyone seen what the Afghanistan looks like? America apparently goes in there to destroy their government and free the people... but have you heard what happened when they left? it's apparently worse off than it was! they didn't destroy the poppy fields and stuff, so the warlords have taken over.
gotta love it when people don't listen... :rolleyes:
-
hmm something a bit interesting
Originally from CNN.com
Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.
-
after all, they want their share of the spoils of war, right? :D
-
Hypothetical situation #1: You are a soldier of a nation that is considered an enemy nation to the USA (Iraq, for example). You become a Prisoner of War, captured by your enemy. Imagine what kind of treatment you would get.
Hypothetical situation #2: You are a soldier of a nation that is considered an enemy nation to Iraq (the USA, for example). You become a Prisoner of War, captured by your enemy. Imagine what kind of treatment you would get.
Include in your essay a paragraph describing all the feeling you would have in such a situation if you were brought before that nation's leader (Saddam / Bush) for judgement.
I know - seems like a "who's nicer?" argument, right?
:ha:
Think again. Think about who or what each nation and leader is accountable to. Consider past track records with regard to the relationship between the leader and their own nation primarily, and the leader and other nations second.
No one is saying that Bush is an angel. But then again, this isn't about Bush.
-
...
Who's nicer?
...
How the hell should I know!? I just know that they are both stupid.
That was a lame argument. :p Whos's nicer... hmmppffff...
-
I'd love to get into an argument here, but just to save time, just put me on your ignore lists right away instead.
I think the US is capable of taking custody of people for no reasons other than suspicion and lock them up in cells the size of an average toilet room for well over a year, without any intent of making any charges against them.
Choosing between that and an execution, I'd prefer being executed.
-
Bush: I'd prolly get interrogated heavily, then accused of terrorism, and finally executed for high treason
Saddam: I'd get my balls ripped off and stuffed down my throat.
From the reproductive position, I'd prefer Bush, but then again, noone really knows what they do with the POWs before the execution.
-
This is why I'll happily be living in that log cabin in the Norwegian mountains. :doubt:
-
Who's nicer? I'm not sure. Saddam Hussein's track record is common knowledge, but what about all this (http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard2.html)? Quite significant events, proving that neither have a clean conscience.
I came across a very interesting article (http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html) by The Onion just now... Written in January 2001, it's a frighteningly accurate prophecy - and it was supposed to be a parody! Compare it to the above scorecard of actual events...
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
This is why I'll happily be living in that log cabin in the Norwegian mountains. :doubt:
Sweden is gonna invade norway. We're doing it for the oil.
-
Originally posted by kode
Sweden is gonna invade norway. We're doing it for the oil.
Hmpff... Figures...:doubt:
-
Jesus christ this got more replies than I ever imagined.
There is going to be a lot of Direct Action, you know. I have some Anarchist associates who are already planning.;7
-
Ummm Sand's point ppl
Prisoner of Saddam : Either killed out right, or beat and tortured constantly then have your families sent little keepsakes (Liver, spleen)
Prisoner of Bush : depending on your rank you'd be interogated (common soldier would be a waste of time to interogate), yoiu'd be fed, you'd be given a bed and reasonable medical treatment for any wounds plus santitary supplies, basically well treated until the end of the war and then freed. (Yes higher ranks [Generals or what not] would likely stand war trails).
How the hell should I know!? I just know that they are both stupid.
That was a lame argument. Whos's nicer... hmmppffff
LMAO My dear you just earned a clueless medal!
DS was won in part because of our treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Hell they were treated better as prisoners than as soilders :lol:
LOL Youhave any idea how many Iraqi Troops just up and surrendered to US troops they could have easily defeated ? I'm not talking even groups,.. I mean like encounters between one US squad (4-6 men) and an Iraqi Tank platoon,...where the Iraqis surrendered outright without anyone firing a shot. It wasn't because our M-16's were shiney. :rolleyes:
-
Prisoner of Iraq: Get essentially held hostage, likely in exchange for a US pullout. Get shot when it doesn't happen.
Prisoner of Bush: Never! *shoots self*
Probably get interrogated, put in a little cage, and given the full Stalin treatment.
It's not fun either way, but nobody ever said being a POW was. Since neither side is gonna feel really obligated to go by the Geneva Convention (Bush because he already doesn't, Saddam because he and all his officers are pretty much dead and might as well hurt as many enemies as they can as badly as they can), I think I'd rather not be taken alive by either side.
Anyway, this thread is lame. Making predictions in a completely unpredictable situation is lame. There's a possiblilty that everything will go swimmingly for Bush, he'll find all sorts of bioweapons and a secret conspiracy with France, Germany, and Russia after the war, and send some "Iraqi" who's spent the last 30 years plotting revenge on 80% of Iraq from Washington and loves Bush unquestioningly to be the new dictator. There's a roughly equal possibility that the US army will end up fighting civilian militias in the streets of Baghdad, while Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran undergo bloody coups and have their governments replaced by virulently anti-US reactionaries who have absolutely no qualms about biobombing Israel and the east coast of the US, triggering a nuclear exchange and causing China to see its opportunity and invade from California, resulting in a bio/chemo/nuclear war that leaves the Midwest a bioactive crater, sets the whole world into a nuclear winter, and kills off 90% of humanity. Moreover, everyone on every side of the conflict is a bastard, including the US and Iraqi people (excepting the Kurds) who put up with this crap and let their leaders stay in power. The Kurds, they're fine and all power to them- they actually tried to do something about it after the Gulf War, and woulda succeeded if the US hadn't shafted thm. Now we're doing it again in selling them out to Turkey, which makes them doubly cool in my opinion. Maybe they should get Iraq and Washington.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Yea if that was actually true and not fiction it might be bad.
but it's not fiction. it's the truth! look:
- If Iraq does disarm, and hand over their weapons, Bush will say "See? They had weapons of mass destruction!" and he'll attack them.
- If Iraq does NOT disarm, and hand over weapons, Bush will say "They haven't disarmed! Attack them!"...
Now face it... it's a lose/lose situation, they get attacked either way, and personally i'd rather have defense when i'm attacked instead of being helpless after giving away all the weapons :doubt:
-
If Iraq actually disarmed and showed proof they've disarmed we wouldn't have this thread right now :rolleyes:
Ppl forget Bush himself can't declare war ? Congress has that power. Bush can declare a police action, but if I recall correctly Congress can pull back from that even.
I love how everyone still blames it all on Bush like he's just sitting there handing out orders and the US military just follows suit. It simply doesn't work that way guys.
-
Right now Congress is bending over and begging for more. They're even moderately willing to pass PAII. They're toadies, but they're not the evil overlord- deal with Bush (meaning the Bush administration, not just the individual), everyone else will fall in and start talking about what a horrible mistake everyone else made allowing the war.
And Warlock's right that a lack of evidence is supposed to be evidence in and of itself. The UN doesn't see it this way not because they need concrete proof, but because if you impose a full-compliance standard on Iraq, you're gonna have to start enforcing the MDW laws that literally every other nation (short of maybe South Africa) in the entire world has ignored or people are gonna notice the blatant hypocrisy- and since "every other nation" comprises a 100% majority of the UN, they don't like that idea.
-
I like pie.
-
I like pi.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I like pi.
:lol:
-
Pie (no it's not what you think) (http://www.australianpieco.com/index.shtml)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:lol:
BTW, CP, why is it that
(position error)*(momentum error) > 1/pi
?
(the Uncertainty Principle)
-
that's like the first non-weebl and bob pie link in a long time.:D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LMAO My dear you just earned a clueless medal!
DS was won in part because of our treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Hell they were treated better as prisoners than as soilders :lol:
LOL Youhave any idea how many Iraqi Troops just up and surrendered to US troops they could have easily defeated ? I'm not talking even groups,.. I mean like encounters between one US squad (4-6 men) and an Iraqi Tank platoon,...where the Iraqis surrendered outright without anyone firing a shot. It wasn't because our M-16's were shiney. :rolleyes:
Perhaps I should've posted a smilie. I just posted that cause couldn't be arsed to wroite an entire page of arguments. :p I wasn't serious. :)
-
One thing...even the middle east countries can't stand together. Have any of you heard about the Arab Leauge Summit? Funniest thing i heard all last week.:lol: :lol:
I'm not sure Y but i get the impression that Tiara dislikes Bush a lot..but strangely defends Siddam.....:wtf:
-
Seriously speaking, I have never heard of the Arab League before, much less a Arab League Summit. But I guess with the world viewing Arabs and all other Muslim countries as possible hidding places and partners with terrorists, they had to band together for protection or something.
And by the way, its not the United Nations that have fail us. It's Bush who wants to be a cowboy and whack people.
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
And by the way, its not the United Nations that have fail us. It's Bush who wants to be a cowboy and whack people.
You do know it was the UN that should have been making sure Sadam disarmed over the last 12 years right ?
And that it was because of the UN that we stopped in DS and didn't remove Sadam then.
-
Originally posted by Dan1
I'm not sure Y but i get the impression that Tiara dislikes Bush a lot..but strangely defends Siddam.....:wtf:
:mad:
I have said more then once that I agree that Saddam has to go. But just NOT like tthe way Bush is doing it.
Yeah, I dislike Bush and he'll never have my respect. But I HATE Saddam. I'm just smart enough not to overtrow the entire global community.
Do you guys even read what I write :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I have said more then once that I agree that Saddam has to go. But just NOT like tthe way Bush is doing it.
Here, here!
-
Ok just out of morbid curiousity,...how would you do it?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok just out of morbid curiousity,...how would you do it?
Well,
- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.
When those 4 criteria are met, war is warranted.
Its just the general egocentric view of "WE ARE RIGHT! SCREW YOU IF YOU DON'T THINK SO!" that Bush upholds that gets to me.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well,
- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.
Not really an answer as to how would you do it
You don't like how Bush is doing things,.. commonsense would indicate you have more of a reason than popular opinion. So just what would you do if you were in "Bush's shoes" ?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Not really an answer as to how would you do it
You don't like how Bush is doing things,.. commonsense would indicate you have more of a reason than popular opinion. So just what would you do if you were in "Bush's shoes" ?
In Bush shoes, eh? Resign... :p
No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.
Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.
Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.
And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.
And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.
I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well,
- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.
When those 4 criteria are met, war is warranted.
Its just the general egocentric view of "WE ARE RIGHT! SCREW YOU IF YOU DON'T THINK SO!" that Bush upholds that gets to me.
Bush should hear the world and not act on his own volition (Did I use that correctly?:D). If he wants to act without UN backing, why bother being a member of the UN anyway? Point is, if you want to be part of the world community, then hear them. Discuss ways with them. Even if it is time consuming, diplomacy should come first. War should be the last thing on everyone's minds and should be avoid if possible. Hear what your citizens are saying too. Because some of them could have voted you into power.
From what I see, and read, Bush is DAMN eager to start bombing Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
In Bush shoes, eh? Resign... :p
No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.
Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.
And when aircraft are fired on ? Which has happened over the last few years. By the way we've never got "to ull blown war right away". It's not like the day after the inspections we launched attacks on Iraq, hell you know as well as I do he's watching CNN just like before to get his "intel reports" ;)
Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.
Far as I knew this was happening, then again is the whole "Proof of disarming" issue.
And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.
And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.
Isn't this what's happened ? Inspectors went in, Sadam was told we needed proof not 'his good word', else military force would be used to inspect/dispose of any WMDs.
I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.
Honestly... do you think Sadam would ever get rid of his weapons without a war ?
-
MEH... Tired of this discussion... War can't be avoided. We have no impact, especially with Bush at the helm.
You know my standpoint, thats all I had to say.
Screw it.
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
Bush should hear the world and not act on his own volition (Did I use that correctly?:D). If he wants to act without UN backing, why bother being a member of the UN anyway? Point is, if you want to be part of the world community, then hear them. Discuss ways with them. Even if it is time consuming, diplomacy should come first. War should be the last thing on everyone's minds and should be avoid if possible. Hear what your citizens are saying too. Because some of them could have voted you into power.
From what I see, and read, Bush is DAMN eager to start bombing Iraq.
You know thou... public opinion varies from source to source. The other day I did a search and about 4 sites I decided to look at where not the same,... one had Bush with like 70% approval,..another had Bush at 55% ,...another at 25%, etc . That's why Democracy is electing ppl to make choices in your place not electing ppl to call you up and take a talley of who wants to do what. If you seriously look around it's not anywhere near as clean cut as ppl like to think.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
MEH... Tired of this discussion... War can't be avoided. We have no impact, especially with Bush at the helm.
You know my standpoint, thats all I had to say.
Screw it.
Well sorry for attempting some decent discussion of it.
*shrug*
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Well sorry for attempting some decent discussion of it.
*shrug*
Its not you. Didn't mean to offend you :)
Its just that this discussion has been going on for days, and I'm saying the same thing over and over and people keep asking the same friggin' things. Read the entire thread. you are bound to find an awnser to the Q you guys ask.
-
That's why I decided on the course of questions I just wrote. Basically instead of just "So why do you hate Bush/Sadam?" I thought I'd attempt to get ppl to actually take time and seriously think about the situation. It's sad but alot of ppl (not just here) haven't thought more than "Uggg War Baaaaaaad!" or "Uggg French ppl baaaaaaaaad" etc etc
The whole "Freedom" fries BS being a great example of situational stupidity.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
That's why I decided on the course of questions I just wrote. Basically instead of just "So why do you hate Bush/Sadam?" I thought I'd attempt to get ppl to actually take time and seriously think about the situation. It's sad but alot of ppl (not just here) haven't thought more than "Uggg War Baaaaaaad!" or "Uggg French ppl baaaaaaaaad" etc etc
The whole "Freedom" fries BS being a great example of situational stupidity.
Yeah, its stupid! So stupid it still makes me laugh :lol: McDonalds better not enforce that in France :p
Thinking about it is good, but I've been thinking about it for several days straight. School essay, entire Iraq-project at the uni, HLP, every 10 minutes news broadcast with the same thing over and over.
>>>:D Following Dutch government debat live on television about the subject. :D<<<
-
all polls I have seen place aproval of how bush is handeling the Iraq situation have been between 55% and 70%, I make a modestly conservitive estemet of 60% (being that the truth thends to be around the average)
-
Regardless of what anybody says:
George W. Bush is Leader.
Being a leader means doing what needs to be done, even if it's not popular. Being a leader means standing for the best interests of the majority of your governance, not the minority.
For the record, this is pointed more toward those who want to give "diplomacy" another chance.
The UN has been attempting to deal with Saddam since the end of Desert Storm in 1991. They have passed 12 "resoloutions" to try and force him down through sheer weight of paperwork.
The French are in bed with Saddam like a cheap whore, as are the Germans to a degree. I don't mean all French or Germans just the scum that deals with Saddam.
As for Americans beleiveing that all Arabs are supporters of terrorists, I can say for one that I know that "all" arabs are not supporters of terrorism and that most Muslims are good and decent people. Only that the Arab nations, such as Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, are led by groups who prefer to keep their people ignorant because it makes them easier to control.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Regardless of what anybody says:
George W. Bush is Leader.
Being a leader means doing what needs to be done, even if it's not popular. Being a leader means standing for the best interests of the majority of your governance, not the minority.
Right on the point there, plain and simple ;)
-
good stuff there. :yes:
No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.
Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.
Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.
And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.
And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.
I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.
sorry, but this is just funny. :D What in the world do you think they have been doing so far? :D
I think all of the anti-war guys basically think that if you ask Saddam nicely to give up his missiles and say please and all that, he will do so. :D
:
BTW, CP, why is it that
(position error)*(momentum error) > 1/pi
(the Uncertainty Principle)
No idea really; maybe it somehow follows from that schrodinger equation as a special case. I don't really know much physics actually, just math. :nervous:
-
sorry, but this is just funny. What in the world do you think they have been doing so far?
I think all of the anti-war guys basically think that if you ask Saddam nicely to give up his missiles and say please and all that, he will do so.
...
We've been performing softy investigation. I mean armed escort badass "Shut up and open the door" kinda investigation... :p Not walk away when stopped.
:doubt:And I didn't even want to reply here
-
We've been performing softy investigation. I mean armed escort badass "Shut up and open the door" kinda investigation... :p Not walk away when stopped.
uh, that is essentially the same thing as the war option; he didn't open the doors, so we open them for him. :D If you are going with traditional "inspections," you do indeed have to walk away when stopped, since if you bring military forces with you, it will become a war. (hussein isn't going to take very kindly to enemy tanks and men on his soil)
-
I agree with what Colin Powell said in that UN Council meeting where he introduced evidence of Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction: The Un inspectors are just that, inspectors. They are not detectives.
And that's exactly what Hussein has been angling on.
C3PO, errr... CP5670 is correct stating that anything further than inspecting would require the use of force, which is where we are today. We gave Hussein basically 12 years to disarm and allow inspections (since Nov I think) to be completely open and unrestricted, and Hussein has done everything he can politically to hinder inspections and not disarm.
There is no other avenue to take, no other diplomatic "Save Ferris" for Hussein. His time has simply run out.
-
Plus just a few armed guards with the inspectors merely puts those same inspectors in danger. Some how I doubt the UN's inspectors would have agreed to that.
"We want to check in this room"
"No"
"Open the damned door now!" *Points rifle*
"Ok" *Sounds of 20 Ak-47's gunning down handful of inspectors and guards*
Now imagine what would have happened then ? The 'war' right now is more of a "passive" war. Had the above happened we wouldn't have spent days passing information on how to avoid being targetted, it would have merely been a wide open attack to completely remove Sadam and his military. Alot bloody than it all needs to be.
-
Just saw on CNN,....17 Iraq Soldiers have already surrendered :)
*insert sound-bite of Jar Jar saying "My give up! My give up!" *
-
Ok, to set things straight. this is my opinion:
I think war IS warranted. But the way Bush has handled it with the global community makes the war unwarranted as it will only cause more hostilities, deaths, etc
IMO Bush and his companions are to blame for the anti-war movement being this big. If Bush had been more subtle then to say "War is INEVITABLE" like a year before the war actually started things would've been far better. He could've just not have been so arrogant and selfcentered.
He almost completely severed the relations with the SC. he didn't listen to a word they said besides some sparse exceptions.
It was just right out stupid diplomatic/political manouvering on the part of the US under Bush. If Bush had even an IQ of a decently educated person he'd know this.
-
He hasn't been saying it for a year. But he wasn't niaeve (sp) enough to think Sadam would peacfully give up his weapons either. Plus Bush has repeatedly said we'd try to handle this without war and that war was the last option.
The popular Global opinion will never agree with a war. If WW2 happened in our time,...half the pplwould probably be like "But Hitler's not that bad,..lets just ask him nicely 50 times to stop killing Jews" I mean seriously ... 12 UN resultions,....not ONE of them as been followed.
Still ...nothing personal,..but everytime you try to explain how you feel about the war,... you basically come off as "I just hate Bush" again nothing personal ,.. that's just how i'm reading it.
-
He almost completely severed the relations with the SC. he didn't listen to a word they said besides some sparse exceptions.
It was just right out stupid diplomatic/political manouvering on the part of the US under Bush. If Bush had even an IQ of a decently educated person he'd know this.
No, it was actually perfectly fine on that front and perhaps even desirable to do exactly this; making and breaking alliances at the right times is part of clever political maneuvering. Look at what I said earlier on "international relations," particularly those in recent effect, in this thread and that other one down the page. He may not be as smart as the scheming Europeans on this front, but he is still quite good.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
He hasn't been saying it for a year. But he wasn't niaeve (sp) enough to think Sadam would peacfully give up his weapons either. Plus Bush has repeatedly said we'd try to handle this without war and that war was the last option.
The popular Global opinion will never agree with a war. If WW2 happened in our time,...half the pplwould probably be like "But Hitler's not that bad,..lets just ask him nicely 50 times to stop killing Jews" I mean seriously ... 12 UN resultions,....not ONE of them as been followed.
Still ...nothing personal,..but everytime you try to explain how you feel about the war,... you basically come off as "I just hate Bush" again nothing personal ,.. that's just how i'm reading it.
Eh, ok 6 months ago he said it them :doubt:
And if WWII would happen now I'd say kill Hitler
As I said in my above post I think war is warranted, but Bush screwed it over cause he quite premature with his war preaching.
And I don't hate Bush, I just think he is not fit to act as president with the power of a nation like the US. He needs a course in diplomatic relationships. Then he might learn the value of allies.
-
And the value of enemies too. :D Like I said, he is not perfect at diplomatic relations (he should have ditched this whole UN nonsense back in november; that is what the EU would have done in such a situation), but he is certainly much better than you make him out to be. In the end, diplomacy is just a temporary cover for conflict, since there is no such thing as a permanent friendship in the international world.
-
Allies ? Hmmm like Brittain ? Or perhaps Spain ? or all the other countries allowing the US to place troops as I type ?
again though all you seemed to have seen from Bush was "war preaching" did you not once hear him, normally right after a comment about war being the most likely outcome, state that a war with Iraq was the last option ?
:doubt:
-
I think you had a point about just having something personal against Bush. :p
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Allies ? Hmmm like Brittain ? Or perhaps Spain ? or all the other countries allowing the US to place troops as I type ?
again though all you seemed to have seen from Bush was "war preaching" did you not once hear him, normally right after a comment about war being the most likely outcome, state that a war with Iraq was the last option ?
:doubt:
But I'm getting less and les interested what happens outside of Holland. We're just fine. Nobody cares about anyone else, why should we? :ha:
Officially, as of now, I couldn't care less if the Statue of Liberty was burned to the ground or Iraq completely and utterly destroyed and now void of any living matter. :doubt:
-
:wtf: Alriiiiighty then.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
:wtf: Alriiiiighty then.
:D I am now "Anti-anything that harms The Netherlands[/b] :D
-
:lol:
Well normally ppl are "Anti-anyone that ****s with my homeland" ;7
-
Originally posted by Warlock
:lol:
Well normally ppl are "Anti-anyone that ****s with my homeland" ;7
Well... I generally don't see anyone "****ing" with any country... :rolleyes:
-
:D I am now "Anti-anything that harms The Netherlands[/b] :D
Actually, haven't you been that this whole time, just in disguise? :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, haven't you been that this whole time, just in disguise? :D
Yeah, but I was so misguided to think I had to protect other countries. I'm no longer being social, egotrippin' all da way! :D
-
nah, you have been doing it this whole time; after all, the Europeans have been the leaders at this throughout history, so I wouldn't expect any less now. ;7 :D
-
Crap.
-
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
and ppl wonder why the military hates the media so much :) I'm just hoping they keep to plan and don't let the media get as much information as they want,... those fools would love to be able to do silly **** like "Tonight at 10, the attack plan for tomarrow!" :rolleyes:
Well...wouldn't it be amusing at least to let the media run a *false* attack plan or somesuch, which a) jacks their ratings all they want and b) makes the enemy concentrate defenses on the supposed target, and then have a strike (or several) on somewhere(s) they absolutely wouldn't expect?
Or can you even do something like that?
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
Well...wouldn't it be amusing at least to let the media run a *false* attack plan or somesuch, which a) jacks their ratings all they want and b) makes the enemy concentrate defenses on the supposed target, and then have a strike (or several) on somewhere(s) they absolutely wouldn't expect?
Or can you even do something like that?
Only way to do this would be to lie and falsify info to the media ... and with that whole "agreement of information exchange" they've worked out with the Gov. about all this ,... they'd ***** until my grand kids get tired of hearing about it.
Still the Media as a whole is just stupid,..I'm sorry but anyone dumb enough to go stay in a targetted area, and report on bombs hitting the building beside you (back in DS),...you deserve to be killed by those same bombs.
:D
-
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore
-
Meh. It was a thought...
-
Warlock: Exactly. You're repeating what your dad told you. What he probably didn't tell you was that the same happened in every unpopular military action. It wasn't because people were finally exposed the particular brutality and sadism of soldiers fighting a civilian army- that merely shocked people into liking the war less. Look at some of the **** we pulled in South America, against huge popular dissent, and look at what happened to the soldiers who came home.
Hell, it's not like some people aren't saying the same things about Afghanistan, or that people aren't accusing the Army and government of doing that **** in Iraq in advance.
See, this is the danger of accepting someone else's biased view of something, particularly when they're trying to convince you that things are exactly one way. They tend to leave out stuff.
-
:rolleyes:
Is that guy 4 .... or,.... 5 ?
-
He's extremely naive, but is being no less mature than anyone else still arguing in this lame-ass thread.
-
Well that would account for 80% of the members here then ;)
-
I said War, good God, what is it good for....
On the flipside:
*points to signature and second quote*
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Politics/george_will_030316.html
For those people who think Saddamn is a nice man that we shouldnt remove.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Politics/george_will_030316.html
For those people who think Saddamn is a nice man that we shouldnt remove.
I don't think anyone has said that Saddam is a nice man. The question is if the US and UK have the right to remove a leader of an supreme country.
-
They have bigger guns and economies. Of course they have the right :wink: .
-
Look at it this way. If you see a certain place where there are egregious human rights violations every day, and you had the ability and opportunity to do something about it, would it be morally appropriate to refrain from intervening?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
:doubt:
-
Interesting read here, let's see if it peters out:
Jerusalem Post
Mar. 18, 2003
Analysis: Baghdad's 'hang-on' strategy
By AMIR TAHERI
Sometime last Saturday, Saddam Hussein was finally convinced that his French friends could not buy him some extra time and that war was coming.
And he acted the way he always has, by unveiling a war plan based on his favorite tactic of "cheat and retreat."
Saddam's war plan has three aims.
The first is to slow down the advance of coalition forces as much as possible.
He hopes to do this by creating a tidal wave of refugees, including large numbers of army deserters, in the densely populated southern provinces bordering Kuwait.
Over the weekend, elements of the Fourth Army Corps, "Saladin," were moved close to the border with Iran, although there is no threat of an attack from that direction.
By sealing that border, Saddam wants to leave the would-be refugees no escape route except toward the south, that is to say in the direction of the coalition forces.
At some point, he may use the threat of chemical weapons, or even such weapons themselves, to foment panic among the population and thus force it to flee toward Kuwait.
The idea is that the coalition forces would be swamped by hundreds of thousands of panic-stricken Iraqi civilians who need to be cared for.
The second goal of Saddam's war plan is to hide his best and most loyal forces behind units of the regular army.
In a sense, he is using the Iraqi Army as cannon fodder. His hope is that the regular army will bear the brunt of the inevitable sacrifices, but will succeed in inflicting significant casualties on the coalition forces.
The third goal of the plan is to maximize civilian casualties in the hope of shocking world public opinion, especially in the US, into even stiffer opposition to the war.
This is why Saddam has positioned almost all of his best assets in densely populated areas. Anti-aircraft guns, heavy artillery pieces, and tanks are stationed inside cities, including in mosques, hospital courtyards, and school playgrounds.
Saddam's address to his commanders Sunday included this ominous phrase: "We shall see how many Iraqis the aggressors are prepared to kill." Saddam has divided the country into four military sectors, each headed by one of his relatives or confidants.
Although two of the four bear the title of "general," none has had a military career, even as an army conscript. They are there to ensure political control and make sure that the regular army has no room for any independent maneuver, including a move to topple the regime. Even the defense minister, the chief of the army staff, and the nation's 20 most senior generals are excluded from the chain of command announced by Saddam.
The arrangements highlight the narrowness of Saddam's support base: He emerges as the leader of a clan, not of a state.
The northern part that includes the Kurdish areas and the oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk was put under the command of Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the regime's No. 2.
Duri owes his rise in the Ba'athist regime to his mediocrity. He has survived more than three decades of intraparty purges largely because no one ever thought he could pose a threat.
"Duri is alive because he is stupid," says Saad Bazzaz, a former Ba'athist official now in exile.
Because Turkey has refused to allow US and allied forces rights of passage through its territory, Saddam does not expect a major attack from the north.
This is why most of the Iraqi elite units, including the Adnan Division of the Republican Guards, have just been withdrawn from Kirkuk and ordered to move south to Baghdad.
The southern area, where most of the initial fighting could take place, is under the command of Ali-Hassan al-Majid, Saddam's cousin. Majid is known as "Chemical Ali" because of his role in organizing the massacre of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons.
Most Iraqis regard him as a psychopath who is capable of killing large numbers of civilians and blaming it on the coalition forces. He will have his headquarters at Nassrriyah, a city where he crushed a popular revolt in April 1991, while Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf's forces watched from a safe distance.
The Shi'ite heartland of Iraq, south of Baghdad, is under the command of Mazban Khader Hadi, a brother-in-law of Saddam. He will have his headquarters in Karbala, where he has placed some of his weapons inside the holy shrines of Imam Hussein and Hazrat Abbas.
Once the coalition forces have extricated themselves from the chaos of the south, they will have to pas through Hadi's area to reach Baghdad. Hadi's mission is clear: to slow down the coalition advance by creating as big a humanitarian disaster as possible.
The central area, including Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit to its north, is under the command of Saddam's younger son, Qusai. This is an area of around 5,000 square kilometers. But it will be defended by virtually the entire Republican Guard, some 200,000 men.
According to Iraqi sources, Saddam has moved most of his estimated 4,000 French and Soviet-built tanks into that area. He has also installed more than 3,000 anti-aircraft guns and various powerful machine guns to create what is known in military jargon as a hornet's nest. The most vulnerable edges of the protected area are marked by a string of deep trenches designed to slow down the coalition advance.
Saddam remains in overall command and will have sole authority in the use of surface-to-surface missiles and combat aircraft.
He hopes that his tactics will slow the coalition advance toward Baghdad for several weeks, during which his European friends could go to the UN Security Council and ask for an immediate cease-fire followed by negotiations between the coalition and who else President Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, under the auspices of the Security Council.
All this may sound fanciful. But US President George W. Bush should beware. He has already been duped once by the "unanimous" victory he won with Resolution 1441 and should remember that French President Jacques Chirac has vowed to do all he can to prevent Saddam's overthrow.
One scenario that Saddam is likely to pursue is to offer to resign at the last minute and hand over power to Qusai, who would immediately call for a cease-fire and full cooperation with the coalition forces.
"The world is on our side," Saddam told his commanders on Sunday. "We can win this war as we won the last one."
This is no empty boast. Saddam may have no supporters inside Iraq itself, but he does enjoy widespread support in many countries, because he has come to symbolize all the strands of anti-Americanism. All those who hate the US for whatever reason will do all they can to make sure that Saddam is not toppled.
George Galloway, a British Labor MP and one of Saddam's most ardent supporters, puts it starkly: "If Bush and Blair start their war, we in the peace movement shall bring the war to them. Our message is: Start the war, we stop your country!"
In one of our meetings in the 1970s, Saddam told us a story about his childhood. He said that he and other boys had great fun jumping on trucks passing through Tikrit, then a sleepy mud village.
The truck drivers' assistants would whip the boys, even crush their fingers, to force them to jump off. Most did, but not Saddam.
"I learned that what mattered was to hang on," Saddam said. "Injuries to my hands because of the whips would son disappear. But the feeling that I had managed to hang on would last a long time."
The author is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.
-
Blah, if one more person equates being against a bloody war of aggression waged entirely as a popularity device or hating Bush with loving Saddam I'm gonna personally come to their front door and explain the difference through a sixty-gague piece of steel pipe rammed an inch into their ear canal.:rolleyes:
-
Well...Saddam ignored Bush's demand...war should be happening anytime now. I'd say this war will be a month or two long...
I'm just urged to post this here too to go along with the time... http://parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk/~jmr/saddam.swf
-
4 minutes past the deadline.. means we should hear about anything in an hour or so...
-
*switches to BBC News*
-
two weeks tops
-
eh i don't think he'd give up to bush's commands even if all he loved died(don't ask because i can't think of any1)
-
:nod:
-
so you are denying that all the people in the world who hate america are not just useing this an excuse to do something, even if it means suport for Sadam?
you don't think that the left wing thinks that the lives of the Iraqis are anything other than something that can be used to curb popular opinion agains Bush?
you don't think the French and there frends would like nothing more than to kill two birds with one stone by keeping there oil safe and weakening america's power around the world?
now granted the suporters of this war have much the _exact_ opposite goals in mind (giveing US an excuse to shoot something, strengthening Bush and american power) but you can not deny the conections that do exsist on your side any more than I can on mine
-
my estemate is three months, and Sadam will directly kill more of his own people (launching chemicals into Iraqi towns) than we will of his army, population, and than he will kill of us includeing any major terrorist acts that will happen
-
There were just air raid sirens and AA fire in Baghdad, the president is addressing the nation soon. The war's begun.
-
They better have a good reason for doing something so stupid (attacking at this hour and stopping) ...
-
"They better have a good reason for doing something so stupid (attacking at this hour and stopping)"
there led by bush? :lol:
maybe were going to have missle atacks all day and the real fight will start tomaro, not a very good stratigy,
or maybe we had some sort of perfict intel on were Sadam was or something,
then again maybe a pink dragon will materialise and purge all evil from the universe
speculation is fun :D
well I'm shocked and awed :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
then again maybe a pink dragon will materialise and purge all evil from the universe
Have you ever considered that perhaps it will be God?
-
no, he is purple, not pink!
-
God.
(http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/96a.gif)
Yeah, Apparently they had a chance at some high leadership targets, but Cruise missles take 90+(?) minutes to get there.
-
hehe has anyone seen the leaflets they were dropping? This one is my favorite :D
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/1.leaflet.front.jpg)
I love the cut-and-paste guns :p
-
Yes im behind almost an hour and a half, but on the real...
it was the new episode of Law and Order & Angel then this came up on NBC...meh............
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from CNN:
Pentagon: Strike aimed at taking out Saddam
• Pentagon: Strike was a "decapitation attack" to take out Saddam before the planned start of the war
• Administration officials says strike ordered for fear the opportunity could be lost
• Bush says coalition hitting "targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Move over blitzriegs.....here comes the machetes of american resolve...."
-
c'mon people, lets keep all this in one thread. We already have 2 or 3.
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
hehe has anyone seen the leaflets they were dropping? This one is my favorite :D
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/1.leaflet.front.jpg)
I love the cut-and-paste guns :p
9:30pm eastern:
Kabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooooommm!
Iraqi central command targeted.
me thinks u guys if u made bets, most of u woulda lost to Thorn!
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
c'mon people, lets keep all this in one thread. We already have 2 or 3.
I just noticed the other threads, but they were primarily on the deadline issue.... oh well this and the others may end up like all stalwart threads. if not... i dunno...
----------------------------
@ 9:30PM we began the attack, and it was broadcasted on NBC, ABC, FOX NEWS, CNN, WB11, etc...
this same time tomorrow night.... BRING THE POPCORN!
---------------------------------
the United States military has done what no "American Idol" or reality like TV show has done before, bring you WAR, live, uncut, uncensored (in most cases), no comercials, and... in your face action...
(any thoughts on this new form of reality tv?)
-
you know if we can spare 2 billion dolars for a B2 you'd think we could make better looking leaflets, I sware I could do better in five minutes
-
maybe a temporary Iraq forum should be set up as to not over power the normal hard light chaios
-
Just sticky the war thread and get rid of this one.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
my estemate is three months, and Sadam will directly kill more of his own people (launching chemicals into Iraqi towns) than we will of his army, population, and than he will kill of us includeing any major terrorist acts that will happen
We might be in Baghdad in half that time. Even so, what would he do it with, his 20 scuds? Those things are about as accurate as the V2.
-
:doubt: next time look at the "Hard Light" forum... i made a threat about 45 minutes before this one on the exact same topic.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Just sticky the war thread and get rid of this one.
ok if this was to occur, even better, cause ur right it is cluttering the forum.
-
lol, I was expecting this sudden Iraq thread flood here around now... :D
-
:wtf: is that part of one of the leaflets? The 2D cut-and-paste looks ridiculous... :p
We might be in Baghdad in half that time. Even so, what would he do it with, his 20 scuds? Those things are about as accurate as the V2.
chemical bombs, probably. btw isn't the SCUD is somewhat old? early 1960s or something I think...
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Look at it this way. If you see a certain place where there are egregious human rights violations every day, and you had the ability and opportunity to do something about it, would it be morally appropriate to refrain from intervening?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
:doubt:
That is a valid statement, but human rights are violated everyday by several countries around the world.
-
but that is no reason not to stop them in Iraq
-
artilery fire heard around were our forces are massed
5 Iraqi leaders have been reported dead, and more explosions heard around Baghdad
-
That is a valid statement, but human rights are violated everyday by several countries around the world.
The same applies to many other things, such as "international laws," so why is everyone complaining about the US breaking those? :p
-
Iraqi TV was just taken out
meh, it's back up
Sadam's makeing a speach
-
Let me see if I can summerize what he'll say:
Blah blah blah American Pigs.
Blah blah blah we are stronger.
Blah blah blah we'll die before we surrender.
Blah blah blah God is on our side.
Blah blah blah now excuse me while I hide and the rest of you fight for our glorious nation.
Anyone with TV...let me know how close I was.
-
You forgot : God hates americans... and Long live Palestine.
-
Was just about to edit that in.
-
and were zionist,
and god is great
a refueling point and the highway around it was aparently bombed
-
Originally posted by HeX
Was just about to edit that in.
:D
Actually, the translation of his speech seemed overly repetative and hard to understand.
His tactics for Defeating the infedels that he stated included "running out american patience and lowering our troops morale." :lol:
-
Let me know when they Cruise Missile Saddam. I'll be playing Ghost Recon.
-
they might have,
that speach was probly recorded,
they were probly shooting at him, and five Iraqi leaders have been reportedly killed
eh, threads got mearged
Mosul was atacked
-
Uggg now I've got a headache from catching up
-
holy
i wont go catching up 10 pages lol
-
One cool thing about watching all the news reports with the troops,... they're showing off some of the things I used to repair :) Just saw the Today Show showing off the Chemical check point and showing the CAMs ;)
-
The news here is terrible. They report on the Iraq war every few minutes to half an hour and its always the same thing. They always start with the 48 hour deadline thing then move on to the report this morning that a missile hit the presidential building and so on. Boring.
If I wanted to watch and hear something boring, I rather watch Titanic.:nervous:
-
That's normal for the media though. War to them is profitable as it's higher ratings,....some ppl are just as addicted to watching "up to the second" reports on a war as they are on Reality TV.
Personally I'd much rather the Media only be allowed to be given information after an operation is completed (mission...not the entire war,...out of fairness) I think the whole mess on them attempting to guess exactly where troops are being massed is ridiculous,... might as well have "Please target these locations" all over the news :D
-
:wtf: how does this thread merge function exactly work anyway? Does it just stack the beginning of one thread onto the end of the other?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:wtf: how does this thread merge function exactly work anyway? Does it just stack the beginning of one thread onto the end of the other?
It displays posts from both threads into chronological order.
-
which means it'll be a pain in the tail to make out replies between each thread since it's being ordered by posting time/ dates.
Personally I'd have just closed one of the two and left the other to continue on ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but that is no reason not to stop them in Iraq
As I said it's a valid statement but the US and the UK still has no right to invade a country just because that country violates human rights.
An example. Many people think that death penalty violate the human rights. Does that make it right to invade Texas?
-
We all know the simple reason this is happening is Saddam was giving demands to disarm and prove he'd done so, he failed, now it's being enforced.
I think we can all stop the whole "Why/why not" debate on the reasons for the war. The time for that's a bit past now.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
We all know the simple reason this is happening is Saddam was giving demands to disarm and prove he'd done so, he failed, now it's being enforced.
I think we can all stop the whole "Why/why not" debate on the reasons for the war. The time for that's a bit past now.
What I don't understand is why then the UK and US didn't listened to the weapon inspectors who said repeatedly that they needed more time to inspect if Saddam have any weapons of mass destruction. Why jump at the gun so quickly?
-
It wasn't "so quickly". Think about it,.. the short term....Iraq's had since November to show SOME proof. We're talking about a country that's more anal about paperwork than the IRS,....yet there was nothing indicating any WMD had been dismantelled. They even found warheads that weren't even accounted for at all.
Now add to it the UN's been trying to get Saddam to do this for 12 years,... it's long over due.
I mean... think ... on a much smallere scale... if you're busted for speeding ... and claim it wasn't your fault... would a judge give you a year to prove it without punishing you ?
This is just a much larger scale. Iraq lost DS, they were directed to disarm as a result of their failed attempt to invade another country (Which wasn't their first try at this),..they failed to live up to the directions to disarm.
If Saddam cared one bit about 'his' people ... tell me this .. why torch their one biggest means of finacial income for the whole country ? ? Hell that's like building a firewall with $100 bills to stop troops. The only ppl he's harming are his own now.
-
Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started :p No point to keep whining about it.
And because I don't want want to have Saddam be the winner, wich happens with neutrality, I side with the US/UK. This is only because there is no other good choice. It doesn't mean I like it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started :p No point to keep whining about it.
Who's whining ? :p
And I'm sure you realize this will most likely be a major topic theme for a bit, lots of ppl will be wanting to discuss what they're hearing about the war and their opinions on it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started :p No point to keep whining about it.
Ehh...incase you didn't notice a lot of civilians gonna die from this war. That a damn good reason to "whine" about it.
EDIT: I edited the 100.000 no to "a lot of" EDIT
-
Heh they're reading off a list of countries that have committed to joining the coalition against Saddam. Figures once the war itself started a could chuck of those opposing it would jump the band wagon. Last count they gave was 32 countries.
-
Originally posted by Pez
Ehh...incase you didn't notice some 100.000 civilians gonna die from this war. That a damn good reason to "whine" about it.
...No it isn't...
How much as I hate it, it doesn't make a damned difference. This war will happen one way or another. And if you read the other threads I've been quite anti-war. But I can now see that the war is going on wether we like it or not. And in turn I will side with the allied forces as being neutral only helps Saddam.
I am Anti-anything that harms The Netherlands[/b] :D :p :D
-
Originally posted by Pez
Ehh...incase you didn't notice some 100.000 civilians gonna die from this war. That a damn good reason to "whine" about it.
Damn the random civilian number generator is working over time. You are seeing the news and hearing just how extensivly the US is trying to avoid civilian injuries correct ? Right now it's only been surgical strikes in order to take out military targets and mimize civilan harm.
So far only one reported deaths and 14 injuries, while quite sad,...it's also quite small for a city being bombed.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I am Anti-anything that harms The Netherlands :D :p :D [/B]
I'm sure you know ... but they just reported Netherlands have committed to the effort too. It's the first I heard of it so Im not sure if they were from the start or just joined up.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
I'm sure you know ... but they just reported Netherlands have committed to the effort too. It's the first I heard of it so Im not sure if they were from the start or just joined up.
"We will politically support the US, but not military in any way."
:doubt: Well... i guess its kinda ok...
-
Cool thanks. Like I'd said I just caught the name mentioned in the list but they didn't say who was committing what. cnn.com only shows US, UK, and Aust. at all much less commitment levels. (All three of those mentioned are listed as having committed troops.)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Damn the random civilian number generator is working over time. You are seeing the news and hearing just how extensivly the US is trying to avoid civilian injuries correct ? Right now it's only been surgical strikes in order to take out military targets and mimize civilan harm.
So far only one reported deaths and 14 injuries, while quite sad,...it's also quite small for a city being bombed.
Firstly. The war is not over. Secondly. I base those numbers on how many civilians that got killed or died in some connected in the gulf war. For example:
Iraqi
Military: 100,000-120,000
Civilian: 62,400 to 99,400 (87% of dis./mal. after fighting stopped)
Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 30,000-100,000
But of course, you should't trust everything: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00008.html
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Cool thanks. Like I'd said I just caught the name mentioned in the list but they didn't say who was committing what. cnn.com only shows US, UK, and Aust. at all much less commitment levels. (All three of those mentioned are listed as having committed troops.)
Do you have a link to that list?
-
Originally posted by Pez
Firstly. The war is not over. Secondly. I base those numbers on how many civilians that got killed or died in some connected in the gulf war. For example:
Iraqi
Military: 100,000-120,000
Civilian: 62,400 to 99,400 (87% of dis./mal. after fighting stopped)
Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 30,000-100,000
But of course, you should't trust everything: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00008.html
Well you should have noticed by now the current attacks are nothing like DS was. DS we opened up with loads of cruise missiles. At last count I had we've only fired about 2 dozen,...much less than we opened with in DS.
Plus keep in mind Saddam used civillians as shields for his important areas that were under attack. Blame for their deaths falls on his shoulders.
I can easily see the differnce in combat styles between the two, but yes unfortunatly there's no way to guesstimate the numbers and there will be injuries/deaths,..it's a sad truth of war. But to me you can't simply go on with "We shouldn't fight because civilians will be hurt"
-
Originally posted by Pez
Do you have a link to that list?
It wasn't online,... the full list was just announced in a live debrief from DC. Cnn.com hasa coalition link on the front page that will show you US, UK, and Aust info. I'm assuming that will be updated as the new information filter's through.
*EDIT* Here's the link for those three: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html Don't know if this one will be updated or a new link created thou.
-
Ok side question... just watching CNN and saw the bombing on Bagdad with the reporter freaking out over a "large flash" ... curious ... does anyone else feel reporters sitting IN cities that We are targetting to be a bit stupid?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
But to me you can't simply go on with "We shouldn't fight because civilians will be hurt"
Explain please.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok side question... just watching CNN and saw the bombing on Bagdad with the reporter freaking out over a "large flash" ... curious ... does anyone else feel reporters sitting IN cities that We are targetting to be a bit stupid?
Why do you think Saddam allows them to be there? :doubt:
And do you know what those reporters get paid? :D
-
Originally posted by Pez
Explain please.
Meaning I've heard, and know a few ppl,...who's sole reason to avoid an armed conflict is "But civilians could be harmed." Yes that's a sad truth to warfare,.. but if we followed that ... ANY one could get away with ANY thing simply by pulled what Saddam has been known to pull and use innocent civillians as shields.
If Saddam has a nuke launch site,.. but piles 2 thousand civilians around it,... should we allow that to stop a bombing run on the target in order to insure it's not fired at the US, Kuwait, Israel, France or whoever ? It's in a way like the 9-11,..when afterwards the "If this happens again" was discussed and it was announced the planes would be shotdown if needed,.. sometimes civilians are placed in harms way during a war but some may be sacrificed to insure safety of the greater.
But agian it's been announced repeatedly that every measure possible will be taken to not harm innocents. Several radio annouments and thousands of leaflets are directed civilians to basically stay home and away from military targets for their own safety. Personally if you're working right beside a bunker during wartime ,.. you're asking to be injured/killed by bombing runs.
-
Using CP's version of explaining stuff:
If ya sit on a chair it can break. Lets not sit in chairs!
This only applies to reaslly really fat people, or people with weak chairs :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Why do you think Saddam allows them to be there? :doubt:
And do you know what those reporters get paid? :D
Personally ... no amount of funds are enough for me to willing sit in a bomb target. :D
But then again .. it's a way to weed out our genepool :) (jk)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Meaning I've heard, and know a few ppl,...who's sole reason to avoid an armed conflict is "But civilians could be harmed." Yes that's a sad truth to warfare,.. but if we followed that ... ANY one could get away with ANY thing simply by pulled what Saddam has been known to pull and use innocent civillians as shields.
If Saddam has a nuke launch site,.. but piles 2 thousand civilians around it,... should we allow that to stop a bombing run on the target in order to insure it's not fired at the US, Kuwait, Israel, France or whoever ? It's in a way like the 9-11,..when afterwards the "If this happens again" was discussed and it was announced the planes would be shotdown if needed,.. sometimes civilians are placed in harms way during a war but some may be sacrificed to insure safety of the greater.
But agian it's been announced repeatedly that every measure possible will be taken to not harm innocents. Several radio annouments and thousands of leaflets are directed civilians to basically stay home and away from military targets for their own safety. Personally if you're working right beside a bunker during wartime ,.. you're asking to be injured/killed by bombing runs.
I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.
-
Originally posted by Pez
I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.
trust me I've had those thoughts. I know my father's one of those types that would rather die than allow a terrorist to use him as a bargaining tool. I'm the same way.
In all seriousness, if I was trapped within a targetting zone,..I would expected to die,...plain and simple.
But the point I was making above is that yes it's horrible that war often claims innocent lives,.. but it's a fact of life. All you can do is try to minimize that cost. Driving kills ppl,...we still drive. Drinking kills ppl....we still drink,...etc etc.
i'm not arguing wether or not it's a sad thing, just that we shouldn't attack Iraq solely because civilians could be hurt.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
trust me I've had those thoughts. I know my father's one of those types that would rather die than allow a terrorist to use him as a bargaining tool. I'm the same way.
In all seriousness, if I was trapped within a targetting zone,..I would expected to die,...plain and simple.
But the point I was making above is that yes it's horrible that war often claims innocent lives,.. but it's a fact of life. All you can do is try to minimize that cost. Driving kills ppl,...we still drive. Drinking kills ppl....we still drink,...etc etc.
i'm not arguing wether or not it's a sad thing, just that we shouldn't attack Iraq solely because civilians could be hurt.
Again I understand and agree in some degree of what you are saying but we are not talking about a terrorist attack here. And we are not talking about the human shields that Saddam has used. We are talking about millions of people in Iraq who just wants peace but still get killed. I can't see how anyone could justify that.
-
If ya sit on a chair it can break. Lets not sit in chairs!
This only applies to reaslly really fat people, or people with weak chairs
Okay but you are putting pressure on the chairs nevertheless; still unfair to them. It's a violation of chair rights. :mad: One of these days there will be a Chairs for the Ethical Treatment of Chairs, and then you will be sorry.
:D
I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.
But that brings up exactly the same problem; aren't these people just as biased in their opinions as we are precisely due to this experience they have?
Again I understand and agree in some degree of what you are saying but we are not talking about a terrorist attack here. And we are not talking about the human shields that Saddam has used. We are talking about millions of people in Iraq who just wants peace but still get killed. I can't see how anyone could justify that.
Simple enough; this is essentially an American operation. Any national government in the world only cares about the people of other nations as they contribute to the well-being of its nation only; these governments exist only to do good for their own people, not those of other countries. So from the US government's point of view, this is only important as far as these people will assist the US's objectives.
Regardless of that though, I don't really see how "millions" of Iraqis would die; even in the worst scenarios, the projected casualties are not nearly that high.
oh, and I already gave the "justification" for all of this; a Shivan told Bush to do so in a dream. End of story. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay but you are putting pressure on the chairs nevertheless; still unfair to them. It's a violation of chair rights. :mad:
:D
But that brings up exactly the same problem; aren't these people just as biased in their opinions as we are precisely due to this experience they have?
Just because I haven't experieced a situation doesn't mean that I can't try to put me in that situation. I haven't had bombs flying over my head but I'm damn sure it's not a nice thing.
Simple enough; this is essentially an American operation. Any national government in the world only cares about the people of other nations as they contribute to the well-being of its nation only; these governments exist only to do good for their own people, not those of other countries. So from the US government's point of view, this is only important as far as these people will assist the US's objectives.
Absolutly correct. A goverment should take care of their own people. But still, that doesn't justify to kill innocent people of another country just to protect your own.
Regardless of that though, I don't really see how "millions" of Iraqis would die; even in the worst scenarios, the projected casualties are not nearly that high.
Oh that million thing was my fault.....what I ment was that millions of iraqis want peace....I didn't mean that millions would get killed....my bad.
-
Just because I haven't experieced a situation doesn't mean that I can't try to put me in that situation. I haven't had bombs flying over my head but I'm damn sure it's not a nice thing.
Yes, but my point is that experiencing a situation first-hand does not necessarily help in drawing deductions from it, especially for things like this that play on emotions. Thinking from these people's point of view will give you an individual person's perspective as far as it affects that person only, but we are more interested in the larger picture here, since a war (and all international politics, really) is essentially a conflict between institutions in which the individuals are only meaningful as they contribute to the larger whole.
Absolutly correct. A goverment should take care of their own people. But still, that doesn't justify to kill innocent people of another country just to protect your own.
Actually yes it does, that is, if they do not contribute to the nation otherwise in any way and there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them. That is simply the way the system of competing states works (and as long as there is more than one, the competition exists).
besides, remember, shivans talking in dreams justify anything in the universe. :D
Oh that million thing was my fault.....what I ment was that millions of iraqis want peace....I didn't mean that millions would get killed....my bad.
Ah I see now. I think everyone in the world wants peace; it is just that everyone wants to rule the world in that period of peace as well, so it can also be said that nobody wants peace. It is just a matter of what kind of peace it is. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually yes it does, that is, if they do not contribute to the nation otherwise in any way and there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them. That is simply the way the system of competing states works (and as long as there is more than one, the competition exists).
This thing might work in theory but if you apply it to the real world is also it also work but from my point of view you can't justify it in some examples.
If you follow the "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". Some examples.
"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?
"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?
The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.
Ah I see now. I think everyone in the world wants peace; it is just that everyone wants to rule the world in that period of peace as well, so it can also be said that nobody wants peace. It is just a matter of what kind of peace it is.
[/B]
Yes, I do believe every human being wants peace. The sad thing is that the ones who rule doesn't always want peace.
Gotta go to bed now, but it's been nice talking to you all. It's nice to see people discuss senitive matters without it turning to a flame war.
-
Originally posted by Pez
This thing might work in theory but if you apply it to the real world is also it also work but from my point of view you can't justify it in some examples.
If you follow the "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". Some examples.
"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?
"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?
and how do either of those apply here ?
The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.
You throw Bush in with Saddam and hitler because Bush is trying to remove Saddam ? ?
Hmmm
Saddam and Hitler did wtf they wanted when they wanted, regardless of opinions
Bush Tried repeatedly to find a peaceful way to handle this, but isn't being a chick**** and has the balls to back up the words.
Seriously guy ,.. where are you coming up with all this ? Christ wtf do you want us to do ?
"Oh Saddam... don't you worry about those 12 UN resolutions ok? I know you failed to prove a damned thing... but we don't want to attack since it's just not nice,..."
:wtf:
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnyways ,.. i'm going to go have a smoke now ;)
-
"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?
Depends on what other benefits they provide, and what the benefits/cost of killing them is. If these nonpayers are very small segment of the entire population or you only kill off a small portion of them, you can probably be fine with that, since it might make the rest of them start paying up. However, if they comprise a significant part of the people, you obviously cannot kill all of them without doing serious damage to the national economy. This there is also the issue of popular support; you will need to publicize the incidents to convince others to start paying, but depending on the common social culture, it may not go well with the people.
"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?
This particular one actually stems from a strange assumption, that the Jews would "pollute" the economy. They would obviously contribute to it just as much as anyone else would, since the fact that they are Jews is not really going to have any effect on their economic importance. So it was wrong for Germany, but only because they could have practically benefitted otherwise (assuming that is what they wanted :D).
The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.
It has nothing to do with the US here actually or this particular period of time; this method is quite inherent in the operation of the state itself, and really for that matter, any such competing parties in the universe. This system has been in effect since the first civilizations started and will go on for as long as independent nations exist at all, and those who "learn from history" are simply going to become more vulnerable to those who do not.
Besides, the Europeans for one have a long history of absolutely brilliant geopolitical maneuvering, and I think it very unlikely that they will all of a sudden have become incompetent; I bet what is really happening here is that they are simply continuing this tradition of genius, disguising their real goals (mentioned earlier in this thread) under high moral principles to gain popular support for their causes. :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
and how do either of those apply here ?
Just read what CP wrote "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". If you eleminate a non-taxpayer you gain more money. Therefor it's in the nations interest to eleminate them if you follow that reasoning.
You throw Bush in with Saddam and hitler because Bush is trying to remove Saddam ? ?
Hmmm
Saddam and Hitler did wtf they wanted when they wanted, regardless of opinions
Bush Tried repeatedly to find a peaceful way to handle this, but isn't being a chick**** and has the balls to back up the words.
Ah....I knew that it would upset someone....but that wasn't my attention. Here is the thing: Bush, Hitler and Saddam all have invaded other countries. This is a violation of international law.
Seriously guy ,.. where are you coming up with all this ? Christ wtf do you want us to do ?
"Oh Saddam... don't you worry about those 12 UN resolutions ok? I know you failed to prove a damned thing... but we don't want to attack since it's just not nice,..."
Why are people always taking these things so damn personal. Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!
Oh and by the way. Where did you find the rule to invade a country just because they don't follow the UN resolutions.
-
Originally posted by CP5670 [/B]
It has nothing to do with the US here actually or this particular period of time; this method is quite inherent in the operation of the state itself, and really for that matter, any such competing parties in the universe. This system has been in effect since the first civilizations started and will go on for as long as independent nations exist at all, and those who "learn from history" are simply going to become more vulnerable to those who do not.
[/B]
Actually if you have read some political science (which it seems that you have) you should know that the nationstate is a pretty young phenomenon who didn't start with the birth of civilizations.
Anyway....now I really gotta go to bed....see you all.
-
Originally posted by Pez
Ah....I knew that it would upset someone....but that wasn't my attention. Here is the thing: Bush, Hitler and Saddam all have invaded other countries. This is a violation of international law.
Hmmm they weren't the only ones ya know ;)
Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!
[/b]
Exactly. MY Country, thus I stand up for it when I feel the need to. Yea it's far from perfect, and there's quite a few things I'll happily join with you in *****ing about ,....but other things I'll stand up against. Not every American feels this way, then again not every American is willing to put there lives on the line for the country, I other am/was on both counts. Hopefully this will help you understand why to a point I'll take things personal.
Oh and by the way. Where did you find the rule to invade a country just because they don't follow the UN resolutions. [/B]
Hmmm well;
They fought us 12 years ago
They lost
They were directed to disarm
They didn't
Thus ,.. we're back to force the issue.
These things happen. It's not a Rule or a law in the UN. Just like after Germany was defeated in WW2 they weren't allowed to create a military force for a time. Same with Japan if I recall,..could be wrong. The other method to handle it would have been total and complete destruction of an enemy. Would you prefer that ? Peace is a nice concept,...but without force to insure it you will never have peace in any form at all.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
One of these days there will be a Chairs for the Ethical Treatment of Chairs, and then you will be sorry.
:D
Yeah, but wait until they try to decide who the chairman will be. Or how many chairs will be on the board. :p
Or heck, imagine the discussion about whether to be a money-making organization, or a non-profit chairity! :lol:
:nervous:
-
:lol: :lol:
-
"Why are people always taking these things so damn personal. Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!"
you know I was going to make a point that if someone talks smack about you're government (or it's leaders), and you generaly suport them, you will tend to take it personaly wether you had anyhting to do with it or not,
but as I can not find anything realy bad of the same nature as a major military action involveing Sweden I don't think I will be able to,
the absolute worst I could find was some eugenics stuf around the earlyer part of this century, the fact that this is the _absolute_ worst I could find is a testomont to you're contry, and it's people.
though I didn't look that hard
now doesn't that make you feel good :)
-
anyway...
rumors that Sadam is dead, and the Iraqi army is in negotiations to surrender
wouldn't this be great, I think this would be the absolute best posable outcome of this situation
we kill Sadam and anyone who might be able to fill the power vacume, they surender, the world helps them rebuild into a democracy
ah, alas, the pink dragon seems ever more likely
in other news 1024 people have been arested in San Fransico peace riots
-
this was a lot more active when it was fifteen diferent topics
and weve captured the city of Umm Qasr
-
Actually if you have read some political science (which it seems that you have) you should know that the nationstate is a pretty young phenomenon who didn't start with the birth of civilizations.
yeah, the nation state is just the newest incarnation of this, but this system of competing institutions has been around since the first ones came up. My point is that it has nothing to do with Bush or the US, but it is rather an unchangeable property of the international system itself, and if you look a bit more closely you will find just about every country doing the same thing today.
Anyway....now I really gotta go to bed....see you all.
I just got up; all ready for full-night math and FRED sessions. :D
Ah....I knew that it would upset someone....but that wasn't my attention. Here is the thing: Bush, Hitler and Saddam all have invaded other countries. This is a violation of international law.
The current "laws" are not really laws, since they have no backing by force at all; as I have said countless times around here, "international law" is an oxymoron today and cannot be anything but one. :D The countries follow these "laws" (which have no enforcement at all) when they benefit from them and ignore them otherwise, and the US is no exception. Then again, there is the issue of what exactly "international law" is and who decides on it.
Oh and by the way. Where did you find the rule to invade a country just because they don't follow the UN resolutions.
The US (and anyone else) isn't going to care about enforcing the UN resolutions unless it is to their own benefit; there are some other reasons why we are doing this for our own objectives regardless of any UN rules, which were discussed earlier in the thread.
Yeah, but wait until they try to decide who the chairman will be. Or how many chairs will be on the board.
Or heck, imagine the discussion about whether to be a money-making organization, or a non-profit chairity!
rofl! :D :D
in other news 1024 people have been arested in San Fransico peace riots
exactly? nice, that's 210. :yes:
-
I thought you'd like that
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Why are people always taking these things so damn personal. Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!"
you know I was going to make a point that if someone talks smack about you're government (or it's leaders), and you generaly suport them, you will tend to take it personaly wether you had anyhting to do with it or not,
but as I can not find anything realy bad of the same nature as a major military action involveing Sweden I don't think I will be able to,
the absolute worst I could find was some eugenics stuf around the earlyer part of this century, the fact that this is the _absolute_ worst I could find is a testomont to you're contry, and it's people.
though I didn't look that hard
now doesn't that make you feel good :)
You could probably find some juicystuff that Sweden did during the second WW (ex. Letting the german division Engelbrecht pass through Sweden. Another example is that the Swedish goverment knew about the killing of jews but refused to let alot of them into the country.)
I read your next post about Saddam being killed and that actually would be great, cause make no misstake here I just want as you that Saddam should go away but we don't agree on how that should be done.
-
They're somehow connected to Swedish fish, which gum up my teeth and are pretty vile.
However, they're also the homeplace of attractive female Swedish masseusses(masseussessesses? mausseusseses?), so it all evens out.
And, ah, people who react to opposition politics like it's a direct insult to their manhood likely don't have enough actual manhood to get defensive over. Tthbt.
Someone else I can insult here?
-
reports that US tanks are more than 150km into Iraq, that would be about 100 miles
so far little/no resistance, I just hope this keeps up, I hope those people stay safe, I hope they don't do anything stupid
-
US troops have reportedly taken controle of an air port in Bamerni
-
Originally posted by Pez
You could probably find some juicystuff that Sweden did during the second WW (ex. Letting the german division Engelbrecht pass through Sweden. Another example is that the Swedish goverment knew about the killing of jews but refused to let alot of them into the country.)
I read your next post about Saddam being killed and that actually would be great, cause make no misstake here I just want as you that Saddam should go away but we don't agree on how that should be done.
you could also take Wallenberg into account, as he saved thousands of jews from the holocaust. Choosing between being occupied by nazi-germany and remain free with the cost of letting some trains take the route through your country (the trains were going to norway, that was already occupied btw), I think the government made the right choice. And we did play a big part in rebuilding Europe afterwards.
I guess that yes, Iraq needs a democratic ruling. But I don't think that war would help this that much. What it will do however, is stir up even more anti-american feelings in that area. And in the end the US government will probably sit dumbfounded and wondering why everybody hates them...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
They're somehow connected to Swedish fish, which gum up my teeth and are pretty vile.
However, they're also the homeplace of attractive female Swedish masseusses(masseussessesses? mausseusseses?), so it all evens out.
And, ah, people who react to opposition politics like it's a direct insult to their manhood likely don't have enough actual manhood to get defensive over. Tthbt.
Someone else I can insult here?
ahh... the infamous swedish fish... wtf is that?
-
Originally posted by kode
I guess that yes, Iraq needs a democratic ruling. But I don't think that war would help this that much. What it will do however, is stir up even more anti-american feelings in that area. And in the end the US government will probably sit dumbfounded and wondering why everybody hates them...
I donno about that,...CNN last night interviewed a group of about 20-30 Iraqis,...all of which cheered the US for going in to remove Saddam.
But we won't know until it's done.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And, ah, people who react to opposition politics like it's a direct insult to their manhood likely don't have enough actual manhood to get defensive over. Tthbt.
Someone else I can insult here?
*shrug* Or perhaps some of us have what they call. ....hmmm pride in country ? Hmmm interesting concept there.
-
One can be proud of one's country without being in agreement with everything done by the people leading it. Country is the people, the history, the society of the whole country (and more), and if you're proud of your country, it it these things you are proud of. Not the individuals leading it. So having pride in your country does not in any way mean you can't at the same time disagree with that country's current politics.
I'm proud of my country, wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Spend several years serving my country as part of it's military because I felt it was a country worth serving. But I don't like my country's current government and most of their politics, so does this suddenly mean I'm not proud of my country? Nope, still am, I'm just not so proud of these few people in particular ;)
-
Originally posted by Exarch
One can be proud of one's country without being in agreement with everything done by the people leading it. Country is the people, the history, the society of the whole country (and more), and if you're proud of your country, it it these things you are proud of. Not the individuals leading it. So having pride in your country does not in any way mean you can't at the same time disagree with that country's current politics.
I'm proud of my country, wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Spend several years serving my country as part of it's military because I felt it was a country worth serving. But I don't like my country's current government and most of their politics, so does this suddenly mean I'm not proud of my country? Nope, still am, I'm just not so proud of these few people in particular ;)
But the difference is I happen to completely agree with the war ;) I've been expecting Saddam to come back into the seen and be removed be force for some time now.
There's alot of thing I don't like or agree with about Bush or various other Presidents (Utterly dispised Clinton,...course I'm not fond of ppl breaking at least 2 federal laws and still being allowed to be a president) But then again yes seeing Bush compared to Hitler kinda pissed me off and pretty much showed me someone with no clue wtf they were talking about :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
I donno about that,...CNN last night interviewed a group of about 20-30 Iraqis,...all of which cheered the US for going in to remove Saddam.
But we won't know until it's done.
:doubt:
20-30 people "picked" by the media hardly represent a nation/culture/community/whatever....
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:doubt:
20-30 people "picked" by the media hardly represent a nation/culture/community/whatever....
LOL True but then again others here want to believe whatever they hear on the news ;) So why not this too ?
-
Originally posted by Exarch
One can be proud of one's country without being in agreement with everything done by the people leading it. Country is the people, the history, the society of the whole country (and more), and if you're proud of your country, it it these things you are proud of. Not the individuals leading it. So having pride in your country does not in any way mean you can't at the same time disagree with that country's current politics.
I'm proud of my country, wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Spend several years serving my country as part of it's military because I felt it was a country worth serving. But I don't like my country's current government and most of their politics, so does this suddenly mean I'm not proud of my country? Nope, still am, I'm just not so proud of these few people in particular ;)
hmm... you evil dane.... what kind of subs do you have? just curious...
-
I guess that yes, Iraq needs a democratic ruling. But I don't think that war would help this that much. What it will do however, is stir up even more anti-american feelings in that area. And in the end the US government will probably sit dumbfounded and wondering why everybody hates them...
No, it will stir up pro-American feelings there, and the EU knows this well; it is one of the major things that they want to prevent and why they have been opposing this war so virulently. If they really believed that this war would create anti-American sentiment (within Iraq, that is, not outside it) more than the opposite, do you think that they would be making such a fuss over that? heck no, they would say sure, go right ahead. :D
-
Translation of an article today in one of our newspapers:
How many nukes does Iraq have? What about USA?
How much of the world population lives in the USA?
(about 6%)
How many of they worlds resources do they use?
(about 50%)
Which country in the world has the biggest oil stockpile?
(Saudi-Arabia)
Which country in the world has the secound biggest oil stockpile?
(Iraq)
How much is spent on military every year, in the entire world?
(roughly 900000000000 $)
How much of it does USA spend?
(roughly 50%)
How many humans have died in wars after WWII?
(86 000 000)
How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
(since the early 1980s)
Did Iraq develop these weapons on their own?
(no, they were supplied with the materials and technology by Great Britain, USA, and private corporations)
Did the US government condemn the use of gas in the Iraq-Iran war?
(no)
How many people did Saddam Hussein kill in the Halabaja city inh 1988
(5000)
How many western countries condemned that act?
(0)
How many gallons of Agent Orange was used by USA in the Vietnam war?
(17 000 000)
Has the Iraq connection with 7/11 been proved?
(no)
How many civilians were killed in the Gulf War?
(about 35000)
How many casualties did the Iraqi army inflict on the western allies?
(0)
How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were killed by US tanks?
(6000)
How much Uranium was left in Iraq and Kuweit after the Gulf War
(about 40 tons)
According to the UN, how much did the case of cancer in Iraq grow during 1991-1994
(700%)
How much of Iraqi military strenght had USA destroyed in 1991, according to themselves?
(80%)
Are there any proof that Iraq intends to use the weapons for anything other than scaring off enemies and selfdefense?
(no)
Does Iraq pose a bigger threat to the world than it did 10 years ago?
(no)
According to the Pentagon, how many civilians can be killed in the war that begun?
(up to 10 000)
How many of them children?
(50%)
How long has the US made air-strikes against Iraq?
(11 years)
Were the US and GB in war with Iraq from december 1998 to september 1999
(no?)
How much explosives were thrown at Iraq during that time?
(20 000 000 pounds)
How many years ago was legislated UN resolution 661, setting heavy import/export regulations on Iraq?
(12)
How many children (per 1000) died in Iraq in 1989?
(38)
How many in 1999?
(131)
How many Iraqis had died due to UN sanctions in 1999?
(1 500 000)
How many of them children?
(roughly 40%)
Did Saddam order the weaponry inspectors to leave from Iraq?
(no)
How many observations did the inspectors make in november and december 1999?
(300)
In how many of them, did they encounter problems?
(5)
Were the inspectors given access to the Ba'ath HQ?
(yes)
How said in Dec. 1999 that Iraq's armaments were unprecedented during the entire modern history?
(Scott Ritter, head of the inspectors)
How much of Iraq's capability of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction had the inspectors discovered and dismantled in 1998, according to themselves?
(90%)
How many countries are known to have nuclear strike capabilty?
(8)
How many nuclear warheads does Iraq have?
(0)
How many nuclear warheads does USA have?
(over 10 000)
What country, in the history of the world has used nuclear weapons?
(USA)
Have the UN weaponry inspectors ever gotten to Israel?
(no)
Which country, do you think poses a larger threat to world peace? Iraq or USA?
[end of article]
even if some of this isn't true, still makes you think, doesn't it?
-
Indeed, it makes me even a greater supporter of the US than I already am. If all that is true, the US is on the path to total victory and will eventually rule the world, and I want to be on the winning side. What about the rest of you? :D
oh and some of those questions are just funny. look at this: :D
How much of Iraq's capability of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction had the inspectors discovered and dismantled in 1998, according to themselves?
"according to themselves?" :rolleyes:
-
Blah, there's a difference between pride in one's country and complete inability to tolerate the very concept of anyone disagreeing with you or not being proud of your country. Narrowminded, blinkered insistence on one's own monopoly on absolute truth ain't any smarter an idea in nationalism than it is in militant racial or religious obsession.
-
according to the inspectors that is.
-
Technically, not true. The US has created absolute supremacy (for now) in traditional warfare, which means a good degree of supremacy in national politics.
What we're seeing now is the emergence of a non-traditional form of warfare, used by weaker parties since they can't hope for a fair fight on the battlefield. In other words, a near-total reliance on surprise-attacking civilian targets, i.e. terrorism, a field in which small, underfunded groups of more or less competent people can utterly smash a huge, wealthy, but unwieldy government organization. It's been implemented broadly, with (arguably) great success in Israel by the Palestinian refugees, and the concept of such strikes as a legitimate option to traditional war is reportedly spreading like all get-out.
War ain't for the Army any more, and battlegrounds aren't restricted to the more poorly defended country. Get used to it, we'll be seeing a LOT more of it in the years to come.
-
You see though, that works only for quick-strike operations with temporary effect; classical terrorism can take down some specific targets of opportunity (it excels at that, in fact) but it simply does not have the long-term force required to take over an entire nation and hold it under your command. To do that you still need your conventional army and of course, a good propaganda machine. A good example is the Israel/Palestine conflict you mentioned; the Palestinian suicide squads can cause some quick disturbances but they are not going to be able to topple the government with that or, even if they somehow manage to defeat the opponent's military, hold Israel together under their control, and are thus little more than a nuisance in the big picture. But what I was talking about there are things like this question:
Did the US government condemn the use of gas in the Iraq-Iran war?
(no)
This is actually something that speaks in favor of American geopolitical acumen. Why condemn it if it isn't hindering your objectives? :D
-
But an extended series of terrorist strikes can do just that. It doesn't matter if it takes a week or a year to turn a city to rubble; in the end, it's still ash, and all the better if the enemy is thrown into a constant state of paranoia and disorder by the fact that they can never tell where or when the next hit's coming.
Naturally, it's useless for occupations and you've got another problem when it comes time to replace the government, but the "after" period of the conflict is of secondary interest to the parties using such tactics right now. At the moment, they've got a strategy that is damn near impossible to foil reliably (say 70% of the time), and cheap enough that you can always get enough through even the tightest security- it's a tactic that could eliminate their immediate problems, and as for the future... well, it's enough that they've got a slight chance to win a war against infinitely superior forces, I think worrying about the flaws in it (when a rebuilding and replacement government is even a concern, which it isn't really when we're talking about groups like Hamas and al Qaeda- they just want the US and Israel out of their hair) would be highly counterproductive.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
No, it will stir up pro-American feelings there, and the EU knows this well; it is one of the major things that they want to prevent and why they have been opposing this war so virulently. If they really believed that this war would create anti-American sentiment (within Iraq, that is, not outside it) more than the opposite, do you think that they would be making such a fuss over that? heck no, they would say sure, go right ahead. :D
please tell me how you can predict the future of the world. I'm dying to know.
iraq changed over to euro in means of trading oil. would be a major blow for the us if more countries followed. for europe however, that'd be a good thing. that is the frigging reason why europe is "making such a fuss".
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Indeed, it makes me even a greater supporter of the US than I already am. If all that is true, the US is on the path to total victory and will eventually rule the world, and I want to be on the winning side. What about the rest of you? :D
Harakiri. At least I wouldn't have to live in a world with brainwashed zealots then...:nervous:
-
Brainwashed zealotry is stock in trade for ANY government with aspirations to absolute power. The trick is to keep 'em in enough chaos that at least you still have a big choice in who's gonna try and brainwash you, in the hopes that they all just might cancel each other out.
-
Meh, just do as we do; build coffeeshops on every street corner :D Keeps everyone happy!
-
Doesn't work in combination with a culture with frontier origins. A buncha hillbilly descendants with small arsenals on their belts getting jumpy and hyped-up on caffeine sounds like a bad idea to me.
-
Cool. One big thread. And what's more, up in the announcements area where I never look. I like.:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Doesn't work in combination with a culture with frontier origins. A buncha hillbilly descendants with small arsenals on their belts getting jumpy and hyped-up on caffeine sounds like a bad idea to me.
umm... coffeshops sells marijuana...
-
Yes. Wonderful, no?
I should have named it the Mother Of All Iraq theads, but that might be a bit long. :blah:
-
Originally posted by kode
umm... coffeshops sells marijuana...
Not on the continent they don't.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Not on the continent they don't.
in the netherlands they do.
and if this would be the mother of all iraq threads, why did you have to kill her children :(
-
Originally posted by kode
and if this would be the mother of all iraq threads, why did you have to kill her children :(
Because I like having a nice cold baby while I'm writing.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Because I like having a nice cold baby while I'm writing.
that I can understand. They are greatly in demand, I've heard. when will the "iraqi soldiers kills babies" rumor surface again, btw?
-
Start one then.
Can never have too many rumors.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Not on the continent they don't.
:blah: They do here :D If the stuff were legal everywhere we'd have a monopoly on the stuff :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:blah: They do here :D If the stuff were legal everywhere we'd have a monopoly on the stuff :p
*snicker* You've never had BC bud then. :devil:
-
Meh, the mass bombings are so going to cause trouble and stir up anti-american movements. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Meh, the mass bombings are so going to cause trouble and stir up anti-american movements. :doubt:
Big difference between "mass bombings" and massive amounts of pression bombings ;)
You gotta keep in mind we're using weapons that are accurate to within feet of the target.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Big difference between "mass bombings" and massive amounts of pression bombings ;)
You gotta keep in mind we're using weapons that are accurate to within feet of the target.
:doubt:
400 meter kill zone on most bombs... Its not 3000 super precision bombs you know. And the most nasty and biggest bomb is still to come. Not even the B-52's can drop that :p Needs a freighter plane.
Its just sick to bomb a city with 3000 bombs. Haven't you seen the footage? They've aired it here... The big ass explosions don't seem very nice for the surrounding area.
-
and ?
It's war :rolleyes:
They're going out of their way to not harm civis ,... which isn't exactly something most attackers do during a war.
And yes I've been watching the footage all day, even the footage of Iraqis shaking hands with US troops and tearing down Saddam's posters.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
and ?
It's war :rolleyes:
They're going out of their way to not harm civis ,... which isn't exactly something most attackers do during a war.
Still, 3000 friggin' bombs is enough to level an entire ccountry if used right. To use it on one city isn't an attack. Its murdering innocents as its more then has to be used.
I know most of it is propaganda, but nothing warrants a bombing on this scale. This will have dire consequences. To name a few:
- Bin Laden and Co. (other terrorist groupings) will now have enough recruits to go and bomb the **** out US targets.
- As said before, Anti US movement will now only grow.
- Iran, next to Iraq, is now scared as they are too seen as "Evildoers" by the US. they too will begin to rally their military and Iran is a nation that has been pointed out to posses nukes.
Those are just a few consequences.
-
well, look at what carpet bombing did to berlin at the end of WWII, these days there'll be less 'collateral damage' due to some of the more precision munitions the modern military have at their disposal. Mind you, even the most accurate wepon misses at one point or another.. still carpet bombing is more effective than ever 'cause of the larger payload b52's carrier over thier b17 ancestors.
Edit: all conflicts have forseen and unforseen consequences, it's just the nature of war unfortunately..
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Still, 3000 friggin' bombs is enough to level an entire ccountry if used right. To use it on one city isn't an attack. Its murdering innocents as its more then has to be used.
Ha, maybe if you're using nukes. But 3000 conventional bombs? Pfft, a typical allied air raid in WWII dropped way more ordnance than that. Hell, they had thousand bomber raids! The US could flatten Baghdad if it wanted without the use of nukes.... are they?
[q]Bin Laden and Co. (other terrorist groupings) will now have enough recruits to go and bomb the **** out US targets.[/q]What, do you think they're going to get madder over there? It's too early to start claiming all kinds of dire predictions for the future.
-
1: I've seen nothing saying 3000 bombs on Bagdad itself. They announced during the last Pentagon briefing that they were making multiple attacks across Iraq,...not just the one city. If you've got a link to something stating 3000 known bombs on one city please share it, I'd be interested in reading that.
2: Rumsfield make a point to tell reporters that we were not carpet bombing.
-
What, do you think they're going to get madder over there? It's too early to start claiming all kinds of dire predictions for the future.
If ya haven't seen the riots in Egypt and other mid east countries... They are friggin' pissed. I know I "might" be a bit premature, but still, there is a very good chance this will happen.
Also, Bin Laden & Co., will use this as an excuse to bring down the Statue of Liberty or sumthin' similar. And it doesn't matter if he has new recruits and stuff :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Also, Bin Laden & Co., will use this as an excuse to bring down the Statue of Liberty or sumthin' similar.
Good idea. In a way, I hope they do. Or even better, America should raise the bar on the freedom/french food fight, and return the Statue of Liberty to the French. "We don't want your idols symbolizing our nation, thank you very much!"
:lol:
-
LMAO!
Well you know they've still got troops in Afganastan hunting down any leads on Al-Qeda (sp) still. That pressure alone might postpone too much of a "Terrorsite Revenge" anytime soon. All depends on where the main group's relocated. But one thing is sure, a terrorist attack anytime soon would also just add that much more fuel and make things even worse (from a point of view, better from another I guess)
-
I think you might be giving the organization level of terrorist cells too much credit. Yeah, the 9/11 bombings were pretty cautiously coordinated, but that was a very complex and very big attack. At this point if one guy set a pound of C4 off on the Brooklyn Bridge, New York would be shut down for a month.
Anyway, so far Bush is actually doing extremely well in the war. I have no doubts that the news is twisting things (such as the endless string of "representative Iraqis" in suits and ties who've lived in DC for 20 years going "yes boss, we likes it when you bombs us! Yessuh! Cos while it hurt on the outside, on the inside we be knowin' youse liberatin' us!"- and here I thought that maybe the country had grown up a little since the slavery era), but it seems he's honestly trying to and for the most part succeeding in keeping the civilian casualties and "collateral damage" to a minimum. I have my doubts that the ENTIRETY of East Baghdad is Evil Empire Goons, but we'll see what's what when the dust settles.
At any rate, he performed well in the Afghan operation, too. He understands it's bad publicity to kill too many civilians, the generals in the Pentagon appear very competent, and some of the new hardware works pretty impressively. It's after the shooting that he starts ****ing up tragically- once again, as in Afghanistan.
He's a good wartime president, but all in all I think he causes much more human misery when there isn't a war on. I can't wait to see which friendly Middle Eastern nations get mass uprisings because the government is going against the passionate wishes of 90% of the populace in sucking off Bush.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Anyway, so far Bush is actually doing extremely well in the war.
...
At any rate, he performed well in the Afghan operation, too
...
He's a good wartime president
...
*falls to floor due to massive shockwaves caused by hell flash freezing in the blink of an eye*
;)
-
Yes. Of course. Because anyone who disagrees with you in any way must, logically, have such a diametrically opposed opinion on everything, no matter the situation or how demonstrably true it is, as to be certifiably insane. The sky is pink! Cancer is good for you! Electricity works by magic!
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I know most of it is propaganda, but nothing warrants a bombing on this scale. This will have dire consequences. To name a few:
- Bin Laden and Co. (other terrorist groupings) will now have enough recruits to go and bomb the **** out US targets.
- As said before, Anti US movement will now only grow.
- Iran, next to Iraq, is now scared as they are too seen as "Evildoers" by the US. they too will begin to rally their military and Iran is a nation that has been pointed out to posses nukes.
Those are just a few consequences.
:wtf:
Yeah...see...umm....no..... maybe for NOW (by now i mean these next two weeks at most) but anyone can see that once Iraq has been liberated it will be better for all. (I think U just can't stand the thought that Bush gambled right and U wanted him to sooo be wrong...):ha:
-
I was kidding, it was a joke!
people just don't appreciate my humor
:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I was kidding, it was a joke!
people just don't appreciate my humor
:doubt:
Don't worry I had the same reaction reading his post ;)
-
please tell me how you can predict the future of the world. I'm dying to know.
I say that if I release an object in the air, it will fall. I just predicted the future there. :D
Anyway, as for my trains of reasoning on this issue, the average Iraqi man basically does not care a whole lot about politics and will go with whoever gives him and his family more money/food/etc. (this is how terrorist groups gain recruits; "die for us and your family will get x amount of money" ), and the Iraqi population has been for the most part suffering for the last decade under Hussein's policies and UN sanctions, so it will be rather easy for the US to get popular support especially with all those reconstruction plans. The US has a pretty good propaganda system and they can easily use it in Iraq to good effect. The surrounding Arab nations will of course turn more anti-US, but Iraq itself will probably become more pro-US, just like Afghanistan.
iraq changed over to euro in means of trading oil. would be a major blow for the us if more countries followed. for europe however, that'd be a good thing. that is the frigging reason why europe is "making such a fuss".
One of multiple reasons. There are the corporate oil interests, but also more importantly, the long-term international objectives that I talked of earlier.
But an extended series of terrorist strikes can do just that. It doesn't matter if it takes a week or a year to turn a city to rubble; in the end, it's still ash, and all the better if the enemy is thrown into a constant state of paranoia and disorder by the fact that they can never tell where or when the next hit's coming.
Still going to be somewhat hard to blow up every building in a city individually; you would need either some ten thousand strikes or a WMD, and there would be no way to wrest control of the place from the enemy or prevent them from rebuilding. And that is only one city. As for the popular reaction, it is just a matter of getting used to it really; for example, in Israel, these suicide bombings happen quite often, so the common people have gradually gotten used to it a part of life. The American public was shaken up by 9/11 because they had never been attacked before, but if the same thing happens again, there will be a somewhat different reaction; each subsequent terror attack is less effective at inciting fear than the one before it, especially if they are carried out with little gap between them, but they need to be carried out in quick succession or they will have no real lasting effect.
Naturally, it's useless for occupations and you've got another problem when it comes time to replace the government, but the "after" period of the conflict is of secondary interest to the parties using such tactics right now. At the moment, they've got a strategy that is damn near impossible to foil reliably (say 70% of the time), and cheap enough that you can always get enough through even the tightest security- it's a tactic that could eliminate their immediate problems, and as for the future... well, it's enough that they've got a slight chance to win a war against infinitely superior forces, I think worrying about the flaws in it (when a rebuilding and replacement government is even a concern, which it isn't really when we're talking about groups like Hamas and al Qaeda- they just want the US and Israel out of their hair) would be highly counterproductive.
That's quite true - it is indeed cheap and reliable - but like I said earlier, there are not really great rewards for pulling it off either. Even the suicide squads are not going to provide them with much of a chance in kicking out the US and Israel completely; like I said earlier, they will be a nuisance and occupy some time/resources, but that's about it.
Meh, the mass bombings are so going to cause trouble and stir up anti-american movements.
um, you should be happy about that, right? That's exactly what the EU wants, you know. :D
Its just sick to bomb a city with 3000 bombs. Haven't you seen the footage? They've aired it here... The big ass explosions don't seem very nice for the surrounding area.
It is even more sick to sit on chairs.
-
It's a joke I've heard about 500 times too many. Not your fault, but that misperception ticks me off quite a bit.
-
Yikes, big thread merge!
Honestly, what do you guys think is the reason the big European powers are opposing the war? Do you think it's because the US stands to take an economic strangle-hold on the world after the war and the cheap oil starts flowing? I'm pretty ignorant in this area, so I'd love anyone else to put forward their thoughts too.
-
:wtf:
I don't want Bush to lose, I don't want terrorist attacks. Hell, now the war is on I'm on Bush's side. But I can still say that I think something is wrong and might have dire consequences.
I think hes a dumb asshole, but I want him to win this war now its impossible to stop.
Ow, and CP, shove a chair up your @$$ :p
Just cause I'm not 100% pro war/pro Bush you assume the worst of me.
-
ok, does anyone know why there is a Dutch command officer at the General franks speech wich is currently on? :confused:
We aren't supporting the war in a military fashion yet there is a Dutch officer... Kinda counterproductive :doubt:
-
Then perhaps you are supporting in some form of military. Normally one wouldn't expect a Military commander to be present for politics.
-
Well, currently there is a debate on dutch television about it. As far as we know we are not supporting in a military way.
-
Just heard; 2 of the higher Dutch command officers came back from US military bases to Holland to show we aren't involved militarily. But now they come in an open debate at Central Command....
:doubt:
-
Then honestly .... what in the hell are any military commands from the Netherlands or anywhere else doing there if not in a "military" way ? :rolleyes:
Kind of an oxymoron there. But I'm guessing we'll find out shortly,..my GF said they said each member standing there is suppossedly going to speak.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Just heard; 2 of the higher Dutch command officers came back from US military bases to Holland to show we aren't involved militarily. But now they come in an open debate at Central Command....
:doubt:
The speed the Allies are advancing I don't think it really matters at the moment. The whole thing seems like it's going to be wrapped up soon hopefully.
Apparently reports are that Saddam has either been severely injured or killed in the first strikes on tuesday.
Talk about shooting your load in the first five minutes huh? :)
-
lol Yea we heard this morning that some one saw Saddam being loaded into an Ambulance Tues night have that strike. But who knows,...at the rate his soldiers are giving up there won't be a war going on anyways ...perhaps just a massive manhunt using tanks ;)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
But I'm guessing we'll find out shortly,..my GF said they said each member standing there is suppossedly going to speak.
Well nevermind about that,...guess she heard wrong.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
lol Yea we heard this morning that some one saw Saddam being loaded into an Ambulance Tues night have that strike. But who knows,...at the rate his soldiers are giving up there won't be a war going on anyways ...perhaps just a massive manhunt using tanks ;)
I think most of the soldiers gibing up at the moment are conscripts that I guess didn't want to fight anyway. Yes I know what propaganda is so don't lambast me for the following, anybody see the pictures in the media and on the net of people hugging the soldiers as the entered Umm Qasr and Basra? It's heartwarming for sure and I think all these "Pro-Peace" (ironic how a few of them in Britain have been incredibly violent in getting their message across) could do to take a look at what these people have to say about a regime they've suffered for too long.
I think Baghdad may prove to be a tougher nut though because it's where the majority of the Elite Republican Guard are based.
-
Yea Bagdad is expected to be pretty tough.
BTW You see the reports on CNN ? All the CNN reporters were removed from Bagdad ... yet MSNBC still has ppl there :D
Wonder who CNN pissed off?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Yea Bagdad is expected to be pretty tough.
BTW You see the reports on CNN ? All the CNN reporters were removed from Bagdad ... yet MSNBC still has ppl there :D
Wonder who CNN pissed off?
I'm in the UK so I've been watching Sky News basically. I'd say it was Fox news without so much crap (Rupert Murdoch owns both). Sky still have people in Baghdad, in fact I think a lot of the video from last nights "Shock and Awe" bombings were from Sky reporters.
Apparently an ITN news crew have gone missing in Northern Iraq. The Turks have also sent 1500 troops in, which is worrying.
-
Yea I heard some reporters have gone missing ,..... just hearing now as many as 6 may be captured or killed in S. Iraq.
-
01010: No conflict there at all. Peace protestors aren't necessarily pacifists, you know, and being against a specific example of unneccessary war is a far cry from being against any conflict in general. ****, I'm all for war in about 90% of the cases it occurs (namely, civil wars), but I'm still against this one, militantly if need be, because the US army is going out there and killing people basically only to fill out Bush's political agenda and compensate for the fact that what is supposedly the best intelligence system in the world can't find a single celebrity, even when we already know exactly where he is (the "no-entry" zone of Pakistan).
An all the heartwarming fluff of Iraqis Uncle Tomming to US soldiers is just that. You'd kiss ass if 30 or 40 armored guys with M16s showed up at your place looking to kill some locals, and you'd better believe the news is being careful about who it picks to show on TV anyway. Half the guys I've seen harp on about how much "we Iraqis" love getting carpet-bombed haven't been IN the country for decades, and were kicked out precisely because they were FAR more militantly anti-Saddam than most people, yet too chicken**** to actually take to the streets and trenches like the Shias and Kurds (who we're still trying to screw over- seriously, what's with us?).
Really, grow up. Nobody likes being bombed and shot at, and nobody likes the forced removal of the system that's keeping them fed. Saddam is most certainly a bastard and a half, and no doubt there aren't many Iraqis who like him, but it's childish to try to fool yourself into believing that they're actually willing to be killed just to get rid of the bastard, or that such a militantly anti-US populace suddenly loooooves Americans and can't get enough of their "liberating" anything that looks like it may now or at some point in the future shoot back.
-
i skimmed the thread, so don't bash me if i missed anything:
from what i heard, i find the Dutch position pathetic, we have a "president" who thinks is middle-of-the-road solutions are the best, wich in turn makes everbody mad at him instead of everybody happy. and in a way, we are supporting the war military, by alowing our F16's to stay around Afganisthan.
i really hate this, the Dutch leaders are messing things up here bigtime, but that's another topic.
i don't like this war, but there's nothing i can do about it, so i can only hope things go without much casualty's. but i'm afraid this is going to turn into Vetnam mark II. i think that oncew the Americans get into the city's, somebody will start using the same tactics as in Tjetsjin (sp???), wich would result in very high casualty rates.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
i skimmed the thread, so don't bash me if i missed anything:
from what i heard, i find the Dutch position pathetic, we have a "president" who thinks is middle-of-the-road solutions are the best, wich in turn makes everbody mad at him instead of everybody happy. and in a way, we are supporting the war military, by alowing our F16's to stay around Afganisthan.
:nod:
i really hate this, the Dutch leaders are messing things up here bigtime, but that's another topic.
:nod: But I have a feeling they will be revising their posistion tomorrow in their debate.
-
They're not the only ones.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, currently there is a debate on dutch television about it. As far as we know we are not supporting in a military way.
Good on you. Our Prime Minister is an idiot... well, actually, I was hoping that he wasn't and that he really had some better justification for the war, but I'm struggling to find one. I think he just wants us to be good buddies with the US, 'cos you guys buy lots of our beef. :D
-
mind you most (if not all) of australia's polititians are idiots, it's all a matter of choosing the lesser evil..
in other words, john howard is still a popular choice for PM simply 'cause simon crean is a bigger moron than he is that and nobody likes him let alone give a ****
-
i just the other night discovered australia had a "military" of some sort...:rolleyes:
-
meh, the best we've got is the SAS which aparrently, the US is rather impressed with..
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
mind you most (if not all) of australia's polititians are idiots, it's all a matter of choosing the lesser evil..
in other words, john howard is still a popular choice for PM simply 'cause simon crean is a bigger moron than he is that and nobody likes him let alone give a ****
True... we have had a couple of gems in the past, like Paul Keating, but he was too smart for the general Australian populace. But he gets balanced by Richard Alston, who tried to 'ban' online casinoes and porn. With people like that running the country, I think someday I'll move to a Pacific island and set up my own kingdom. Gotta be better. :D
-
wow
2 brit choppers crashed into eachother early today and now they think a patriot battery.
-
it's odd really, more military service men & women have been killed by accidents & friendly fire, than by actual enemies...
-
that's how it usually is when Americans go to war :D
why do you think the canadians stuck out of this one? :p
-
2 british choppers crashed into eachother -CONFIRMED-
2 British RAF airplanes downed by US patriots -CONFIRMED-
1 US airplane down -CONFIRMED (but cause as of yet unknown)-
US soldiers starts throwing grenades into his own barracks -CONFIRMED-
-
NIce little link of airal view of baghdad.
CNN Satilite images. (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/war.tracker/zoom/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))
-
Meh, seen to many of those on television...
-
Haven't we all.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
2 british choppers crashed into eachother -CONFIRMED-
2 British RAF airplanes downed by US patriots -CONFIRMED-
1 US airplane down -CONFIRMED (but cause as of yet unknown)-
US soldiers starts throwing grenades into his own barracks -CONFIRMED-
Only one RAF plane and there are no confirmed US airplanes down.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Only one RAF plane and there are no confirmed US airplanes down.
:confused:
Well, must be those irritating, endless repeating news broadcasts.... :ick
-
Originally posted by Tiara
2 british choppers crashed into eachother -CONFIRMED-
2 British RAF airplanes downed by US patriots -CONFIRMED-
1 RAF Tornado, not 2
1 US airplane down -CONFIRMED (but cause as of yet unknown)-
Unless you mean the Sky King that crashed on the first day of the ground war and killed 12 people, this hasn;t been confirmed]
US soldiers starts throwing grenades into his own barracks -CONFIRMED-
- US forces (Marines around Nasiriyah I think) have taken some 'heavy' casualties, no diea what the numbers are.
-US supply convoy ambushed, several killed
-5 (claimed) US troops paraded as POWs on Iraqi TV, images of (again, claimed) US dead also shown. Is a definite breach of Geneva convention.
- Iraq claims it has destroyed 25 armoured vehicles and 10 tanks, no response from the US, but 1 APC was hit by and RPG killing 10-12 troops (I think)
- US troops ambushed by Iraqi troops claiming to surrender and wearing civillian clothes (no deaths AFAIK)
-The 7th (I think) Cavalry were advancing on an Iraqi posiotion which was set to surrender. the Elite Republican Guard (Fed-a-yim or something similar) took over, and brought in civillian women and children to that bunker as human shields.
- ITN newsreader killed in friendlly fire incident whilst heading to Basra. This is most likely because theere was an Iraqi troop truck and a civliian car with officers in it driving next to him. The surviving journalist says he though the Iraqis were surrendering, so it's looks likely they were attempting to use him as a human shield
- US bomb lands in Turkish field (by accident), no deaths
- Claims that Iraqi civillians and troops are searching the banks of the Tigris for downed coalition aircrew, Coalition claims all aircraft accounted for.
- Kuwaiti, Royal Navy forces have caught 4 Iraqi minelaying vessels (around Umm Qsr i think).
- Claims that Iraq is repositioning missiles to face advancing coalition troops
- Reports the Kurds have been pushing forward in the North
Looks like the war is still going 'well' , but it's obviously not going to be the pushover predicted. When you consider the size of Iraq, it's remarkable the gains made in just 4 days or so. Although it looks like the Iraqis are playing dirty, using all the 'tricks' expected.
That's all I can think of.
NB: Most of this is US, I think because they're pushing most aggressively forward. Not sure on the UK troops.
-
Well, I told ya it wouldn't be a pushover. And the hardest part is still to come, the nastiest weapons are still to be deployed by the Iraqi's, etc.
The precision bombing probably saved most of the Iraq gov. They just hid in a civvie building.:doubt:
-
The Traitor who threw the grenades into 3 tents and shot his commanders name was Ackbar (weird. All 3 Ackbars I know of in sci-fi and other stuff have been traitors)
Apparently he was an American Muslim against the war, yadda yadda yadda.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, I told ya it wouldn't be a pushover. And the hardest part is still to come, the nastiest weapons are still to be deployed by the Iraqi's, etc.
The precision bombing probably saved most of the Iraq gov. They just hid in a civvie building.:doubt:
Oh come on. The US could steamroll Iraq if they wanted to. The reason they're being so timid is because this isn't a total war and they're not at war with the civilians, just Sadam and his supporters.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Oh come on. The US could steamroll Iraq if they wanted to. The reason they're being so timid is because this isn't a total war and they're not at war with the civilians, just Sadam and his supporters.
Heh ya and after all the "Don't hurt the civis!" comments, of course we knew Iraqi Gov would head into none targetted buildings,... the trick is those buildings won't have any of the crap they need and once troops hit the city it will be a building by building hunt for the ones they're looking for.
That Video of the US Troops that were executed,... is really as bad step for Saddam... all that will do is piss off the troops and steel them even more. Now where troops might have surrendered if they thought they were being out numbered chances are they'll fight hard as hell and realize there is no surrender.
Reason there's more deaths by accident than combat,.... one more media coverage,... it's something that's always happened... choppers go down....friendly fire happens,... just we now hear about it more.
Also keep in mind combat deaths by enemy are actually kinna rare. I mean it's been what ... 5 days now and we've lost a handful to actual combat ?
-
Well, I told ya it wouldn't be a pushover. And the hardest part is still to come, the nastiest weapons are still to be deployed by the Iraqi's, etc.
The precision bombing probably saved most of the Iraq gov. They just hid in a civvie building.:doubt:
you call a casualty ratio of some 1 to 500 so far anything but a pushover? :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
The Traitor who threw the grenades into 3 tents and shot his commanders name was Ackbar (weird. All 3 Ackbars I know of in sci-fi and other stuff have been traitors)
Apparently he was an American Muslim against the war, yadda yadda yadda.
His name is pronounced more along the lines of Ahk-bar - means "Great" in Arabic. I know because it happens to be part of the phrase Islamic terrorists yell out before they blow themselves and others up - "Allah Hu Akhbar" - "Allah is great". :mad2:
I find it quite interesting that the US is severely downplaying the incident - can't blame them on one hand, but on the other.... well, I realize they can't exactly start to racially profile everyone like they do here in Israel, but something should be done - I just hope the right people learn the right lessons from this. :doubt:
Anyway, here's a few links about the incident:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31674
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81898,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.101.attack/index.html
-
HA!! they just found a chemical weapons factory!
take that France! :p
(note: the second coment was made in jest, do not be offended or suffer the consequences)
-
Iraq is the size of France, and far more inhosptibale terrain and weather wise. You can't expect an easy vicotry by any means.
NB:
- Obviously the unconfirmed chem weapons plant - found near Najaf. Pentagon / Coalition command not confirmed.
- Kurdish fighters have claimed a firefight in Northern Iraq was between Iraqi army and defectors.
- US forces have been flown into Northern Iraq and are advancing, with the Kurdish fighters, on the Northern oil fields
- The 2 RAF crew shot down by the Patriot have been confirmed as dead.
- Iraqi missile intercepted over Kuwait
NB:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2879461.stm
Very useful for keeping up to date, summarises everything that's happened so far.
NB2: I don;t really like the poll title... this is suppossed to be Coalition effort... although I didn't want the war, now it's started I'll support both the troops of the UK, US and other countries. I'm pretty proud of the efforts of the British forces, actually.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
HA!! they just found a chemical weapons factory!
take that France! :p
(note: the second coment was made in jest, do not be offended or suffer the consequences)
:)
But remember that "chemical weapons factory" that Clinton bombed in 1998 but it actually turned out to be a medical farmacy factory. I'm not saying that the one they found in Iraq aren't a chemical weapons factory but right now anyone with a little sense should realize that there is a huge propaganda war railing. I personally try not to belive anything the media writes right now. Like the last couple of days I have seen frontpages that says that Saddam is dead and this probably has to be the oldest tríck in the book (of propaganda).
-
somehow i don't think a pharmacitical (sp?) factory would have it's roof camoflaged or have 30 iraqi soldiers and a general guarding it, nor be surrounded by barbed wire..
-
yes but I want my side to win the propaganda war!!! :D
so, um... silence you commie!!
...
ya
-
maybe i shoulda added [sarcasm] tags to my post...
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
somehow i don't think a pharmacitical (sp?) factory would have it's roof camoflaged or have 30 iraqi soldiers and a general guarding it, nor be surrounded by barbed wire..
Fear of industrial espionage? :lol:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I find it quite interesting that the US is severely downplaying the incident - can't blame them on one hand, but on the other.... well, I realize they can't exactly start to racially profile everyone like they do here in Israel, but something should be done - I just hope the right people learn the right lessons from this. :doubt:[/url]
Ugh. This political correctness is annoying - I don't see why we should fall all over ourselves praising Islam when this kind of stuff is going to happen anyway. If they want us to see their religion as peaceful, let them prove it. :doubt: I don't see any Muslim leaders in the U.S. denouncing violence committed in the name of Islam.
I found an interesting post (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77825) on another bulletin board mentioning Muslim terrorist attacks against the U.S. starting back in 1979. It's scary that we've responded so little up until now.
-
(http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/03/24/international/24apache.274.jpg)
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!:mad:
there goes this years taxes...
-
Maybe they will be stupid and tap on the nose of one of those missiles. :nervous:
-
I'm curious. How did that helicopter get on the ground? It's completely intact, so it wasn't shot down - unless an errant bullet punctured a fuel tank and they had to land before they ran out of fuel, which seems substantially unlikely. Might it be a prop? (Don't ask me how they acquired it, if that's the case.)
Either way, that photo for some reason looks hilariously funny - an Apache helicopter sitting in the middle of a field surrounded by people going nuts. The helicopter looks so out of place it just as well might be a UFO. :lol:
-
... without even so much as a scratch..
-
Here we go. (http://msnbc.com/news/889604_asp.htm)
News is your friend.
-
how tough is an apache?
-
As far as helicoptors go, I don't think anything like that should have happened..
Maybe Allah really is fighting with them :doubt:
-
well needless to say, the US will either try to recover it,
or blow it to smithereens...
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
well needless to say, the US will either try to recover it,
or blow it to smithereens...
well from what i read in the papers, it was shot down, by "civilian" fire from farmers. but me thinks they was soldiers in disguise. the apache seemed unharmed in the landing but on the real... this technology, if we "persay" lost this thing, and we couldnt recover the apache... iraq gonna make a techy leap ON OUR TAXES! (domestic folk of course ;7 )
-
it'll probably be cheaper to blow it apart than to spend time and resources in recovering it..
-
:doubt: Gee, 1 helicoptor out of about thirty that were sent and about 7000 aircraft in theater.
If you're getting this excited over victories like this then I doubt you're really winning...
-
i'm an american and don't really care what's going on!:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Ugh. This political correctness is annoying - I don't see why we should fall all over ourselves praising Islam when this kind of stuff is going to happen anyway. If they want us to see their religion as peaceful, let them prove it. :doubt: I don't see any Muslim leaders in the U.S. denouncing violence committed in the name of Islam.
I found an interesting post (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77825) on another bulletin board mentioning Muslim terrorist attacks against the U.S. starting back in 1979. It's scary that we've responded so little up until now.
"this is a war of a satanic religeon".
Every war in history has always had little to do with religion. It has much more to do with power and money. But it's easier to get support from the people if you use religion as a cause to wage war (just look at the crusades). Remember what Marx said: "Religion is opium for the masses".
I just want to make it clear that I don't have anything against religious people but when I see people write things like this: "this is a war of a satanic religeon" I just gotta laugh, maybe he/she should look up what horrible things that have been done in the name of God.
-
There are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, just like there are "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. are all examples of people doing evil things in the name of Christianity. They've been denounced as wrong and rightly so. However, I don't see anyone apologizing for the Muslim terrorist attacks on NYC (both times), for example.
As far as the spiritual authority behind a certain religion, that requires a bit of research, and it helps to have an understanding of the spiritual realm. Close examination is often the best way to bring out truth in any religious doctrine.
-
the darkest times in human history were done in the name of various gods and goddesses... (entire history people)
it seems to me that we a far from the 'enlightened and peaceful' people we envisioned in the 1950's-60's in fact, we are about as barbaric as ever, sure we had a few 'shining lights' of humanity:mandela, luther king jr, etc.
But also remember this: In WWII, if there was no propeganda alot more allied soldiers would've died..
now what did voltare say? "if there were no god, it would be necessary to create him"
-
Ok, as much as I'm dying to jump in here with the religon issue, I'll refrain from contributing and just say this: only discuss religon as applies to the war on Iraq, and with the same level of intensity that you've been discussing the war itself. You know the rules - follow 'em.
This post has been a warning/reminder from your Friendly Neighborhood Foodstuff. :D
-
Originally posted by jonskowitz
:doubt: Gee, 1 helicoptor out of about thirty that were sent and about 7000 aircraft in theater.
If you're getting this excited over victories like this then I doubt you're really winning...
What if the Iraqis managed to fix it & fly it, and used it on a few of the coalition supply convoys heading towards Baghdad? I mean, you'd assume an apache was US, wouldn't you?
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
well from what i read in the papers, it was shot down, by "civilian" fire from farmers. but me thinks they was soldiers in disguise. the apache seemed unharmed in the landing but on the real... this technology, if we "persay" lost this thing, and we couldnt recover the apache... iraq gonna make a techy leap ON OUR TAXES! (domestic folk of course ;7 )
In the breifing I watched yesterday from the pentagon they said it was not farmers.
As to how tough one of these things is ,... any chopper can be taking out of the air by a .22 Rifle if hit in the right spot. Also these things had hundreds of problems during the Gulf war,...chances are just as good the Apache had a malfunction that forced them to land.
For those worried about Iraqis learning to fly it and fixing it back up to use against us,.......LOL That's doubtful..... US equipment has a few failsafes in it. PLus I'm sure the pilots cleared the computer system before they hauled ass from the crash site.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
There are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, just like there are "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. are all examples of people doing evil things in the name of Christianity. They've been denounced as wrong and rightly so. However, I don't see anyone apologizing for the Muslim terrorist attacks on NYC (both times), for example.
I don't know what the muslim organizations said in the US but I think troughout Europe most of the muslim organizations condemned the attacks on 9/11.
Mmmhh....I'm no expert on Islam but does Islam have something like the Pope who can denouce things? But give it some time, if I remember correctly it took a while for the Vatican to denouce the persecution of jews.
Well, back on the war in Iraq. Any news?
-
The head member of Islum (least I think that was what he was referred to) in the US did indeed speak out against the 9-11 attack.
As far as news on the war,.. I've not heard much...but with the sandstorm going on there currently I don't expect much ot be happening today. Last report showed the reporter holding a glowstick... nd that was all you could see,.. he was nothing more than a partial outline at 2 feet from the camera.....so until that lets up there'll doubtfully be any missions going on.
-
Ugh. This political correctness is annoying - I don't see why we should fall all over ourselves praising Islam when this kind of stuff is going to happen anyway. If they want us to see their religion as peaceful, let them prove it. I don't see any Muslim leaders in the U.S. denouncing violence committed in the name of Islam.
I found an interesting post on another bulletin board mentioning Muslim terrorist attacks against the U.S. starting back in 1979. It's scary that we've responded so little up until now.
I quite agree on this point for a number of reasons. And yes, political correctness is indeed absurd; why is it that things like the Flat Earth Society can be ridiculed under these rules but other ideas cannot be simply because they are religions? :p There is actually a lot to say on this subject, but I would probably be banned if I went into the details here. :D
Anyway, I don't think we will be hearing much for a few days since they are holding off due to a sandstorm. However, when they say "heavy casualties," it is given relative to the usual figures, so instead of five Americans for 3000 Iraqis, you have 10; it doesn't exactly make the task difficult for the US. :p That image posted earlier looks kind of funny though. :D
-
This strays a little from the last few posts, but did anyone else hear the Navy is using dolphins to seek out and mark mines in the Gulf? I guess they also attach a hook to them so they can be toed away.
*prepares for the "old information, NEXT" response* :D
-
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,13865.0.html :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
In the breifing I watched yesterday from the pentagon they said it was not farmers.
As to how tough one of these things is ,... any chopper can be taking out of the air by a .22 Rifle if hit in the right spot. Also these things had hundreds of problems during the Gulf war,...chances are just as good the Apache had a malfunction that forced them to land.
For those worried about Iraqis learning to fly it and fixing it back up to use against us,.......LOL That's doubtful..... US equipment has a few failsafes in it. PLus I'm sure the pilots cleared the computer system before they hauled ass from the crash site.
i agree but hey thats what the news said, they changed it anyways. but like i said i agreed. and no the pilots didnt, the apache was hit by a tomahawk.
-
By a tomahawk ? Ummmm not from what I've seen. A missile hit would have hmmm I donno .... left a burn mark ,...perhaps a hole :doubt:
More so since a tomahawk is a cruise missile.
Gotta love news reporters ...
"Hey something happened!"
"What?"
"I donno......but I'll whip up something in a minute!"
They've shown 360 degree footage of the downed Apache and it didn't show any clear signs of damage.
Only new event I've heard about today was that a F-16 pilot ****ed up and bombed a Patriot battery. I'm assuming this was early this morning before the sandstorm hit.
*EDIT* I forgot to mention they spoke with the family of one of the two pilots who heard from the Military that the pilots had evaded capture for a time and two resque attempts were made, but heavy ground fire kept both missions from succeeding.
If Iraq follows the Geneva Convention, we'll learn a little more once the POWs get interviewed by the Red Cross.
-
Lots of stuff, no time, but this caught my eye. I'd gloat over the good chance of the defeat being mutual (what with thousands of people from all over the Middle East going to join the Iraqi Army and fight Americans and the guerilla civilian fighters hacking away at the overextended US supply line to set up an enclosure and have a good ol' shootout at Dodge when they get to Baghdad with half the food and ammo they need), but that'd be immature and I'm not doing predictions. However, I'll point out that from the vague reports I've heard the American generals are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one that's served Russia well for centuries.
Also, I'd point out that while the American forces are all around tougher, better-equipped, and many many times more likely to survive individually in combat (I think the current US-to-nonUS death ratio is something like 1 to 20), it doesn't take nearly so many deaths on the American side to make it a "defeat". Saddam's fighting for his life, he doesn't care about upcoming elections, and he doesn't have weak-kneed voters to worry about- hell, it's not an oligarchic "republic" but a dictatorship, he never had to.
It's too bad for the US, really. Even though it's based on increasingly outdated principles of warfare, the US Army would still kick butt and take names just about anywhere it went, if only the people back home didn't have a mindset along the lines of "Deaths? In a war? Who woulda thought? We'd better pull out before someone gets hurt!!"
Also, anyone notice the Catch-22 in the POW thing? If the captured soldiers aren't properly identified, it's a hoax, if they are, it's a WAR CRIME (never mind that just today the Washington Post featured a picture of a captured Iraqi soldier, which is what Rumsfeld won't shut up about happening to US soldiers, or the whole Camp X-Ray dealie). It's funny to see how they can apply the same strain of logic over and over and over again, and hardly anyone ever notices.:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Also, anyone notice the Catch-22 in the POW thing? If the captured soldiers aren't properly identified, it's a hoax, if they are, it's a WAR CRIME (never mind that just today the Washington Post featured a picture of a captured Iraqi soldier, which is what Rumsfeld won't shut up about happening to US soldiers, or the whole Camp X-Ray dealie). It's funny to see how they can apply the same strain of logic over and over and over again, and hardly anyone ever notices.:D
I think the difference is in the manner they're shown. The first Iraqi broadcast showed bodies of PWOs,...some was reported to have clear shots to the head. (How truth all this is I'm not sure of,...CNN's known to jump the gun)
Just heard something on CNN about the family of one of the POWs,...the chubby female cook ,.. her family was saying "She's a fighter,..she'll get out of it....she's a fighter" ......I'm sorry but that had me laughing .... I've yet to know of a single cook in the army that even trained on combat tactics outside of boot camp,...since during every field op we went on ... they spent all freaking day cooking. But I guess whatever it takes to give a family hope eh ?
-
Eh, war's messy. And I bet if I did a Google search right now, I could come up with a couple hundred pictures from the Balkans, Afghanistan, etc. of the same sort of thing taken by American reporters. Never mind that a picture of a guy with nothing above the shoulders constitutes the nasty bit of war journalism, not a war crime. If they executed them, certainly, but "making people feel bad" is not a war crime, except under the Bush regime.
It remains to be seen whether the Geneva Convention toadies up, but at the current rate the US isn't gonna have a lotta clout anywhere once the dust settles (you'd better believe that, regardless of the fact that a lot of governments are sucking up to the US right now, there's a good chance that in the next couple election cycle we're gonna see a lotta governments taking power on an anti-US campaign, it's just too convenient now to resist).
Besides, that's not what the bad man was complaining about. It was the interrogating prisoners to get them to confirm their identities on TV that got the White House's knickers in a bunch. After all, dead guys aren't bad propoganda so much as guys who are undeniably not just Iraqis in US soldier suits.
-
yea I've gotta say I hate the fact that the media is making this into a ****ing reality theme-show. What I'm waiting to see is the reaction of some of the POWs afterwards as to how half the time their families are finding out about them by the nightly news. :(
I know damned well I'd never want to find out about my son in that manner.
Course it has proven just the intellect level of some of these reporters.... this morning one was giving a reporter ...outside...during the sandstorm...kept rubbing his eyes and the newscasters back home were saying how concerned for him they were .... yet the dumbass never once put goggles on :doubt:
-
welcome to the world of the real, warlock....
Iraq's treatment of POW's (past and present) leaves a lot to be desired... the geneva convention dictates that all prisioners of war are to be unharmed and to be protected from Public humilitation and curiousity as well as being released when the hostilities end, etc... as well as the fair treatment of civilians (whether they're your countrymen or not) is paramount..
voilations of these can constitute a war crime...
on another note, i didn't know you had children warlock..
-
Turnsky: Define Camp X-Ray. Define all the pictures of captured Iraqi soldiers on the headlines of US newspapers. It may be a violation of the letter of the law, but given a choice between accepting the case and getting pointed out as a hypocritical puppet of the US by an exceedingly anti-US world, taking that one and then turning around and prosecuting a government you can't enforce **** against and getting proven ineffective, and throwing the case out to a few American catcalls and that's about it, what would you do?
-
true, but at least the US, doesn't go around parading the pow's like a prize kill...
see what germany and japan did to thier POW's at the end of WWII? that's what i meant.
-
'Course it doesn't. There are a lot of them, and we were expecting even more. The Iraqis are naturally exuberant about capturing almost an entire squad of American troops, since their experiences have been almost entirely on the other side of the equation.
That's another thing, really, the divide between approaches- the US can ***** all it likes about how the approach the Iraqi army takes to war just isn't sporting, but rules of warfare are for the people who can afford to constrain themselves slightly. If the US army was outmanned, outgunned, and out-teched, you'd better believe we'd be being at least as nasty as the worst of what the Iraqi army can do. There's no such thing as playing dirty when it's your life (and your family's life and everyone you know's life) on the line, and you're not likely to win in a "fair" fight (as much as that term's applicable in a straight fight between the small Iraqi army with outdated weaponry and the huge American army with all the fanciest weapons and spy gear ever to come out of Cold War science fiction).
-
well technically there are no 'rules of war' you're right there...
well, as far as the war goes, it's gonna get a helluva lot worse before it's over. That, i can be certain of..
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
welcome to the world of the real, warlock....
Ummmm ok donno what that's being directed at so I'll just leave it be
on another note, i didn't know you had children warlock..
Yea but he's only 6 so I've got no worries for now ;) Course I know when I was active I wouldn't want my family to find out about me on the 6 OClock news.
The sad thing is ... The Geneva Convention is mostly bull****,... since if you really look back ... .mostly only the US and her allies ever follow it. Some asspects like the Treatment of POWs is just human kindness,... but there's other parts that to me made no since ,... like a .50 Cal machine gun is not to be fired directly at personel unless you have no other weapon as it's an anti-equipment/tank/etc weapon. Now firing it as covering fire in front of troops is legit. :rolleyes: Some of the **** we learned in boot will just blow a sane man's mind :D
-
"Deaths? In a war? Who woulda thought? We'd better pull out before someone gets hurt!!"
Ever read Fahrenheit 451?
And how are the US principles of warfare outdated? The standard tactic now is to bash the living **** out of their opponent with airstrikes and cruise missiles until they outnumber them 15 to 1 and then move in on the ground.
Althought that really doesn't work if the enemy fights does guerrila warfare like in Vietnam, but to my knowledge there aren't many jungles in Iraq (that I know about:nervous: ) or anything else you can hide in.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Althought that really doesn't work if the enemy fights does guerrila warfare like in Vietnam,
Having said this, did you really need to ask that question? There's always somewhere to hide- a desert is slightly more open, but a city certainly isn't, and even in the Iraqi desert it's hardly just endless sand dunes. A people with knowledge of the terrain and experience in using it to their advantage can whup an invading force half the time, as has been demonstrated over and over and over again in the second half of the last century, and throughout this one. You should really read up on some of the fights in Afghanistan- our airstrikes, cruise missiles, and spy drones were next to useless after a VERY short period before the Taliban adapted. They were practically invisible, and spread out enough that bombing only took out part of the entrenched forces. Had we not mostly been using native Afghan grunts, the US casualties would likely have numbered in the hundreds- there were points where Taliban troops opened fire from only about ten feet away.
Guerrilla warfare is stunningly effective when properly done (which it isn't always- it's really much harder to do effectively than the sort of **** the Pentagon's involved in), and it's been used against overconfident superior forces for a long, long time. The American Revolution comes to mind (and I seem to recall the British responding then in exactly the same way as we do now). But that's only the first of the series of new strategies being introduced on the world stage. What's the Army gonna do when seemingly innocuous (or completely previously unknown) people start blowing stuff up with no warning as to where or when? How's all that tech gonna help ya when the enemy's one of a million potentials who you can't hope to sort through or "detain" all of?
-
you mean like killing an ant with a sledgehammer?
I agree US tactics are lacking in finesse.... they also lack refinement.. bigass weapons are good and all but think david and goliath here, all it would take would be a 'lucky shot' and the entire army would be reeling... saddam may have something up his sleave that the entire world may not exepect....
the problem is with war is the human element (i know it's a given :D) it makes the whole thing rather unpredictable at best.. and god knows what people can do when they're backed into a corner..
-
Less like using a sledgehammer to smash an ant than trying to use it to wipe out an entire hill of 'em, when they're all between the (large and multiple) cracks in the sidewalk where you can't get at 'em, spread out so that each hit kills at most two, and headed rapidly for your bare toes.
The interesting thing to note is, you hardly ever see guerrilla tactics used when both sides are relatively weak forces, and the divide isn't so great (some of the civil wars, such as in Bosnia, saw a degree, but similar ones such as most on Africa you don't really get the same thing). I wonder if they wouldn't work so well, or if it's just simpler to fight in the old-fashioned trench-and-rush style if you have half a chance of winning that way.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
By a tomahawk ? Ummmm not from what I've seen. A missile hit would have hmmm I donno .... left a burn mark ,...perhaps a hole :doubt:
More so since a tomahawk is a cruise missile.
just for the record i didnt mean a tomahawk hit the apache dude.....
-
seems like there is an anti-Sadam upriseing in Basra, I hope we actualy go in and help them this time, I am getting the destinct impression that we are going to see if they would be able to take the city for us on there own,
besides I want some pictures
and we took out there TV station
-
Originally posted by Pez
I don't know what the muslim organizations said in the US but I think troughout Europe most of the muslim organizations condemned the attacks on 9/11.
Mmmhh....I'm no expert on Islam but does Islam have something like the Pope who can denouce things? But give it some time, if I remember correctly it took a while for the Vatican to denouce the persecution of jews.
Couple of points:
A) You expecteed any Muslim organization in a western/1st world country to praise 9/11??? :wtf: Of course they're gonna condemn the slaughter. Imagine an organization of Christians (or any non-Muslims) in the middle of a primarily Muslim country, praising America's attack on Iraq (no, I'm not comparing the 9/11 slaughter to the attack on Iraq, I'm giving examples of events that are either applauded or condemned by certain bodies). How long do you think they would remain alive?
Sme thing, IMHO, with the Muslim organizations in the western world - they're not gonna praise attacks that everyone surrounding them condemns - that's the quick way to suicide, without being able to take any of the infidel vermin with you. :-/
B) Please don't look at the Pope as the spokeperson or leader of Christianity world-wide. He's the head of the Roman-Catholic Church, but I know personally that most born-again Christians in the world don't consider him their "leader" at all. And if I may say so, the Pope needs to read his Bible again - and perhaps even pay attention to it this time. :doubt:
{/rant}
Originally posted by Warlock
By a tomahawk ? Ummmm not from what I've seen. A missile hit would have hmmm I donno .... left a burn mark ,...perhaps a hole :doubt:
More so since a tomahawk is a cruise missile.
Uhm, a Tomahawk would have literally blown the Apache to bits, not just left a burn mark or a hole. They are quite powerful, as missiles go. :)
-
of course most muslim organisations world condemn 9/11 and other attacks, they're people just like the rest of us, it's rather unfortune that a majority is seen in this fashion just because of an few people who wish to enforce thier veiws on the rest of the world whether they'd like it or not.. (remember the spanish inquistion)
as far as religion's and thier histories go, catholism is far from squeaky clean.. most religions of the world have blood on its hands it just that people choose to ignore it or see it as 'for the greater good" or "in the name of god/etc" as far as i'm concerned, thats just a excuse for people to wipe thier hands of the responsiblity for a particularly nefarious deed...
as for the tomahawk, well they could blow a house apart quite effeciently...
-
Well, the US has done it now with their precision bombing :rolleyes: The missile went off course and blew up civvies.
Now, we might know it was just a "mistake", but they will think of it as a direct attack. Especially with all the propaganda going around.
-
well it was only a matter of time..
-
almost OT footnote: To Sum Up the History of Warfare
1. In the Good Old Days, war meant one group of people trying to bash the hell out of and in most cases kill another group of people almost indistinguishable from the first save in some trivial way. This second group usually also tried to bash the hell out of or kill the first group with any means possible.
2. In modern times, war now refers to an event where one group of people tries to bash the hell out of and in most cases kill another group of people whom the first group of people invokes a law against, which states that the second group of people have no right to attempt to try and bash the hell out of or kill the first group of people, or they will be prosecuted and/or eliminated, whichever is most appropriate according to the first group of people.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhm, a Tomahawk would have literally blown the Apache to bits, not just left a burn mark or a hole. They are quite powerful, as missiles go. :)
Yea I know ... was being sarcastic :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, the US has done it now with their precision bombing :rolleyes: The missile went off course and blew up civvies.
Now, we might know it was just a "mistake", but they will think of it as a direct attack. Especially with all the propaganda going around.
Well being Saddam's already moved Civis onto military targets ppl were going to be hit anyways,....besides,....it's a war ,... **** happens ;)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Well being Saddam's already moved Civis onto military targets ppl were going to be hit anyways,....besides,....it's a war ,... **** happens ;)
That doesn't take away the fact that almost anyone in the middle east who is against the war (Example: Syria) to say: "Look at what the evil-doers have done!"
-
Like they aren't saying it anyways or wouldn't find another reason too ? :rolleyes:
On a different note,...anyone hear about France ? While being against the war,...they don't want to be left out of getting nice juicy post-war contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq and are working on ways to make sure they'll be getting some buisness.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Like they aren't saying it anyways or wouldn't find another reason too ? :rolleyes:
:eek2:
...I'm stunned... That must be the most intelligent reply in this thread. :ick
I meant this would make it worse. Bahgdad civvies will now have so much propaganda (more then before) that it will be VERY hard for the Coalition to take Bahgdad without getting into a bloody city war where most civvies are turned against them.
Remember, they now have stacks o' food to hold out long enough. That limits the Coalition choice. They can't wait them out (Cause a long term war would certainly be devastating). Also they can't bomb 'm cause that would cause the entire world to rally against the Coalition. That leaves a city war. Something that almost nullifies the advanced technology and comes down to sheer competence in guerilla warfare. Something where the Iraqi elite troops are far better in then coalition forces.
Also, the pro-Saddam movements in the middle east will hold this as a clear example of US evil. And will try to get more supporters.
-
Well if you want to be offended by my comment that's up to you. It's merely a fact, we're at war, we're not there to make friends. What do you expect the Coalition to do ? "**** we missed and hit a Civi building ... well let's pack up and go home this one's over" :doubt:
Remember, those stacks of food are being provided by the Coalition. They're doing there damnest not to harm civilians, but it's simple fact that it will happen. Ifthey weren't trying and going out of their way not to harm civilians ,... this war would likely be over already since we'd have just completely wiped target areas out.
Besides, currently ... during the Briefing going on right now by Brig Gen Brooks, they don't know if it was one of our missiles that hit the market or not.
-
Meh, yeah whatever... :doubt:
Ow, and do you really think they are going to say "Yeah, sorry, it was our missile that killed innocents?"... If they do they must really be going crazy :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Bahgdad civvies will now have so much propaganda (more then before) that it will be VERY hard for the Coalition to take Bahgdad without getting into a bloody city war where most civvies are turned against them.
I've been personally involved in city fighting, on the "heavily armored" side of things. Yeah, there was the worries about anti-tank rocket bearing gangs, but most of the stuff trown against my APC was makeshift explosives and fragmentation grenades - barely even scratched the APC's armor, and I'm sure Warlock here can explain to you all exactly how tough the M113 APC's armor isn't. The most damage to tanks was from maneuvering through tight alleys and streets - the side armor plates were often ripped off by brushing against the side of a building.
Of course, Bagdad's "civvies" are likely to be more heavily armed than Jenin's "civvies" ("civvies", because in my book, the moment a person starts shooting at military forces, whether they are invaders or not, he's not quite as innocent and helpless as is usually associated with the word "civillian" :doubt: ).
Well, if America needs help in removing a terror-supporting regieme, all they have to do is ask. We've been told to stay out of it, but unfortunately we do have plenty of experience in fighting as an organized army against gurreilla tactics.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Meh, yeah whatever... :doubt:
Ow, and do you really think they are going to say "Yeah, sorry, it was our missile that killed innocents?"... If they do they must really be going crazy :p
LOL Well being they're not holding back on other information.... like our own F-16 bombing a Patriot battery by mistake, etc Yes i do believe they'd make the anouncement that it happened.
Saying sorry on the otherhand I doubt there's even a point to it.
Funny how some ppl just miss the concept of war.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Ow, and do you really think they are going to say "Yeah, sorry, it was our missile that killed innocents?"... If they do they must really be going crazy :p
:wtf: The US admitted to accidentally shooting down that Tornado, didn't they? What's the difference? In both incidents, the casualties were "not supposed to" be hit.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Well, if America needs help in removing a terror-supporting regieme, all they have to do is ask. We've been told to stay out of it, but unfortunately we do have plenty of experience in fighting as an organized army against gurreilla tactics.
Never know that request might just happen. I know US troops have had anti-gurreilla training for years as well as Urban warfare training, but it mostly depends on the political side of things as to your side coming in or not. (I'm honestly not 100% sure why they asked you guys to stay out of it)
-
I'll take your word for it Sandwich... :D
But don't tell me they drove the APC's into the homes/buildings? Thats the most likely place for militia's/armed civvies to hide. And then it gets messy.
Also, in a last resort, the Saddam regime might've outfitted the suicide bombers with explosives. And then you ahve bigger problems.
You can say all you want, but the US army isn't very well trained to fight battles in a city with 6 million inhabitants from wich a part is fully against them. Also with the Elite Iraqi guards there it will be messy.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You can say all you want, but the US army isn't very well trained to fight battles in a city with 6 million inhabitants from wich a part is fully against them. Also with the Elite Iraqi guards there it will be messy.
and you're more qualified to make this statement than I am with mine ? You forget I took part in that type of training. It's great to sit at a computer and make assumptions,...but let's not forget that's all they are.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
But don't tell me they drove the APC's into the homes/buildings? Thats the most likely place for militia's/armed civvies to hide. And then it gets messy.
What do you mean by "drove APC's into buldings"? We would go on patrol throughout Jenin, "safely" hidden inside our armored vehicles. Usually there was an APC and 2 tanks on each patrol. The tanks, which could fire machine guns from inside, would shoot at suspicious objects along the road - bags, garbage cans, some cars - much of which would blow up - booby-trapped. We'd be drawing the attention of the roving terrorist groups to ourselves, who would then start throwing explosives at our vehicles from the 2nd story windows. We'd identify the source of the explosives and blow that room to bits with a tank shell (or a 0.6cal Vulcan burst) from 15 meters. :D
We tried our best not to bump buildings just for the heck of it - it's a darned stupid thing to do, as well as just plain cruel, but sometimes the tanks simply wouldn't have the room to take a turn cleanly.
Originally posted by Tiara
Also, in a last resort, the Saddam regime might've outfitted the suicide bombers with explosives. And then you ahve bigger problems.
"...outfitted the suicide bombers with explosives..." - Uhm....... isn't that obvious?? :wtf: ;)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
and you're more qualified to make this statement than I am with mine ? You forget I took part in that type of training. It's great to sit at a computer and make assumptions,...but let's not forget that's all they are.
I had a 48 hour military course ;7 hehehehehehe :p
Anyway, I didn't say that the coalition wouldn't win. That is almost certain. I just said it wouldn't be easy in a 6 million inhabitants counting city with the entire Elite guard of Saddam.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
What do you mean by "drove APC's into buldings"? We would go on patrol throughout Jenin, "safely" hidden inside our armored vehicles. Usually there was an APC and 2 tanks on each patrol. The tanks, which could fire machine guns from inside, would shoot at suspicious objects along the road - bags, garbage cans, some cars - much of which would blow up - booby-trapped. We'd be drawing the attention of the roving terrorist groups to ourselves, who would then start throwing explosives at our vehicles from the 2nd story windows. We'd identify the source of the explosives and blow that room to bits with a tank shell (or a 0.6cal Vulcan burst) from 15 meters. :D
Lol, I meant if you truly want to destroy all of Saddams followers, eventually you will have to enter the houses etc. Thats where it gets nasty.
"...outfitted the suicide bombers with explosives..." - Uhm....... isn't that obvious?? :wtf: ;)
Eh... yeah... :nervous: :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I had a 48 hour military course ;7 hehehehehehe :p
Anyway, I didn't say that the coalition wouldn't win. That is almost certain. I just said it wouldn't be easy in a 6 million inhabitants counting city with the entire Elite guard of Saddam.
Well I had a 5 year interactive 'course' :p
Anyways of course it won't be easy :rolleyes: :wink: We knew this long before the first missile fired. But that wasn't what you said was
You can say all you want, but the US army isn't very well trained to fight battles in a city with 6 million inhabitants from wich a part is fully against them.
I was correcting the statement that our trrops aren't well trained for that situation.
Plus it's almost certainly not going to be even near 6 million fighting against the troops. Most of your average persons will avoid fighting training and much better armed troops...and for a simple reason........ "Choose Life" :D
Simple fact is we've had troops in this situation before. I'm sure you've seen the movie "Black Hawk down" ,... that entire engaugment was part of a similar situation. PLus the troops have been trained since then using that as an example to learn from.
-
I am english and i think we should go to war, but ammerica should not be aloud to stay, once the regeme is beeten. because thier is a lot of talk about ammerica empire building.
-
Originally posted by Fozzy
I am english and i think we should go to war, but ammerica should not be aloud to stay, once the regeme is beeten. because thier is a lot of talk about ammerica empire building.
No worries we're not planning to. The Coalitiion as a whole will help set up a self working Iraqi Government and then once Iraq is rebuilt it will be able to take care of itself.
-
Who watched the Oscars and saw the acceptance speech that the documentary guy gave about Bush being a fictitious president who won a fictitious election and is now leading us into a fictitious war?
Anybody? Anybody?
I mean, antiwar protests are one thing, but what the hell was that?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Couple of points:
A) You expecteed any Muslim organization in a western/1st world country to praise 9/11??? :wtf: Of course they're gonna condemn the slaughter. Imagine an organization of Christians (or any non-Muslims) in the middle of a primarily Muslim country, praising America's attack on Iraq (no, I'm not comparing the 9/11 slaughter to the attack on Iraq, I'm giving examples of events that are either applauded or condemned by certain bodies). How long do you think they would remain alive?
Sme thing, IMHO, with the Muslim organizations in the western world - they're not gonna praise attacks that everyone surrounding them condemns - that's the quick way to suicide, without being able to take any of the infidel vermin with you. :-/}
Well I can understand that. And I understand that they say what are best for them but I think that many of these muslim organization truly and honestly condamned the attacks because they thought it was horrible and meaningless.
B) Please don't look at the Pope as the spokeperson or leader of Christianity world-wide. He's the head of the Roman-Catholic Church, but I know personally that most born-again Christians in the world don't consider him their "leader" at all. And if I may say so, the Pope needs to read his Bible again - and perhaps even pay attention to it this time. :doubt:
{/rant}[/B]
Mmmmkay....
-
That, my friend, is a career ending move...
-
Uh-huh. Perhaps you're not aware, Warlock, but there could be nothing WORSE for US interests than giving the Iraqis a "free" government. The Shias would unquestionably ally with Iran (who'd actually be quite a lot mroe dangerous than Saddam ever could, especially with the Iraqi weaponry the Shias could provide), the Kurds would start a civil war over their desire to separate and hence prompt an invasion by Turkey, and there's enough of Iraq that's anti-US enough that not a lot would change. Never mind that Saddam's government had made itself rather integral to the well-being of most of the populace- sure, in ten years the country might be self-sufficient, but until then there's no way in hell we can feed all those people, it's a logistical nightmare even assuming we have the time, money, and resources to even try (which we might, but we certainly don't have the attention span. The Afghans were largely self-reliant, so it wasn't all that bad that we basically ditched them after the war. Iraqis would require more government attention than the people of the US do, and they wouldn't have a government properly capable of it yet). So, basically, the Iraqis would end up with a fractured state with a head that was marginally less repressive and more liberal than Saddam, but who would be weak and hence more dangerous in the long run, in that he couldn't make short work of any terrorist groups (Saddam has no tolerance for al Qaeda on his turf, because they're about as much a threat to him as to the US).
A US-led military dictatorship, or a puppet government (and a vicious one at that) would be the only options that even stand a chance of working. Liberty for the Iraqis would be severely counterproductive when their interests run so counter to our own, and honestly, there's no reason at all that the US would do it.
-
Unlikely. As I recall, he's made controversy his business.
-
Anyone see the polls? Supposedly only 38% think the war is going well now, down from 70% on Friday - because we had a few casualties and a sandstorm. :rolleyes:
I'm beginning more and more to think that 24-hour news is dumb. :p
-
See what I mean? Lose a dozen more and we're gonna be "losing" and the White House will have to make the army beat a hasty retreat. Americans are pansies.
Hell, they should bring back that old Soviet attitude towards warfare. Go out there and get shot, or your commanding officer shoots you himself!:D
-
Saw it...and heard all the 'Booos'
-
MSNBC polls,...currently http://www.msnbc.com/news/889851.asp
(Granted you have to vote in order to see results)
. Do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing as president?
NBC
Approve 78% 67%
Disapprove 20% 28%
Not sure 2% 5%
2. Generally speaking, would you say the war in Iraq has gone better than what you expected, worse than you expected, or about what you expected?
NBC
Better than expected 29% 25%
Worse than expected 10% 10%
About what was expected 58% 62%
Not sure 3% 3%
3. In general, would you say Iraq's military force has been tougher than you expected, not as tough as you expected, or just about what you expected?
NBC
Tougher than expected 19% 10%
Not as tough as expected 17% 31%
About as expected 62% 54%
Not sure 3% 5%
4. Based on events so far, do you feel generally confident about the value of the use of U.S. military force in Iraq or do you have some doubts about the value of the use of U.S. military force in Iraq?
NBC
Feel confident about the value of the use of U.S. military force 79% 71%
Have some doubts about the value of the use of U.S. military force 20% 25%
Not sure 2% 4%
5. How much longer do you expect the war with Iraq will last?
NBC
Less than a week 1% 3%
A week to two weeks 8% 13%
Two weeks to a month 25% 24%
One to two months 28% 18%
Three to six months 18% 13%
More than six months 11% 13%
Not sure 9% 16%
6. The U.S. and its allies should or should not continue the war as long as it takes to find and dismantle any biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon capabilities in Iraq
NBC
Should continue 85% 92%
Should not continue 12% 7%
Not sure 3% 1%
7. The U.S. and its allies should or should not continue the war as long as it takes to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
NBC
Should continue 86% 90%
Should not continue 12% 9%
Not sure 2% 1%
8. The United States and its allies should or should not continue the war as long as it takes to destroy Iraq's offensive military capabilities.
NBC
Should continue 79% 81%
Should not continue 16% 16%
Not sure 5% 3%
9. The United States and its allies should or should not continue the war as long as it takes to capture or kill Saddam Hussein.
NBC
Should continue 81% 80%
Should not continue 15% 17%
Not sure 5% 3%
10. Based on what you have heard, read or seen, please tell me how great a risk you feel American forces in Iraq face in carrying out their objectives using a seven-point scale where "7" means a grave risk and "1" means very little risk?
NBC
7, grave risk 18% 23%
6 16% 12%
5 29% 29%
4 18% 16%
3 11% 11%
2 4% 4%
1, little risk 1% 2%
Cannot rate 3% 3%
11. How likely do you think it is that U.S. forces will discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, such as biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability -- very likely, fairly likely, just somewhat likely, or not that likely?
NBC
Very likely 67% 62%
Fairly likely 16% 16%
Just somewhat likely 7% 12%
Not that likely 9% 7%
Not sure 1% 3%
So I'd say the polls depend greatly on where you find them.
*EDIT* Left out their disclaimer LOL
The poll was taken March 23 and had a 4.4 percent margin of error.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
I mean, antiwar protests are one thing, but what the hell was that?
A moron.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Who watched the Oscars and saw the acceptance speech that the documentary guy....
Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com) @IMDb (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Moore,+Michael+(II))
-
he's the one who did EdTV? cool, it was a great movie.
-
I have a lot of respect for that guy. It takes a lot of guts to do that. Yes, a lot of what he said makes sense. Think about it, and so long as you're not a weird pro-american kinda person then you'll get the answer eventually.
-
See what I mean? Lose a dozen more and we're gonna be "losing" and the White House will have to make the army beat a hasty retreat. Americans are pansies.
The American public is a very volatile bunch and the opinion goes up and down very rapidly in a war, so I bet in a few days some Iraqi division will be eliminated and the polls will skyrocket again, after which they find that ten more Americans died, so they plunge down again. All the US needs to do is finish off everything with some big victory (or of course, make it seem like one), and suddenly the polls will go back up and stay there. :D
You can say all you want, but the US army isn't very well trained to fight battles in a city with 6 million inhabitants from wich a part is fully against them.
A part? You do know that 1 person out of those 6 million would constitute a part, right? :p But seriously, the "part" here would be very small because Hussein's propaganda isn't doing much to say that his side will actually win over the US and kick them out completely, but only that the people should go down honorably fighting for their nation. Therefore, only the fanatics would fight for a lost cause while the vast majority would just sit out of the way, even those that do not like the US and support Hussein, since their life and immediate survival takes the first priority (remember that Iraq is one of the more secular of the Arab nations, so there are fewer suicidal extremists). Then there is also the option of just buying them out with practical necessities, which I posted about earlier.
A US-led military dictatorship, or a puppet government (and a vicious one at that) would be the only options that even stand a chance of working. Liberty for the Iraqis would be severely counterproductive when their interests run so counter to our own, and honestly, there's no reason at all that the US would do it.
The puppet government is probably the best idea, but it needs to be a government which looks like a democracy from the outside but is really staged and operated by Americans in secret; both the Iraqis and the rest of the world can be made to believe this, which would work out perfectly. :D
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
long as you're not a weird pro-american kinda person
Then I guess his making an ass of himself was only because he made the speech in the US eh ? :rolleyes:
Sadder still is the man was booed off the stage by a group that for the most part is anti-bush/anti-war/ or both.
-
The thing was that most of the people who would have applauded Michael Moore for the speech weren`t there cause they felt it in bad taste to go to the Oscars in the first place while there was a war going on.
-
True I guess some feel life should go on hold during a war.
Anyways to me this guy's about as bad as Ross Perot was ;) But the fact that he's still harping on the Florida misscount from the election is good comedy :D
-
No idea what this is all about; I am assuming that some movie guy said some anti-American stuff somewhere?
I have a lot of respect for that guy. It takes a lot of guts to do that. Yes, a lot of what he said makes sense. Think about it, and so long as you're not a weird pro-american kinda person then you'll get the answer eventually.
Well, it also takes a lot of guts (very much more, in fact) to do what bin Laden and Hussein are doing, so all of those things can be said about them too. :D
-
LOL
CP there's a few links here in the thread which will point you to his exact little 'speech'.
He's the guy with the whole "Fictious war about fictious reasons by a fictious president that won a fictious election" and I'm on a fictious diet because my fictious pants are to small for my fictious ass,...wait sorry got a little carried away there ;) :lol:
-
My fictious axe is going to split your fictious skull, and fictious zombie Stryke will eat your fictious brainzzzz.
j/k :nervous:
-
But then you'll find a fictious steel plate stopping your fictious ax while I have a fictious beam cannon implanted in your fictious tail to zap the fictious zombie
:D
Ya know it's getting a bit too fictious in here :nervous:
-
I am entirely non-ficticious and, given the chance, I WILL eat your brains.
-
[SIZE=12]WTF!?[/SIZE]
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
Originally posted by an0n
I am entirely non-ficticious and, given the chance, I WILL eat your brains.
*Tosses Darkage over to Anon*
:D
Anyways I'm off to blow up random things on Generals (Provided I don't get nailed with the "Serious error" lol)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
*Tosses Darkage over to Anon*
:D
Anyways I'm off to blow up random things on Generals (Provided I don't get nailed with the "Serious error" lol)
The serious error is the most dangerous weapon of all!!:devil: :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Darkage
The serious error is the most dangerous weapon of all!!:devil: :nervous:
When engaging my Armies-O-Darknus™, even a Minor Error™ can result in massive devestation and the loss of many thousands of souls.
-
Man, I read about his 'documentary' Bowling For Columbine.... how anyone can consider it anything other than a complete and utter fabrication amazes me. He spliced and cut together various conversations to get the effect he wanted and basically stuck words in people's mouths. Some documentary, eh?
-
For all we know Bush could be ficticious. How many people here can claim to have met him.
I feel the same way about many cities. I've never been there, so how do I know they exist. I never believed London existed until I went to the Millenium Dome with school.
-
Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
This guy is actually very smart. I think that should really happen. Get yourselves rid of Bush and all will be well and by the way, destroy your weapons of mass destruction as well.
-
At least he's taking a principled stand. He's boorish and his understanding of politics doesn't seem to be exactly complex, but at least he's not choosing his opinions on the basis of what's fashionable and what's gonna make him popular in the short term, unlike many people... not least of all our president.
-
Quite agree, Razor. Why should one tyrannical despot with weapons of mass destruction be able to keep his while he confiscates those of another tyrannical despot?
-
LOL Where and when as Bush been a Tyrant ?
Oh and while some want to whine about the US having WMD ,... ask yourself.... when the hell have we used one since WW2 ?
*Doesn't seem to recall us nuking anyone lately*
-
Michael Moore is one of my biggest idols from now on. Don't you understand that he wants you to get all upset and ***** about what he says?
He has a lot of good opinions, that man. Takes courage to not believe everything you're fed with all day long.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LOL Where and when as Bush been a Tyrant ?
Oh and while some want to whine about the US having WMD ,... ask yourself.... when the hell have we used one since WW2 ?
*Doesn't seem to recall us nuking anyone lately*
lemme see....
the 40's, the 50's, the 60's. especially under the 50's. "You" nuked half of the nevada desert, ffs.
-
I havent seen bowling for columbine, but my bro has and says its a great movie
Personally, I dont like the oscars. While people are dying of hunger, they pay millions of dollars so that snooty rich actors can have their day. I find it hard to support anyone who has 2 tvs and 3 cars in their household (read: alot of americans) while people die of hunger..
Its easy to keep quite and not have an opinion, its harder to stand up against popular opinion. The true morons are all those people who yell "liberal hippies" as soon as you try to think for yourself ..they are so afraid to argue because they know their arquements would not stand closer examination.
Debate isnt a bad thing, the lack thereof is. Anyone who tries to stir things up and try to get it out in the open is good in my book..
*Doesn't seem to recall us nuking anyone lately*
really? I havent killed anyone lately, it was just that once.. (I havent actually killed anyone, its for the sake of converstation, duh) Once is enough. The A-Bomb was MUCH worse than anything Saddam ever did, is doing or will ever do. And yet, I dont see too many people that are particualry ashamed of what the US did. Just imagine, if someone (Iraq, UK, France..anyone) did that today, the US would be up in arms, yelling "worst crime ever, worst crime ever", but since the US did it, it was A OK
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The puppet government is probably the best idea, but it needs to be a government which looks like a democracy from the outside but is really staged and operated by Americans in secret; both the Iraqis and the rest of the world can be made to believe this, which would work out perfectly. :D
So that would be the Uk, then?
-
Cities nuked by US: 2 (debatably 3 attempts)
Cities nuked by Iraq: 0
Wars started by US: What? About 10?
Wars started by Iraq: 1 (debatable)
Covert Operations performed by US: *can't count that high*
Covert Operations perfromed by Iraq: Almost none.
Considering how the US sends assasins after anyone they deem 'counter productive to America' and kitting up 'freedom fighters' to overthrow people they don't like, methinks they're on pretty shaky ground to start accusing others of being evil.
And Warlock, it doesn't matter wether America has nuked anyone recently, the mere possesion of the weapons suggests that given enough provokation, they would. And this should not be allowed.
No-one should posses enough weaponry to annihilate the human race as the only thing such weaponry could ever be used for is precisely that.
I mean, for God sake, when the **** is America going to need to nuke the Earth 10 times over?
-
When they start losing a war...
-
Originally posted by SKYNET-011
When they start losing a war...
True enough.
-
LOL Thought I'd get a responce on that :D
You know ... the A bomb in WW2 was a hellish thing to do,... but then again look at the times/circumstances.
Nevada .... gee go figure... we used our own desert as a testing ground... well damn.
the point is Saddam's weapons are being removed because he's used them on his own damned ppl before, and we know he wouldn't hesitate to use them on anyone.
As to getting rid of them... you know there's been alot of discussion about that .... one thing ... what the hell do you do with that many? Plus you've still got alot of old school military that feel the best defense is a plausible offense. The old Cold War effect "Well you know if we nuked them....they'd just nuke us back and kill the planet,...hmmm let's rethink this"
It's a nice thought ,...having a world free of mass weapons,....or hunger for that matter,...or poor,...list goes on.... it's never gonna happen... but it paints pretty mental images.
-
Originally posted by SKYNET-011
When they start losing a war...
:rolleyes:
If that were true we'd have already done it by now.
-
The thing is that USA can't use it's Nuclear weapons even though they have them.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Nevada .... gee go figure... we used our own desert as a testing ground... well damn.
Thing is, you asked when you've used it after WW2...
you also used your own military to see how to survive a nuclear war (yes, there were maneuvers under the test bombings in nevada). also, you nuked a whole bunch of islands in the pacific.
and just because you didn't make the argument I wanted you to, I'll counter it anyway:
"Hey! I wasn't using these drugs, officer. I was just testing them!"
-
excuse me, but is there EVIDENCE that he has the weapons? the inspectors found nothing, despite being there for about 2 months (almost 3 i think), having the latest technology and being experts in the field. Just because Saddam refused to cooperate does mean anything. The recently discovered chemical plant is harmless, even the US has confirmed that. If they can start a war without proof, it makes you wonder what else they can do. If suspecting something is enough, then they have a blank cheque for war..
sometimes I wonder if anyone even reads my arguements
-
LOL Ok you got me I did say Used and not used in conflict :)
to the little "testing drugs" .... aside from the fact that isn't anywhere near the same analogy,.... would you prefer the US had developed them and not tested them until use ?
"Well sir we think this missile would only harm the target zone"
"Think?"
"Well,... we didn't test them yet"
"Well,... damn....I guess now is as good a time as any"
*POOF One less habitable continant*
As far as troops manuvers under those conditions .... I'll have to take your word on that one. *shrug*
Just curious... do you hold the same faults with other countries that have and tested their Nukes? Or just the US ?
-
Ok, this is going into the Iraq thread......
-
quote]Originally posted by Rictor
excuse me, but is there EVIDENCE that he has the weapons? the inspectors found nothing, despite being there for about 2 months (almost 3 i think), having the latest technology and being experts in the field. Just because Saddam refused to cooperate does mean anything. The recently discovered chemical plant is harmless, even the US has confirmed that. If they can start a war without proof, it makes you wonder what else they can do. If suspecting something is enough, then they have a blank cheque for war..
sometimes I wonder if anyone even reads my arguements [/quote]
Ok read.
If you payed attention,...you'll find the main flaw in "He just didn't cooperate" is that fact that .... that alone was enough reason for an armed force to go into Iraq and make 100% sure they had none. He was in breech of what ... 12 UN Resultions,... plus simple fact that it was a term of the cease fire from DS.
Do you really think 2 months ,...hell a year ... is long enough for that little UN group of inspectors to search the entire freaking country of Iraq? Besides ,... sadly some of what they found when clearing a Hospital points out that the troops may be encountering Chem Weapons shortly,... the NBC Suits and masks prepped and ready for distro. Bad Sign.
Now don't get me wrong... after it's all said and done if the US still fails to find any MWDs,... I'll start a whole thread on it just to say "Well **** we were wrong afterall" ,... but currently I don't believe it nor do I believe they've had nearly enough time in this war to even hint one way or the other.
Well **** Shrike,... you could have just removed the tail end ,....Sorry I ruined your thread on the Oscars guys :(
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LOL Ok you got me I did say Used and not used in conflict :)
to the little "testing drugs" .... aside from the fact that isn't anywhere near the same analogy,.... would you prefer the US had developed them and not tested them until use ?
"Well sir we think this missile would only harm the target zone"
"Think?"
"Well,... we didn't test them yet"
"Well,... damn....I guess now is as good a time as any"
*POOF One less habitable continant*
As far as troops manuvers under those conditions .... I'll have to take your word on that one. *shrug*
Just curious... do you hold the same faults with other countries that have and tested their Nukes? Or just the US ?
"Well, mate, you think this drugs are addictive?"
"dunno. haven't tried them yet."
"ok. let's take our chances"
and, ya. I boycotted france when they tested nukes in the pacific couple o' years ago, if that's what you're wondering.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
excuse me, but is there EVIDENCE that he has the weapons? the inspectors found nothing, despite being there for about 2 months (almost 3 i think), having the latest technology and being experts in the field. Just because Saddam refused to cooperate does mean anything. The recently discovered chemical plant is harmless, even the US has confirmed that. If they can start a war without proof, it makes you wonder what else they can do. If suspecting something is enough, then they have a blank cheque for war..
sometimes I wonder if anyone even reads my arguements
Of course there are no evidence. If sadam had WMD he would have used them against america but he doesn't. America just loves to put itself in danger so that they could find a reason to attack someone. They accused Saddam for having weapons of mass destruction and that he is a threat to the stability in the world. So I suppose that USA is then a threat to stability of the entire Milky Way galaxy. Just as they accused Milosevic for crimes against humanity. Hello? He didn't commit mass mureders in multiple nations so that he could be accused for crimes against humanity. If anyone should be accused for crimes against humanity then that would be Clinotn, Madlen Albreit(sp), Tony Blair and Bush.
-
Ok read.
If you payed attention,...you'll find the main flaw in "He just didn't cooperate" is that fact that .... that alone was enough reason for an armed force to go into Iraq and make 100% sure they had none. He was in breech of what ... 12 UN Resultions,... plus simple fact that it was a term of the cease fire from DS.
Those resolutions were signed under threat of force. That makes them invalid. Just like confesions signed under threat of force are void, so is this. If Iraq came into the US and said "can you let us poke around a bit, just to make sure", would the US cooperate? The US has NO right to tell another sovereign country what weapons it can and cannot have.
Do you really think 2 months ,...hell a year ... is long enough for that little UN group of inspectors to search the entire freaking country of Iraq? Besides ,... sadly some of what they found when clearing a Hospital points out that the troops may be encountering Chem Weapons shortly,... the NBC Suits and masks prepped and ready for distro. Bad Sign.
Lets see, 300 inspectors, with the best equipment, with 3 months time.. yes I think so. Maybe not enough time to search the entire country, but they would have atleast found SOMETHING. Its pretty hard to hide as many weapons as the US claims Iraq has. PLus, you dont know where the inspectors will go next, so you cant just relocate them.
Now don't get me wrong... after it's all said and done if the US still fails to find any MWDs,... I'll start a whole thread on it just to say "Well **** we were wrong afterall" ,... but currently I don't believe it nor do I believe they've had nearly enough time in this war to even hint one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by kode
"Well, mate, you think this drugs are addictive?"
"dunno. haven't tried them yet."
"ok. let's take our chances"
and, ya. I boycotted france when they tested nukes in the pacific couple o' years ago, if that's what you're wondering.
It wasn't but does that mean you've boycotted the US too?
-
And of course weapons of mass destruction aren't the size of a match so they can just be thrown away and you can't just dig them into a dessert and wait untill the agressors are gone.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Do you really think 2 months ,...hell a year ... is long enough for that little UN group of inspectors to search the entire freaking country of Iraq? Besides ,... sadly some of what they found when clearing a Hospital points out that the troops may be encountering Chem Weapons shortly,... the NBC Suits and masks prepped and ready for distro. Bad Sign.
It's not like the inspectors are checking under every friggen rock in the country... just bunkers and other military installations, and so on...
In sweden, every shelter in the country has NBC suits and masks prepped and ready for distro... real bad sign, that.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
It wasn't but does that mean you've boycotted the US too?
Are you testing any nukes now? I wasn't born back when you did.
And I prefer buying swedish things over foreign, just as you prefer amarican stuff over european. cuz we all know how much you hate us europeans.
-
A quick comment, did they not find a camoflaged chemical factory yesterday? And have the figured out if it was involved in the construction of chemical weapons or not?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ok read.
Those resolutions were signed under threat of force. That makes them invalid. Just like confesions signed under threat of force are void, so is this. If Iraq came into the US and said "can you let us poke around a bit, just to make sure", would the US cooperate? The US has NO right to tell another sovereign country what weapons it can and cannot have.
Funny.... EVERY law is "Under Threat". If you steal... threat of jail,...if you murder,...threat of execution,....if you break the speed limit,...threat of a fine. Bad excuse.
And they were UN Resolutions,... not US.
Originally posted by Rictor
Lets see, 300 inspectors, with the best equipment, with 3 months time.. yes I think so. Maybe not enough time to search the entire country, but they would have atleast found SOMETHING. Its pretty hard to hide as many weapons as the US claims Iraq has. PLus, you dont know where the inspectors will go next, so you cant just relocate them.
Heh true ,... if we wait long enough.... they might discover alien lifeforms in Iraq too. Funny though.... in a week Coalition forces have found more than those inspectors did in 2 months. Nothing concrete .... but still ,... more.
Debating the whole issue about the Coalition going into Iraq is a bit Moot now. If it was so evil and ****ing wrong ... why in the hell is the Coalition FORTY TWO countries large and growing?
Granted a good chuck of those countries are simply signing in to get their names in here so they'll benifit from after effects,... but not all of them.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LOL Where and when has Bush been a Tyrant ?
Must..resist an urge to laugh. :lol:
7 words dude: Why don't you figure it out yourself?
By the way, do you live on the same planet Earth as I do and do you read and watch the same news as we all do? Perhaps you are living on another planet with an another society with another Bush, Sadam, Iraq etc... :wtf:
-
Originally posted by kode
Are you testing any nukes now? I wasn't born back when you did.
And I prefer buying swedish things over foreign, just as you prefer amarican stuff over european. cuz we all know how much you hate us europeans.
1: Still a bit hypocritical .... the US still HAS Nukes,....so France just started testing,... their a little behind us.... but this makes them more worthy of a boycott simply because you're alive?
2: We hate Europeans ? Well damn I never knew this.
-
well you see, the UN weapons inpspectors had ordinary access to facilities... the coalition has tank cannon access :D
-
Originally posted by Razor
Must..resist an urge to laugh. :lol:
7 words dude: Why don't you figure it out yourself?
By the way, do you live on the sam planet Earth as I do and do you read and watch the same news as we all do. Perhaps you are living on another planet with an another society with another Bush, Sadam, Iraq. :wtf: Well if you do, I can't possibly blame you for what you just said.
Nice dodge. I noticed you didn't actually provide any support for your argument..... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Razor
Must..resist an urge to laugh. :lol:
7 words dude: Why don't you figure it out yourself?
By the way, do you live on the sam planet Earth as I do and do you read and watch the same news as we all do. Perhaps you are living on another planet with an another society with another Bush, Sadam, Iraq. :wtf: Well if you do, I can't possibly blame you for what you just said.
reading half what you say ... I think I must live on a different planet than you do.
Hmmm Tyrant : Forces themselves into a controlling position.
Bush : Elected. Yea some may hate him...some may wish they changed a vote....but he was elected. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
1: Still a bit hypocritical .... the US still HAS Nukes,....so France just started testing,... their a little behind us.... but this makes them more worthy of a boycott simply because you're alive?
2: We hate Europeans ? Well damn I never knew this.
1. So f-ing what?
2. now you know. go back to your "freedom fries" now...
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Nice dodge. I noticed you didn't actually provide any support for your argument..... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah. Thank you for reminding me on that your Excellency. I suppose that: Figure it out yourself doesn't really ring a bell does it?
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
well you see, the UN weapons inpspectors had ordinary access to facilities... the coalition has tank cannon access :D
exactly ;)
Just to clarifiy for others.
I mean damn ... if you've got hmmm say 5 Kilos of Weed in the truck,...and a guy in a suit askes to inspect your car,.. but says you've got every right to say "NO" ... would you let him ?
Now if a Cop says "Ok look....open the truck, be honest with wtf is in there...we'll go easy,... or I can just hold you here ... have a search warrent issued ....and throw your ass in jail an hour later"
Hmmmm.
:)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Bush : Elected. Yea some may hate him...some may wish they changed a vote....but he was elected. :rolleyes:
So was Saddam. granted, there were only half the number of candidates to vote for in iraq, but on the other hand 100% of the population voted.
-
Originally posted by kode
1. So f-ing what?
2. now you know. go back to your "freedom fries" now...
LOL You know guy .... I thought that was just as stupid as the next guy.
Anyways... go on,.,.make more assumptions.
-
Originally posted by kode
So was Saddam. granted, there were only half the number of candidates to vote for in iraq, but on the other hand 100% of the population voted.
LMAO! :rolleyes:
His means of election was by an AK-47 ballot :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
5 Kilos of Weed
every foo knows not to carry that much with you...
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LOL You know guy .... I thought that was just as stupid as the next guy.
Anyways... go on,.,.make more assumptions.
no, I believe it was your turn to make assumptions about me.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
A quick comment, did they not find a camoflaged chemical factory yesterday? And have the figured out if it was involved in the construction of chemical weapons or not?
If you mean the *ahem* plant run by a General,... then as far as I know nothing was found there. Least I figure it would have been all over CNN and MSNBC by now if they had.
-
Originally posted by kode
every foo knows not to carry that much with you...
LMAO Sorry I don't play with that kinna stuff :) So I guesstimated.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
reading half what you say ... I think I must live on a different planet than you do.
Hmmm Tyrant : Forces themselves into a controlling position.
Bush : Elected. Yea some may hate him...some may wish they changed a vote....but he was elected. :rolleyes:
If I remember the story, he ellected himself as president because he has connections and crap.
Now lets see Tyrant. Well he threatens the suverenity (sp) of other countries, makes his own UN resolutions without an approval from the UN, he goes to war on Iraq without an approval from the UN SC, threatens other countries with the use of force (tm) (and hopes it won't become necessery :rolleyes: )
I wouldn't be surprised to see US attack Iraq with nukes when they loose this war.
-
Originally posted by kode
no, I believe it was your turn to make assumptions about me.
Where did I do that ?
You said you boycotted France for testing Nukes,....yet not the US because we tested them before you were born.... that is hypocritical....sorry.
I just didn't get the "We all know US hates Euros" mess.
-
and the french sold iraq a nuclear reactor a long while ago.... then it was bombed by the israelis (airstrike)....... saddam apparently managed to put together one nuke (from the remains), but hasn't used it to my knowledge...
-
Originally posted by Razor
If I remember the story, he ellected himself as president because he has connections and crap.
Well we know you're a Mike Moore fan... that right there is reason enough to ignore any further comments. :rolleyes:
besides if that were true ... don't ya think Perot would have been elected when he ran ? Millionare and all that his old ass was.
Least you're correct about the "story" part...that's all it is.
Now lets see Tyrant. Well he threatens the suverenity (sp) of other countries, makes his own UN resolutions without an approval from the UN, he goes to war on Iraq without an approval from the UN SC, threatens other countries with the use of force (tm) (and hopes it won't become necessery :rolleyes:)
I wouldn't be surprised to see US attack Iraq with nukes when they loose this war. [/B]
Ummm the UN made them guy ,...go on ... look it up.
By the rest of that .... half the friggin planet is tyranical....especially anyone that ever disagrees with the "almighty" Un LOL
You might be surprised thou ... since I doubt we'll lose this war (Damn we've lost less than 100....we might not win :doubt: ) and if we did .... we're not going to nuke them LOL Geeeeeeeez. Watching too many "End of the World" flicks?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Where did I do that ?
You said you boycotted France for testing Nukes,....yet not the US because we tested them before you were born.... that is hypocritical....sorry.
I just didn't get the "We all know US hates Euros" mess.
so I'm a hypocrit. I know that for a fact. Question is, what are you gonna do about it?
and that you didn't get that makes you one of few. American citizens I have counted as friends has vividly expressed their hate for europeans, which obviously gives me teh wrongy impression of americans of the people? I read the papers, I see the stats on american peoples opinions. sometimes I even think them over.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
and the french sold iraq a nuclear reactor a long while ago.... then it was bombed by the israelis (airstrike)....... saddam apparently managed to put together one nuke (from the remains), but hasn't used it to my knowledge...
and the US sold robots to iraq a long while ago...
-
it's the truth..... saw it in a documentary not too long ago (last week)....
-
Originally posted by kode
so I'm a hypocrit. I know that for a fact. Question is, what are you gonna do about it?
Prolly laugh
and that you didn't get that makes you one of few. American citizens I have counted as friends has vividly expressed their hate for europeans, which obviously gives me teh wrongy impression of americans of the people? I read the papers, I see the stats on american peoples opinions. sometimes I even think them over. [/B]
That's just sad :doubt:
Being one of our biggest Allies (not just in the current conflict) is the UK. But seriously I can see how you'd get that idea from ppl online *shrug* To my experience ,... that's not a country wide feeling thou.
-
if you don't believe me Kode, look at this then...
Cutting Edge: Saddam's friends
Produced in 2003, SADDAM’S FRIENDS showing on SBS Television on Tuesday, March 25 at 8.30pm, looks at how Western powers, including America, France and Germany, armed Saddam Hussein.
In 1974 the French government, then led by Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, sold Iraq a nuclear reactor in return for lucrative deals including cheap oil. International sceptics asked why an oil rich country would need nuclear power but the French government insisted the reactor would be monitored and would not pose a military threat.
In 1979 Saddam Hussein ordered Iraq’s physicists to redirect their research from peaceful to military applications. One of them, Dr Hussein Sharistani, refused and was tortured and imprisoned in solitary confinement for ten years. In 1981 Israel bombed the plant but the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) saw an escalation of military support for secular Iraq against fundamentalist Iran. French supplied nuclear fuel, Germany sold Iraq the means of producing chemical and bacteriological weapons and, after a visit by Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defence), America sold Hussein sophisticated Harpoon missiles. It is also alleged that America sent live viruses, including anthrax, to Iraqi military units.
Former CIA director Gordon Oehler explains how between 1987 and 1989 German companies sold Iraq all the material it needed for another nuclear plant capable of producing nuclear weapons. The program claims that the German government authorised the sale. Kenneth Timmerman, author of “The Death Lobby”, says that it was also German technology which enabled the creation of the toxic chemical gases Hussein dropped on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing 5,000 people. Mirage fighter jets from France were used for the mission. Former Defence Minister Jean Pierre Chevenement says Halabja “only took on importance in the 1990s. At the time no one said anything yet the Americans knew all about it.”
At the end of the Iran-Iraq war Timmerman claims that Iraq owed the French the equivalent of 6 billion euros. With the end of the conflict Hussein concentrated on repatriating thousands of Arab scientists and engineers from all over the world and personally supervised their integration into the Iraqi system.
Iraqi nuclear physicist Dr Khidhir Hamza fled Iraq in 1994. He claims that at that time there were 12 000 people involved in researching nuclear weaponry.
SADDAM’S FRIENDS is a French production.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ummm the UN made them guy ,...go on ... look it up.
Yeeah like after Bush put a gun up their face they did allright.
What's gonna be next? UN made a resolution which allows US to use strategic weapons at will. Yey hail to the peace making organization. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Being one of our biggest Allies (not just in the current conflict) is the UK. But seriously I can see how you'd get that idea from ppl online *shrug* To my experience ,... that's not a country wide feeling thou.
Oh yeah tha's one country and I suppose UK represents entire Europe. Go back to the past and see what Amers said when we were attacked. I remember something like: "Nuke them all" and such....
-
turnsky: did I say "oh no turnsky, you are teh wrong! no wei could france had sold a reactor to iraq back in the days when iraq was considdered a friendly country. the mere thought of that is proposterous! I hate you for your evil lies and will do for all eternity!!!", or did I say nothing about that, and added that the US had sold robots to iraq in the 80's? I don't really know, I mean, I'm just some stupid tard living with a family of polar bears in some fuct up country up north.
-
sorry...i thought you were being sarcastic...
-
Originally posted by Razor
Oh yeah tha's one country and I suppose UK represents entire Europe. Go back to the past and see what Amers said when we were attacked. I remember something like: "Nuke them all" and such....
WTF are you babbling about ?
But yes I gave one example..... :rolleyes:
*sigh* Anyways I don't have all night to read and post,... I've got a girlfriend to play with (Now that she's finally home from work) so I'll continue this in the morning ;)
-
Originally posted by Razor
Oh yeah. Thank you for reminding me on that your Excellency. I suppose that: Figure it out yourself doesn't really ring a bell does it?
Nope. You know why?
It's your argument, YOU provide the supporting evidence.
If you actually want to be taken seriously, don't sneer at people and tell them to find evidence themselves. You'll come off condescending and incompetent. Do it yourself. I'm sure as hell not going to look for support for you argument if you can't.
-
guys, please: for the sake of brevity, post all your arquements in one post, and respond to individual arquements also, dont just make 10 posts
-Threat of force: its not the same..you live in society of your own free will, and therefor exept the laws. However, what the US is doing is making Iraq (or did back in 1991) enter into a conract under threat of force. Thats different that laws, since everyone exepts laws imlicitly..
-The chemical plant was debunked, and even the US admits that it is not, nor was it used to manufacture weapons.
-Those 40 (or whatever) countries that "support the US", only started supporting the US AFTER the war started. Before the war, it was only 4 countries. These countries realized that the US is going to war with or without them, so they decided to "give support" in hopes of getting some money out of it, which they will.
-The fact that Iraqi soldiers have gasmasks says nothing. The US has gas masks, does that mean they're going to use bio weapons? Its protection, just like all the other countries.
-The inspectors did not have to check under every rock. 300 people, working 12 hours a day..you do the math. The "Coaltion" has found something, but it has been written of as NOT weaponds of mass distruction. They have not found anything that is prohibited. The inspectors, in 3 months, if indeed there were prohibited weapons, would have found SOMETHING, however they did not. You cannot hide thousands of nukes very effectively, nor can you hide factories, since they seem to be a bit inconvenient to move around on short notice..
-1441 was signed by the UN over a year ago. Circumstances change, and 1441 had NO implications of war. They wanted to see if Saddam had weapons, fair enough. But there was no mention of war or anything else. The US states that they have been trying to disarm Saddam for 12 years. Thats just inaccurate. They have ignored him for 12 years, otherwise they would have seen that he was developing weapons.
________________________________
Shrike: Bush is a tyrant in so many ways, that I cannot name them all. For your sake, here are a few. I only say "do your own research" because not only will you find more than I can explain in a few sentences, but if you find the stuff on your own it will have a degree of validity which I cannot provide..fair?
-Bush has started a war which will kill thousands of Iraqi civlians, WITHOUT concrete proof, or UN go ahead.
-Bush has proclaimed to the world that his opinion is supreme. In naming the "axis of evil", he has basically said "I decide who has what..Korea cant have nukes because I'm the boss, and I decide who is right"
-Bush caused a HUGE humanitarian crisis by bombing Afganistan and Iraq. What you have to realize is that the Iraqi people are faultless, yet it is they who are getting screwed the most. Bush has prevent convoys with food and medicine from entering Iraq (these supplies were purchased with Iraqi government money, and were destined for relief to the Iraqi people). Bombs kill people, you have to understand that. Also, destroying electtic plants and other "infrastructure" places, he has put the civialian polpulation in harsh condition. Do you really think that water filtering plannts or the like are military targets?
-More to come
________________
People, post you opinions in a collected manner, regarding specific arguements
-
Conclusion from reading this thread: War sucks.
-
Conclusion from reading the four pages of garbage that have been spontaneously generated in the last hour or so (yeah, including lame incorporated thread): People who pretend to know something in an informational vacuum are lamers.
-
-1441 was signed by the UN over a year ago. Circumstances change, and 1441 had NO implications of war. They wanted to see if Saddam had weapons, fair enough. But there was no mention of war or anything else. The US states that they have been trying to disarm Saddam for 12 years. Thats just inaccurate. They have ignored him for 12 years, otherwise they would have seen that he was developing weapons.
people seem to forget this, and as well as the 12 years worth of PRIOR resolutions Iraq has brushed off. AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY:
IN 1991, Iraq signed a surrender-non aggresion pact with the US/UN for a cease fire/& too disarm and allow Sadam to remain in power. The statement i remember (YES I WAS 10 YRS OLD AND REMMEBER IT), was that if the following accord (to disarm), wasnt followed, it would break the treaty and we would be allowed to re-continue our attack on Iraq.
DUDES THIS WAS 12 YEARS AGO I THINK WE AS A NATION HAS BEEN LENIENT ENOUGH!
and i agree with RAZOR...
NUKE EM ALL. (but in the real world, just drop a few MOABS, or in other situations, do what our 7th Calvary did today, mow down 300 soldiers in the sandstorm.).
(now ima run in a corner with some Asbestos anti-flaming suit)...:nervous:
-
Yeah, lez all go shoot up some dirty towelhead sand nigger a-rabs! I wan' take a gun and shoot a couple their rat chilluns mah self, or ride a bomb all the way down like that guy in that movie I never understood! YEEEEE-HAAA!
Seriously, if you're gonna act like an idiot, be prepared to be mocked like an idiot. Self-inflicted injury. Unless you really are an idiot and just can't help it, in which case you have no business learning how to operate basic computer software and should go back to stacking blocks and crapping yourself at random moments.
At any rate, it was the UN which was granted the prerogative to attack or not, and they've decided not to. The US going ahead and doing it in the face of international law is comparable to a cop letting a guy go because there's not any conclusive evidence he's done anything, then a vigilante capturing and lynching the guy because he's pretty sure they guy did whatever it was anyway.
Even if it turns out that the hanged man was guilty all along (far from the case right now), it's still a lynching, and it's still a crime. Killing people because something might be happening, although you have absolutely no evidence of it (in fact, the only thing close to "solid" evidence the government ever had has since turned out to be a forgery by MI6, and a bad one) is criminal behavior, and since Bush is so much for the death penalty, I think he's one to deserve it.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Man, I read about his 'documentary' Bowling For Columbine.... how anyone can consider it anything other than a complete and utter fabrication amazes me. He spliced and cut together various conversations to get the effect he wanted and basically stuck words in people's mouths. Some documentary, eh?
Could you please explain this? I don't really get it, how does he "stuck words in people's mouths"?
-
Quite agree, Razor. Why should one tyrannical despot with weapons of mass destruction be able to keep his while he confiscates those of another tyrannical despot?
That is one of the benefits of being the more powerful party.
This guy is actually very smart. I think that should really happen. Get yourselves rid of Bush and all will be well and by the way, destroy your weapons of mass destruction as well.
All will be well for the rest of the world, not for the US. But we want it the other way, so Bush and WMDs stay. :D
And Warlock, it doesn't matter wether America has nuked anyone recently, the mere possesion of the weapons suggests that given enough provokation, they would. And this should not be allowed.
No-one should posses enough weaponry to annihilate the human race as the only thing such weaponry could ever be used for is precisely that.
Great, so what are you going to do about it? :D I thought you were above this "should" and "should not" business; the only things that "should" happen are the things that are happening.
excuse me, but is there EVIDENCE that he has the weapons? the inspectors found nothing, despite being there for about 2 months (almost 3 i think), having the latest technology and being experts in the field. Just because Saddam refused to cooperate does mean anything. The recently discovered chemical plant is harmless, even the US has confirmed that. If they can start a war without proof, it makes you wonder what else they can do. If suspecting something is enough, then they have a blank cheque for war..
Are "inspectors" capable of doing anything other than wasting time? No, which is why they had so much support from the EU. Read my earlier posts on that to find out why this is so.
The US has NO right to tell another sovereign country what weapons it can and cannot have.
Once again, that's nice, so what are you going to do about it? The US, or any other nation for that matter, has a right to do anything it pleases if it has the capability. This is especially beginning to show now; the rest of the world is whining, but nobody is going to be heading for Iraq to fight for Hussein. :D
And of course weapons of mass destruction aren't the size of a match so they can just be thrown away and you can't just dig them into a dessert and wait untill the agressors are gone.
Yes you can. I already explained this matter to you in detail in a previous thread on this topic; do you have a short memory or something? :p
So was Saddam. granted, there were only half the number of candidates to vote for in iraq, but on the other hand 100% of the population voted.
Now this is just funny. That is because anyone foolish enough to vote against him is dead, and only living people's votes count. :D
-Bush has proclaimed to the world that his opinion is supreme. In naming the "axis of evil", he has basically said "I decide who has what..Korea cant have nukes because I'm the boss, and I decide who is right"
Exactly, because he has the power to do that. If you don't like it, do something about it. That is the way things work in the world.
At any rate, it was the UN which was granted the prerogative to attack or not, and they've decided not to. The US going ahead and doing it in the face of international law is comparable to a cop letting a guy go because there's not any conclusive evidence he's done anything, then a vigilante capturing and lynching the guy because he's pretty sure they guy did whatever it was anyway.
The thing is that in this case, the vigilante is far, far more powerful than the cop, and so has all the real authority (the cop would have authority if he could enforce his demands, but he cannot). Anyway, suppose that they did have UN approval. How would that make any difference at all? Hussein would still not approve of it, and he would actually be taken more seriously because he at least has some credible force to back his opinion. :D
-
Originally posted by Pez
Could you please explain this? I don't really get it, how does he "stuck words in people's mouths"?
By splicing together entirely different conversations in order to have the person who's 'speaking' say something entirely different from what they actually said.
-
No-one should posses enough weaponry to annihilate the human race as the only thing such weaponry could ever be used for is precisely that.
Ideally, this should be the case. But this is not an ideal world. Suppose the U.S., in a show of good faith, destroyed all its nuclear weapons. Would other countries follow? Maybe some, but many (such as North Korea) would not. They'd laugh at the U.S.'s gullibility and naivite, and rightly so. :rolleyes:
The reason we keep nuclear weapons is not to use them per se, but to reserve the option to use them if we needed to. They're deterrents. If the U.S. didn't have nukes, North Korea wouldn't hesitate to invade South Korea, China wouldn't hesitate to invade Taiwan, and who knows what other chaos might ensue.
-
hence the term: 'Nuclear deterrents'
-
Exactly, the nukes don't have to be actually used as physical weapons; they become a formidable weapon in international politics by simply existing.
-
CP####, get some self respect. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. You seem like a smart guy. Why don't you question your government, at least once in a whíle?
-
Have you guys ever studied JFK's dealings in the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Yeah, I studied him quite a bit, and my name's Jack, so I took a liking to the guy.) Nuclear brinkmanship is a fascinating topic, and the world is still quite inexperienced in it. Khrushchev and Kennedy's negotiations got precariously close to WW3, but Khrushchev was desperate to retain peace. It cost him his job later... nukes aren't an easy think to play with.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
I mean damn ... if you've got hmmm say 5 Kilos of Weed in the truck,...and a guy in a suit askes to inspect your car,.. but says you've got every right to say "NO" ... would you let him ?
Hmmm... I'd let him. Here in Holland he'd probably say: "5 kilo's, eh? Next time no more then 6 grams or you will be taken into custody. Now run along..."
:wink:
-
CP####, get some self respect. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. You seem like a smart guy. Why don't you question your government, at least once in a whíle?
What kind of a pathetic argument is this supposed to be? In this case the government is doing what is good for the nation, which makes it "right" as far as that goes. (and what Iraq is doing is "right" too, for its purposes)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What kind of a pathetic argument is this supposed to be? In this case the government is doing what is good for the nation, which makes it "right" as far as that goes. (and what Iraq is doing is "right" too, for its purposes)
wars aren't good for the little people. only for business and for the government. but I guess you aren't one of the little people.
I'm gonna go out on a killing spree later today. I'll kill some hobos. It's good for the nation.
-
:rolleyes:
Some ppl will simply never get a point.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
:rolleyes:
Some ppl will simply never get a point.
I don't want to get a point. I'm ignorant and hypocritical.
Sorry I have a problem with innocent people getting killed for money.
-
Originally posted by kode
Sorry I have a problem with innocent people getting killed for money.
Point well missed.
You don't realize that this war AND the REBUILDING of Iraq is going to cost US billions ? Yea we're in this for money alright. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Point well missed.
You don't realize that this war AND the REBUILDING of Iraq is going to cost US billions ? Yea we're in this for money alright. :rolleyes:
considdering how much you are going to make later on it, it is pocket change.
-
From ? We've only stated a few 100 times that the Oil Wells will be under Iraq control and we're only preventing them from being torched to help fund the rebuilding of Iraq.
So what have you been hearing ?
-
why the WAR in iraq is so important to US Goverment?
ok US President sayd they go Free Iraq Civilians and disarm Iraq weapons but after war US goverment want control Iraq
and Iraq oil
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
From ? We've only stated a few 100 times that the Oil Wells will be under Iraq control and we're only preventing them from being torched to help fund the rebuilding of Iraq.
So what have you been hearing ?
I think the presence of an oil-funded (both in terms of personal wealth and campaign contributors) President does throw suspicions in that direction... I would like to know why the **** only US companies were allowed to bid for the rebuilding contract?
Besides which, Iraq offers the US a foothold in the regions as such... it allows them to put more pressure on other Arab nations if they aren't as reliant on, say, Saudi Arabia for oil.
I think there is a strong case for the removal of Saddam and the war in general, and I'll support the troops as long as they're fighting. But i don't believe that the true reasons behind this war are anything other than revenge / Bush finishing off 'daddy's job', and for monetary/ powr reasons.
After all, why hasn't there been a similar amount of effort to deal with the likes Iran, N.Korea (WMD), or Zimbabwe (Dictatorship). And didn't the US make offers to (I think) Gambia - a military dictatorship - when it was still trying to secure a 2nd resolution?
There are a LOT of question to be answered about the motivations of this war, and the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' in general - which seems to be an excuse for aggressive colonialism / 'guinboat diplomacy' which has alientated the US and (sad to say) UK from the rest of the world.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I would like to know why the **** only US companies were allowed to bid for the rebuilding contract?
From what I've heard the US are not the only ones bidding....even France is getting things lined up to profit from the effects of the war.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
LOL Thought I'd get a responce on that :D
You know ... the A bomb in WW2 was a hellish thing to do,... but then again look at the times/circumstances.
NB: I can;t remeber where (was a few months ago), but there's been some evidence that the US launcyhed those 2 raids against Japan to intimidate Stalin rather than because of military necessity.
-
*shrug*
Could be .... been a long time since I was doing reports on WW2
-
Originally posted by Warlock
From what I've heard the US are not the only ones bidding....even France is getting things lined up to profit from the effects of the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2887079.stm
Looks like I'm a few weeks or so out of date :)
Although I did actually say at the time of the Afghanistan conflict that that country should have been totally rebuilt and modernised post-conflict, simply to send a message to the rest of the Arab world... I think it may be too late to achive the same result in Iraq, though, as the divde has been widened too much IMO.
-
The Netherlands will also have a part in the rebuilding proces :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think the presence of an oil-funded (both in terms of personal wealth and campaign contributors) President does throw suspicions in that direction... I would like to know why the **** only US companies were allowed to bid for the rebuilding contract?
I believe that there's a US law on the books that says only US companies can bid on contracts from Congress, however, the list of subcontractors already included British firms.
-
Personally though ... I find it amusing all the anti-war countries that are jumping on the 'bidding wagon' for the rebuilding effort.
Kinna,...
"We're completely against this war,........what profits? Hell yea"
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Shrike
By splicing together entirely different conversations in order to have the person who's 'speaking' say something entirely different from what they actually said.
First of all. Go see the movie, it's great.
You americans should be proud of Michael Moore. It's always good to see/read another side of a story.
Finally, sticking words into someone elses mouth is a totally different thing that "splincing together entirely different conversations". Again see the movie, then we can talk about it.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
and i agree with RAZOR...
NUKE EM ALL.
Where the hell did I say NUKE EM ALL? :wtf: I just said the opinions of americans that were recorded during the NATO agression on Yugoslavia in 1999.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What kind of a pathetic argument is this supposed to be? In this case the government is doing what is good for the nation, which makes it "right" as far as that goes. (and what Iraq is doing is "right" too, for its purposes)
I don't know why you people even try to tell anything to CP. Your words don't even reach this guy.
-
Somehow I doubt the majority of the American Population wanted to Nuke your country :doubt:
Can we get back to Iraq and away from Razor's personal hatred for the United States? :)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
REBUILDING of Iraq is going to cost US billions ? Yea we're in this for money alright. :rolleyes:
Freeze it right there! Did you say rebuilding? US is going to rebuild Iraq? :lol: :lol: Don't crack me up please! If USA starts rebuilding Iraq, the admins here, at VW and everywhere else may bann me for life. They have my permission.
Geez dude. Do you REALLY think that is going to happen?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Somehow I doubt the majority of the American Population wanted to Nuke your country
Where did you live in 1999? On the moon or something, isolated from society? I know what I have been hearing and reading back then. And one more thing, I don't really hate American people and your country at all. I just hate your government because of it's dictatorship.
-
Originally posted by Razor
If USA starts rebuilding Iraq, the admins here, at VW and everywhere else may bann me for life. They have my permission.
(http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/aktion/action-smiley-030.gif)
-
Originally posted by Razor
Freeze it right there! Did you say rebuilding? US is going to rebuild Iraq? :lol: :lol:
I'll believe it when I see it. I hope they do it.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Freeze it right there! Did you say rebuilding? US is going to rebuild Iraq? :lol: :lol: Don't crack me up please! If USA starts rebuilding Iraq, the admins here, at VW and everywhere else may bann me for life. They have my permission.
Geez dude. Do you REALLY think that is going to happen?
:rolleyes:
No we're planning to just **** 10 billions downa big hole for no reason.
You know.... I thought somewhere you posted that you were 17,..not 10. :doubt:
-
"Where did you live in 1999? On the moon or something, isolated from society? I know what I have been hearing and reading back then. "
you see right there,
"I know what I have been hearing and reading back then."
you herd and saw difern't thing as we did, nobody in America wanted to nuke you, if we did we just would have (I think the current situation proves we will do whatever we want to), what we wanted to do was to stop you're government from systematicly killing an entire people, the fact that this is the mesage you got shows why haveing a state run media is a bad thing to listen to.
further, what has happened to you're contry sence then?
-
Originally posted by Pez
Finally, sticking words into someone elses mouth is a totally different thing that "splincing together entirely different conversations". Again see the movie, then we can talk about it.
Uhhh....... no, there isn't. If he splices together three entirely seperate conversations into one in order to create an entirely fictitious conversation and give the impression that the conversation he created he was real, I'd say he was putting words into people's mouth.
The splicing is how he did it, putting words in people's mouths is what he did.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Where did you live in 1999? On the moon or something, isolated from society? I know what I have been hearing and reading back then. And one more thing, I don't really hate American people and your country at all. I just hate your government because of it's dictatorship.
A dictatorship. I'm sure Bush's secret paramilitary forces will be seizing control any day now. Any day now...
Riiiiiiiiight.
Hell, Canada's got far more of a dictator than the US does. You do realize that Bush will be out in at maximum of five more years, right?
-
wars aren't good for the little people. only for business and for the government. but I guess you aren't one of the little people.
They may or may not be so, depending on other circumstances; I can think of situations where it can go either way.
You americans should be proud of Michael Moore. It's always good to see/read another side of a story.
The same can be said about bin Laden though.
I don't want to get a point. I'm ignorant and hypocritical.
That is obvious enough. :D
I don't know why you people even try to tell anything to CP. Your words don't even reach this guy.
I would not be talking; I actually take the time to respond to any arguments directed at me, and I don't forget what people say to me within two days. And of course, I don't run out of credible arguments immediately and start having to resort to personal insults. :D
considdering how much you are going to make later on it, it is pocket change.
As far as the monetary gains/losses alone go, the US will lose a lot here; even the war expenses alone will exceed any benefits gained by taking all of the oil, and the reconstruction costs will be much more. If this was about money, the US must be hiring the worst economists in the world. :D The US does indeed have big interests in doing this, but they have nothing to do with money.
There are a LOT of question to be answered about the motivations of this war, and the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' in general - which seems to be an excuse for aggressive colonialism / 'guinboat diplomacy' which has alientated the US and (sad to say) UK from the rest of the world.
As I said earlier, this is not unique to Bush or the US at all. Every country is doing this right now, and has been doing so for thousands of years, because it is the winner's strategy in international politics. If only Bush was doing it, the US would encompass the entire globe by now, but the others aren't that stupid. :D
After all, why hasn't there been a similar amount of effort to deal with the likes Iran, N.Korea (WMD), or Zimbabwe (Dictatorship). And didn't the US make offers to (I think) Gambia - a military dictatorship - when it was still trying to secure a 2nd resolution?
Because they do not pose a threat to us at the moment (with the exception of NK, but they might be the next ones up). The US is not against Iraq just because it has a totalitarian government, but mainly because it is a threat to our objectives; this is what all smart governments do. Of course, a side effect of the war will be the deposing of Hussein and the Iraqi people will benefit, but that goal is secondary to other things.
If USA starts rebuilding Iraq, the admins here, at VW and everywhere else may bann me for life. They have my permission.
Now this is the best thing I have read in this thread so far. I'm going to keep a record of this quote for future reference. :D
-
I mean damn ... if you've got hmmm say 5 Kilos of Weed in the truck,...and a guy in a suit askes to inspect your car,.. but says you've got every right to say "NO" ... would you let him ?
Chances are I wouldn't be capable of driving for a loooooooooong time if I had five kilo's. :)
-
cp its not very smart to talk to you because you reject the laws of morality a bit too much. in you quest to be objective, you fail to accept that some things are just good and others are bad..killing is bad, not killing is good etc
you just say "whoever is the most powerful is the best, becuase all I care about is power. doesnt matter if you kill aot of people, whoever is the most "effective" is the best"..you see, if people lived by that rule, we'de have a society of pychopaths,
from what I understand you claim that if you have to kill 1000 people to get 1 dollar, good for you, you got the dollar
BTW its all right to talk, but I dont think that you live by this philosophy, or that you could enforce it in real life
_____________________
-As for the US loosing money. They want to bring in US civilian contractors to rebuild Iraq. The contractors get paid, which the US taxes and they get their money back. Oh and the oil, which is the number 1 industry in the world (makes more money than the entire computer/it industry from what I know)..The US would get TONS of money from the oil, even if they just "administer" the oil pumping. The US will make more from this war than it has put in..
oh and BTW, the UN has been taking 25% of ALL Iraqi oil profits since desert storm.
since no one is responding to my argements, I'll just take that as a sign of defeat:) (on you part)
-
Personally I really doubt that US is gonna finance the rebuilding of Iraq. How do I know they won't. Simple, they promissed money to YU if we send Milosevic to Haag, we did so and didn't get a cent as far as I remember. The only deal we made with US was between us and Microsoft so that they can have their office in Belgrade and produce Microsoft products on Serbian and that's all.
-
cp its not very smart to talk to you because you reject the laws of morality a bit too much. in you quest to be objective, you fail to accept that some things are just good and others are bad..killing is bad, not killing is good etc
But how can any truly objective argument proceed along those lines? Since the idea that killing is bad is just as wrong as the idea that killing is good; Hussein probably thinks killing is good, and what is to make us any more right or wrong than him? This is why I commonly give the chair example; saying that sitting on chairs is bad for its own sake (that is, independently of events that may result from it) is just as defendable as your idea. Now killing people might be bad for the killers because other people may fight back, public opinion may shift in a certain way, the gods might punish them or whatever else, but on its own it simply makes no sense.
you just say "whoever is the most powerful is the best, becuase all I care about is power. doesnt matter if you kill aot of people, whoever is the most "effective" is the best"..you see, if people lived by that rule, we'de have a society of pychopaths,
The nation states do live by that rule though. My point is that you can complain about the way the world works all you want, but that is not going to change it at all. This is almost like a physics rule; you can't just say that gravity "should" be a repellant force, because it simply is not. That is the way things are in the universe. The fact is that whoever who is the most effective in the way I have described earlier is going to win, and moreover, every govenment in the world realizes this, so everyone is acting in this way, and understandably so.
BTW its all right to talk, but I dont think that you live by this philosophy, or that you could enforce it in real life
I do live by it actually; the reason I don't go on killing sprees every day is that I am not good enough and will be quickly caught, so the costs outweight the benefits. If everyone in the world was a first-rate criminal, I'm sure we would have a lot more crime everywhere. So in order to make my money, I will (most likely) do what I can do, math. :D
-As for the US loosing money. They want to bring in US civilian contractors to rebuild Iraq. The contractors get paid, which the US taxes and they get their money back. Oh and the oil, which is the number 1 industry in the world (makes more money than the entire computer/it industry from what I know)..The US would get TONS of money from the oil, even if they just "administer" the oil pumping. The US will make more from this war than it has put in..
Individual industries (such as oil) still don't really compare to full-time government spending; the revenues come out of all of the industries combined. The costs of any war are immense compared to their spoils; wars are fought primarily for political reasons, not just for money, and there is really no historical example to the contrary. Not to mention the recessive effects back home, which will take away another several billions and last for many years (and the blame would be solely on Bush for everything; so much for him doing this for reelection purposes :p). And taxes are not collected quickly just like that either; they accumulate over time, and it will take decades to completely fill up government coffers back to the pre-war amount.
Besides, there is still a big question; if they just wanted oil, why did they not go after Saudi Arabia instead? That country has far more oil than Iraq and a tiny fraction of the military power (in fact, Iraq could take over SA without any trouble if it wanted to, which was Hussein's plan back in 1991). The US can easily cook up some excuse for a fight (after all, you anti-war people claim that this is what they have done with Iraq), and everything else will be both easier and more rewarding.
-
Originally posted by Razor
...we send Milosevic to Haag...
Thats... DEN HAAG
You people always screwin' around with our city names :p :rolleyes:
Ow, and CP, true objectivity does not exist. So why try to attain it? It is a wee bit illogical to persue that which is impossible to reach. And since you would know it is illogical, wouldn't it be "not-so-objective" to try and attain it? :p
:nervous: What?
-
Ow, and CP, true objectivity does not exist. So why try to attain it? It is a wee bit illogical to persue that which is impossible to reach. And since you would know it is illogical, wouldn't it be "not-so-objective" to try and attain it?
That may or may not be true, although at the moment I am leaning towards the former possibility in practice. But still, I think it can be safely said that certain arguments are more "objective" than others in the practical sense of the world, based on the supporting information they use and so on, even if none are completely objective. Besides, we might as well assume that, since if it the alternative were true and all deductions were of the same level of objectivity, absolute deductions would be pointless and we would have nothing to do and would all get bored. :D
Besides, true objectivity does exist, in the form of math. So let us use the rest of this thread for math problems! ;7
-
Originally posted by Razor
Where did you live in 1999? On the moon or something, isolated from society? I know what I have been hearing and reading back then. And one more thing, I don't really hate American people and your country at all. I just hate your government because of it's dictatorship.
Milosevic?
Ah, the sweet smell of hipocracy......
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Milosevic?
Ah, the sweet smell of hipocracy......
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Razor
:wtf:
If dysfunction is a function, then I must be some kind of GENIUS-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Uhhh....... no, there isn't. If he splices together three entirely seperate conversations into one in order to create an entirely fictitious conversation and give the impression that the conversation he created he was real, I'd say he was putting words into people's mouth.
The splicing is how he did it, putting words in people's mouths is what he did.
Ok, it seems like we just have different words/name for it (and some different opinions :)). We'll better end the Michael Moore debate here and focus on the real deal. The war in Iraq.
-
yes milosevic
you see , I ( a yugoslav, who lived in yugoslaia for 9 years)consider Milosevic a dictartor and a bastard, however the 1999 bombing of Yugoslvia was a)unjust b)illegal c)pointless
What you need to realize is that an attack on a whole country is NOT the way to get rid of a single person. In all the bombing (in both Yugo and Iraq) the president is the last person who will get injured, the people are the ones who suffer most.
1- Without wanting to sound biased, Kosovo was Serbian land. The Albanian population of Kosovo wanted to seperate and join Albania. This is like Texas wanting to break from the US and join Mexico. The fact is that (without wanting to sound prejucided) the Albanian were doing nothing and wanted everything. I have a first hand report from people who have lived in Kosovo for about 35 years, and for the most part the Albanian population had not been pulling its weight for about 40 years. Now this may sound like "he is decriminating against ALL Albanians" but I'm not going to disregard fact just to be "politically correct". No, I do not think all Albanians were like this, but a significant portion. For 50 years the Albanian population in Kosovo has been getting money and alot of other privileges from the government (better treatment thatn other) and were not giving back anything in return The n they wanted to seperate..this sounds like unthankfullness to me.
2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening. They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause alot more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)
3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).
4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.
I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.
Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.
I can see the weapons factory that was 2nd on the Russians "must nuke first" list.
Right in the middle of the ****ing countryside too.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That may or may not be true, although at the moment I am leaning towards the former possibility in practice. But still, I think it can be safely said that certain arguments are more "objective" than others in the practical sense of the world, based on the supporting information they use and so on, even if none are completely objective. Besides, we might as well assume that, since if it the alternative were true and all deductions were of the same level of objectivity, absolute deductions would be pointless and we would have nothing to do and would all get bored. :D
Besides, true objectivity does exist, in the form of math. So let us use the rest of this thread for math problems! ;7
Well then here is your problem CP, you can't use math on people(unless you claim to have devloped psychohistory:doubt: ). People don't often follow logic like you and if you expect to get results from completely objective arguements then you are a fool.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.
:wtf: Why would the U.S. want to bomb civilians on purpose? Aside from being immoral, it accomplishes nothing militarily.
The military grew rusty under Clinton, and we've spent the last couple of years getting back in good condition. As you can see from the midair crashes and equipment failures, we're not completely finished yet.
-
*looks at poll results*
w007!!! I'm The minority!!!! :D
*looks at postcount*
...a vocal minority, at that! ;7 :lol:
-
I want a recount :p
*runs to watch CNN's latest*
-
i'll tell you what i think's highly amusing (and highly stupid) is those British that blew up one of their own tanks when they thought it was an enemy's. i mean, with all the high-tech equipment and stuff, you'd think they'd be able to determine which tank's an enemy's and which isn't.
another thing. that black woman a few days ago that was driving a tank full of soldiers or whatever, and she took a wrong turn, and the next thing she knows they're facing some Iraqi troops. all of them were taken hostage, and now they're in enemy custody.
not to be racist or anything, the fact she's black has nothing to do with it (!?) but with those GPS things, and all the fancy navigation equipment they have, you'd think they wouldn't take a "wrong turn" and end up faced by the enemy, that's just plain stupid.
there, i've said my bit, i'll let you know if America, Britan, Iraq, Italy, Nigeria, or any other country does something stupid during this war :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
*looks at poll results*
w007!!! I'm The minority!!!! :D
*looks at postcount*
...a vocal minority, at that! ;7 :lol:
:lol: You voted the last option? :lol:
Eh, wait a minnit. You're an American, as in citizen? How'd you get in the IDF then?
-
Because he lives in Israel and has a dual citizenship?
Besides, isn't Israel Milatary service mandatory?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Because he lives in Israel and has a dual citizenship?
Besides, isn't Israel Milatary service mandatory?
"...And KT's two for two so far..." :D
-
yeah,
doesn't Israel have the most powerful airforce in the world? Don't they have like 380 F-16s or something like that? i know it's a big number of fighters
-
uh.. I highly doubt the US would let them have a stronger airforce than them, ally or not.
No.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i'll tell you what i think's highly amusing (and highly stupid) is those British that blew up one of their own tanks when they thought it was an enemy's. i mean, with all the high-tech equipment and stuff, you'd think they'd be able to determine which tank's an enemy's and which isn't.
another thing. that black woman a few days ago that was driving a tank full of soldiers or whatever, and she took a wrong turn, and the next thing she knows they're facing some Iraqi troops. all of them were taken hostage, and now they're in enemy custody.
not to be racist or anything, the fact she's black has nothing to do with it (!?) but with those GPS things, and all the fancy navigation equipment they have, you'd think they wouldn't take a "wrong turn" and end up faced by the enemy, that's just plain stupid.
there, i've said my bit, i'll let you know if America, Britan, Iraq, Italy, Nigeria, or any other country does something stupid during this war :D
Which proves that if you make a better idiot-proof machine, someone will make a better idiot.:D
-
we dont need to blow up our own tanks, you blew up more than we did, anyway, lololololol
-
Friendly fire: If you watched CNN in the begining, you'll recall the reports on the issue with Turkey not allowing us passage ,...sadly a ship carrying the new Abrahms with the "Anti-friendly fire" crap in it (sorry no clue wtf it's really called) was delayed and that unit is just now getting into the picture.
Sadly it's easier than one would think to target your own side. It's not like Freespace where you have red dots and green dots, you have either Radar (all green dots), NightVision (every damned thing's green, even the static), Thermal Vison (Grayscale like mad) or human vison. Now add in smoke, sandstorms, etc,....plus just how many over there have never seen combat before. Sometimes I'm more impressed that they haven't shot more of our own troops. (Recalls quite a few amusing field exercises)
The 'black chic' that made the wrong turn,.... actually she was a cook (unless another black female has been captured), so she was driving in a support unit,... humvees, Duce and a halves (2.5 ton trucks) 5 Tons trucks, probably a few Hemmets (the funky looking trucks with a resmblance to a crane's driver's cab) none of which have a GPS set up,... it's basically follow the leader.
But hey least my old unit from AK isn't there. The three years I was stationed up there,... the Helio-unit turned into a nice running gag on base. They dropped so much we started joking that they were trying to hit a moose.
First they threw a set of NVG's at him... and missed.
Next they threw a M-16 at him....while it made a fine lawn dart (yes it was actually found 'arrowed' into the dirt) they still missed.
Again they tried,... this time with a HumVee,....sadly while the HumVee bounced well....the moose was faster.
Lastly they went for broke and tossed an Artillery peice at the moose.
During the process of regaining the cannon and prepping it for shipment to my unti for repair,... soldiers swear they heard a low chuckle in the woods nearby.
:D
Whats worse is it's true ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
*looks at poll results*
w007!!! I'm The minority!!!! :D
*looks at postcount*
...a vocal minority, at that! ;7 :lol:
Yeah, you and Jerry Fallwell would get along great.:D
And if you get that joke, I'll have to make up my mind whether to be just surprised or depressed that he's that famous.
-
Well then here is your problem CP, you can't use math on people(unless you claim to have devloped psychohistory ). People don't often follow logic like you and if you expect to get results from completely objective arguements then you are a fool.
I am not using math here at all, and besides, I am getting results perfectly. I think the reason that you are decrying objectivity is that you cannot write any good arguments yourself. :p
-
why is there never a satisfactory answer...:sigh:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am not using math here at all, and besides, I am getting results perfectly. I think the reason that you are decrying objectivity is that you cannot write any good arguments yourself. :p
I said completely objective arguments. If we removed all objectivity we would get a mass of impartial, ignorant arguments that never end. But if we removed all subjectivity we would get ideas that don’t work when it comes to the human race.
And the US is not going to be the superpower forever. Your arguments work in the present(well, somewhat), but they don’t work when a nation lacks the power it had previously.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
uh.. I highly doubt the US would let them have a stronger airforce than them, ally or not.
No.
believe it or not the US doesn't "allow" everything that goes on in the world. i'm sure if it was up to the US they wouldn't have "allowed" Russia to have nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have "allowed" two planes to crash into the world trade center, they wouldn't have "allowed" a lot of things to happen. Remember that Israel's army is one of the most diciplined in the world, if not the most diciplined. Israelis take the army incredibly seriously, as has already been mentioned, and i have great respect for them because of that.
-
I said completely objective arguments. If we removed all objectivity we would get a mass of impartial, ignorant arguments that never end. But if we removed all subjectivity we would get ideas that don’t work when it comes to the human race.
okay, then what was your point before? I already said that completely objective arguments most likely cannot exist, but there is no reason they wouldn't still be ideal in theory.
And the US is not going to be the superpower forever. Your arguments work in the present(well, somewhat), but they don’t work when a nation lacks the power it had previously.
Exactly, which is why I am presenting them right now and not in the future. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Friendly fire: If you watched CNN in the begining, you'll recall the reports on the issue with Turkey not allowing us passage ,...sadly a ship carrying the new Abrahms with the "Anti-friendly fire" crap in it (sorry no clue wtf it's really called) was delayed and that unit is just now getting into the picture.
Sadly it's easier than one would think to target your own side. It's not like Freespace where you have red dots and green dots, you have either Radar (all green dots), NightVision (every damned thing's green, even the static), Thermal Vison (Grayscale like mad) or human vison. Now add in smoke, sandstorms, etc,....plus just how many over there have never seen combat before. Sometimes I'm more impressed that they haven't shot more of our own troops. (Recalls quite a few amusing field exercises)
it's understandable if they were in the middle of a battle and a few shells hit a friendly tank, but they weren't fighting anyone! it's just pathetic
The 'black chic' that made the wrong turn,.... actually she was a cook (unless another black female has been captured), so she was driving in a support unit,... humvees, Duce and a halves (2.5 ton trucks) 5 Tons trucks, probably a few Hemmets (the funky looking trucks with a resmblance to a crane's driver's cab) none of which have a GPS set up,... it's basically follow the leader.
hahahahaha, that's pathetic... first, what the heck is a cook doing leading a whole squadron of artillery!? shouldn't there be a trained navigator or something? second, why did she guess where to turn? if you're in enemy territory, "behind enemy lines", then why on earth would you "guess" where to go? i'm sure someone on board had a GPS device, and if they did, then whatever happened to the most equipped and well-trained army in the world? :confused: i mean don't get me wrong, i'm all for the US, but this is just pathetic!
-
Oh, and Knight_Templar, I may very well be wrong, i just think i remember hearing someone once say that, but i could (or they could) be wrong.
I do know their air force is very disciplined though:
A few statistics reveal the extent of Israel's air superiority: with only 200 fighters, the IAF destroyed 391 enemy planes on the ground and 60 in dogfights. The IAF generated over 3,300 sorties, many times more than the combined Arab air forces. However, the victory was tempered by the loss of 46 Israeli planes and of 24 pilots, who gave their lives in a war that changed the face of the Middle East
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/agency/iaf.htm
http://www.idf.il/english/organization/iaf/iaf4.htm
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it's understandable if they were in the middle of a battle and a few shells hit a friendly tank, but they weren't fighting anyone! it's just pathetic
*shrug* I weas merely commenting on the ease of such a thing,..I honestly haven't heard anything about a tank hitting another tank yet.
Originally posted by Stealth
hahahahaha, that's pathetic... first, what the heck is a cook doing leading a whole squadron of artillery!? shouldn't there be a trained navigator or something? second, why did she guess where to turn? if you're in enemy territory, "behind enemy lines", then why on earth would you "guess" where to go? i'm sure someone on board had a GPS device, and if they did, then whatever happened to the most equipped and well-trained army in the world? i mean don't get me wrong, i'm all for the US, but this is just pathetic!
Well one I hadn't heard that she was leading anything...much less an artillery convoy. Guessing would be what one has to do if she'd become lost/seperated from the main convoy and didn't 'know' the turn. Then again I'm basing this off personal experience... all I knew for sure was the only black female captured that I heard about was a cook ;)
A note on the GPS,... what we had when I was active (Left service May 99,..so I'm a bit dated) the GPS devices weren't exactly dashboard mounted. Most of which you had to establish a Sat link up and wait on data transfer,....great to get you started,... but not for while driving. Course then there was the PADS system,....Postional Azimuth Determming System,.....mostly used by Artillery,...and the damned thing was a ***** to fix ;)
-
Every time General Franks says that the us troops are the best trained you can see Admiral Boyce and the rest of the brits wince and rolleyes.
Best trained my arse.
-
heh I'll argue that one later it's getting late here :D
But keep in mind..... every military has it's **** ups.
Brittish Tank shoots other Brittish Tank
US F-16 bombs US Patriot Site
etc etc
all goes to prove the old saying .... War is merely managed chaos.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Sadly it's easier than one would think to target your own side.
Okay so I'm clueless here, whatever happened to all that IFF stuff? I thought that had become standard issue by now.
-
well you see, even 'murphy's law' applies on the battlefield..
-
Suppose so. Still says something though, the most advanced military in the world still shoots its own troops down...
-
well the more technological it is, the more likely it is to screw up..
why do you think f-15-16's upwards have multiple redundant backup systems onboard..
-
Gee, I wonder if we'll ever be able to build civvie space ships like FL...
-
well ion drives have already been invented...
-
Well, I suppose we could build a civvie space ship with current technology, but it won't be real civvie stuff for... I dunno, how long? A couple hundred years?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
uh.. I highly doubt the US would let them have a stronger airforce than them, ally or not.
No.
Define "stronger". :D
Honestly, while our airforce is far smaller than the USAF, it's far more experienced:
(digs up mini-article.... again)
[q]
IDF - USAF EXERCISES, MED, 5 May 99
In mock air battles during training exercises held about 2 months ago in the Negev between Israeli and US air force, Israeli pilots "shot down" 220 US aircraft, compared to 20 Israeli aircraft "shot down" by American pilots. The exercise was the first time Israeli pilots trained against foreign pilots on such a wide scale. In the past, the IAF objected to such exercises for fear it would expose IAF tactics. However in recent years, IAF commander General Eitan Ben Eliyahu has increased such exercises to help train Israeli pilots against new tactics.
The US pilots flew F14 & F18 jets against the Israeli F15 & F16 jets. While the Israeli pilots drew much praise from the Americans, the Israeli side played down the one-sided results saying that the mock battles were mostly in close air battles - which is a particular strength of the Israelis.
[/q]
Originally posted by Warlock
...probably a few Hemmets (the funky looking trucks with a resmblance to a crane's driver's cab)...
"Hemmet"? It that what they're called? I think I saw a few of those back in 98-99 - lemme attach a pic. We called them the "Osh-Kosh" trucks. Don't know why - I don't think Osh-Kosh (B'gosh) has invaded Israel... :doubt:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, you and Jerry Fallwell would get along great.:D
And if you get that joke, I'll have to make up my mind whether to be just surprised or depressed that he's that famous.
Jerry Fallwell, Jerry Fallwell.... lesse.... no, that's Jerry Lewis.... hmmm... Nope, don't know him. ;)
-
btw from here on out Saddam will be known officialy by his Krusy the Clown given name "Sodamn Insane" :thepimp:
-
or spell it backwards... madas +s = madass ;)
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
or spell it backwards... madas +s = madass ;)
That's actually not that bad. :D
-
well it wouldn't look right as 'madarse' now would it :D
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Okay so I'm clueless here, whatever happened to all that IFF stuff? I thought that had become standard issue by now.
The (British) Challenger 2 doesn't have IFF, it uses the outdated Clansman radio system. The Bow man radion, which would be equivalent to IFF and would probably have prevented the friendly fire incident, is almost a decade behind schedule. not sure how the Marines managed to destroy one of thier own convoys, though.. so far the friendly fire / accidental fatalities are about twice that of actual military fatalities.
Incidentally, anyone noticed the piss-poor equipment the UK troops are getting? Besides the whole SA80 fiasco & suchlike, they're having to scavenge Iraq boots (as theirs are melting), are wearing tattered 2nd hand camo, and most haven';t even got full desert camo yet - that's why a lot are wearing the jungle / forest green-brown camo they had from their home base.
-
jeez, even the ADF's better equipped (australian defense force)
oh yeah and sandwich, we were 'shooting down' us f/a 18's with old f-111 c's :D
-
why would the US want to bomb civlians? well why did *whoever* blow up the WTC?
"That oughta teach 'em Serbs whos boss around here"
___________________________
As for friendly fire, all I can chalk that up to is incomptenece. However, I do not believe that all "friendly fire" deaths were that. "I'm flying my chopper over some Iraqi AA missles, people start shootting, and then suddenly I suffer an engine failure which results in the crash of the chopper"..It sounds to me like they're trying to account for all the bodies
Its kinda amusing to watch all the reactions, cause all of you have at worst been what, mildly pissed of by the US. You have never come to any harm, you have never had bombs dropped on you etc. Watching all the soldiers and their actions, I'm convinced that they still think this is more of a videogame than a war. In this day and age, somehow CNN still manages to report war as "glorious" and "heroic".
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
jeez, even the ADF's better equipped (australian defense force)
oh yeah and sandwich, we were 'shooting down' us f/a 18's with old f-111 c's :D
F111's? Aren't they those huge 2-seater (side-by-side) strike bombers that look like fighters, wih the ejectable cockpit or something?
-
yup, been around since veitnam, some of the fleet has :D
here's a piccie (from the RAAF website)
(http://www.defence.gov.au/gallery/content/000161695_016.jpg)
general dynamics F-111
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes milosevic
you see , I ( a yugoslav, who lived in yugoslaia for 9 years)consider Milosevic a dictartor and a bastard, however the 1999 bombing of Yugoslvia was a)unjust b)illegal c)pointless
What you need to realize is that an attack on a whole country is NOT the way to get rid of a single person. In all the bombing (in both Yugo and Iraq) the president is the last person who will get injured, the people are the ones who suffer most.
1- Without wanting to sound biased, Kosovo was Serbian land. The Albanian population of Kosovo wanted to seperate and join Albania. This is like Texas wanting to break from the US and join Mexico. The fact is that (without wanting to sound prejucided) the Albanian were doing nothing and wanted everything. I have a first hand report from people who have lived in Kosovo for about 35 years, and for the most part the Albanian population had not been pulling its weight for about 40 years. Now this may sound like "he is decriminating against ALL Albanians" but I'm not going to disregard fact just to be "politically correct". No, I do not think all Albanians were like this, but a significant portion. For 50 years the Albanian population in Kosovo has been getting money and alot of other privileges from the government (better treatment thatn other) and were not giving back anything in return The n they wanted to seperate..this sounds like unthankfullness to me.
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm
9. Simultaneously, within Serbia, calls for bringing Kosovo under stronger Serbian rule intensified and numerous demonstrations
addressing this issue were held. On 17 November 1988, high-ranking Kosovo Albanian political figures were dismissed from their positions
within the provincial leadership and were replaced by appointees loyal to Slobodan MILOSEVIC. In early 1989, the Serbian Assembly
proposed amendments to the Constitution of Serbia which would strip Kosovo of most of its autonomous powers, including control of
the police, educational and economic policy, and choice of official language, as well as its veto powers over further changes to the
Constitution of Serbia. Kosovo Albanians demonstrated in large numbers against the proposed changes. Beginning in February 1989, a
strike by Kosovo Albanian miners further increased tensions.
9. Simultaneously, within Serbia, calls for bringing Kosovo under stronger Serbian rule intensified and numerous demonstrations
addressing this issue were held. On 17 November 1988, high-ranking Kosovo Albanian political figures were dismissed from their positions
within the provincial leadership and were replaced by appointees loyal to Slobodan MILOSEVIC. In early 1989, the Serbian Assembly
proposed amendments to the Constitution of Serbia which would strip Kosovo of most of its autonomous powers, including control of
the police, educational and economic policy, and choice of official language, as well as its veto powers over further changes to the
Constitution of Serbia. Kosovo Albanians demonstrated in large numbers against the proposed changes. Beginning in February 1989, a
strike by Kosovo Albanian miners further increased tensions.
17. After Kosovo’s autonomy was effectively revoked in 1989, the political situation in Kosovo became more and more divisive.
Throughout late 1990 and 1991 thousands of Kosovo Albanian doctors, teachers, professors, workers, police and civil servants were
dismissed from their positions. The local court in Kosovo was abolished and many judges removed. Police violence against Kosovo
Albanians increased.
(above examples from time of the united Yugoslavia, below ones from when he was president of the FRY. All are from the UN inditement of Milosevic for war crimes.)
25. Beginning in late February 1998, the conflict intensified between the KLA on the one hand and the VJ, the police forces of the FRY,
police forces of Serbia, and paramilitary units (all hereinafter forces of the FRY and Serbia), on the other hand. A number of Kosovo
Albanians and Kosovo Serbs were killed and wounded during this time. Forces of the FRY and Serbia engaged in a campaign of shelling
predominantly Kosovo Albanian towns and villages, widespread destruction of property, and expulsions of the civilian population from
areas in which the KLA was active. Many residents fled the territory as a result of the fighting and destruction or were forced to move
to other areas within Kosovo. The United Nations estimates that by mid-October 1998, over 298,000 persons, roughly fifteen percent of
the population, had been internally displaced within Kosovo or had left the province.
28. Although scores of OSCE verifiers were deployed throughout Kosovo, hostilities continued. During this period, a number of killings of
Kosovo Albanians were documented by the international verifiers and human rights organisations. In one such incident, on 15 January
1999, 45 unarmed Kosovo Albanians were murdered in the village of Racak in the municipality of Stimlje/Shtime.
34. During their offensives, forces of the FRY and Serbia acting in concert have engaged in a well-planned and co-ordinated campaign
of destruction of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians. Towns and villages have been shelled, homes, farms, and businesses
burned, and personal property destroyed. As a result of these orchestrated actions, towns, villages, and entire regions have been made
uninhabitable for Kosovo Albanians. Additionally, forces of the FRY and Serbia have harassed, humiliated, and degraded Kosovo Albanian
civilians through physical and verbal abuse. The Kosovo Albanians have also been persistently subjected to insults, racial slurs,
degrading acts based on ethnicity and religion, beatings, and other forms of physical mistreatment.
35. The unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of thousands of Kosovo Albanians from their homes in Kosovo involved well-planned
and co-ordinated efforts by the leaders of the FRY and Serbia, and forces of the FRY and Serbia, all acting in concert. Actions similar in
nature took place during the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1991 and 1995. During those wars, Serbian military,
paramilitary and police forces forcibly expelled and deported non-Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from areas under Serbian
control utilising the same method of operations as have been used in Kosovo in 1999: heavy shelling and armed attacks on villages;
widespread killings; destruction of non-Serbian residential areas and cultural and religious sites; and forced transfer and deportation of
non-Serbian populations.
36. On 24 March 1999, NATO began launching air strikes against targets in the FRY. The FRY issued decrees of an imminent threat of
war on 23 March 1999 and a state of war on 24 March 1999. Since the air strikes commenced, forces of the FRY and Serbia have
intensified their systematic campaign and have forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians.
37. In addition to the forced expulsions of Kosovo Albanians, forces of the FRY and Serbia have also engaged in a number of killings of
Kosovo Albanians since 24 March 1999. Such killings occurred at numerous locations, including but not limited to, Bela Crkva, Mali
Krusa/Krushe e Vogel -- Velika Krusa/Krushe e Mahde, Dakovica/Gjakovë , Crkovez/Padalishte, and Izbica.
39. By 20 May 1999, over 740,000 Kosovo Albanians, approximately one-third of the entire Kosovo Albanian population, were expelled
from Kosovo. Thousands more are believed to be internally displaced. An unknown number of Kosovo Albanians have been killed in the
operations by forces of the FRY and Serbia.
There's a LOT more I can;t show, but here are some examples of the attempted genocide, which is not atall dissimilar to Hitler's 'Final solution';
d. Orahovac/Rahovec: On the morning of 25 March 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia surrounded the village of Celine with tanks
and armoured vehicles. After shelling the village, troops entered the village and systematically looted and pillaged everything of
value from the houses. Most of the Kosovo Albanian villagers had fled to a nearby forest before the army and police arrived. On
28 March, a number of Serb police forced the thousands of people hiding in the forest to come out. After marching the civilians to
a nearby village, the men were separated from the women and were beaten, robbed, and had all of their identity documents
taken from them. The men were then marched to Prizren and eventually forced to go to the Albanian border.
d. Orahovac/Rahovec: On the morning of 25 March 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia surrounded the village of Celine with tanks
and armoured vehicles. After shelling the village, troops entered the village and systematically looted and pillaged everything of
value from the houses. Most of the Kosovo Albanian villagers had fled to a nearby forest before the army and police arrived. On
28 March, a number of Serb police forced the thousands of people hiding in the forest to come out. After marching the civilians to
a nearby village, the men were separated from the women and were beaten, robbed, and had all of their identity documents
taken from them. The men were then marched to Prizren and eventually forced to go to the Albanian border.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/348187.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347350.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/343411.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/335509.stm
2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening.
The removal of 1/3rd of the Kosova Albanian population, the forced repatriation, mass murder, the suspension of individual liberties? (above)
They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause alot more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)
So, by that justification the uK could have invaded Eire, killed several towns and expelled most of the population because there were republican terror groups based there?
Or Spain could exterminate Catalunya or the Basque region because of ETA?
And that's assuming you count the KLA as a terrorist group and not a seperatist guerilla group - 'freedom fighters' as such. Certainly, the suspension of Kosovan rights by Milosevic during the period of a united Yugolavia could lend credence to that...
3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).
You're not aware of the conscript desertion in Kosovo and the civil unrest in their home towns, then? I'll see if I can find some details, but what I do remeber is that a large group of consrcipted soldiers went AWOl and started to returnh home with a large amount of weapons... around the same time, there were also large protests in several towns , etc, over the conscription...
NB: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347997.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347467.stm
4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.
There is no military adavantage in killing civillians nowadays.... there's just no benefit when you're trying to alienate a dictator from his population.
However, NATO planes were ordered to fly high-altitude, less accurate, bombing runs to avoid casualties, which reduced their effectivness. A low level bombing campaign would almost certainly have inflicted much heavier losses on the yugoslav army.
I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.
Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.
I'm sure if the government decides to exterminate a small ethnic group, say the Welsh, i'll understand the Kosova-era Yugolav point of view.
-
Schedule A
Persons Known by Name Killed at Racak - 15 January 1999
Name
Approximate Age
Sex
ASLLANI, Lute
30
Female
AZEMI, Banush
Male
BAJRAMI, Ragip
34
Male
BEQIRI, Halim
13
Male
BEQIRI, Rizah
49
Male
BEQIRI, Zenel
20
Male
BILALLI, Lutfi
Male
EMINI, Ajet
Male
HAJRIZI, Bujar
Male
HAJRIZI, Myfail
33
Male
HALILI, Skender
Male
HYSENAJ, Haqif
Male
IBRAHIMI, Hajriz
Male
IMERI, Hakip
Male
IMERI, Murtez
Male
IMERI, Nazmi
Male
ISMALJI, Meha
Male
ISMALJI, Muhamet
Male
JAKUPI, Ahmet
Male
JAKUPI, Esref
40
Male
JAKUPI, Hajriz
Male
JAKUPI, Mehmet
Male
JAKUPI, Xhelal
Male
JASHARI, Jasher
24
Male
JASHARI, Raif
20
Male
JASHARI, Shukri
18
Male
LIMANI, Fatmir
35
Male
LIMANI, Nexhat
19
Male
LIMANI, Salif
23
Male
MEHMETI, Bajram
Male
MEHMETI, Hanumshah
Female
METUSHI, Arif
Male
METUSHI, Haki
70
Male
MUSTAFA, Ahmet
Male
MUSTAFA, Aslani
34
Male
MUSTAFA, Muhamet
21
Male
OSMANI, Sadik
35
Male
SALIHU, Jashar
25
Male
SALIHU, Shukri
18
Male
SHABANI, Bajrush
22
Male
SMAJLAI, Ahmet
60
Male
SYLA, Sheremet
37
Male
SYLA, Shyqeri
Male
XHELADINI, Bajram
Male
ZYMERI, Njazi
Male
Schedule B
Persons Known by Name Killed at Bela Crkva - 25 March 1999
Name
Approximate Age
Sex
BEGAJ, Abdullah
25
Male
BERISHA, Murat
60
Male
GASHI, Fadil
46
Male
MORINA, Musa
65
Male
POPAJ, Abdullah
18
Male
POPAJ, Agon
14
Male
POPAJ, Alban
21
Male
POPAJ, Bedrush
47
Male
POPAJ, Belul
14
Male
POPAJ, Ethem
46
Male
POPAJ, Hazer
77
Male
POPAJ, Hyshi
37
Male
POPAJ, Irfan
41
Male
POPAJ, Isuf
76
Male
POPAJ, Kreshnik
18
Male
POPAJ, Lindrit
18
Male
POPAJ, Mehmet
46
Male
POPAJ, Mersel
53
Male
POPAJ, Nazmi
45
Male
POPAJ, Nisim
35
Male
POPAJ, Rrustem
Male
POPAJ, Sahid
40
Male
POPAJ, Sedat
47
Male
POPAJ, Shendet
17
Male
POPAJ, Vehap
58
Male
POPAJ, Xhavit
32
Male
SPAHIU, FNU
(daughter of Xhemal)
Female
SPAHIU, FNU
(daughter of Xhemal)
Female
SPAHIU, FNU
(daughter of Xhemal)
Female
SPAHIU, FNU
(daughter of Xhemal)
Female
SPAHIU, FNU
(wife of Xhemal)
Female
SPAHIU, Xhemal
Male
ZHUNIQI, Abein
37
Male
ZHUNIQI, Agim
51
Male
ZHUNIQI, Bajram
51
Male
ZHUNIQI, Biladh
67
Male
ZHUNIQI, Clirim
40
Male
ZHUNIQI, Dardan
6
Male
ZHUNIQI, Dardane
8
Female
ZHUNIQI, Destan
68
Male
ZHUNIQI, Eshref
55
Male
ZHUNIQI, Fatos
42
Male
ZHUNIQI, FNU
4
Male
ZHUNIQI, FNU
(wife of Clirim)
Female
ZHUNIQI, FNU
(son of Fatos)
16
Male
ZHUNIQI, Hysni
70
Male
ZHUNIQI, Ibrahim
68
Male
ZHUNIQI, Kasim
33
Male
ZHUNIQI, Medi
55
Male
ZHUNIQI, Muhammet
70
Male
ZHUNIQI, Muharrem
30
Male
ZHUNIQI, Qamil
77
Male
ZHUNIQI, Qemal
59
Male
ZHUNIQI, Re****
32
Male
ZHUNIQI, Shemsi
52
Male
Schedule C
Persons Known by Name Killed at Velika Krusa/Krushe e Mahde -- Mali Krusa/Krushe e Vogel - 26 March 1999
Name
Approximate Age
Sex
ASLLANI, Adem
68
Male
ASLLANI, Asim
34
Male
ASLLANI, Feim
30
Male
ASLLANI, Muharrem
66
Male
ASLLANI, Nexhat
27
Male
ASLLANI, Nisret
33
Male
ASLLANI, Perparim
26
Male
AVDYLI, Bali
72
Male
AVDYLI, Enver
28
Male
BATUSHA, Ahmet
38
Male
BATUSHA, Amrush
32
Male
BATUSHA, Asllan
46
Male
BATUSHA, Avdi
45
Male
BATUSHA, Bekim
22
Male
BATUSHA, Beqir
68
Male
BATUSHA, Burim
18
Male
BATUSHA, Enver
22
Male
BATUSHA, Feim
23
Male
BATUSHA, FNU
(son of Ismail)
19
Male
BATUSHA, FNU
(son of Zaim)
20
Male
BATUSHA, Haxhi
28
Male
BATUSHA, Lirim
16
Male
BATUSHA, Milaim
32
Male
BATUSHA, Muharrem
69
Male
BATUSHA, Njazi
39
Male
BATUSHA, Osman
65
Male
BATUSHA, Sefer
19
Male
BATUSHA, Sejdi
68
Male
BATUSHA, Skifer
22
Male
BATUSHA, Sulejman
46
Male
BATUSHA, Zaim
50
Male
HAJDARI, Abaz
40
Male
HAJDARI, Abedin
17
Male
HAJDARI, Halil
42
Male
HAJDARI, Halim
70
Male
HAJDARI, Hysni
20
Male
HAJDARI, Marsel
17
Male
HAJDARI, Nazim
33
Male
HAJDARI, Qamil
46
Male
HAJDARI, Rasim
25
Male
HAJDARI, Sahit
36
Male
HAJDARI, Selajdin
38
Male
HAJDARI, Shani
40
Male
HAJDARI, Vesel
19
Male
HAJDARI, Zenun
28
Male
LIMONI, Avdyl
45
Male
LIMONI, Limon
69
Male
LIMONI, Luan
22
Male
LIMONI, Nehbi
60
Male
RAMADANI, Afrim
28
Male
RAMADANI, Asllan
34
Male
RAMADANI, Bajram
15
Male
RAMADANI, FNU
(son of Hysen)
23
Male
RAMADANI, Hysen
62
Male
RAMADANI, Lufti
58
Male
RAMADANI, Murat
60
Male
RAMADANI, Ramadan
59
Male
RAMADANI, Selajdin
27
-
*moment of silence*
You know, from what I gather, a huge chunk of the equipment being used by the U.S. is really old stuff. Australia has no old stuff, we had no part in the Cold War. :D
-
but australia has had a limited nuclear program.. and testing ground tactics in the aftermath of nuclear detonations in a bush enviroment, but since we didn't have one we were forced to detonate 50,000 tons (or so) of dynamite in the bush. saw footage of that too :D
-
Doesn't the U.S. have a patch of land somewhere in the middle of our country for something? It was surveillance, or weapons testing, or something secret. We can't go there, it's U.S. territory. Something like Japan's arrangement with Guam.
-
great; 'area woop woop'
-
:lol:
Say, all you international people: what do you guys think/know/perceive of John Howard (Australian prime minister, if you don't know)? I think he's a poor man who's been deceived by power, personally, but I want to know what the rest of the world thinks of the leader of the only other country apart from US/Britain actually fighting on the ground in Iraq.
-
{removed at request of J.F.K}
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
heres a picture of him i personally think he has a pair a caterpillars glued to his forehead...
Stop that, people will never be able to take him even remotely serious if they've seen his face before!
-
bah, you're no fun :p
-
Sorry :D
It's true, though, those silkworms have taken permanent residence on his face. We can post him later and let everyone laugh then. ;)
-
:lol:
-
hell man i want to laugh now ill just search him out in the good old google image search :D
-
after having searched google images high and low :wtf: i have not seen any where he has worms on his face. what were you guys smoking? :thepimp:
-
the yanks spend 4 times as much on the individual soldier so they are bound to have better kit. Ignoring the rifle **** up theres no other army in the world that could deploy on the scale the UK has (barring the US of course).
-
2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening.
The removal of 1/3rd of the Kosova Albanian population, the forced repatriation, mass murder, the suspension of individual liberties? (above)
First of all, do you doubt that equal amounts of Serbs were killed/displaced? By the end of the Iraqi war, I would venture to guess that well opver 200,000 people will be killed (thats being very conservative). In Vietnam, America killed about 3 million people. Now I agree that what happened in Kosovo was extremley wrong (from both sides), but what I am also saying is that other countries have done much worse, without anyone *****in to them.
They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause alot more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)
So, by that justification the uK could have invaded Eire, killed several towns and expelled most of the population because there were republican terror groups based there?
Or Spain could exterminate Catalunya or the Basque region because of ETA?
And that's assuming you count the KLA as a terrorist group and not a seperatist guerilla group - 'freedom fighters' as such. Certainly, the suspension of Kosovan rights by Milosevic during the period of a united Yugolavia could lend credence to that...
Eire, I'm assuming thats somewhere in Ireland? You make it sounds as if the Albanians never fought back. They did just as much harm as the Serbs, killed just as many people, burned just as many villages. I dont think its right to accuse only one side in a war. Both parties did the killing, Serbs and Albanians, however the Albanian killing never really got reported. They both did bad thinigs, but thats war. I think you'de agree that no sane country will let a significant portion of its territory seperate at the drop of a hat. Thats why the Brits have been putting up a fight for the past 20 years (or however long), they're not just going to let Ireland go. The population of Kosovo was not like 98% Albanian, its was more or less balanced between the 2 nationalities. Again, killing was done on both sides, so yes: the Serbs are guilty, but no less than the ALbanians.
3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).
You're not aware of the conscript desertion in Kosovo and the civil unrest in their home towns, then? I'll see if I can find some details, but what I do remeber is that a large group of consrcipted soldiers went AWOl and started to returnh home with a large amount of weapons... around the same time, there were also large protests in several towns , etc, over the conscription...
NB: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347997.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347467.stm
First of all, do you honestly believe that BBC (though I must admit, they're better than CNN) is going to report the proceedings fairly?
4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.
There is no military adavantage in killing civillians nowadays.... there's just no benefit when you're trying to alienate a dictator from his population.
However, NATO planes were ordered to fly high-altitude, less accurate, bombing runs to avoid casualties, which reduced their effectivness. A low level bombing campaign would almost certainly have inflicted much heavier losses on the yugoslav army.
Its not like they're dropiing tennies balls out of a plane, these are satelitte guided bombs, and the satelitte doesnt care how high you drop them, its still accurate. Even if its was all accidents (I'm not saying it was, but for the sake of conversation), does that make it less horrific. The US was willing to sacrifice ALOT of civilian lives to perhaps lower the chance of a plane getting shot down. Civilains should be protected above all else, since they are guiltless. Every time a soldier goes into the field, he knows the risks. However, civilians getting bombs dropped on them are neither deserving of the fate, nor can do anything to prevent it. BTW as I've said, why did the "terrorist" crash into the WTC. Statistically speaking about 5k people died in the WTC. About that number died in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Just as the WTC victims were innocent, so were the Serbian victims innocents. I dare you to stand here and tell me a) the yugoslavian civilians were somehow more deserving of death or b)a yugoslavian life is worth less than an american life.
I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.
Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.
I'm sure if the government decides to exterminate a small ethnic group, say the Welsh, i'll understand the Kosova-era Yugolav point of view.
No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand. [/coolor]
-
[q]Originally posted by Rictor
Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it. [/q]
Personally, I think he'd care more (as would I) if Glasgow started getting bombed.
[q]
I'm sure if the government decides to exterminate a small ethnic group, say the Welsh, i'll understand the Kosova-era Yugolav point of view.[/q]
:lol: Oh someone please think of the sheep!
[Q]No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand. [/Q]
And just how are we going to stop them anyway?
:blah:
-
God let's not get back into this "The US is going to take over the world!" **** again :rolleyes:
:lol:
-
Here's hoping this pisses someone off. Kinda interesting, actually.
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
"That oughta teach 'em Serbs whos boss around here"
Covece bre nemoj da me zabrinjavas. Pa jer nisi ti Srbin? Kazes da si iz Beograda.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes milosevic
you see , I ( a yugoslav, who lived in yugoslaia for 9 years)consider Milosevic a dictartor and a bastard, however the 1999 bombing of Yugoslvia was a)unjust b)illegal c)pointless
What you need to realize is that an attack on a whole country is NOT the way to get rid of a single person. In all the bombing (in both Yugo and Iraq) the president is the last person who will get injured, the people are the ones who suffer most.
1- Without wanting to sound biased, Kosovo was Serbian land. The Albanian population of Kosovo wanted to seperate and join Albania. This is like Texas wanting to break from the US and join Mexico. The fact is that (without wanting to sound prejucided) the Albanian were doing nothing and wanted everything. I have a first hand report from people who have lived in Kosovo for about 35 years, and for the most part the Albanian population had not been pulling its weight for about 40 years. Now this may sound like "he is decriminating against ALL Albanians" but I'm not going to disregard fact just to be "politically correct". No, I do not think all Albanians were like this, but a significant portion. For 50 years the Albanian population in Kosovo has been getting money and alot of other privileges from the government (better treatment thatn other) and were not giving back anything in return The n they wanted to seperate..this sounds like unthankfullness to me.
2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening. They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause alot more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)
3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).
4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.
I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.
Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.
Rictore, ja sam im sve ovo pricao stotine i stotine puta i ne vredi. Sve sto si rekao je cista istina ali oni samo slusaju svoju propagandu i ono sto im njihove medije govore o nama, tj da smo ubice, da smo zlocinci ( a da su albanci "nevini" i fini), a to da Kosovo zaista pripada nama ( i koliko nam ono znaci sa kulturnog i bilo kog drugog aspekta) i koliko je Srpski narod unisten i koliko smo mi patili kroz sve ove godine, decenije i vekove, od Albanaca, Turaka, fasista, natovaca i drugih, to nijh uopste ne zanima. Zato ih pusti. Vidis da su budale kada nece da saslusaju i nasu stranu price nego samo njihovu. Usput nemoj na ovo da odgovoris na engleskom.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Hemmet"? It that what they're called? I think I saw a few of those back in 98-99 - lemme attach a pic. We called them the "Osh-Kosh" trucks. Don't know why - I don't think Osh-Kosh (B'gosh) has invaded Israel... :doubt:
Oshkosh trucks or some such
http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/
No relation AFAIK to the children's clothing company. Oshkosh is a city.
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, which is why I am presenting them right now and not in the future. :rolleyes:
Ok...In your view, what is the point of having power?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
First of all, do you doubt that equal amounts of Serbs were killed/displaced? By the end of the Iraqi war, I would venture to guess that well opver 200,000 people will be killed (thats being very conservative). In Vietnam, America killed about 3 million people. Now I agree that what happened in Kosovo was extremley wrong (from both sides), but what I am also saying is that other countries have done much worse, without anyone *****in to them.
WEll, forget the other cases, forget the provocations for either site.
With the event that the Yugoslav army had been ordered to 'remove' the Kosovan Albanian populaiton, can you suggest another way (other than the NATO military intervention), that would have stopped the massacre?
Bear in mind that the consequences of not acting are very clear - a massive crime against humanity at the least, genocide at the worst.
Eire, I'm assuming thats somewhere in Ireland? You make it sounds as if the Albanians never fought back. They did just as much harm as the Serbs, killed just as many people, burned just as many villages. I dont think its right to accuse only one side in a war. Both parties did the killing, Serbs and Albanians, however the Albanian killing never really got reported. They both did bad thinigs, but thats war. I think you'de agree that no sane country will let a significant portion of its territory seperate at the drop of a hat. Thats why the Brits have been putting up a fight for the past 20 years (or however long), they're not just going to let Ireland go. The population of Kosovo was not like 98% Albanian, its was more or less balanced between the 2 nationalities. Again, killing was done on both sides, so yes: the Serbs are guilty, but no less than the ALbanians.
Eire is Ireland, or specifically the Republic. Northern Ireland is currently in an intermittent state of devolution (partial autonomy), something which Scotland already has, depending on how well the peace process goes.
I've not been able to find much info on the KLA - Yugoslav struggles. All I have seen indicates attacks or Yugoslav police & secret police, rather than attacks aimed at civillians. I think that the majority of Yugoslavs fleeing the Kosovo area would have been as a result of the Yugoslav army's attacks there and the resulting tension & conflict both during and after the airstrikes - I've certainly not seen anything about burning villages - can you provide a link on this?
First of all, do you honestly believe that BBC (though I must admit, they're better than CNN) is going to report the proceedings fairly?
Actually, relatively impartial reporting has been a legal requirement of the British televisual media, unlike it would have been under milosevic. Whilst the BBC is pro-British, I don't see how or why it would represent the views of the government, and i've never seen any evidence of a biased view.
Besides which, I only chose the BBC because it was handy. I've no doubt there are many, many more places you could find that infromation - but I doubt you'd believe any English language (i.e. western) mainstream news site was unbiased, and I don;t speak any foreign languages to find one from what you may consider a 'neutral' country.
Its not like they're dropiing tennies balls out of a plane, these are satelitte guided bombs, and the satelitte doesnt care how high you drop them, its still accurate. Even if its was all accidents (I'm not saying it was, but for the sake of conversation), does that make it less horrific. The US was willing to sacrifice ALOT of civilian lives to perhaps lower the chance of a plane getting shot down. Civilains should be protected above all else, since they are guiltless. Every time a soldier goes into the field, he knows the risks. However, civilians getting bombs dropped on them are neither deserving of the fate, nor can do anything to prevent it. BTW as I've said, why did the "terrorist" crash into the WTC. Statistically speaking about 5k people died in the WTC. About that number died in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Just as the WTC victims were innocent, so were the Serbian victims innocents. I dare you to stand here and tell me a) the yugoslavian civilians were somehow more deserving of death or b)a yugoslavian life is worth less than an american life.
I'm not sure that the majority of weapons would have been satellite guided. I mean, it wasn't solely a US operation - Dutch, UK, Turkish, Spanishm, Italian, etc aircraft were involved.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990601_01_n.shtml
Al-Queda & Bin Ladin considered US citizens as targets because they paid taxes to the US government. I didn't say that Yugoslavs had any less right to live, or that their deaths were deserved. But the NATO intervention (it was never really a war) did have the justification of trying to defend the Kosovans from (etc)
There is no 'nice' way to wage war. But, militarily, airstrikes were the fastest and most effective (and, politically, the least dangerous to NATO forces) ways of launching the attack. All I'm saying is that the motiviations behind the airstrikes were justified.
No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand.
I seriously doubt the US could ever get carte blanche... even the Iraq war has a measure of support (although, IMO, not enough to claim it's anything other than unilateral). I think they will have a prominent role in the world due to their superpower status, but I sincerely doubt they could take it over.
-
Why should I disregard the actions of the rest of the world. Honestly, who do you think has killed more people in the past 20-30 years, the US or the Yugoslavs? I cannot condone what the Serbian army did, but am saying that EVERYONE else is/was doing it, including the KLA, including the US, including the UK, including Iraq. So I do not see why the Yugoslav people are being singled out in this equation. It is hypocritical to condemn one action when your own government, and governments you support (from what I have gathered, you are rather in support of the US?) have done the same or worse. in Vietnam, the US killed 3 million people (I'de venture a guess that atleast 1/5 of those were women and children). But today, do you think of the US as champions of freedom or as mass murderers? ...Exactly..
I am not resonsible for the publicity (or lack thereof) of the KLA. However, I dont think that even you honestly believe that they sat on their hands while "Serbs creuly extermintaed the Albanian people". Its pretty much irrelevant who killed the first person, since that was like 10 years ago. Since then, bodies have been dropping on both sides. Of this I assure you. The KLA is/was by no means a nice bunch of people. According to you, if you cannot find the story on some website, it never happened. I highly doubt that you have ever been to Yugoslavia or that you have ever taken a peek at their TV/Radio broadcasts. I have, which makes my opinion in this matter a fair bit more informed than yours, since my knowledge comes closer to comepletness (or whatever the word may be) than yours. Whatever you may think, even in Milosevic's time the media was not "state brainwashed." Over the past 10 years, some very excellent independent stations have pop-ed up, including FreeB92 which recieved some big prize (I kind of remember it being related to the Oscars) in the US for independent journalism. George Bush would have you believe that every country outside the US and Western Europe braniwshes its citizens. What you are saying is that since you can find no link to the mass murder of Serbs by the KLA, it never happened. Please rethink this, and realize that the KLA is/was killers, without much care for human life, whether you call them terrorsts or freedom fighters, I personally dont care.
Ofcourse it is a legal requirement to be unbiased. I'm pretty sure that if you checked Iraqi law, it would say the same thing. The problem lies in this: when Iraqi TV glorifies Saddam and all the other crap, you can almost instantly hear the lies and bull****. However, CNN (and to a lesser degree) BBC,are never so open or blatant in their lies, so your bull**** meter stays rather low. Even though BBC (and most western media stations) are not state-owned, its pretty much as if they were. Since there are usually 1 or 2 TV stations that dominate the news service (BBC and SkyNews I think in the UK), these stations cast things in a "good" light (again, varying degrees) for whatever their country does. I think that in a country such as Yugoslavia, a) No one that is even semi inteligent blindly believes the state-news b)10 years of crappiness has spawned a new generation of independent stations , which in the end are more objective than the huge Western media companies. CNN isnt worried about the truth, their worried about stock prices and what general/politician they can get on their station to be interviewed. Being completely truthful is bad for both.
I really recommend you take a look at http://www.b92.net/english/ . In my opinion, these guys are among the best (most objective, since they explicitly refuse to be a mouthpiece for the government) new services in the world, and at the very least provide an alternate to CNN. They were born out of 10 years of turmoil in Yugoslavia, which makes them strive for fairness and the truth, moreso than for exmaple CNN or even the BBC.
__________
As for the US getting carte blanche, well wait and see. There are those countries who want to be on the winning side (UK, Australia etc), there are those who fear the US (smaller countries such as Macedonia, Estonia, Bulgaria etc), and those who want to oppose the US, but do not have the military. All this adds up to the US getting pretty much want they want. Do you think the UN will oppose them (and I mean militarily)? the US has realized that everyone talks big, but no one (of the major players in world politics) is willing to go so far as to oppose them outright..they called the UN's bluff.
Edit: about those big fancy looking lists you have. Its rather pointless, since all that proves is that you are more willing to go in search of lists than I am. I could just as easily go looking for a list of Serbians killed by the KLA and/or the bombing raids, if that will help change your opinion.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The problem lies in this: when Iraqi TV glorifies Saddam and all the other crap, you can almost instantly hear the lies and bull****. However, CNN (and to a lesser degree) BBC,are never so open or blatant in their lies, so your bull**** meter stays rather low.
Actually, it's not even that. Both sides are fairly careless with the truth, and if you look at old news broadcasts with the hindsight five or so years offers, you'll usually go "How did I ever buy into that crap?"- at least, when the truth eventually outs, which isn't always the case. The difference is, the lies are crafted carefully to appeal to the preconceptions and political positions of the consumer, and those are by no means universal- what might be perfectly believable to an Iraqi is obvious horse**** to someone in the US, and vice versa. And, of course, the preconceptions that you base your level of belief on are formed by... the news! Great, isn't it?
Never mind that there's no doubt a degree of that one group of people naturally is more likely to dismiss another's news as lies than its own when they don't mesh anyway. But that's a less significant factor.
-
:rolleyes:
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441.
As well as many other resolutions passed before, during, and after the Gulf War, which are still in effect.
A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
This is debatable. Why should the U.N. have total sovereignty over another nation? U.N. resolutions are not binding by themselves; they're expressions of the consensus of will of the Security Council.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
Many of those resolutions passed against Israel were unjustified (relating to defense and capture of critical territory), and again, the U.N. doesn't have sovereignty over anyone.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
Iraq does have WMD. We know because we've seen it use them.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
Not just the weapons themselves - Iraq finances terrorist organizations, who could themselves buy WMD.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.
They do, because the inspectors found them (!) and they used them once Gulf War II started.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials?
Yes. Such as Russia. This is why we have nonproliferation treaties.
We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
Iraq was fighting against Iran at the time, and we believed Iran to be the nastier foe. And I'm not positive we sold them WMD.
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
A valid reason why we should remove him even if he had no WMD.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
And during WWII we allied with another cruel dictator who killed his own people - Stalin. Because Germany was the bigger threat.
Anyway, shouldn't we want to correct previous mistakes?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
That was not a pre-emptive first strike. :rolleyes: It was an invasion to seize Kuwait's oil assets. Unprovoked.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
No information about this.
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
Not just al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
We may have actually done that, but we can't confirm it so we swept it under the rug.
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
bin Laden wanted to instigate a war anyway - he knew that the U.S. would wipe out the "Iraqi infidels" if a war came to pass. Then the Muslim world would be angry at the U.S. Two birds with one stone.
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
:wtf:
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
Plaigiarism, which was unfortunate. But that doesn't make it false.
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
No information on this.
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
Who may have been bribed. People are wondering about that. And Blix has had several "slips of the tongue" that could be interpreted as showing that he's not letting on everything he knows.
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
More complicated than that, but essentially yes.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.
Exactly. The inspectors are there to supervise the disarmament, not to go treasure hunting. The onus is on Iraq to disarm. Other countries who have disarmed haven't gone through the gymnastics that Iraq is doing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences."
And other resolutions, as well. Or you could argue that we're finishing Gulf War I. The end of that war was predicated upon Iraq's cooperation.
If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
The main point is to follow through with what we started earlier (Gulf War I and the initial establishment of disarmament) and to show terrorists and terrorist states that they don't have carte blanche to get away with stuff.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
Which, by the way, would be abandoning its earlier position. And we shouldn't even NEED a second resolution. Nor a Resolution 1441, for that matter.
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
And about forty others.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
A bit of blackmail, that. So we withdrew the offer. :nod:
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
Public opinion was against WWII during the 20s and 30s.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
Not necessarily. Leaders have responsibility to lead. This may mean going against the will of the people if it's important enough. Both Blair and Bush are risking their political future over this.
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
:rolleyes: Not this again. No he wasn't. He was elected - publicly and openly - by the Electoral College. And as far as the Supreme Court goes, they ruled 7-2 that the system of recounts was unconstitutional. The 5-4 was only about what the court thought Florida should do next.
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
Not blindly support the decisions. But think them through and come to a rational conclusion.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
You can protest - in fact, many have been doing so. However, protesting during a war is counterproductive. I'd call it treason... giving comfort to our enemies by showing them that the U.S. isn't totally behind this. As long as we're fighting the war, support the troops. Then when the war's done, show your dissatisfaction by voting.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
Again, the burden is on Iraq, not the inspectors.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
Because THEY'RE NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS. If they didn't have them, they'd be only too glad to prove it. Instead, they're doing nothing and letting the inspectors run around the country.
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
Not all of them, not always, and nothing's preventing them from manufacturing more.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
Because Iraq is failing to live up to its 12-year-old agreement.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
Because we've been trying diplomacy for 12 years and it hasn't worked. Iraq can't be reasoned with. It remains to be seen whether North Korea can be reasoned with.
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
Which might be recouped with more oil being opened up for trade, but this is not certain. Anyway, from a strategic point of view invading Iraq is sending the world a message: don't mess with us. Which serves yet another useful purpose.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
Possibly, but the more terrorism is rooted out, the harder it will be for them to do anything about it. But I doubt much will happen - there isn't much love for Saddam Hussein in the Muslim world. They're blustering, but they aren't doing anything.
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
Hopefully, not much, and hopefully, not for long. These solutions aren't ideal.
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
We're invading because we're living up to the responsibility Gulf War I thrust upon us. We're not shirking from what is right.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
No. But we've listened anyway. And we've been "peaceful" for
12 years.
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
We have an obligation to do none of these - the U.N. doesn't override a nation's sovereignty. On the other hand, the Security Council unanimously approved 1441. They're going back on their word.
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
Because it's a straw man. See the previous point.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.
Or be a human shield. And come back and tell us what you see.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F03%2F23%2Fdo2305.xml
Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
:lol:
PN: I give up!
I wish you would.
-
That'sa pretty incompetent peacenik who can't refute arguments like that.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, it's not even that. Both sides are fairly careless with the truth, and if you look at old news broadcasts with the hindsight five or so years offers, you'll usually go "How did I ever buy into that crap?"- at least, when the truth eventually outs, which isn't always the case. The difference is, the lies are crafted carefully to appeal to the preconceptions and political positions of the consumer, and those are by no means universal- what might be perfectly believable to an Iraqi is obvious horse**** to someone in the US, and vice versa. And, of course, the preconceptions that you base your level of belief on are formed by... the news! Great, isn't it?
Yep. It makes you a complete sceptic, when you realise the credibility (lack of) of the great majority of news sources we listen to everyday. Very disappointing.
-
Goober: Egad, you have FAR too much spare time. I hardly bothered read that whole thing, much less attempt to rebut it. Never mind that about 2/3 of what you said was complete horse****, plain and simple. I got about as far as "We know Iraq has WMDs because we've seen them!!!" before I cracked up and couldn't go any further. So tell me, maestro, short of slightly before and after the Gulf War, ten ****ing years ago, when have we seen these magical weapons? 'Cos if you know of any, then you're better informed than 100% of the rest of the world.
And naturally it's a strawman argument. I've heard far better ones, though they generally had major logical inconsistencies. This was partially a half-assed attempt to unify all the various strands of bull**** that have been flying around here into a less confusingly lame form, and partially to see what rabid knee-jerk right-winger would be dumb enough to take this seriously and go for the bait. You'd been warned from the beginning, so it's really your own fault, but hey.
JFK: Yeah, but in the end most peoples' opinions really don't change anything at all (you think this thread matters?), so it's okay to assume that the news is "right". I mean, hell, it's not like anything is hinged on the result of these little debates here, and most people who participate in them are so grossly ill-informed about one aspect of hte situation or another that it'd be very much the same if the whole war and everything to do with politics was entirely fictitious. Most of this crap will never influence our lives directly in any meaningful way, if you think about it, so it doesn't really matter whether we've gotten the story straight or not- it's all entertainment, choose your bull****.
Besides, if you distrusted the news services to the extent that they deserve, then you'd have damn little to say, now wouldn't you?:D
-
Didn't saddam use some chemical agent against 5000 people, either his own or kuwaites (I can't spell...)?
-
He used chemical shells against the Kurds during their uprising. "His own people" is the first Bush taking a bit many liberties with the language, since he never regarded them as his, they were largely a separate, unregulated entity (a far cry from if he'd gassed, say, the residents of Baghdad), and were in the midst of trying to kill him and everyone loyal to him at the time.
Moreover, he used them more than a decade ago, and to apparently not much effect. Chemoweapons sound kinda scary in theory, but they're pretty useless most of the ime, and aside from some lingering side effects that aren't hyped much (which leads me to suspect they're a rarity), it wasn't much worse than shelling them with regular old HE- respiratory ailments rather than missing limbs being the result, basically. Bioweapons are pretty nasty (result in quite unpleasant deaths, and often spread like all hell, making them largely an anti-civilian weapon), but the vast majority of chemical weapons are only really considered so bad because the US hasn't found them useful- they propogate over a slightly larger area than conventional explosives, but in the end are far less deadly or likely to maim you, particularly if you've got a gas mask. They're a combat variant of the tear gas cops fire into just about every demonstration- suppression fire more than a killing weapon, since if you're being gassed and have half a functioning brain, you'll find a secure spot, put on your gas mask, and stay there until the cloud's dissipated or passed over.
It's worth noting that this was during the Kurdish uprising that we had promised to sponsor and never did, turning what could have been eventually a sucessful local overthrow of Saddam into a battle of armed civilians vs. trained army (aka "a massacre") and effectively screwing over anyone's chances of a peace in the region that did not involve replacing Saddam's repressive regime with a repressive regime more beholden to the US.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Goober: Egad, you have FAR too much spare time.
Eh, I was bored. :p But it's upsetting to hear "peace, peace" when there is no peace; we have a responsibility, and we need to uphold it.
So tell me, maestro, short of slightly before and after the Gulf War, when have we seen these magical weapons?
Read again - I said we've seen him use them. That was in reference to gassing the dissidents and such back in the day. As for the present, we have no evidence that Iraq's destroyed them, and the burden's on them to prove it. Anyway, we found those empty chemical warheads during the inspections, and we apparently found evidence of recent chemical weapon usage in the soil around the Kurdish territory.
You'd been warned from the beginning, so it's really your own fault, but hey.
Well, I didn't take it seriously because I figured people would see the straw man argument for what it was. On the other hand, I didn't want to see it go unresponded to, and I wasn't otherwise occupied. So that depends on your definition of "took the bait". :p
-
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As well as many other resolutions passed before, during, and after the Gulf War, which are still in effect.
However, these violations are injust and made under the threat of force, which removes their validity
A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is debatable. Why should the U.N. have total sovereignty over another nation? U.N. resolutions are not binding by themselves; they're expressions of the consensus of will of the Security Council.
The UN has control so that no one country can go maverick and harm other without some risk of reprisal.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of those resolutions passed against Israel were unjustified (relating to defense and capture of critical territory), and again, the U.N. doesn't have sovereignty over anyone.
Really? And the "we take 25% of your oil profits for 10 years, while your people starve" resolution is just? Also the "no weapons for you, since we're the boss around here, its not like you're a soverign nation" resolution..
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq does have WMD. We know because we've seen it use them.
Even if Iraq did have WMD, they have NEVER shown agression towards the US or Europe or most of the world for that matter. Whatever you may think of Saddam, he has NEVER used Iraqi resources to take US lives, so why would he start now after 20 years?
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not just the weapons themselves - Iraq finances terrorist organizations, who could themselves buy WMD.
Well, the inspectors also checked for biological and chemical weapons and found nothing. Also, please show me the undeniable proof (or ANY proof) that Iraq is or will ever sponsor terrorists. I'm not one to just believe the Pentagon on their word, I need proof.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They do, because the inspectors found them (!) and they used them once Gulf War II started.
Missles do not constitute WMD. This is the only evidence you have so far, a few missles. This is the ONLY violation so far, and hardly a reason to attack.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Such as Russia. This is why we have nonproliferation treaties.
Again, the proof. Where is the proof that Iraq is associating with terrorists? Conjecture is not enough.
We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq was fighting against Iran at the time, and we believed Iran to be the nastier foe. And I'm not positive we sold them WMD.
You sold weapons. Weapons kill people. The fact that an AK is "less effective" at doing so than a nuke is no excuse.
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A valid reason why we should remove him even if he had no WMD.
Yes, but not tear up the whole country, kill civilians, destroy basic living resources and screw up their economy. If you want him dead, get a sniper.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And during WWII we allied with another cruel dictator who killed his own people - Stalin. Because Germany was the bigger threat.
Anyway, shouldn't we want to correct previous mistakes?
Saddam killed his own people. the US kill people in other countries. Does this make them "less evil". Saddam is small fries compared to how many people the US killed, why arent they being bombed?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was not a pre-emptive first strike. It was an invasion to seize Kuwait's oil assets. Unprovoked.
And so it this war.[color]
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No information about this.
Convenient. You only have info about things that make the US look good, but no info on the things that make the US look bad.
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not just al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization.
And since it is the US who decided which organization gets labeled "terrorist" then they can take out whoever they want under the guise of "protecting oursleves"
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We may have actually done that, but we can't confirm it so we swept it under the rug.
No, had you done that, you would have gone to great lengths to verify it. Then you would publicize it and broadcast it all day. You went into Afganistan to get this guy, you would not just say "who cares" had you actually got it.
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bin Laden wanted to instigate a war anyway - he knew that the U.S. would wipe out the "Iraqi infidels" if a war came to pass. Then the Muslim world would be angry at the U.S. Two birds with one stone.
No, if bin Laden wanted the US to go to war with Iraq, he would support them. Also, wtf is "there could easily be a link"? There could easily be a link between the US and Al Queda, depends who decided what "easily" means (the US) and who investigates the matter (the US).
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, didnt it. I dont know one way or the other, but can you prove that it wasnt a harmless shack? Furthermor can you prove that the sattelite pics werent altered or entirely fabricated?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaigiarism, which was unfortunate. But that doesn't make it false.
Yes it does. I can write a Grade 12 politics paper on "The UK's connections to Al Queda." However, having NO data on such a thing (and how would a graduate have access to military intel) this is entirely MADE UP.
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No information on this.
Very likely. Again, convenient that you have no info on this, but info on every thing else..
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who may have been bribed. People are wondering about that. And Blix has had several "slips of the tongue" that could be interpreted as showing that he's not letting on everything he knows.
Bribery, you can use this do discredit ANYONE. Again, proof.
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More complicated than that, but essentially yes.
Cool. So I can say that I have evidence that shows Bush smoking pot, but I cant relase it, so just take my word on it.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. The inspectors are there to supervise the disarmament, not to go treasure hunting. The onus is on Iraq to disarm. Other countries who have disarmed haven't gone through the gymnastics that Iraq is doing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030123-1.html
What do inspectors usually do? They inspect. They inspect Iraqi facilities for traces of WMD. IT is their job to find any WMD that you think Iraq is hiding.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And other resolutions, as well. Or you could argue that we're finishing Gulf War I. The end of that war was predicated upon Iraq's cooperation.
You know full well that whatever they did, the US would never say that they cooprated. You are so quick to enforce 1441, but you are violating international law by going to war with Iraq, so you cant enfore laws that are convenient to you, and disregard others
If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main point is to follow through with what we started earlier (Gulf War I and the initial establishment of disarmament) and to show terrorists and terrorist states that they don't have carte blanche to get away with stuff.
If the UN security council bocome irrelevant, it is BECAUSE of your action, not despite them. Proof of Iraq sponsoring terrorists? You said it best, "we support them, until they rule against us".
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, by the way, would be abandoning its earlier position. And we shouldn't even NEED a second resolution. Nor a Resolution 1441, for that matter.
You took advantage of state of panic and distress in 2001, by putting the resolution on the table. Now that people have calmed down and taken a look at things rationaly, they no longer support it. If 3 members of the security council were ready to veto, you cannot possibly claim to have UN support.
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And about forty others.
Yes, such as Pallao and Iceland, both of whom have no armies. You have the support of many small countries by promising $ or threating "conseqeuences". Or others still signed on once the war already started, realizing that if they could not stop it, they might as well profit from it. BEFORE the war, you had 4 allies. Thats how many countries support you, 4, not 40.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit of blackmail, that. So we withdrew the offer.
And yet, you're offering the members of the "coalition" very large amounts of money. Thats not blackmail, thats bribe.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public opinion was against WWII during the 20s and 30s.
How could public opinion we against WW2 in to the 20s? And how could it be against it in the early 30s?
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily. Leaders have responsibility to lead. This may mean going against the will of the people if it's important enough. Both Blair and Bush are risking their political future over this.
The politicians are the spokesmen for the people. If the people skip the spokesman and directly express their opinion, thats more important.
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not this again. No he wasn't. He was elected - publicly and openly - by the Electoral College. And as far as the Supreme Court goes, they ruled 7-2 that the system of recounts was unconstitutional. The 5-4 was only about what the court thought Florida should do next.
Was he? Is that why it took you 6 months to decide who was going to be the next president. AT MOST Bush represent 1/2 of the American population.
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not blindly support the decisions. But think them through and come to a rational conclusion.
Again, if the will of the people is made known directly, politicians are out of the equation.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can protest - in fact, many have been doing so. However, protesting during a war is counterproductive. I'd call it treason... giving comfort to our enemies by showing them that the U.S. isn't totally behind this. As long as we're fighting the war, support the troops. Then when the war's done, show your dissatisfaction by voting.
No, protesting shows the Iraqi people who are being bombed "We're not all idiots, sorry that some of us are trying to kill you"
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the burden is on Iraq, not the inspectors.
There is a chance? There is a chance that I'm actaully a cocunut, but conjecture is not enough, you need proof
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because THEY'RE NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS. If they didn't have them, they'd be only too glad to prove it. Instead, they're doing nothing and letting the inspectors run around the country.
If Iraq came into the US and started poking around, would you cooperate? Even if you had signed a treaty, would you cooperate? And again, the inspectors have stated that they have been cooperating for the last month or so of the inspection, so they were cooperating.
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all of them, not always, and nothing's preventing them from manufacturing more.
Process of elimination is not a valid strategy in this case, you need to actually see the weapons. Also they could be manufacturing, they could not be..proof.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Iraq is failing to live up to its 12-year-old agreement.
The age doesnt matter. What if the agreement had been signed 120 years ago? There is always a small chance that someting is happening, there is a small chance that the UK is about to invade France, that doesnt give you the right to act on it, chnace is not enough..
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we've been trying diplomacy for 12 years and it hasn't worked. Iraq can't be reasoned with. It remains to be seen whether North Korea can be reasoned with.
They are allowed to have nukes etc, they're not the 52nd state, its an indpenedet country and you cant tell them what to do.
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which might be recouped with more oil being opened up for trade, but this is not certain. Anyway, from a strategic point of view invading Iraq is sending the world a message: don't mess with us. Which serves yet another useful purpose.
Iraq has been paying for its own inspections, with its own money, not you. You certainly are sending a message, "Those who oppose up get crushed" and "We're out to control the entire world"
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly, but the more terrorism is rooted out, the harder it will be for them to do anything about it. But I doubt much will happen - there isn't much love for Saddam Hussein in the Muslim world. They're blustering, but they aren't doing anything.
If attacking Iraq doesnt provoke terrorists to attack the US, I dont know what will.
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully, not much, and hopefully, not for long. These solutions aren't ideal.
The terrorists dont want to change the way you live, they want to kill you. They couldnt care less how you live.
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're invading because we're living up to the responsibility Gulf War I thrust upon us. We're not shirking from what is right.
Thrust upon us? You chose to go in. And the world is calling to an end to this war. The population of almost every country in the world is strongly opposed to this war, and even in the US and UK about 30-40% are against it. That amount to about 95% of the world's population being against it.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But we've listened anyway. And we've been "peaceful" for
12 years.
Oh, so you only use "the world" as a scapegoat, but never give credence to them when they're against you.
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have an obligation to do none of these - the U.N. doesn't override a nation's sovereignty. On the other hand, the Security Council unanimously approved 1441. They're going back on their word.
3 out of 5 nations on the security council are against. In the late 30s, alot of nations (US included) thought that Hitler was a great guy, and thought the Jews deserved it all. So now, can I call the US Nazis? Opinions change, you took advantage of hysteria and panic with 1441.
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's a straw man. See the previous point.
What? Thats hypocracy, and very blatant at that. You either follow laws or you dont, you cant pick and choose. Who decides what is an "unreasonable veto"? What you just said descredits you more than I can hope to do.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or be a human shield. And come back and tell us what you see.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/o...23%2Fdo2305.xml
I dont love Iraq, I hate war. And I see no reason to kill its civilians with bombs.
Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your own stupidity shows the crappiness of your arguement
Think of some better arguements, some that stand up to examination. Oh wait, but then you'de have a blank page, since you have no reasons for going to war :):)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Most of this crap will never influence our lives directly in any meaningful way, if you think about it, so it doesn't really matter whether we've gotten the story straight or not- it's all entertainment, choose your bull****.
Besides, if you distrusted the news services to the extent that they deserve, then you'd have damn little to say, now wouldn't you?:D
Yeah, that's true... I dunno, there's just something that makes me uncomfortable about enormous untruths forming the 'truth' off which I base my actions and thoughts. Then again, you're quite correct in pointing out how remote this war is from all of us sitting in front of our computers getting bloodshot eyes, but hey, who knows what could happen.
Ack, ya got me there. :p :D
-
Well, as I said before... Don't give a **** anymore. As long as they keep their ulgy arses out of The Netherlands and don't bother me then I DON'T CARE ANYMORE
Its not like we will ever make a difference. They have the power and they will do with it whatever they want. :ick
-
Originally posted by Tiara
their ulgy arses
:rolleyes:
Anyways we got the point that you didn't care anymore last week.
But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe. Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe. Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.
Yeah, people only know where Australia is by virtue of the fact that it's roughly the same size as the US itself. :D
-
Originally posted by Warlock
But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe. Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.
Too bad for you as we have the biggest harbor in the world ;7. And there are already plans to expand it :wink:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Too bad for you as we have the biggest harbor in the world ;7. And there are already plans to expand it :wink:
Point being ? :p Sorry but I fail to see where a big harbor in the Netherlands would do anything for the US ;)
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Point being ? :p Sorry but I fail to see where a big harbor in the Netherlands would do anything for the US ;)
Well, if one would want to take over the world you might want a harbor that can hold your navy and supply troops throughout Europe.
You could go through Germany, borders of France, eastern europe even.
Buuuuuut... I wouldn't really care if they decide not to bombard us to crap. :p
-
No worries,... I think you're pretty safe.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, if one would want to take over the world you might want a harbor that can hold your navy and supply troops throughout Europe.
Just how important is sea power these days? General question for ya ;)
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Just how important is sea power these days? General question for ya ;)
actually how important is a harbor would be the question. Look at the US navy,... rarely in harbor unless it's for repairs or allowing the troops leave. It's much more effective to keep a navy in a strategic location and airlift supplies to them. That way they're always right where you need them to send in some fighters of cruise missiles :D
-
Well, the US pretty much underestimated Iraq, so don't look too surprised if our little underwater country takes over the US :p
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyywaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyzzzzzzz...
And sea power can be quite important actually...
*proceeds to steal stealth sub and launches underwater nukes at US coast*
-
:rolleyes:
And how did we under estimate Iraq? Noone said this would be a one week war :lol:
Oh wait.... that's right,... if we lose a soldier ,... we didn't calculate something right,...that it? :doubt:
Sorry this is something the twits reporting keep getting into ,...
"Have the US under estimated the war since we had soldier's get captured or die? ? ? "
I don't think there's been so much as a police action that went through without loose of life.
-
...:blah:...
Then why does the US want to take a 5 day break (wich wasn't planned)? Why can't they uphold a decent supply line? Then why did many people expected this to be a short war?
Ow, and why is it that 30% of all allied casualties are the result of friendly fire? :lol:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
...:blah:...
Then why does the US want to take a 5 day break (wich wasn't planned)? Why can't they uphold a decent supply line? Then why did many people expected this to be a short war?
Ow, and why is it that 30% of all allied casualties are the result of friendly fire? :lol:
5 day break ? First i've heard of that.
reports I saw this morning said supply lines were going fine.
Ppl always expect something that they won't get. You really think the average smuck has any clue about this war to effectivly judge how long it would take ? Besides it still depends what polls you read,.. MS NBC the other day had "About as long as expected" the most popular so far for current and "Take as long as it takes" for everything else.... scroll back ... it's all posted in here.
It's not 30% LMAO Let's not make up numbers k ? I think I've heard of about maybe 8 friendly fire situations so far,... half of which are between US and Brittish forces. Sadly it's a fact of war. Happened last tiem in the Gulf,...happened in Nam....N. Korea,...WW2,....WW1,...hell the Civil War....every war.
But then again the average armchair jockey has no clue about how this could happen and just how easily it can happen.
-
U.S. and British troop casualties from the war. U.S. totals: 28 dead, seven captured, 16 missing. British total: 22 dead.
Thats all together (without the missing as they are not yet confirmed): 50
______________________________________________
US:
March 26:
Marine Maj. Kevin G. Nave, 36, White Lake Township, Mich., vehicle accident
March 22:
Navy Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, La Mesa, Calif., helicopter collision
Marine Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski, 26, Buffalo, N.Y., machine gun accident
Army Reserve Spc. Brandon S. Tobler, 19, Portland, Ore., vehicle accident
Marine Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson, 22, Smithville, Mo., vehicle accident
British
March 23:
Flight Lt. Kevin Barry Main, jet shot down by friendly fire
Flight Lt. David Rhys Williams, jet shot down by friendly fire
March 25:
Cpl. Stephen John Allbutt, Stoke-on-Trent, England, tank hit by friendly fire.
Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, Littleworth, England, tank hit by friendly fire.
March 22:
Lt. Philip Green, helicopter collision
Lt. Marc Lawrence, helicopter collision
Lt. Antony King, Helston, England, helicopter collision
Lt. Philip West, Budock Water, England, helicopter collision
Lt. James Williams, Falmouth, England, helicopter collision
Lt. Andrew Wilson, helicopter collision
Keep in mind that dozens of military officers were wounded due to friendly fire and are not on the list
__________________________________________
And I didn't even start about the crashes + drownings.
Thats a total of 15 out of 50 deaths. Thats 30%
*****The unidentified officers are also NOT in this list, so percentage may be a tad bit lower, but not by much*****
-
Originally posted by Tiara
U.S. and British troop casualties from the war. U.S. totals: 28 dead, seven captured, 16 missing. British total: 22 dead.
Thats all together (without the missing as they are not yet confirmed): 50
______________________________________________
US:
March 26:
Marine Maj. Kevin G. Nave, 36, White Lake Township, Mich., vehicle accident
March 22:
Navy Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, La Mesa, Calif., helicopter collision
Marine Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski, 26, Buffalo, N.Y., machine gun accident
Army Reserve Spc. Brandon S. Tobler, 19, Portland, Ore., vehicle accident
Marine Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson, 22, Smithville, Mo., vehicle accident
British
March 23:
Flight Lt. Kevin Barry Main, jet shot down by friendly fire
Flight Lt. David Rhys Williams, jet shot down by friendly fire
March 25:
Cpl. Stephen John Allbutt, Stoke-on-Trent, England, tank hit by friendly fire.
Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, Littleworth, England, tank hit by friendly fire.
March 22:
Lt. Philip Green, helicopter collision
Lt. Marc Lawrence, helicopter collision
Lt. Antony King, Helston, England, helicopter collision
Lt. Philip West, Budock Water, England, helicopter collision
Lt. James Williams, Falmouth, England, helicopter collision
Lt. Andrew Wilson, helicopter collision
Keep in mind that dozens of military officers were wounded due to friendly fire and are not on the list
__________________________________________
And I didn't even start about the crashes + drownings.
Thats a total of 15 out of 50 deaths. Thats 30%
*****The unidentified officers are also NOT in this list, so percentage may be a tad bit lower, but not by much*****
Ok then you heard about more than I have.
-
The glory of war. The greatness of America.
I ask you, has Iraq done worse? Has anyone, except the Nazis, done worse?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,923831,00.html
-
What happens when the Republican Guard starts using human shields?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The glory of war. The greatness of America.
I ask you, has Iraq done worse? Has anyone, except the Nazis, done worse?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,923831,00.html
Hmmm being it was used to clear forest,.....I wouldn't exactly count that up there with Sadam using chemical weapons on his own civilians or placing human beings at weapons sights as shields.
And Dan1,... they already are using human shields currently.
-
*sigh*
I dont care if it has used to used to fertilize the land or humidify the air, look at the results
-
Well I know that, the thing is when it was used they believed it wouldn't harm humans and that it was a short term chemical and wouldn't have the effects that it did.
It's what we like to call....a **** up
That's a big difference between that and Sadam using a known lethal agent on ppl.
-
didn't good ol' russia use chem weapons to resolve that hostage situation couple of months back?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Well I know that, the thing is when it was used they believed it wouldn't harm humans and that it was a short term chemical and wouldn't have the effects that it did.
It's what we like to call....a **** up
Actually, it wasn't. The chemicals were largely untested, but we did know that they could do nasty things to people. Thing was, the whole reason we were USING the defoliants was so that we could kill the same people more effectively, so we really didn't give a **** about their well-being.
You'll notice that there was a LOT of noise made about the Marines who got nice, healthy doses of Agent Orange then- at the time when we "didn't know" it would **** people up nice and proper.
Never mind the mass executions, entire villages we wiped out or naped so that they could never live there again, or the other quite nasty weapons we used in that war. That's all okay, we're the US, and when we do it it isn't "killing" civilians, it's "liberating" them.
Just someone should liberate Bush right the **** to Texas and back.
Kode: Yes. And are also fighting a war against Chechnya where the fighting on both sides makes a war crime look like a love pat. They're our allies, so it's not so brutal.
-
jesus christ
a)how do you know it wasnt intentional
b)who the **** cares. sorry, I didnt know that blowing out the supports for a building would collapse it, killing hundreds. Thats why you have scientists tst the **** before droppping it on people, though I suppose nthat was too much of a bother.
No offence to most Americans here, but when the **** will the US take responsibility for its actions. For the A-Bomb, for Vietnam, for the countless bombings resulting in civilian deaths. I guess I'm expecting too much.
-
Originally posted by kode
didn't good ol' russia use chem weapons to resolve that hostage situation couple of months back?
Never heard they had a situation there a few months ago. :confused:
-
Warlock: Convenient. Particularly since it was headline news.
Basically, Chechen freedom fighters/"terrorists" strap bombs to themselves, grab some Kalashnikovs, and go to a crowded Moscow theater. They hold some 400 people hostage, until the Russians gas them, shoot them, and drag the half-dead civilians out. No big stink is made about how all the hostages probably no longer have working lungs, because they're a US ally and we're trying to gratify them so that they'll do what we want in the coming war.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
no offence to most Americans here, but when the **** will the US take responsibility for its actions. For the A-Bomb, for Vietnam, for the countless bombings resulting in civilian deaths. I guess I'm expecting too much.
Hmmm we had groups in Japan right after the war.
Nam, I honestly don't know of anything since we don't have much contact there,... hell from what I remember they were still finding POWs long after the war. I won't argue that this was not onlya ****ed up war but pretty useless. Remember this was a time when they'd order troops to take a hill,... leave just to repeat it a week later. the whole situation was ****ed up.
Countless Bombings, far as I recall every place we've bombed we've sent in humanatarian aid and financial aid.
Far as any other way you want us to take responsibility for things,...I've got no idea what the hell you expect us to do. Sadly the US feels it needs to be the world's police force. Honestly I'm like to see us just ignore other bull**** in the world until it's a chance that it will affect us.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Warlock: Convenient. Particularly since it was headline news.
:wtf:
So sorry I missed that headline. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Warlock
So sorry I missed that headline. :doubt:
It went on for more than a week. It was on TV, radio, and newspaper. And it was all they were talking about.
-
if only the government enforced your "leave everyone the **** alone" policy
Just because you send humanitarian aid, doesnt justify the killing beforehand. Is it ok for me to shoot you, if I promise to send you to the hospital right after? The US has killed more people over the past 50 years than almost any regime/ nation on earth. And yet, they think of themsleves as peacekeepers.
Sorry to everyone who is American and doesnt support these actions, I'm just pissed at all the **** that people can get away with.
-
I think the result of the humanitarian "aid" is touched upon in a great quote in Apocalypse Now- "They shoot a man in half and then give him a band-aid, and feel better about it".
-
*shrug*
Ok we're evil. We're Hitler's reborn colon in power. Bush is satan. Our bill of rights really has 11 and that last one is to kick everyone else's ass as we see fit.
Yet if we hadn't have done half the **** ppl ***** about... what would be going on right now in the world hmmm ?
Well for one Hitler would be telling your ass what to do.
Sadam would probably have gassed every country on his borders and have control of every oil well there.
etc etc.
Anyways I'll play more later, got plans to do things today ;) Take it easy and try not to pop a blood vessel k?
-
Uh, for one thing, Smartiac, the US did not singlehandedly stop Hitler. At most, our belated intervention kept the Russians from smearing Germany about a month later and then taking over the entire rest of Europe. For another, Saddam likely wouldn't have those weapons without us and our Cold War monkeying.
But grow up- really. The US is selfish and violent, not necessarily evil. This country has accomplished good things as well as bad, just like any person. It's the vaunted images of the US as God and Jesus and Mom baking apple pie that's annoying. The US isn't the Antichrist, but it isn't the ****ing savior of the world, either, and until most of the country recognizes that we're going to go on doing horrible things, over and over and over again.
-
Moving on from this chapter in the war.... this near-flame war, I mean. :D
Comments about the suicide bomber/car today? The general opinion or reaction here boils down to the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the incident: Welcome to the Middle East. :doubt:
-
Another one? They don't even register in the news here anymore...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Another one? They don't even register in the news here anymore...
Whaddya mean, "another one"? I refer to the one still on sub-headline news on CNN...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Another one? They don't even register in the news here anymore...
No, it happened in Iraq. One Iraqi blow up himself killing 4 Americans.
-
ah well. If you ask me, he played his part as a soldier very well. Using traditional tactics he couldnt have killed 4 soldiers probably, but now..
I dont see why this is any different then if he had put a bullet into each of those soldiers..dead is dead, makes little difference to you how you die.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh no, someone else replied! :shaking:
Bah. I'm tired of arguing. I'll answer this, then like O'Reilly let you have the last word.
But Rictor, go back and read the other post a bit more carefully. You seem to attribute some of Stryke's straw man argument to me at times.
However, these violations are injust and made under the threat of force, which removes their validity
So the Treaty of Versailles was invalid as well? The Treaty of Paris? Other treaties? Just about every treaty is signed under the threat of force - the threat that war will continue unless a treaty is signed. :rolleyes:
The UN has control so that no one country can go maverick and harm other without some risk of reprisal.
But the U.N. doesn't have control. No country signed its sovereignty over to the U.N. The U.N. brings together a bunch of countries to decide on a common course of action, and then the participating countries follow through based on their common consensus. We do not have a world government.
Really? And the "we take 25% of your oil profits for 10 years, while your people starve" resolution is just? Also the "no weapons for you, since we're the boss around here, its not like you're a soverign nation" resolution..[/color]
We prevented Japan from having weapons after WWII, and afterwards they developed one of the best economies in the world. As for the sanctions against Iraq, they were meant to restrict Iraq from getting and building weapons, not to starve the population. The reason they're starving is that there's a smaller pile of money to go around, and instead of distributing it fairly Saddam is hoarding it all for himself. We're going in to make it fair again.
Even if Iraq did have WMD, they have NEVER shown agression towards the US or Europe or most of the world for that matter. Whatever you may think of Saddam, he has NEVER used Iraqi resources to take US lives, so why would he start now after 20 years?
He's taken Kurdish and Iraqi lives. Shouldn't we be concerned about that?
Well, the inspectors also checked for biological and chemical weapons and found nothing. Also, please show me the undeniable proof (or ANY proof) that Iraq is or will ever sponsor terrorists. I'm not one to just believe the Pentagon on their word, I need proof.[/color]
Despite Iraq playing games with them at every turn, they did find some things - such as those empty chemical warheads.
Iraq sponsors Hamas. Proof enough?
Missles do not constitute WMD. This is the only evidence you have so far, a few missles. This is the ONLY violation so far, and hardly a reason to attack.
Empty chemical warheads do constitute WMD. And on the grounds of all the resolutions against Iraq, even one violation justifies the use of force.
Again, the proof. Where is the proof that Iraq is associating with terrorists? Conjecture is not enough.
You're responding to Stryke's dialog here.
You sold weapons. Weapons kill people. The fact that an AK is "less effective" at doing so than a nuke is no excuse.
Again, shouldn't we want to correct past wrongs? Iran was the bigger threat then. Just like Nazi Germany was the bigger threat than the U.S.S.R. during WWII. Eventually, we took care of both.
Yes, but not tear up the whole country, kill civilians, destroy basic living resources and screw up their economy. If you want him dead, get a sniper.
Fair enough. But there's still his sons and the Republican guard who could continue to intimidate the population after he's dead. We need to take care of them too.
Saddam killed his own people. the US kill people in other countries. Does this make them "less evil". Saddam is small fries compared to how many people the US killed, why arent they being bombed?
Because Iraq was participating in terror campaigns - repressing the population through threat of being tortured or executed. The U.S. was fighting in a war, and wars tend to have a set of "rules" to be followed.
And so it this war.
No it's not! This has been gone over so many times.
Convenient. You only have info about things that make the US look good, but no info on the things that make the US look bad.
I don't have information about everything; I'm just a college student. Sorry I missed that headline, as Warlock said. :wtf:
And since it is the US who decided which organization gets labeled "terrorist" then they can take out whoever they want under the guise of "protecting oursleves"
You yourself said that it's a good idea to get Saddam out of there. The natural consequence of that is fighting this war, to make sure we do it properly.
No, had you done that, you would have gone to great lengths to verify it. Then you would publicize it and broadcast it all day. You went into Afganistan to get this guy, you would not just say "who cares" had you actually got it.
Suppose we went to great lengths to prove it but we still haven't been able to. We probably don't want to announce he's dead until we have absolute proof. Anyway, why hasn't bin Laden commented on the Iraq war since it started? Sounds like something he'd be interested in. Unless he's dead.
No, if bin Laden wanted the US to go to war with Iraq, he would support them.
Or he could instigate both countries against each other. Read The Sum of All Fears.
Also, wtf is "there could easily be a link"? There could easily be a link between the US and Al Queda, depends who decided what "easily" means (the US) and who investigates the matter (the US).
That's Stryke's dialog again. And the U.S. isn't linked with al Qaeda if al Qaeda is blowing up our buildings.
Well, didnt it. I dont know one way or the other, but can you prove that it wasnt a harmless shack?
Or can you prove that it was?
Furthermor can you prove that the sattelite pics werent altered or entirely fabricated?
No, but I can trust that they aren't.
Yes it does. I can write a Grade 12 politics paper on "The UK's connections to Al Queda." However, having NO data on such a thing (and how would a graduate have access to military intel) this is entirely MADE UP.
Okay, disregard this paper then. There are still other intelligence reports.
Very likely. Again, convenient that you have no info on this, but info on every thing else..
I don't watch news 24/7. So sue me.
Bribery, you can use this do discredit ANYONE. Again, proof.
I don't suggest it lightly. Listen to Blix's conversations. He's afraid Iraq will use it's missiles which it doesn't have against U.S. troops.
Cool. So I can say that I have evidence that shows Bush smoking pot, but I cant relase it, so just take my word on it.
If you have intelligence to back it up. But I'm not likely to believe you on this, because it's inconsistent with his behavior since he quit drinking. If you said he smoked pot earlier than that, you might have a valid argument.
What do inspectors usually do? They inspect. They inspect Iraqi facilities for traces of WMD. IT is their job to find any WMD that you think Iraq is hiding.
No. It is Iraq's job to disarm. The burden is on Iraq. Iraq must take the initiative. Those are the terms they themselves accepted at the end of Gulf War I.
You know full well that whatever they did, the US would never say that they cooprated. You are so quick to enforce 1441, but you are violating international law by going to war with Iraq, so you cant enfore laws that are convenient to you, and disregard others
We know that Iraq isn't cooperating because of their pattern of behavior. Read that article by Rice again.
If the UN security council bocome irrelevant, it is BECAUSE of your action, not despite them. Proof of Iraq sponsoring terrorists?
The U.N. isn't living up to their previous decisions.
And I gave an example. Talk to Sandwich if you want more - he probably knows a great deal more than I do.
You said it best, "we support them, until they rule against us".
Again, that wasn't me, that was Stryke's dialog.
You took advantage of state of panic and distress in 2001, by putting the resolution on the table. Now that people have calmed down and taken a look at things rationaly, they no longer support it. If 3 members of the security council were ready to veto, you cannot possibly claim to have UN support.
Why couldn't they have looked at it rationally when we first brought it up? :rolleyes: And you have the date wrong. We brought it up in 2002, not 2001.
Yes, such as Pallao and Iceland, both of whom have no armies. You have the support of many small countries by promising $ or threating "conseqeuences". Or others still signed on once the war already started, realizing that if they could not stop it, they might as well profit from it. BEFORE the war, you had 4 allies. Thats how many countries support you, 4, not 40.
What about most of Eastern Europe? We were having dialogs with them before the war started.
How could public opinion we against WW2 in to the 20s? And how could it be against it in the early 30s?
Europe didn't want another war. Hence Chamberlain's "peace in our time" statement.
The politicians are the spokesmen for the people. If the people skip the spokesman and directly express their opinion, thats more important.
No, that'd be chaos, because there'd be too many voices. The U.S. isn't a true democracy, it's an elective republic.
Was he? Is that why it took you 6 months to decide who was going to be the next president. AT MOST Bush represent 1/2 of the American population.
It actually took just one month. And current polls now show him with 70% approval rating.
Again, if the will of the people is made known directly, politicians are out of the equation.
Again, this goes back to the democracy vs. republic thing.
No, protesting shows the Iraqi people who are being bombed "We're not all idiots, sorry that some of us are trying to kill you"
We are not trying to kill the Iraqi people. Bush has instructed the military to take great lengths to minimize civilian casualties. This effort will probably come at the cost of U.S. lives, but we're willing to do it.
About the only thing protesting is doing is giving Hussein courage to resist, which will in itself make for more allied casualties.
There is a chance? There is a chance that I'm actaully a cocunut, but conjecture is not enough, you need proof
That's the strawman argument Stryke put up, again.
If Iraq came into the US and started poking around, would you cooperate? Even if you had signed a treaty, would you cooperate?
This is not about the U.S., it's about Iraq. We haven't used our nukes irresponsibly, and we don't have inspectors, so this argument is moot.
And again, the inspectors have stated that they have been cooperating for the last month or so of the inspection, so they were cooperating.
Full cooperation means showing everything they have. This they were not doing.
Process of elimination is not a valid strategy in this case, you need to actually see the weapons. Also they could be manufacturing, they could not be..proof.
The troops are uncovering evidence in the first week that the inspectors never saw. Such as that abandoned chemical factory. Yes it was abandoned, but we never heard about it regardless.
The age doesnt matter. What if the agreement had been signed 120 years ago? There is always a small chance that someting is happening, there is a small chance that the UK is about to invade France, that doesnt give you the right to act on it, chnace is not enough..
True, the age doesn't matter. The force of the agreement matters. And there while there is little chance of the UK invading France, there is a lot of chance of Iraq disobeying the resolutions.
They are allowed to have nukes etc, they're not the 52nd state, its an indpenedet country and you cant tell them what to do.
They're being irresponsible, and we have a right to be concerned about that.
Iraq has been paying for its own inspections, with its own money, not you. You certainly are sending a message, "Those who oppose up get crushed" and "We're out to control the entire world"
That's not what we're saying. That's what others are hearing. True, our message isn't getting out perfectly, but others are refusing to listen further.
If attacking Iraq doesnt provoke terrorists to attack the US, I dont know what will.
It hasn't yet. No terrorist organization has spoken up about the war.
The terrorists dont want to change the way you live, they want to kill you. They couldnt care less how you live.
Which causes us to live in fear. That's changing the way we live.
Thrust upon us? You chose to go in.
And when the war was finished we were left with a responsibility.
And the world is calling to an end to this war. The population of almost every country in the world is strongly opposed to this war, and even in the US and UK about 30-40% are against it. That amount to about 95% of the world's population being against it.
The war is barely a week old. People should wait and see what happens.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But we've listened anyway. And we've been "peaceful" for
12 years.
Oh, so you only use "the world" as a scapegoat, but never give credence to them when they're against you.
I've left the whole exchange here. I don't see how you get scapegoat out of this.
3 out of 5 nations on the security council are against.
Not when they passed 1441.
In the late 30s, alot of nations (US included) thought that Hitler was a great guy, and thought the Jews deserved it all. So now, can I call the US Nazis?
We realized our mistake pretty quickly.
Opinions change, you took advantage of hysteria and panic with 1441.
No we didn't. 1441 was passed in November 2002, 14 months after 9/11.
What? Thats hypocracy, and very blatant at that. You either follow laws or you dont, you cant pick and choose. Who decides what is an "unreasonable veto"? What you just said descredits you more than I can hope to do.
Again, you were mistaking the straw man argument for my argument. You weren't reading carefully.
I dont love Iraq, I hate war. And I see no reason to kill its civilians with bombs.
We're not trying to kill civilians. That's an unfortunate consequence of what we're doing, but in the long run it's saving the lives of civilians who would otherwise be killed by Saddam.
Again, your own stupidity shows the crappiness of your arguement
Again, you're responding to the straw man argument. The fact that you're not reading carefully on several occasions handicaps your argument.
Think of some better arguements, some that stand up to examination. Oh wait, but then you'de have a blank page, since you have no reasons for going to war :):)
We've just listed a whole bunch of arguments, which stood up to examination, and there are a lot more. But there are people who refuse to listen to them.
Ugh. I'm unsubscribing to this thread; I've argued, Warlock's argued, Sandwich has argued, and people still aren't getting it. Don't cast your pearls before swine.
-
Good god, shut UP!
Honestly, I think you might be the single strongest argument against this whole war deal on the board.
-
It's not a good idea to base your decisions on fiction Goober.
You who support the war seem to ignore the fact that it would be absolute suicide for Saddam to actually use the tattered renmants of his WMD arsenal, asssuming he actually has any. Then the US would actually have a half-non-crap reason to invade. Yes, Saddam is ruthless, agressive, etc. (sort of like the dictators we supported in the Cold War), but he is by no means insane. If he was he'd be dead long before this.
And how can you people be so eager to go to war? Inspection can work. Yes, it is slow, but it if saves as much as one life than it should be used instead of war. And please don't tell me this is a last resort, I don't see how anyone on this forum can think that.
I still expect the US to succeed faily well, but then they're going to try to set up a government...
And Rictor, after reading that article I have decided that I completely despise this country.
-
if you dont want to participate in discussion, dont read it
Goober, I'm probably not going to go over the whole thing so here are my basic points
-You are working under the asumption that the governement tells the complete truth, even when its against them. That the media reports things unbiased. That things are black and white. If you believe these things, its shows your naivete.
-The "will of the people": If the VAST majority of the people want something, its is contradictory to everything that the US claims to hold dear to go against it. If there were 15 or 20 or however many factions all yelling about different things, then yes, listening to them all would be chaos. But when the world is united in its stance, when the PEOPLE of the entire world (90+%) say "We do not want this war", then you cannot pretend that the politicians are doing it for anyone but themselves. The basis of democracy is to do what the people want, and in this case it is clear what they want.
-In 2002, the UN wanated 1441. Now, they dont. What makes the previous opinion more valid then the current one? They changed their minds they saw their error. If you want to know a nation's opinion, you are obligated to look at the current opinion. 1441 was an expression of their opinion. Now their opinion has changed, and 1441 is no longer what they want.
-You claim that the UN can't have control over another nation. Well that also works for Iraq. Just as you do not believe that you are bound by the judgement of the UN, so does Iraq. Essentially, you're supporting one stanard for yourselves, and another for the entire world.
-I have as of yet seen NO proof, nor any arguement from you, that would make me believe that Iraq is linked to any terrorist organization. You may think thats its "likely" and that it fits in with Saddam's pattern of behaviour, but in order to make this legal, to make this just, you need proof.
-If the task of disarmament fell solely on Iraq, then why were the inspectors even there. If you think that they have no duties, then why did you put them there. The fact is, that the inspectors WERE there to check around for WMD. Iraqis were to show them around, and the inspectors were to judge. If they werent there to inspect, then why did the US demand that Iraqis show them weapons factories, etc etc?? They were there to inspect, plain and simple.
-Iraq was doing everything that the US asked. "Show us everything you got" is not specific. Iraq claimed that they had no WMD, you claimed they did. The fact that they did not show you what they said they didnt have, is not non-cooperation. Think about this. Your arguement relies on circle logic.
-You must make a CLEAR distinction between Saddam and the PEOPLE of Iraq. You quest to take out Saddam, to disarm Saddam, etc etc, must have NO negative influence on the people of Iraq. Sanctions DO NOT prevent weaponry from entiering the country, since it would probably be shipped seceretly anyways. What sanctions did do, is starve the people of Iraq and destroy their economy. The people were guiltless, and yet they suffered. How is that justice?
- Saddam killed civilians. The US is killing civilians. You say his actions were "acts of terror", but yours are "acts of liberation". If its the same result, its the same thing. Intentional or not, its the same result.
-You have so far found NO WMD, nor any factroy that manufactured them. You found an abandoned chemical plant. Chemicals are 90% of the time used for peacful purposes. The UN inspectors didnt tell you that the factory existed because it wasnt doing anything illegal. Did you want them to report every factory in Iraq? Did you want them to say "ok here are 56 factories. The first one is used for making diapers. The second one is used for making plastic. etc etc" They did not report it because in their EXPERT opinion (these guys are among the most qualified experts in this field), there was nothing happening in that factory that was in violation of UN agreements.
___________
The bottom line is: you must have the SAME rules apply to the US as you seek to apply to other countries. In other words, you must practice what you preach.
Think that Iraq deserves war for going against the wishes of the UN? (formalized into an agreement), well then you have to listen to the UN too. Want Iraq to destoy all its WMD, then you have to do so too.
-
You who support the war seem to ignore the fact that it would be absolute suicide for Saddam to actually use the tattered renmants of his WMD arsenal, asssuming he actually has any. Then the US would actually have a half-non-crap reason to invade. Yes, Saddam is ruthless, agressive, etc. (sort of like the dictators we supported in the Cold War), but he is by no means insane. If he was he'd be dead long before this.
It would also be "absolute suicide" for Hussein not to have left the nation long ago, and yet he has not done that; many of his actions show that he is not overly concerned with his own life as long as his objectives are met. He is not insane, but simply stupid, since even I could have done things much better than he has if I was in his position with his goals. :D
And how can you people be so eager to go to war? Inspection can work. Yes, it is slow, but it if saves as much as one life than it should be used instead of war. And please don't tell me this is a last resort, I don't see how anyone on this forum can think that.
Read my earlier posts in this thread on why inspection most certainly cannot work, even if it is given a million years and everyone on the planet to do its work. Inspections are nothing more than a charade planned by the rest of the world to delay the US and everyone knows it well, which is why everyone was pushing for it before.
Ok...In your view, what is the point of having power?
You live. :D seriously though, the alternative is to let someone else have power, so you live in repression. The international system (and even human nature, to some extent) works in such a way that a situation in which everyone has equal power is inherently unstable and the distribution of power will gradually change to become more concentrated in some direction, so you can either be at the top end or the bottom end, which is a rather simple choice.
But grow up- really. The US is selfish and violent, not necessarily evil. This country has accomplished good things as well as bad, just like any person. It's the vaunted images of the US as God and Jesus and Mom baking apple pie that's annoying. The US isn't the Antichrist, but it isn't the ****ing savior of the world, either, and until most of the country recognizes that we're going to go on doing horrible things, over and over and over again.
Even after all of the countries recognize that (actually, they already have), it still will not matter, because "horrible things" is exactly what all countries do. :D
Alright, time to deal with you again...
Sorry to everyone who is American and doesnt support these actions, I'm just pissed at all the **** that people can get away with.
Well, since you cannot do crap about it, it doesn't matter. :D This is how the universe works; get used to it, since there is really no choice.
-The "will of the people": If the VAST majority of the people want something, its is contradictory to everything that the US claims to hold dear to go against it. If there were 15 or 20 or however many factions all yelling about different things, then yes, listening to them all would be chaos. But when the world is united in its stance, when the PEOPLE of the entire world (90+%) say "We do not want this war", then you cannot pretend that the politicians are doing it for anyone but themselves. The basis of democracy is to do what the people want, and in this case it is clear what they want.
Those are people of the world. The US government only listens to the American people, of which a considerable majority is still for the war.
-I have as of yet seen NO proof, nor any arguement from you, that would make me believe that Iraq is linked to any terrorist organization. You may think thats its "likely" and that it fits in with Saddam's pattern of behaviour, but in order to make this legal, to make this just, you need proof.
It is likely simply because both Iraq and al Qaeda will benefit from such a partnership, so if they have half the brains I give them credit for, the two would certainly be cooperating. Since all alliances in the world between any two parties form out of a common interest (in this case, destruction of the US), there is every reason to think that they would helping each other out to some extent, especially since they have nothing to lose if they keep things secret. Besides, the US is not at all under attack by just a single united enemy, but rather by many disparate groups that are bound only by their objective of taking down the US, so even if there was no alliance at all, everything would still be "justified."
Also, I already told you that this whole legal thing is without a doubt the silliest part of the whole anti-war argument. The world has no laws except those which are enforced by the ones with the power to do so, and in this case it is the US; they say it is legal, and so it is. If Iraq was the superpower here, then their stance would be accepted as to what is legal.
-You are working under the asumption that the governement tells the complete truth, even when its against them. That the media reports things unbiased. That things are black and white. If you believe these things, its shows your naivete.
My point is that even if all these things that the government is telling us are lies, everything is still justified, just by other reasons. Besides, you have absolutely no room to talk about naivete; some of your earlier posts here have redefined the meaning of that word.
-If the task of disarmament fell solely on Iraq, then why were the inspectors even there. If you think that they have no duties, then why did you put them there. The fact is, that the inspectors WERE there to check around for WMD. Iraqis were to show them around, and the inspectors were to judge. If they werent there to inspect, then why did the US demand that Iraqis show them weapons factories, etc etc?? They were there to inspect, plain and simple.
For the third time, the inspectors were put there to waste time, and every country knew this well when they were sent there (including the US, but at that point they could not do anything about it). The whole idea of the inspections was to hinder US operations by causing delays, and the effects are beginning to show now. If the US had attacked back in November as they wanted to, there would have been fewer dust storms and Hussein would not have gotten any time to prepare for an onslaught, so the task, while still fairly simple, has become more difficult for the US than it could have been, which was the whole idea of it all. And supposing that Iraq did possess WMDs, do you really think that the Iraqi officials would "show them around" to those places? As far as actual "inspecting" goes, the inspectors are a complete joke (not really their fault, since the task is an impossible one), but they have other uses.
-You must make a CLEAR distinction between Saddam and the PEOPLE of Iraq. You quest to take out Saddam, to disarm Saddam, etc etc, must have NO negative influence on the people of Iraq. Sanctions DO NOT prevent weaponry from entiering the country, since it would probably be shipped seceretly anyways. What sanctions did do, is starve the people of Iraq and destroy their economy. The people were guiltless, and yet they suffered. How is that justice?
Perhaps it isn't, but that is not the American government's problem; as any sensible national govenment would so, it is doing what is best for its own people, not those of other nations. Anyway the sanctions are a UN thing; the war is the US idea. However, this particular operation will probably benefit the Iraqi people in the whole as a side effect for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread; it is just that this is not the main objective.
- Saddam killed civilians. The US is killing civilians. You say his actions were "acts of terror", but yours are "acts of liberation". If its the same result, its the same thing. Intentional or not, its the same result.
That is one of the advantages of being the more powerful competitor; you can get away with things that the weaker parties cannot. :D
-You have so far found NO WMD, nor any factroy that manufactured them. You found an abandoned chemical plant. Chemicals are 90% of the time used for peacful purposes. The UN inspectors didnt tell you that the factory existed because it wasnt doing anything illegal. Did you want them to report every factory in Iraq? Did you want them to say "ok here are 56 factories. The first one is used for making diapers. The second one is used for making plastic. etc etc" They did not report it because in their EXPERT opinion (these guys are among the most qualified experts in this field), there was nothing happening in that factory that was in violation of UN agreements.
I already told you that whether or not Iraq has WMDs right now is not so important, but rather that it potentially could have them in the future. The idea is to eliminate an emerging threat before it fully forms. There is no point in waiting until they do have them, since at that point nobody will be able to do anything about it. For example, if Iraq still had that reactor that Israel destroyed several years ago, nobody would dare to touch Hussein today, and the results would be that there would be neither war nor inspections and Saudia Arabia and Kuwait would be Iraqi territory, allowing Hussein to control most of the world's oil and giving him the capabilility to wreck the US economy at will. Then that stuff about experts is just ridiculous; as far as playing these hide-and-seek games goes, the FS2 fighter AI could do about as well.
-
KLA
Rictor, I told them about this a million times.
And I also told them about the link between KLA and AL QAUIDA In 1998 or 1997, The US governemnt said to the world that because of this link, the KLA is classified as a terrorist organization. And, then, in 1999, KLA was proclaimed as a group of freedom fighetrs. They received financial help from USA and other suportive countries. So practically, with helping KLA, you helped Alquida so that you will be attacked by them some 2 years later. How ironic. Too bad your old friends let ya down like that.
EDIT. By the way, Aldo, since you really like to use words like genocide, mass murder, massacre, I would strongly recommend you to take a look at this web site. Please be advised that this site contains shocking material. http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/dok13/genocide/genocide.html
-
I think the real question right now is if the Coalition strategy is working. :sigh:
-
Just heard on the news today: 60 Coalition troops KIA. Most to friendly fire. :(
-
The wars been on for eight days and the allies have peformed the second fastest advance in history. If the war goes on for 2/3 months its still a BLOODY short war. Iraqs a country of 30 odd million peeps and its the size of france with not a paticularly nice climate. Admitedly POLITICAL pressure is ****ing the game plan up, theyve held off on really bombing the **** out of certain cities causing more civilian casualties in the short run but far less allies and iraqis would die then in this attritional bollocks they are doing at the mo.
The real question is, why the **** are the Yanks STILL letting Air National Guard fly in combat zones, its just asking for more FF.
-
The wars been on for eight days and the allies have peformed the second fastest advance in history.
What was the first? Barbarossa?
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
*snip*
Mr Carrot!!!!! :) Heya, fellow foodstuff!! How are ya? :p
-
The advance by the British XXX Corps from Caen to Brussels in WW2 was the fastest.
Im ok despite having to battle with anti-war protesters on the train every day. Dont read the torygraph on the train going into london.
-
Actually I thought they found some Russian made chemical warheads. If true I think I need not wonder why the Russians didn't like the idea...
-
not sure about chemical warheads but we've found GPS jammers, and there selling night vission gogles to them
-
Syria was selling the NVG.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
The advance by the British XXX Corps from Caen to Brussels in WW2 was the fastest.
Im ok despite having to battle with anti-war protesters on the train every day. Dont read the torygraph on the train going into london.
You sure Patton's 3rd Army wasn't faster?
-
Patton? bwhahahahahah. Seriously im going from WW2 by Keegan here. Largest area of ground covered and occupied in the fastest amount of time. Patton mounted the wars fastest large scale operation for the relief of the 101st.
-
question, is the current war the fastest distance covered?
and if not what was the fastest
-
good for them, glad to see one country thats not whipped
BTW, who cares how fast they advance through the desert, the city fighting will be sloow
-
fastest distance covered is hard because of the use of airborn troops etc. In Nam you had marines deploying hundreds of miles behind enemy lines and making firebases, though techinicaly an insertion it could still count.
The fastest advance then was the British 2nd army (or 2nd army group, 1 uk army 1 can army an armoured corps (XXX lead elements reached brussels 1st) and a half strength mech corps all with intergrated RAF units) from Caen to Brussels, it just happened to be that they secured the land they were covering so it counts as an advance and occupation. An advance of 186 miles in 5 days. In the same period the Coalition (or more specificaly 3rd ID) had advanced around 150 miles.
Six armies in normandy = win book.
-
The speed and bredth of the axis of advance is crucial, theres no point engagin in city fighting unless you can isolate the city (or you get a stalingrad esque scenario of both sides funneling in troops either side of the city) you can take out supply lines and production centers. Its a vast propoganda and morale victory, you control 50% of the country so what if only 3% of thats used it looks impressive. Can bring up airborn assets to foward operating areas far closer to the front lines (v. important for helos) Finally you deny an escpae route for the enemy he HAS to face you either on the open field or in the city but he cant leg it.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
...mech corps...
;7 ;7 ;7
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Actually I thought they found some Russian made chemical warheads. If true I think I need not wonder why the Russians didn't like the idea...
:wtf:
So what about the USA and the nuke detonators they sold to Hussein around 1990? That's sooooo easy to criticize people for selling stuff when there's no war going on yet, right?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
not sure about chemical warheads but we've found GPS jammers, and there selling night vission gogles to them
How sure are you of that? I heard reports of that, but then some American defence guy recanted on it, saying the claims were not 'completely substantiated'
-
Originally posted by Razor
EDIT. By the way, Aldo, since you really like to use words like genocide, mass murder, massacre, I would strongly recommend you to take a look at this web site. Please be advised that this site contains shocking material. http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/dok13/genocide/genocide.html
Can you justify the attempted massacre, repatriation or otherwise removal of the civillian Kosovo Albanian population? NO, of course you can't.
Incidentally, the Yugolsav army did more to encourage and raise support for the KLA than anyone else.
NB: anyone seen teh report on the Warrior APC's being attacked by that A-10 in the Herald?
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/31-3-19103-1-5-9.html
-
The UK and US sold Iraq chemical components that could be used to make chemical weapons or facilities to produce them. They did NOT sell them the weapons directly. The FRENCH were the only western power to sell chemical and bio weapons/knowlegde of how to make them and were certainly the only power to sell anything of a nuclear nature (gg Israel for blowing that french reactor up). Its also the French that stand to loose AT least 4 billion a year in export sales and a possible 25 billion oil contract. The French premier stood for office again because it allowed him to escape charges of fraud, and hes apparently the moral beacon of the world.
And at the time Iraq was at war with Iran which at the time was the center of Islamic terrorism and responsible for much chaos in the western world so you back the lesser of 2 evils. Iran is still a bit dodgy but has calmed down a lot, Iraq on the other hand hasnt.
Finally about the FF thing aldo pointed out, yet another FF incedent on the part of an Air National Guard officer, this time on Scimitars not Warriors, http://www.anbg.gov.au/images/flags/union-jack.gif this apparently is the iraqi flag the 6foot by 8foot one flying on the back of the scimitar did nothing to stop the attack. Nor did the EXTRA iff panels the 2nd and 4th tanks in the formation had.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
The UK and US sold Iraq chemical components that could be used to make chemical weapons or facilities to produce them. They did NOT sell them the weapons directly.
No, of course, they just shown how to make them, and provided the components.
Mmh, a proof. Let me open google, it should take less than a minute. Ok, here we go:
"The U.S. was far from innocent. In 1988, the Unisys Corporation sold Saddam a giant, $8.7 million dollar computer system configured as a "personnel database" - in other words, set up to track Iraqi citizens. Unisys sold it directly to Saddam's Ministry of the Interior, home to his secret police. Unisys also sold high-speed computers to the Ministry of Defense and to the Saddam State Establishment, that cranked out components for missiles and nuclear weapons. Our electronics went to every known nuclear and missile site in Iraq. These included the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, Iraqi sites that made A-bomb fuel and nuclear weapon detonators, as well as Iraq's main missile research complex. Companies like Tektronix (high-speed diagnostic equipment), Perkin-Elmer (computers and instruments for quality control), Finnigan MAT (computers useful for monitoring uranium enrichment), and the U.S. subsidiary of Siemens (instruments for analyzing powders useful for A-bomb and missile manufacture) had sales recorded in government export logs.
"
Source: Wall Street Journal
I think it would be interesting to know what Hussein would do with, I quote, "instruments for analyzing powders useful for A-bomb and missile manufacture". Probably nuclear powerplants, coz the US government would never allow Hussein to use such tools for a doubtfull,... well... use? right?
-
I hardly think computers ranks up agains thte French practicaly building them a nuclear reactor.
The reason that the US and UK started supplying suspicious things instead of just conventional kit is because they couldnt afford for Iraq to loose. An Arab superstate headed by the Iyatolla Khomeni does not make for happy happy joy joy middle eastern relations (or stopping Israel from chucking some nukes about).
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
I hardly think computers ranks up agains thte French practicaly building them a nuclear reactor.
Oh yeah, tools for building weapons is much better than a civilian installation? a nuclear powerplant is a... power plant. It's a thing any country can buy, it's a good. it's like selling trains or boeings. You can't do bombs with what you get from a nuclear powerplant. different uranium, different technics, no compression stage.
On the other hand, the US sold computers to help manufacture nukes. It's smaller, so it's better?
Oh, and just as a final note, this is the first link I clicked, I've seen stuff about nuke detonators sold by the US, or stuff like that. I just happened to misclick this thread and my eye was caught by the big "FRENCH" ( oh, country of bastards, as I've read somewhere :doubt: ), so I, well, thought I might reply. I'm done now, don't worry...
-
a nuclear powerplant is more than just a powerplant, it's a nuclear powerplant, reactors can be set up in a manner that you can get something that can be made useable for weapons.
-
Oh, no! It's all fault of the French!! :eek:
Now seriously people, don't make me do nasty things to this thread and ban all conversation about the war, okay? Lets all be civil about it, and talk without insulting other board members.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Oh, no! It's all fault of the French!! :eek:
of course. you didn't know?
Now seriously people, don't make me do nasty things to this thread and ban all conversation about the war, okay? Lets all be civil about it, and talk without insulting other board members. [/B]
that wouldn't annoying me a single bit :p ( all the contrary actually ).
Nah, don't worry, I won't make a fuss or anything, I usually never check this thread, and I won't do again before some time, most likely. always the same ramblings going on again and again :doubt:
-
Im not blaming the French people i just think the current French government is being spiteful and petty. I disagree with the whole notion of banning or impeding French imports (the Oreilly campaign) but Chircas constant stamping his feet and crying doesnt really convey an image of moral superiority.
-
BTW heres some numbers, France made 14 billion in arms exports to Iraq in the 80s. The Uk made 300 million.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Im not blaming the French people i just think the current French government is being spiteful and petty. I disagree with the whole notion of banning or impeding French imports (the Oreilly campaign) but Chircas constant stamping his feet and crying doesnt really convey an image of moral superiority.
Don't mess with the O man. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
It would also be "absolute suicide" for Hussein not to have left the nation long ago, and yet he has not done that; many of his actions show that he is not overly concerned with his own life as long as his objectives are met. He is not insane, but simply stupid, since even I could have done things much better than he has if I was in his position with his goals. :D
[/b]
I disagree, as with Bin Laden it is very possible to flee an occupied city given one's preparedness to suffer indignity (ie dressing in the hijab and living a life he's not accustomed to) and cunning(given his ability to avoid assasination attempts before). If he does lose the war (very likely) and he does escape (probable) he could pursue his agenda in a similar way to Bin Laden.
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, since you cannot do crap about it, it doesn't matter. :D This is how the universe works; get used to it, since there is really no choice.
Not a bad piece of dialecticalism in a relatively short sentence.
Originally posted by CP5670
Those are people of the world. The US government only listens to the American people, of which a considerable majority is still for the war.
Rubbish, for someone who attempts to approach every conflict from a throughly objective position this is sadly disappointing. There are many antagonisms of interest in the US and of which its Government only serves one (any can only conceivably can) as with every country (however the others are in a very compliant state and have been for the past sixty years so any decision against their interest is of no great political risk). The perpetuation of the US National Ideology will have a negative impact on a significant proportion of the population and you fail to mention that.
You also seem slightly biased in favour of 'Americanism', I personally find this illogical. You are without doubt a member of the intelligentsia (if your personal claims about yourself are true), and although the US through its economic strength and relative freedom provides the necessary resources to develop this intellect and exploit it as a career, has one of the most hostile national ideologies relating to the social acceptance and degree of political power available to your class as well as an appalling level of knowledge in almost every discipline amongst the uneducated (Look upon Popularity of Scientific Creationism and other bunk amongst the masses and legislators as a prime example of this). It is my belief that this should tip the balance of your loyalty away from supporting this. Your possible reactions to this will either be laziness, fatalism or any combination of the three. Laziness is a valid option as conforming to any hallowed belief amongst the general population will almost certainly give you an easier life (To prove this try walking around a rural town anywhere in the Bible Belt waving the stars and stripes and then contrast the reaction you get from that with the one you will get by waving the flag of an offencive ideology of your choice). Fatalism is a defence to similar challenges that you have used before and is fairly self explanatory, all bailing down to the belief that everything is pre determined and there is nothing one can personally do to change it. I don't have the time to write responses and make the case against these but if anyone else (or yourself) has then it would certainly raise the level of discussion in this thread by a significant degree.
Originally posted by CP5670
It is likely simply because both Iraq and AL Qaeda will benefit from such a partnership, so if they have half the brains I give them credit for, the two would certainly be cooperating. Since all alliances in the world between any two parties form out of a common interest (in this case, destruction of the US), there is every reason to think that they would helping each other out to some extent, especially since they have nothing to lose if they keep things secret.
This would be fine if both were secular but you neglect to include the fact that one is deeply religious and once a God/Allah/Bishnu/Jah etc. is invoked, it adds a whole new dimension to the equation which invalidates your conclusion. Other problems include the fact that unless there was a definite likelihood of an invasion of Iraq (which until 9/11 there wasn't), it would not be in the Iraqi regime's interest to draw attention to itself by supporting Al Quaeda or becoming noticeably more militaristic.
In short.
Iraq: *Al Quaeda are religious wackos who it is our interest to destroy but are enemies with America.
*America and Al Quaeda are both our enemies but America is a more grave threat.
*Therefore we (Iraq and Al Quaeda) should mutually assist ourselves until America is dealt with then we shall become enemies again.
Al Quaeda*Iraqis are Infidels who it is our interest to destroy but are potential enemies with America.
*America and Iraq are both our enemies but America is a more grave threat.
*Therefore we (Iraq and Al Quaeda) should mutually assist ourselves until America is dealt with then we shall become enemies again. But co-operating with a secular state in such a way would anger AllahJah etc. and mean we could face eternal damnation. But then failing to confront America by any means necessary (including co-operation with the Iraqi infidels) would mean the word of Allah is not spread and we've done nothing about it and could such face eternal damnation. But co-operation with Iraq would strengthen them meaning the word of Allah etc. would be just as compromised meaning we'd be roasted.
Of course I don't credit Al Quaeda with such intelligence because of A) Their decision to use terrorist tactics knowing there would be huge civilian casualties which would play straight into the Propagandist's hands and B) for believing that Bunk anyway (Bin Laden obviously does as he gave up a millionaire's opulent lifestyle to live in the less than comfortable conditions of the Radical Islamic Underground.)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Can you justify the attempted massacre, repatriation or otherwise removal of the civillian Kosovo Albanian population? NO, of course you can't.
Incidentally, the Yugolsav army did more to encourage and raise support for the KLA than anyone else.
NB: anyone seen teh report on the Warrior APC's being attacked by that A-10 in the Herald?
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/31-3-19103-1-5-9.html
Are you saying that only Albanians were forced to leave Kosovo? Ignorant fool. The Serbs were forced from Kosovo ever since the Second World War ended and millions of Serbs were banned from Kosovo by Albanian population. Not to mention how many Serbs were killed. You don't know that part of history. Your governments do, but they won't tell you because they allready taught you to hate Serbs. So, while you were at it, it wouldn't benefit them to tell you the truth, so they kept their mouth shut. I don't even think that you know why Kosovo means so much to us.
-
Originally posted by CP: Well, since you cannot do crap about it, it doesn't matter. This is how the universe works; get used to it, since there is really no choice.
*Taps CP on the shoulder* Don't worry my friend, there is an old saying here. Justice is slow, but it always reaches out. In other words, you won't get away. Everyone pays his debt sooner or later.
-
I don't hate Serbs. Our government doesn't teach us to hate Serbs. I imagine rather that it's you who has been taught to hate the west.
I don't much like you, though, if that's any consolation :)
-
I hate Serbs! And those damn Canadians! Filthy communist bastards, trying to take over our land. Probably rape our women and children, too, and ban football from TV in favor os sumo wrestling, I wouldn't put it past them. What do you expect from a country that invented waffles...
[slides under counter, taking bottle with him]
-
somewhere this thread (in its 900+ posts) went tangent...........
Iraq: *Al Quaeda are religious wackos who it is our interest to destroy but are enemies with America.
*America and Al Quaeda are both our enemies but America is a more grave threat.
*Therefore we (Iraq and Al Quaeda) should mutually assist ourselves until America is dealt with then we shall become enemies again.
Al Quaeda*Iraqis are Infidels who it is our interest to destroy but are potential enemies with America.
*America and Iraq are both our enemies but America is a more grave threat.
*Therefore we (Iraq and Al Quaeda) should mutually assist ourselves until America is dealt with then we shall become enemies again. But co-operating with a secular state in such a way would anger AllahJah etc. and mean we could face eternal damnation. But then failing to confront America by any means necessary (including co-operation with the Iraqi infidels) would mean the word of Allah is not spread and we've done nothing about it and could such face eternal damnation. But co-operation with Iraq would strengthen them meaning the word of Allah etc. would be just as compromised meaning we'd be roasted.
"
i agree with this 1 dude................
u guys shoulda say last saturdays, saturday night live from valentiens day (the 1 with jenifer garner). it was sadam and bin laden talkin on the phone loving but haitng each other, sorta like what was written above.
-
'Course it did. Collapsed under the weight of so much bull****. They didn't build these supporting walls for industrial-level work, they can only handle a couple tons at most... Now, for somewhere around $800, I can look into reinforcing them, so you can really get that crap movin'. But until then...
-
Originally posted by Razor
Originally posted by CP: Well, since you cannot do crap about it, it doesn't matter. This is how the universe works; get used to it, since there is really no choice.
[/B]
Ahh, a fallen world... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
'Course it did. Collapsed under the weight of so much bull****. They didn't build these supporting walls for industrial-level work, they can only handle a couple tons at most... Now, for somewhere around $800, I can look into reinforcing them, so you can really get that crap movin'. But until then...
:wtf: Wrong thread, Stryke? :lol:
-
Originally posted by Razor
Are we saying that only Albanians were forced to leave Kosovo? Ignorant fool. The Serbs were forced from Kosovo ever since the Second World War ended and millions of Serbs were banned from Kosovo by Albanian population. Not to mention how many Serbs were killed. We don't know that part of history. Your governments do, but they won't tell we because they allready taught we to hate Serbs. So, while we were at it, it wouldn't benefit them to tell we the truth, so they kept their mouth shut. I don't even think that we know why Kosovo means so much to us.
Right, I'll put it very, very simply, as you're obviously hard of reading, or thinking, or both. (or avoiding the issue)
Firstly - Can you justify the atrocities^ committed by the Yugoslav army against the civillian[b/]* Kosovo Albanian population? Forgot any hardships suffered by the Serbian population of Kosovo at the hands of the KLA or extremist groups, as this is irellevant regarding the civillian issue.
^(as mentioned in the UN idictment - removal of liberty, forced expulsion, mass murder)
*(specifically, women, children and the elderly, who can be clearly identified as non-combatants)
Secondly - given the above, can you suggest a way of preventing the aformentioned atrocities which would have avoided some form of military aciton, given that the Yugoslav army was controlled by a fairly maniacal dictator and thus unlikely to change its course of action?
Thirdly - given the above again, can you suggest a way of attempting to preserve the Kosovo situaiton and oprevent further bloodshed between ethnic groups that did not involve some form of peace keeping force?
NB: From what I understand / remember (totally offhand), Kosovo has substantial mineral deposits, plus contains - IIRC - the site of a crucial battle fought against the then-ruling Ottoman/ Turkish Empire around the last 19th C.
-
[edit] lol, this he/she thing is hilarious... :D :D
I disagree, as with Bin Laden it is very possible to flee an occupied city given one's preparedness to suffer indignity (ie dressing in the hijab and living a life he's not accustomed to) and cunning(given his ability to avoid assasination attempts before). If she does lose the war (very likely) and she does escape (probable) she could pursue his agenda in a similar way to Bin Laden.
But she would have lost almost of his army, so it will be much harder for her to build things up again. She needs those men to stage a successful political coup in the future to regain his position. Hussein cannot immediately operate in the same manner as bin Laden because all of his existing structure and resources (including his public image) are tailored to work in the state setting, and it would take his a long time to set up everything in the decentralized Qaeda-type form with operatives all over the world. Also, unlike bin Laden, Hussein is not really a propagandist and is more of a clever gangster; bin Laden has such a large following because of the public appeal of his ideas, while Hussein has it because of his money and strength. Even his most loyal followers are not fighting for her because they agree with his ideas or anything (they want themselves to be the leaders, not him), but simply because she pays them very well, and that means much more in a poverty-stricken setting like Iraq than it would in a first-world society.
Not a bad piece of dialecticalism in a relatively short sentence.
Hey, it is true. :D
Rubbish, for someone who attempts to approach every conflict from a throughly objective position this is sadly disappointing. There are many antagonisms of interest in the US and of which its Government only serves one (any can only conceivably can) as with every country (however the others are in a very compliant state and have been for the past sixty years so any decision against their interest is of no great political risk). The perpetuation of the US National Ideology will have a negative impact on a significant proportion of the population and we fail to mention that.
The US is a nation state and as such has the same interests and objectives as any other nation on the planet, the ones that I detailed earlier and that the government is carrying out. These goals have nothing to do with "antagonisms of interest" because they are independent of whatever individual people in the nation want; they are a basic property of the existence of a nation state itself in a world of multiple competing states. Actually, even "goal" is not really the right word here; it is more like this set of objectives being the path to survival and material gain in the current conditions, so if a nation tries to pursue other goals, it will be overrun by the other nations. Of course, just about all of the governments of today have long since realized this, or they would not be around today. As for "perpetuation of US national ideology," it will only have a negative effect on the rest of the world; it will have a positive one on the US, since it will work to strengthen that institution.
We also seem slightly biased in favour of 'Americanism', I personally find this illogical. We are without doubt a member of the intelligentsia (if your personal claims about yourself are true), and although the US through its economic strength and relative freedom provides the necessary resources to develop this intellect and exploit it as a career, has one of the most hostile national ideologies relating to the social acceptance and degree of political power available to your class as well as an appalling level of knowledge in almost every discipline amongst the uneducated (Look upon Popularity of Scientific Creationism and other bunk amongst the masses and legislators as a prime example of this). It is your belief that this should tip the balance of your loyalty away from supporting this.
Member of the intelligentsia? I am a high school student at the moment. :D Anyway, I am well aware that academics are not given the political power that some think they deserve, but there is really not a whole lot that can be done about that, and for the nation as a whole, it is probably not even desirable, since these people are not necessarily adept in what is required for politics (actually, that is the reason they do not have the power). The people with the political power may not be any good with the sciences and other such areas, but that is perfectly alright, because they do not need to be. They did not attain their positions because of their being profound philosophical thinkers or anything like that, but rather because they were better at political trickery and dealing with practical issues and statecraft tactics, which that is all they need to do their jobs. (remember that they are just another part of the society's operation, like the researchers or anyone else; nothing really "special" about them)
Also, what we are saying is the case with every nation in the world due to the way a nation works; of course the vast majority of the population is composed of fools, but that is the situation everywhere, and it is really not so much of a problem because the ones that actually play the role of the society's thinkers are still very good (note what was said earlier about the US being the leader in science R&D); every person only needs to be good in a specific area that is required for his/her position. As for "Americanism," I support the US because it is a strong institution right now (nation or otherwise) and thus has a better chance of completing its goals; it is always a good idea to go with the stronger side.
Your possible reactions to this will either be laziness, fatalism or any combination of the three. Laziness is a valid option as conforming to any hallowed belief amongst the general population will almost certainly give we an easier life (To prove this try walking around a rural town anywhere in the Bible Belt waving the stars and stripes and then contrast the reaction we get from that with the one we will get by waving the flag of an offencive ideology of your choice). Fatalism is a defence to similar challenges that we have used before and is fairly self explanatory, all bailing down to the belief that everything is pre determined and there is nothing one can personally do to change it. I don't have the time to write responses and make the case against these but if anyone else (or yourself) has then it would certainly raise the level of discussion in this thread by a significant degree.
What is the third one? :wtf: Anyway, there is a difference between fatalism and not setting goals that are rationally deduced to be unreachable in practice. Sure, I would like a professors' revolt and takeover of the country just as much as any academically-oriented person, but that is simply not going to happen, even if all of them band together and try to somehow bring down the government. As I said above, the politicians and so on have their positions because they have the skills needed for those positions, despite however stupid they may be otherwise. They know how to get the masses on their sides and they are practical people with some understanding of statecraft and the workings of the international world.
This would be fine if both were secular but we neglect to include the fact that one is deeply religious and once a God/Allah/Bishnu/Jah etc. is invoked, it adds a whole new dimension to the equation which invalidates your conclusion. Other problems include the fact that unless there was a definite likelihood of an invasion of Iraq (which until 9/11 there wasn't), it would not be in the Iraqi regime's interest to draw attention to itself by supporting Al Quaeda or becoming noticeably more militaristic.
Such considerations are really irrelevant in comparison with practical matters, and one of the major objectives at hand for both parties is the destruction of the US. Neither Hussein nor bin Laden are so incompetent as to let something like that prevent them from taking advantage of such an opportunity (heck, both have indirectly worked with the US itself in the past). Once the US is gone, the enmity between them returns in full force, but for now they will work together like any sensible people (just like Germany and USSR during WW2). Every intelligent nation throughout history has also done this same thing; they willingly work with others, no matter how repulsive their ideologies and whatever else, if they have the same short-term goal. As for the rest, Hussein does not need to publicly say anything; as a dictator, she has the advantage of being able to do things without anyone knowing, so she can collaborate with Qaeda while belittling them publicly.
Of course I don't credit Al Quaeda with such intelligence because of A) Their decision to use terrorist tactics knowing there would be huge civilian casualties which would play straight into the Propagandist's hands and B) for believing that Bunk anyway (Bin Laden obviously does as she gave up a millionaire's opulent lifestyle to live in the less than comfortable conditions of the Radical Islamic Underground.)
Intelligence is not linear like that; people can be brilliant in one area and idiots in another. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, bin Laden's men have already worked with the greatest evil of them all (US) before, so they are certainly smart and willing enough to cooperate with a much lesser evil. Both Iraq and al Qaeda can continue denouncing the other in public for propaganda reasons but cooperating in secret, which has been done before many times in history. I do agree that the WTC was a silly target, but only because there were much more important possibilities at hand there.
*Taps CP on the shoulder* Don't worry your friend, there is an old saying here. Justice is slow, but it always reaches out. In other words, we won't get away. Everyone pays his debt sooner or later.
Well, it certainly has not so far in human history; let us see if the future will be any different. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The US is a nation state and as such has the same interests and objectives as any other nation on the planet, the ones that I detailed earlier and that the government is carrying out. These goals have nothing to do with "antagonisms of interest" because they are independent of whatever individual people in the nation want; they are a basic property of the existence of a nation state itself in a world of multiple competing states. Actually, even "goal" is not really the right word here; it is more like this set of objectives being the path to survival and material gain in the current conditions, so if a nation tries to pursue other goals, it will be overrun by the other nations. Of course, just about all of the governments of today have long since realised this, or they would not be around today.
[/b]
Your understanding of the concepts of nations is impressive and closest to my own out of most participants here, however I still think they are oversimplified. A Nation's interaction with Culture within it have an important part to play in explaining this and determining life within that Nation and should be mentioned and explored in greater detail than we do.
Your 'writing off' of antagonisms of interest within Nations strikes me as the biggest flaw in your argument which seems to be the main difference in our philosophy of this subject and one which probably will not be resolved. You have a view of Nations as self serving entities that survive or fall through a Darwinistic system of survival of the fittest and annihilation of the weakest. My personal view is of Nations as tools of their ruling classes of which the nation's interest and theirs are the same. It is also your view that these notions are not incompatible and are both compatible with dialectics.
Originally posted by CP5670
The people with the political power may not be any good with the sciences and other such areas, but that is perfectly alright, because they do not need to be. They did not attain their positions because of their being profound philosophical thinkers or anything like that, but rather because they were better at political trickery and dealing with practical issues and statecraft tactics, which that is all they need to do their jobs.
I think my take on this partially has a logical foundation for the majority and is to a lesser extent an expression of naive wishful thinking on my part (for which I apologise for) to wish on parliamentarian politicians, skills which they are simply not meant for nor have (the writing of manifestos (real ones) and architects of ideologies). However the axiom that 'stupid people make stupid decisions' is as true as ever and is evident with certain elements of backwardness in US society that impede the Nation's efficiency and judgement (extremely pious politicians pushing religious agendas for one). Werther this is a good thing and thus deserved of support depends on one's position to wards that particular nation.
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, what we are saying is the case with every nation in the world due to the way a nation works; of course the vast majority of the population is composed of fools, but that is the situation everywhere, and it is really not so much of a problem because the ones that actually play the role of the society's thinkers are still very good (note what was said earlier about the US being the leader in science R&D);
Whilst that may be true in general it fluctuates greatly from country to country in the degree to which it applies. Compare Afghanistan (not a very educated populace) to South Korea (country with the most PhD per head). With your subject being Pure Maths I would have thought Eastern Europe and East Asia would be a preferable location for you to develop your skills.
Originally posted by CP5670
What is the third one? :wt: Anyway, there is a difference between fatalism and not setting goals that are rationally deduced to be unreachable in practise. Sure, I would like a professors' revolt and takeover of the country just as much as any academically-oriented person, but that is simply not going to happen, even if all of them band together and try to somehow bring down the government. As I said above, the politicians and so on have their positions because they have the skills needed for those positions, despite however stupid they may be otherwise. They know how to get the masses on their sides and they are practical people with some understanding of statecraft and the workings of the international world.
[/b]
Sorry, it should be 'two'
In this piece you accentuate my points to make them seem less reasonable. Politicians don't rise to power because of their own talent alone, rather because of their suitability to the current political environment, hence the characteristics of successful parliamentarian politicians, revolutionary leaders, tribal chiefs etc. In a completely different situation a parliamentarian politician would be just as useless as a tribal chief would be trying to collect corprate bribes (soft money) and con people into voting for him.
To consolidate my point. America is not just an entity fighting for domination but a carrier of an Ideology which is, compared to other ideologies (which could be more or less appealing), although appealing in some ways, highly anti intellectual in its nature an certainly not something I would wish to have thrust upon me and it is also your belief that resistance is not futile at this stage and a viable alternative to submission.
Edit: My bloody spell checker has replaced all the pronouns with their opposites in this post. I think I have got them all but If you see a 'your' which you think ought to be a 'my' (or something simmilar) then it probably really was.
-
I haven't read this entire thread yet (Holy God, 39 pages in only two weeks! :eek: :eek2: ), but I know that people have been arguing whether there is a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. I used to think that there was no link between them, especially when Secretary of State Colin powell gave such flimsy evidence at the UN in February. But now, I'm not so sure...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893489.asp?0dm=N16MN
No "smoking gun" of cooperation here between Saddam and Al Queda, but we gotta admit, this does look suspicious...
EDIT: WILL SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE DAMN SPELLCHECKER IN THESE FORUMS?! Since when does you = us and we = you?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: Wrong thread, Stryke? :lol:
I think it's something about the thread succumbing to spam, or something or other... I can't remember, this thread's too damn big. :confused: Maybe we ought to make subforum instead of a single thread and stick all the threads in there.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I haven't read this entire thread yet (Holy God, 39 pages in only two weeks! :eek: :eek2: ), but I know that people have been arguing whether there is a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. I used to think that there was no link between them, especially when Secretary of State Colin powell gave such flimsy evidence at the UN in February. But now, I'm not so sure...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893489.asp?0dm=N16MN
No "smoking gun" of cooperation here between Saddam and Al Queda, but we gotta admit, this does look suspicious...
Well, just as the US uses Al-Queda to raise support for attacking Iraq, Al Queda uses Iraq to raise support for attacking the US. So it'd be no real surprise if Saddam has welcomed in terrorists, especially in the last 6 months or so (given the inevitability of war).
However, I think there's a danger in presuming Al-Queda is the *only* terrorist group active in the world, or even the only Muslim extremist one. A quick look at the Palestinian - Israel problems pretty much shows this. And the question is also how tightly Ansar al-Islam is related to Al-Queda, and how far it's 'targets' range. from all I've heard - albeit not exactly a vast amount - it's eems to be more of a nusciance force supported by Saddam to attack the Kurdish population. Whether or not it can be construed as presenting a viable threat to even the Pashmerga is debtable - so I don;t think it can yet be given as a supporting reason for the war.
Of course, some proff of development of biological / chemical weapons at the camps would go some ways to supporting this, but at the same time the level of involvement of the Iraqi regime would need to be discovered - you don't need the help of a government to make ricin....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
...you don't need the help of a government to make ricin....
...but it helps. :wtf:
In any case, Aldo's right. There's no smoking gun here, but for now I'm reserving judgment on the war. How well people will judge the war won't depend on what happens in the next five days or five months, but in the next five years. After Saddam is gone, if we don't let the UN help reconstruct Iraq, or worse, we ignore Iraq like we're ignoring Afganistan now and don't provide aid to either, we're going to create a lot more terrorists.
Time will tell.
-
Your understanding of the concepts of nations is impressive and closest to my own out of most participants here, however I still think they are oversimplified. A Nation's interaction with Culture within it have an important part to play in explaining this and determining life within that Nation and should be mentioned and explored in greater detail than we do.
The dominant culture certainly plays a role in determining how a nation will attempt to accomplish its tasks, but I think that the proficiency of the ruling government is more significant here. The US is a good example; the society is all about freedom and so on and everyone believes it, but the government works otherwise. Besides, there is far more diversity of ideas within individual nations than between multiple nations, and in the end they all tend to work for the same objectives anyway, so the ideological differences between nations are not really all that significant here.
Your 'writing off' of antagonisms of interest within Nations strikes me as the biggest flaw in your argument which seems to be the main difference in our philosophy of this subject and one which probably will not be resolved. You have a view of Nations as self serving entities that survive or fall through a Darwinistic system of survival of the fittest and annihilation of the weakest. My personal view is of Nations as tools of their ruling classes of which the nation's interest and theirs are the same. It is also your view that these notions are not incompatible and are both compatible with dialectics.
Yes, that is a good way of summarizing our viewpoints. However, the two interests you mentioned diverge quite often and having them the same doesn't really provide an accurate model of the situation. There are many countries in the world today in which the controlling dictator is a multi-billionaire living an extremely lavish lifestyle but which are rampant with various social problems, with poverty ratings going through the roof and no real national economy to speak of, and consequently little influence on the workings of other countries.
I think my take on this partially has a logical foundation for the majority and is to a lesser extent an expression of naive wishful thinking on my part (for which I apologise for) to wish on parliamentarian politicians, skills which they are simply not meant for nor have (the writing of manifestos (real ones) and architects of ideologies). However the axiom that 'stupid people make stupid decisions' is as true as ever and is evident with certain elements of backwardness in US society that impede the Nation's efficiency and judgement (extremely pious politicians pushing religious agendas for one). Werther this is a good thing and thus deserved of support depends on one's position to wards that particular nation.
But like I said earlier, they do not need to possess those skills to perform their role in the society effectively. They get their core ideas from elsewhere and only put them into practice, which is what they are good at. Actually, this brings up an interesting point; the intellectuals do have a kind of power, just in a more subtle and long-term form, since the politicans rarely create their own ideas, but rather get them from the academics. As for the "stupid people make stupid decisions," it is probably more accurate to say that "stupid people use stupid reasoning," since there are numerous instances where people make a correct decision using the wrong train of reasoning (Bush is a good example of this), while other, sometimes more intelligent people, use slightly better reasoning but reach the wrong conclusion. You are quite right about the religious politicians, which is probably a deficiency of the nation, but it is counterbalanced by many other assets. Still, even it can be made into a strength if used correctly; remember that religion is an effective political tool for rallying the common people together even for entirely secular actual goals. It is quite obvious that the US is not really doing anything for religious or ethical reasons, but the government says otherwise, and most people prefer simple explanations and will thus believe it.
Whilst that may be true in general it fluctuates greatly from country to country in the degree to which it applies. Compare Afghanistan (not a very educated populace) to South Korea (country with the most PhD per head). With your subject being Pure Maths I would have thought Eastern Europe and East Asia would be a preferable location for you to develop your skills.
Well, South Korea is not really a good example because PhDs alone do not really amount to much for the whole; it is better to have a steady flow of new discoveries instead of just lots of people who have mastered the existing knowledge. There were times throughout history when Europe led the world in this field, but in the last 50 years that has slowly shifted to the US, and especially so in the last decade. The average intelligence of the populace in a particular area is not really as important; a select group of people who are capable of generating a continuous flow of discoveries is fine even if everyone else does not do so, since the rest of the people play other roles (generation of research and ideas is one of the sub-tasks of a national society, but one of many).
Sorry, it should be 'two'
In this piece you accentuate my points to make them seem less reasonable. Politicians don't rise to power because of their own talent alone, rather because of their suitability to the current political environment, hence the characteristics of successful parliamentarian politicians, revolutionary leaders, tribal chiefs etc. In a completely different situation a parliamentarian politician would be just as useless as a tribal chief would be trying to collect corprate bribes (soft money) and con people into voting for him.
eh...the only thing I put quotes around was Americanism, since it is not really a normal word. However, I am not sure I understand your point here. This suitability of theirs is exactly the talent I am talking about it, and since they are only in power in an environment in which they are suitable, that is all that is needed.
To consolidate my point. America is not just an entity fighting for domination but a carrier of an Ideology which is, compared to other ideologies (which could be more or less appealing), although appealing in some ways, highly anti intellectual in its nature an certainly not something I would wish to have thrust upon me and it is also your belief that resistance is not futile at this stage and a viable alternative to submission.
How can one determine what ideology corresponds to a nation, though? It seems that your posts so far are implying that whatever ideology is the most commonly accepted among individual people is taken to be this national ideology, but that has some problems for the reasons given earlier - the general populace can be stupid and gullible while the intellectual elite for that subject still cranks out research in large quantities - and thus you cannot really say that it is anti-intellectual. But I really don't see how the academics can take over the nation like that, since they form a distinct minority and in general are not so good at obtaining popular support as are the politicians (as I said above, people prefer simple ideas and explanations to complicated ones, no matter how ridiculous they are upon closer examination, and that is what politicians are good at it).
Edit: Your bloody spell checker has replaced all the pronouns with their opposites in this post. I think I have got them all but If we see a 'your' which we think ought to be a 'my' (or something simmilar) then it probably really was.
You have not noticed yet? The admins did some joke with the forums yesterday and switched around you/we/he/she and some other words, so all the posts looked messed up. :p I think it is back to normal now though.
-
How is Afganistan anyway? Back into poverty? (of course it always was in poverty)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
How is Afganistan anyway? Back into poverty? (of course it always was in poverty)
A country like that will not turn into New York in a day. It will take years. **** it took years to rebuild Western Europe and they were industrialized.
The 82nd is still there and we are assisting. We have not forgotten about afghanistan.
One thing on a different topic. I'm sick of hearing international organizations say they are more qualified to rebuild Iraq then us (ie the military). When have they done anything on the scale of Western Europe or Japan?
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
A country like that will not turn into New York in a day. It will take years. **** it took years to rebuild Western Europe and they were industrialized.
The 82nd is still there and we are assisting. We have not forgotten about afghanistan.
The 2004 budget prepared by President Bush did not allocate a single additional penny for aid to Afganistan, which still needs alot of rebuilding and aid. And the warlords are still making trouble for civilians there; the country outside of Kabul is still not safe. And there are reports that the Taliban is returning from pakistan.
It's great that the 82nd is still there, but a lot more is needed and i'm not convinced that Bush is doing enough to help Afganistan rebuild, especially since he seems alot more concerned with his tax cut than with giving Afganistan more money that is desperately needed (as opposed to a tax cut for the rich that is not needed).
Originally posted by Falcon X One thing on a different topic. I'm sick of hearing international organizations say they are more qualified to rebuild Iraq then us (ie the military). When have they done anything on the scale of Western Europe or Japan?
It's not just a quetion of capability; there's also political issues involved. if the US tries to rebuild Iraq without any help from the UN, the Muslim world will become convinced that the US is just trying to colonize Iraq for American imperialism. If the UN is involved, it will be harder for Muslim fundamentalists to argue that the US just wants to make war on Islam. UN involvement in rebuilding Iraq will help confer legitimacy on the war and occupation, something that is (at least in the view of some people) lacking now.
-
Oooo, the war budget just hit 75 billion. And 6 billion of that is going to the Airlines.:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/saddamfromiraq.asp
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
:rolleyes:
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/saddamfromiraq.asp
LOL! A friend of mine showed me this yesterday. Funny as hell. :D
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Oooo, the war budget just hit 75 billion. And 6 billion of that is going to the Airlines.:rolleyes:
:eek2: You could buy several small nations with that kind of money.
:lol: @ Saddam from Iraq, I wonder what J.Lo would say about that :D
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
:lol: @ Saddam from Iraq, I wonder what J.Lo would say about that :D
She'd probably say that she came from a tougher neighborhood. ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
EDIT: WILL SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE DAMN SPELLCHECKER IN THESE FORUMS?! Since when does you = us and we = you?
If you are reffering to my mistakes, take a better look at my post because I wrote it all correctly.
Forgot any hardships suffered by the Serbian population of Kosovo at the hands of the KLA or extremist groups, as this is irellevant regarding the civillian issue.
Irrelevant when regarding a civillian issue? So you think that Serbs who live(d) on Kosovo were like....soldiers? Not civillians? Oh no you didn't forget. You weren't told about what Serbs suffered on Kosovo. You were allready turned against us so there wouldn't be any point at telling you the truth.
Secondly - given the above, can you suggest a way of preventing the aformentioned atrocities which would have avoided some form of military aciton, given that the Yugoslav army was controlled by a fairly maniacal dictator and thus unlikely to change its course of action?
Military action was unnecessery. You attacked a SOVEREIGN country and therefore directly broke the most important UN resolution that applies to a free nation. Let me ask you something. If your country was attacked by a such faction that tryes to take a part of your country, what would you do?
A Send special forces to eliminate the threat
B Sit and watch what would happen
C Ask them to come for tea and cookies and politely ask (beg) them to stop
Now....
You called us to Rambuei (sp) to threaten us with war and leveling our cities and killing our people. You sent us an ultimatum to surrender and allow a total ocupation of Yugoslavia. FASCISTS! You just sent your planes on March 24th 1999 at aproximately 20:00 hours. Fortunately, with the help of our sources in ******, we were able to obtain the information needed to organize our deffences and at least we mannaged to stop many attacks by the NATO Terrorists
Now, on our former president. The KLA struck first. There were no negotiations between us and them. They just came in and killed, slaughtered, kidnapped and tortured our civilians. What happened then? We were informed of all that, and as any free county would do, we sent our special forces to eliminate the threat. By bombing us, and entering Kosovo, you opened a great window of oppertunity to the KLA. Congratulations. USA AND ALL OF HER ALLIES HELP TERRORISM. Irronically, you are fighting the same terrorist group you are helping. Or at least, you think you are fighting them.
-
*looks at NATO flag*
When did we become the bad guys? eh? jeez i miss the cold war.
-
Originally posted by Razor
If you are reffering to my mistakes, take a better look at my post because I wrote it all correctly.
Hmmm, I guess I didn't leave it up long enough... :D
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
:rolleyes:
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/saddamfromiraq.asp
:ick, that was one ugly voice :D
Irrelevant when regarding a civillian issue? So you think that Serbs who live(d) on Kosovo were like....soldiers? Not civillians? Oh no you didn't forget. You weren't told about what Serbs suffered on Kosovo. You were allready turned against us so there wouldn't be any point at telling you the truth.
Then you could have tried to get the message out. If we wouldn't listen then someone else would have. (and by the way, no, I never heard a single report on the Serbs in Kosovo, but I don't trust the news. Believe it or not, we are not all ignorant fools who are out to get you.)
-
I just noticed that we are approaching a thousand posts in here; let's keep those essays coming, everyone! ;7
-
wow this is the biggest thread I have ever sired, normaly i don't even get two pages, hell, I usualy don't even get 10 posts.
um, oh, we've captured Sadam international airport, 7 miles from the center of Baghdad, I just hope we don't give it some stupid American leader name, I think nameing it after the first person to have died during the post Gulf war upriseing would be a good choice.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Oooo, the war budget just hit 75 billion. And 6 billion of that is going to the Airlines.:rolleyes:
Pitiful, pitiful state of affairs... what if that 75 billion was spent (even a fourth of it) on education? (ahem, MATH BOOKS!) Though it's largely a local issue, in Oregon schools are being cut to hell. I mean, for the local middle school they're cutting half a million out next year.
Not that it'll change unless somehow the interests of government and the supporting populace and industries suddenly veer off toward the public (intellectual's) good. (i.e. very unlikely)
-
have any of you heard the Knight Ridder report about the guy that told us were that POW was,I realy like Iraq civilians (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5552797.htm)
they should name that air port after him, when it's safe for his full name to be published
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
have any of you heard the Knight Ridder report about the guy that told us were that POW was,I realy like Iraq civilians (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5552797.htm)
they should name that air port after him, when it's safe for his full name to be published
Agreed. Iraq needs more people like this man. Here's hoping they turn up.
-
Originally posted by vyper
When did we become the bad guys? eh? jeez i miss the cold war.
You were always the bad guys. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hmmm, I guess I didn't leave it up long enough... :D
Oh now I get it. I lost my freedom of speech.
-
well you never had it, this is a privet board so admins have the ultimate power to repress, though we all know you're stance and I don't know why he deleted whatever it was that you said, I doubt it was any more inflamitory than anything you have ever posted before,
I have no problem with you stating opinion,
even if it is filled with hate for me and my people
-
Pitiful, pitiful state of affairs... what if that 75 billion was spent (even a fourth of it) on education? (ahem, MATH BOOKS!) Though it's largely a local issue, in Oregon schools are being cut to hell. I mean, for the local middle school they're cutting half a million out next year.
There is already enough money being spent on that; the problem lies in how they use that money, since the curricula and the whole education structure are in a complete mess at the moment. They need to fire all their current school admins and replace them with math professors who can actually do education right. :p
-
Originally posted by Razor
You were always the bad guys. :p
You wish.
-
Recently read an American communist's view on the war. Ack; I'm tired of all this media saturation on the war. I bet history students of the future will have a ball game... unless Fahrenheit 359 becomes a reality. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Recently read an American communist's view on the war. Ack; I'm tired of all this media saturation on the war. I bet history students of the future will have a ball game... unless Fahrenheit 359 becomes a reality. :nervous:
I thot it was 451?
-
haha, 1000th post in the thread :D
[/spam]
sorry...:(
..
wait a sec,
ahhggg, damn you vyper, now I have to try and start another topic to go to 1000 post long :mad:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
haha, 1000th post in the thread :D
[/spam]
sorry...:(
..
wait a sec,
ahhggg, damn you vyper, now I have to try and start another topic to go to 1000 post long :mad:
B.
I.
N.
G.
O.
:p
-
Originally posted by vyper
I thot it was 451?
Yeah, it was, actually. My memory's scratchy.
Poor Bobboau :D
-
Originally posted by Razor
Oh now I get it. I lost my freedom of speech.
:wtf:
Originally posted by Bobboau
well you never had it, this is a privet board so admins have the ultimate power to repress, though we all know you're stance and I don't know why he deleted whatever it was that you said, I doubt it was any more inflamitory than anything you have ever posted before...
:wtf:!?!?! Uhm, I was referring to the April Fools thing Styxx and I pulled, that replaced "my" with "your", "he" with "she", etc - all over the board. I didn't edit anything of anyones.
Or rather, when I do, I _always_ leave a nice bold red "Edited by Sandwich" type note in the post. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Or rather, when I do, I _always_ leave a nice bold red "Edited by Sandwich" type note in the post. :)
the mark of the beast. :drevil:
-
Originally posted by vyper
You wish.
No not wish. I know. :p Good guys don't massacre about a half a billion people in a matter of some 30 or 40 years. It is quite opposite. We are the good guys, you are bad. And bad guys like you have weapons of mass destruction and you break international laws and conventions We never attacked anyone. We just deffend our great country from terrorists like USA and it's NATO allies, Albanians and everyone else who is foolish enough to try to hurt us. We have a saying here at home. FREEDOM IS PRICELESS!
-
Originally posted by Razor
You were always the bad guys. :p
I DO hope you're kidding. The communists were never 'good guys' by any means. The criminal wastes, damages and social chaos perpetrated in the name of that system are horrendous. You can spout all you want about the US being evil, but I'll take the US any day of the week over the other side in the cold war.
I'm quite sure you don't want this place run in a communist model, do you?
-
Tell me, comrade Razor - what would you be willing to give to The Party?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I'm quite sure you don't want this place run in a communist model, do you?
I would. It hasn't been tried yet, you know...
-
Communism = good
Humans running a Communist state = baaaaaaaad
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Communism = good
Humans running a Communist state = baaaaaaaad
how can you know? as far as I know, communism hasn't been achieved in any country in the world. just as some people do bad things and call it democracy, some people do bad things and call it communism.
-
Originally posted by kode
I would. It hasn't been tried yet, you know...
Well, we can try.
First, we will no longer have moderators or administrators, in the proletariat all will be equal.
However, since HLP is not yet ready for communism, there will have to be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the interim.
As I led the revolution, it is obvious I have a higher state of revolutionary conciousness, it only stands to reason that I will lead this and thus lead HLP to communism.
We need a beaurocracy to ensure that everything functions smoothly, oh good, we have a Party, we'll use that.
However, since you're not agreeing with what the Party is saying, you must be an agent of foreign imperialist powers who want us to fail. As such, I suggest you recant your crimes. Here, I'll help.
Originally posted by kode
I am afraid I have been led astray by Capitalist Imperialist Powers and confess my crimes against the glorious Socialist State of Hard Light.
Thank you comrade.
*Gunshot*
Now, isn't that fun?
-
Originally posted by kode
how can you know? as far as I know, communism hasn't been achieved in any country in the world. just as some people do bad things and call it democracy, some people do bad things and call it communism.
Communism assumes that no one wants to get a one up on someone else. History has shown us that competition is the chief human instinct. I mean **** go back to Cain and Able.
-
Originally posted by kode
how can you know? as far as I know, communism hasn't been achieved in any country in the world. just as some people do bad things and call it democracy, some people do bad things and call it communism.
It hasn't achieved anything cause it was ran by HUMANS. Humans are corrupt. And in a Communist state there is no room for corruption. Thats why any communist nation/state in this world is doomed to fail.
Now, if it were run by computers I think it could definately work. :D As long as it isn't a concious computer cause that could get corrupt too.
Communism in its purest form can work. Go read up on the communist system and how it would work if it worked exactly as it supposed to.
-
One more thing.
For centuries there has been war and strife in Italy and what has come out of it? Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rapheal, the Sistine Chapel etc.
Let's look at switzerland... highly peaceful and fairly socialist what has come out of that country? The coo coo clock.
Mankind defines itself via conflicts and struggles. Do we have the 100 year peace? No. We have the hundred year war.
Face it communism would fail because mankind does not work that way. Communism = Utopia. Now look up what the later means.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
One more thing.
Let's look at switzerland... highly peaceful and fairly socialist what has come out of that country? The coo coo clock.
Viva la Swiss bank-account!
Mankind defines itself via conflicts and struggles. Do we have the 100 year peace? No. We have the hundred year war.
If mankind defined itsself through struggle then what is Ghandi? What is Budhism? I know that not nearly everyone agrees with those two things but those things define a lot of people.
Also, conflicts does not define PEOPLE it defines GOVERNMENTS. I don't WANT struggle or conflict. It is the urge for peace that defines us. That urge however is something that governments use as a reason for conflict. That is always the reason for war on this planet.
"We want peace. But only in our way!" *BOOM! CHOP! PROPAGANDA*
-
Conflict does not necessarily equal war. Defining onself through competition would probably be a better way of saying it, after all, a lot has come from peaceful competition.
BTW, siggy updated. :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
What is Ghandi?
A damn hippie.
Originally posted by Tiara
What is Budhism?
A bunch of damn hippies.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Conflict does not necessarily equal war. Defining onself through competition would probably be a better way of saying it, after all, a lot has come from peaceful competition.
Peacefull competition... That sounds about right. :)
But still, I refuse to believe that struggle and conflict is what defines us.
Also I think you cannot capture in one or two words what definbes us. We are defined by a multitude of things.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Conflict does not necessarily equal war. Defining onself through competition would probably be a better way of saying it, after all, a lot has come from peaceful competition.
BTW, siggy updated. :p
Thanks. That's what I meant by conflict. If you didn't have struggles in your life it would boring.
Gandhi and Buddhism... hmmm they had some effect but not as much as war. Do you learn about the reprocussions of Budhism or about the Treaty of Versailles? The later.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
The later.
Its "latter" for cryin' out loud :p
-
Eh. It's just English. And doing a 20 page paper at the same time as doing posts is never good.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Eh. It's just English.
Well, D'OH :p But the way you use it it should be "latter" not "later".
Meh, nevermind :rolleyes: Was just a nitpick anyway.
And only 20 page? BOO! Thats like nothing :p
-
I like everyone's nics. :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Now, isn't that fun?
yes, very.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I like everyone's nics. :D
the titles are even better.
-
:wtf: why are some of the titles in some strange font?
If mankind defined itsself through struggle then what is Ghandi? What is Budhism? I know that not nearly everyone agrees with those two things but those things define a lot of people.
I don't know about Buddhism, but the former is possibly the biggest idiot who ever lived; I can rant on about him for hours. :D Still, the "lot" here is miniscule compared to the lot who is defined by Hitler, Stalin, and so on. :D
Also, conflicts does not define PEOPLE it defines GOVERNMENTS. I don't WANT struggle or conflict. It is the urge for peace that defines us. That urge however is something that governments use as a reason for conflict. That is always the reason for war on this planet.
Conflict defines a lot of things in the universe that exist in multiplicity. As far as mankind goes, war and violence is far more consistent with the workings of both individuals and institutions than peace; as long as multiple people and multiple governments exist, you will have a combination of peace and war with both given equal weight.
But still, I refuse to believe that struggle and conflict is what defines us.
eh...you cannot just refuse to believe something that appears to be true; that is just stupid. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:wtf: why are some of the titles in some strange font?
we're members of the Hard Light Communist Party.
-
ah I see. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh...you cannot just refuse to believe something that appears to be true; that is just stupid. :p
I meant with conflict and struggle fighting and war. Not the peacefull competition :p
If we were only defined by those things we would be Klingon :rolleyes:
Today IS a good day to die! :p
-
Falcon X's title: Term
Kode's title: Estimated term
:wtf:
Styxx's title: Evil Communist Administrator
:D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Falcon X's title: Term
Kode's title: Estimated term
:wtf:
Styxx's title: Evil Communist Administrator
:D
Odd. My translations came out correct.
-
but I wanted to be a soviet.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Odd. My translations came out correct.
yeah, you're Red Dawn :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Odd. My translations came out correct.
"I do not think that means what you think it means!"
And yeah, I meant titles, not nics. Silly, tired me. :)
-
Originally posted by kode
but I wanted to be a soviet.
too bad... You are an Estimated term :lol:
-
shouldn't we offer other boards in the freespace community our friendly "protection"?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Falcon X's title: Term
Kode's title: Estimated term
:wtf:
Styxx's title: Evil Communist Administrator
:D
hence the moral, DON'T use a dictionary. learn to speak the language.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
hence the moral, DON'T use a dictionary. learn to speak the language.
Except Tiara just admited to me she got it wrong. :p
-
Yeah Been some time I actually used Russian... (besides on SB). It isn't "term" its 'member'.
And the other thing has 2 meanings... estimated AND appreciated. So its about right :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Except Tiara just admited to me she got it wrong. :p
that's what I meant. I never doubted you for a second
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
One more thing.
For centuries there has been war and strife in Italy and what has come out of it? Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rapheal, the Sistine Chapel etc.
Let's look at switzerland... highly peaceful and fairly socialist what has come out of that country? The coo coo clock.
What a load of complete Bunk riddled with confirmation bias, selective thinking and almost every other cardinal sin of presenting a cohrent argument.
Wars of plunder bring a lot of prosperity to a nation provided the actual fighting isn't happening on that said nations doorstep. Leonardo de Vinchi certainly wasn't Painting Frescos on the front line.
Keep your Geographical, cultural and historic ignorance out of this thread. Switzerland, made vast quantities of money by exploiting the various European Powers from the First World War onwards, it has virtually non existent poverty and has contributed such people as Euler (to name one) to the world. Bad Examples, Bad statistics, bad reasoning and inaccurate conclusions.
The same argument could be disected and altered to support any conclusion.
It consis of 'In (A country) country there has been (Insert half backed historical half truth here about an attribute you wish to glorify) and it has produced (List positive achievements of civilzation here.
Whilst in (B country) they (Whatever action this country doesn't do that the previous one did) and what have they produced: (insert Any unimportant discovery the country has made (the more steriotypical the better) and portray it as the only one it has made impervious to counterexamples anywhere)
Therefore country A is better than B and the action A does that B doesn't is the reason why. Therefore that action is positive and should be emulated.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I DO hope you're kidding.
Leave your hopes somewhere else. I am not kidding.
Tell me, comrade Razor - what would you be willing to give to The Party?
Is this some kind of a sick joke? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Razor
Leave your hopes somewhere else. I am not kidding.
Then you're living in happy fun-fun land, where democracy is bad and totalitarianism is good. Do you like being able to say your opinions? Then be damn glad the Americans won the cold war.
-
And Razor, why exactly do you consider the US evil again?
-
I don't know about Buddhism, but the former is possibly the biggest idiot who ever lived; I can rant on about him for hours.
Wow. This is the first time I've heard you denounced ideas that work. Ghandi is an idiot, because he won independence without needing a fight. Interesting reasoning.
Some day you might realize that war is stupid, wasteful, and in the long run, incredibly ineffecetive.
Go Commies!:D
-
and some day you might realize that the world isn't as simple as
"war is bad"
-
i may be wrong here, but hasn't the entire history of the earth been shaped by constant conflict and conquest?
-
Considering how life on Earth works, yes.
But still, I refuse to believe that struggle and conflict is what defines us.
Well... can you think of anything that humans are involved in that absolutely doesn't involve conflict or struggle? Conflict is inherent (as the environment is not "perfect") for humans, now actually you can easily say that struggle/conflict aren't needed for definition. (we wouldn't really be humans though...) It just means you have to drop an axiom of humans, "all humans strive to survive, whether on the hardware level or software level"
As long as it isn't a concious computer cause that could get corrupt too.
Consciousness does not indicate that something will be conflicting or struggle. That is only for a human-esque being that has the same built-in values (hardware) and thoughts built on top of it (software) as a normal human being (or any other animal on Earth). You can have a perfectly conscious (Generates thoughts and self-awareness) that is non-self-sustaining. The problem being that such a construct wouldn't have a drive to sustain it's idealogical state (as it is in full control of the state, it's demise implies the demise of the state) and would perish among outside pressures. (unless we assume that there are no human pressures on the state, but if that's the case what's the point of using a computer? [if humans are so ideal that is])
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and some day you might realize that the world isn't as simple as
"war is bad"
Bobboau, my view isn't that simple. Yes, conflict what creates progress. But that doesn't mean you should be eager to jump into it. If war is to be used at all, it should be used as a last resort, and there is overwhelming evidence that this war is not a last resort.
I'm tired of arguing.
-
Bobboau, my view isn't that simple. Yes, conflict what creates progress. But that doesn't mean you should be eager to jump into it. If war is to be used at all, it should be used as a last resort, and there is overwhelming evidence that this war is not a last resort.
Which essentially boils down to "war is bad," because if it creates progress, then people should indeed (and will) be eager to jump into it for their purposes. War is an option, just like any other, and may be a last resort, a first resort, or anything in between based on other conditions. So it is indeed that simple. :D
Wow. This is the first time I've heard you denounced ideas that work. Ghandi is an idiot, because he won independence without needing a fight. Interesting reasoning.
Won independence? :D Quite the contrary; you obviously have not looked at what happened there in detail at all. The reason India got its independence was that the UK had been somewhat weakened by WW2 and the INA was slowly gaining support, so the British decided to pull out before any armed uprising could occur. Gandhi was actually a major deterrent to independence, since his power and influence in the Indian parliament was so great that he could essentially kick out any congress member he pleased, which is what happened to anyone who made any mention of armed rebellion. And of course, the rapid spread of his ideas, the effects of which are seen to this day, delayed attempts at independence for many decades.
He has actually been recorded in public speeches a number of times saying that he did not even want full independence and was happy to be a part of the British empire, but was just begging for a little more freedom. They therefore let Gandhi stay in power because they knew that as long as he and his ideas were dominant, they could continue to rule without any trouble; Churchill once called him a "half-naked man of straw" which, although a massive understatement, gives an idea of what they thought of him. :D Gandhi was either a paid agent of the British or just a phenomenally stupid person, which is actually not all that unlikely considering India's political history.
On a side note, one funny thing about him is that he actually sent an official letter to Churchill during the height of WW2 asking him to show no resistance to the German onslaught and to let them kill and take, because they will eventually relent. :D (I kid you not; this one has made it into some history books)
I meant with conflict and struggle fighting and war. Not the peacefull competition :p
If we were only defined by those things we would be Klingon :rolleyes:
Same thing; competition can take many forms, but no one form is any more absolutely peaceful or warlike than another. what are these klingon like?
i may be wrong here, but hasn't the entire history of the earth been shaped by constant conflict and conquest?
Exactly. :yes: Actually, here is an interesting quote I read a few days ago:
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas, values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." -Samuel P. Huntington
-
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas, values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." -Samuel P. Huntington
That's total crap and you know it. Westeners countrary to what the media will say LOST the crusades. We ****ing lost. Not to mention they were a defensive measure. We really haven't had armed conquest against them. The difference is not in war but in our governments and industry. We got smarter than they were... period.
-
FalconX: Okay. So, one defeat. Two major ones, if you count the Russo-Japanese war. And... that's about it. And the West cleaned 'em up afterwards anyway in both cases. Out of hundreds of military adventures, from the Americas (where the Europeans killed over 9 million locals in the northern continent alone) to Africa (which is still in pieces after colonization) to the Middle East (well... duh), twice it was the Euros who lost significantly- Vietnam and the like don't count, the Americans and French lost face, sure, but that was about it. And though you could try to argue that we Westerners had the superior culture regardless of weaponry, the West's tendency to colonize and force the (invariably militarily) subjected country to adopt basics of European culture kinda wiped out any supporting evidence that theory might have. Though you're welcome to find an example of a non-European nation that adopted Western culture without an invasion or two.
-
That's total crap and you know it. Westeners countrary to what the media will say LOST the crusades. We ****ing lost. Not to mention they were a defensive measure. We really haven't had armed conquest against them. The difference is not in war but in our governments and industry. We got smarter than they were... period.
Which means the same thing as far as this matters. Look at what has happened after the crusades, since there have been a good 600 years of history since that period from which to draw conclusions. The benefits obtained from the governments and industry (including ideas) are channeled towards war, and that is the best way to measure how effective and correct they are. The West (earlier Europe, now US) has dominated the world for centuries because they have been the best at doing this.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
And Razor, why exactly do you consider the US evil again?
:doubt:
-
Can we at least be the Hard Light Bolsheviks for a little while? We can change our names to the Communists later. :D
-
I think at this time we should insert a bit of star wars geekness (sacrificing all my nobility) to alleviate this sad, sad discussion...
Razor, with emotion: I arbitrarily hate the U.S. and all it's little pitiful, ignorant citizens!
Me, waving hands casually: You don't want to arbitrarily hate a population for what it's government supposedly did to your population.
Razor, submissively: I don't want to arbitrarily hate a population for what it's government supposedly did to my population.
Me, waving hands whimsically: You want to go home and rethink your political and ethical policies.
Razor, in a semi-dazed state: I want to go home and rethink my political and ethical policies... *walks away with enlightenment*
-
Originally posted by Razor
:doubt:
Because they have smillie faces?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I think at this time we should insert a bit of star wars geekness (sacrificing all my nobility) to alleviate this sad, sad discussion...
Razor, with emotion: I arbitrarily hate the U.S. and all it's little pitiful, ignorant citizens!
Me, waving hands casually: You don't want to arbitrarily hate a population for what it's government supposedly did to your population.
Razor, submissively: I don't want to arbitrarily hate a population for what it's government supposedly did to my population.
Me, waving hands whimsically: You want to go home and rethink your political and ethical policies.
Razor, in a semi-dazed state: I want to go home and rethink my political and ethical policies... *walks away with enlightenment*
:wtf: :lol: :doubt:
Oh please do make me laugh! :lol: Just a piece of advice. Your attempts are futile!
-
Originally posted by Razor
Military action was unnecessery. You attacked a SOVEREIGN country and therefore directly broke the most important UN resolution that applies to a free nation. Let me ask you something. If your country was attacked by a such faction that tryes to take a part of your country, what would you do?
A Send special forces to eliminate the threat
B Sit and watch what would happen
C Ask them to come for tea and cookies and politely ask (beg) them to stop
Now....
You called us to Rambuei (sp) to threaten us with war and leveling our cities and killing our people. You sent us an ultimatum to surrender and allow a total ocupation of Yugoslavia. FASCISTS! You just sent your planes on March 24th 1999 at aproximately 20:00 hours. Fortunately, with the help of our sources in ******, we were able to obtain the information needed to organize our deffences and at least we mannaged to stop many attacks by the NATO Terrorists
Now, on our former president. The KLA struck first. There were no negotiations between us and them. They just came in and killed, slaughtered, kidnapped and tortured our civilians. What happened then? We were informed of all that, and as any free county would do, we sent our special forces to eliminate the threat. By bombing us, and entering Kosovo, you opened a great window of oppertunity to the KLA. Congratulations. USA AND ALL OF HER ALLIES HELP TERRORISM. Irronically, you are fighting the same terrorist group you are helping. Or at least, you think you are fighting them.
Does 'sources in ******, ' mean China?
Frankly - you're full of pish.
'Sending special forces to eliminate the threat' does not, and never has, entailed the murder, expulsion or otherwise removal of a large ethnic group. I notice you've been not able to find a justification for the massacres of Kosovan civillians, including- as the UN charge on Milosevic shows - young chilren and the elderly. Instead you continue to rant on about the KLA, as if the existence of an extremist group can justify an attack on an entire ethnic group.
If there had been, say, a Yugoslavian terrorist group oppossed to Milosevic, would you say that would justify every Yuogslav being removed from the country?
-
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
It's depressing how appropriate this is to every ****ing political argument this forum ever has.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Does 'sources in ******, ' mean China?
Frankly - you're full of pish.
'Sending special forces to eliminate the threat' does not, and never has, entailed the murder, expulsion or otherwise removal of a large ethnic group. I notice you've been not able to find a justification for the massacres of Kosovan civillians, including- as the UN charge on Milosevic shows - young chilren and the elderly. Instead you continue to rant on about the KLA, as if the existence of an extremist group can justify an attack on an entire ethnic group.
If there had been, say, a Yugoslavian terrorist group oppossed to Milosevic, would you say that would justify every Yuogslav being removed from the country?
No it's not China at all nor it is Russia. We got even better sources.
Special forces were the last resort. And first of all, we wouldn't have sent them in if the KLA wouldn't have started first. Albanians had everything they needed. Schools on Albanian , media on Alb, freedom of speech, free communication in their language (noone pushed them to just talk Serbian). And what did they want? They wanted to take Kosovo from us and they knew that we wouldn't aprove it. Then they decided to strat a terrorsit action. I allready linked them to Al Qaida and a drug smugling (but I mentioned that a long time ago). They wanted a Kosovo that was clean of Serbs and if you wanna talk about ethnic clensing, then go ahead. KLA cleansed Kosovo of Serbs, Not Milosevic of Albanians so accept that. Just compare the numbers. There are over 2 million albanians in kosovo and less than 100 000 Serbs. So who is the one who is clensed? Come on!
There has never been and there will never be a terrorist group in Yugoslavia. We have a rule there. We never attack anyone (unlike UK and USA :rolleyes: ). We just deffend what is ours. If you didn't know, Milosevic was overthrown. I never said he was a good man. He did bad things and the Serbian people couldn't tollerate his tyrany. It is not the Kosovo problem that pissed us off. It was the fact that he robbed us and many lived in missery. That's why we overthrew him. And of course, our actions in Kosovo against KLA are absolutely approved. You can't negotiate with terrorsits. We tryed, but it didn't work. When we realzied that, special forces went there and eliminated them just as any other country would do if they were in that situation. Of course, if your country was attacked like that, noone would hessitate to call up SFs. But of course, I bet that you won't listen to me (even though I am telling you what is true), so I will not say anything else here on this issue. Rictor tryed hard to convince you that we are the good guys, KLA is not. I see he gave up, and I will do the same. You are unreasonable and I find it impossible to reach you in any way. Go ahead, ask any reasonable Serb and he/she will tell you the same thing as I did.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
Hahah, that's hilarious! :D For the sake of my sanity though, I'll assume it's purely for humour. :lol:
-
you're governments actions in Kosovo were about the same as if we would have nuked Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Lybia, ect... into a long contigus sheet of glass after 11/9 (useing European format for all of you), witch we could have quite easily (and some say should have) done. the actions taken were not aganst simply the KLA but the entire Albainian population.
also you say there were 2 million albanians in kosovo and only 100,000 serbs, seeing as most of the albanians wanted to get out of Yugoslavia you should have let them rather than empy any village that you suspected of haveing a KLA cell in it.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Hahah, that's hilarious! :D For the sake of my sanity though, I'll assume it's purely for humour. :lol:
:lol:
The tide myth is one of the oldest and most absurd lies that the Lunar establishment has tried to push on a gullible world. Do they really expect us to believe that the moon - an object that allegedly resides at an average distance of 240,000 miles from the earth - has the power, from that distance, to lift how many billions of cubic meters of water?
Do an experiment: take a rubber ball and suspend it above a bathtub full of water. Now slowly move the ball closer to the water. Does the level of the water change? Not even slightly. So much for the tides myth.
The clouds are considerably closer to the moon, and much lighter than the oceans. One would imagine that if the moon had the power to raise the oceans, this same force would cause the clouds to go flying into space, yet this does not happen. This proves that the tides story is physically impossible.
:D :lol:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
also you say there were 2 million albanians in kosovo and only 100,000 serbs, seeing as most of the albanians wanted to get out of Yugoslavia you should have let them rather than empy any village that you suspected of haveing a KLA cell in it.
Ehh..your sentences don't really make sense. Are you sure you are American? :wtf:
-
majority rules == democracy
if the majority of people liveing in that regon did not want to be ruled by you, you should have let them go
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
majority rules == democracy
if the majority of people liveing in that regon did not want to be ruled by you, you should have let them go
Ah, so America has respected that rule in South America, Cuba, Vietnam then?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
majority rules == democracy
Oh yes. Thank you so much for opening my eyes. If there weren't for you I would still be wandering the empty voids of ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
It's depressing how appropriate this is to every ****ing political argument this forum ever has.
Heheheh.... heh. What, no moon?
-
Originally posted by Razor
No it's not China at all nor it is Russia. We got even better sources.
Special forces were the last resort. And first of all, we wouldn't have sent them in if the KLA wouldn't have started first. Albanians had everything they needed. Schools on Albanian , media on Alb, freedom of speech, free communication in their language (noone pushed them to just talk Serbian). And what did they want? They wanted to take Kosovo from us and they knew that we wouldn't aprove it. Then they decided to strat a terrorsit action. I allready linked them to Al Qaida and a drug smugling (but I mentioned that a long time ago). They wanted a Kosovo that was clean of Serbs and if you wanna talk about ethnic clensing, then go ahead. KLA cleansed Kosovo of Serbs, Not Milosevic of Albanians so accept that. Just compare the numbers. There are over 2 million albanians in kosovo and less than 100 000 Serbs. So who is the one who is clensed? Come on!
There has never been and there will never be a terrorist group in Yugoslavia. We have a rule there. We never attack anyone (unlike UK and USA :rolleyes: ). We just deffend what is ours. If you didn't know, Milosevic was overthrown. I never said he was a good man. He did bad things and the Serbian people couldn't tollerate his tyrany. It is not the Kosovo problem that pissed us off. It was the fact that he robbed us and many lived in missery. That's why we overthrew him. And of course, our actions in Kosovo against KLA are absolutely approved. You can't negotiate with terrorsits. We tryed, but it didn't work. When we realzied that, special forces went there and eliminated them just as any other country would do if they were in that situation. Of course, if your country was attacked like that, noone would hessitate to call up SFs. But of course, I bet that you won't listen to me (even though I am telling you what is true), so I will not say anything else here on this issue. Rictor tryed hard to convince you that we are the good guys, KLA is not. I see he gave up, and I will do the same. You are unreasonable and I find it impossible to reach you in any way. Go ahead, ask any reasonable Serb and he/she will tell you the same thing as I did.
Answer the question. can you justify the attmepted ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians? The ethnic mix of Kosovo is of no relevance when you're sending in troops. If the Yuoglsav army had been attacking the KLA only, there would have been no reason for NATO to intervene?
If you are willing to aknowledge that Milosevic was an evil man, and a tyrant, why can't you accept that he was willing to try and eliminate an entire ethnic group that was causing him problems?
And on the subject of Yugoslav terrorists, I can give a very famour Serbian terrorist group- the Black Hand - who were partially responsible for the first world war. They were dedicated to the creation of a greater Serbia - not entirely different from the KLA's aims... if Serbia was still part of the 'old' Yugoslavia, would it still be a problem?
You're suggesting that Serbians are somehow 'better' than the rest of humanity now? That the Serbian ethnic group / nationality is somehow immune to creating the sort of criminals / nutters that become terrorists? Would you not say that the assassination of Djindjic could not be construed as a terrorist act aimed at destabilisation the reconstruction of Serbia & M? Or that the ethnic cleansing during the civil war could not also be construed as a form of politically motivated, state sponsored terrorism?
Fianlly, I'm not even sure that the Kosovo Albanians did have the fredoms you say.... I'm sure I remeber part of Milosevic's war crimes summons related to the removal of the 'devolution' (partial autonomy) of Kosovo 'state' when it was still aprt of Yugoslavia, and the rmeoval of items such as personal identification. Although I could be wrong on this- it is only a vague memory. But it's npothing special to be allowed to have your own language, schools and media. All 4 'kingdoms' of the UK (Wales,England, SCotland, N.Ireland) have this, and it's never fuelled any problems between our 'peoples'.
-
bah, you guys are soo far off topic, back to the latest war headlines...
EDIT: Meh, might bother somepeople
Click for Funny (http://www.3dap.com/hlp\hosted\datdb\index_1.jpg)
mad props to Twisted Reality @ WS :D
-
:lol: Oh its sick but funny....
Anyway....
Any1 know how far UK forces are into Basra?
-
KT: :D :D
Ah, so America has respected that rule in South America, Cuba, Vietnam then?
He is the one claiming to respect that, though. :p
-
We took the old city todya which makes it about 95% control.... just a few of those fedayin nutters left (less then a thousand). All the She'ites are well chuffed and partying.
Lost 3 blokes though.
-
Support the troops and the war, but not the ideas that sent them there.
-
Basarah is now releving in it's new freedom, people danceing, chearing, asking why it took us so damn long to get there...
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Support the troops and the war, but not the ideas that sent them there.
Why? less civilians will die in this war then die every year for "political and religious" crimes.
-
Carrot: That depends entirely on how you define "civilians", doesn't it? Judging from the newspapers, in this conflict it's defined as anyone who is adequately overflowing with glee at the arrival of the US forces.
So, yes, under that definition probably fewer casualties, though if there's a city conflict in Baghdad that's debatable. However, that covers maybe 20% of the populace.
-
several hundred children die every year because saddam stockpiles medacines hes given by the UN aid programs instead of distributing them to the population. Id classify them as civilians.
-
Several hundred children die every year because of the US/UN embargo that blocks nearly all medical goods, you mean? Surprising, I wasn't aware we were killing so many with it. Thought it was more around 200.
-
No these are medical supplies that are allowed and indead supplied using UN money, they are however just stockpiled. Saddam created the humanitarian situation in Iraq, NOT the sanctions.
-
Well, I'd argue that the sanctions create the humanitarian situation, but in turn Saddam is responsible for the sanctions. His pride comes before the welfare of the average Iraqi peasent, so he resisted the UN and bought the sanctions against the country. So it's Saddam's fault, though in a slightly more roundabout way...
-
No the sanctions and the oil for food program are set up to avoid a humanitarian crisis if saddam complied, it would be stupid setting up a sanction knowing that even if the other side follows it your going to be starving the population.
-
Stupid, yes, but the US isn't exactly world-renowned for its collective intelligence.
The embargo completely bars many common vaccines and treatments because with a whole lot of work and a good deal of ingenuity you might be able to turn them into bioweapons. This includes things like leukemia treatments and... well, actually just about any dead-sample vaccine you care to mention.
In other words, Saddam wouldn't need to stockpile anything for a medical crisis to kill hundreds or thousands of people, we do it just fine on our own, because we can't be arsed to send shipments and just keep track of them.
-
we've got "Chemical Ali"
he's dead
and there are US 3rd inf. guys takeing showers in Sadam's presidential palice's gold encrusted bathrooms.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and there are US 3rd inf. guys takeing showers in Sadam's presidential palice's gold encrusted bathrooms.
Nice analogy.
-
Actualy all the vaccines are allowed, they can only be administered and kept by UN medical aid officials who were banned from the country.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Why? less civilians will die in this war then die every year for "political and religious" crimes.
What does that have to do with what I said?
I said that we should support our troops (UK + US), because they're putting themselves in the line of fire to help some Iraqis that probably don't even like them. Some of them are even making the ultimate sacrifice to help them.
BTW, I think I'm starting to turn on my opinion of the ideals of the war. At first I didn't like it, because I thought GWB would grab the oil fields as soon as possible, but instead, it seems they are genuinely trying to help the Iraqis.
-
thank you :)
-
Stupid, yes, but the US isn't exactly world-renowned for its collective intelligence.
The embargo completely bars many common vaccines and treatments because with a whole lot of work and a good deal of ingenuity you might be able to turn them into bioweapons. This includes things like leukemia treatments and... well, actually just about any dead-sample vaccine you care to mention.
In other words, Saddam wouldn't need to stockpile anything for a medical crisis to kill hundreds or thousands of people, we do it just fine on our own, because we can't be arsed to send shipments and just keep track of them.
US really? I thought that was a UN sanction. Therefore everyone agreed to it. Your fault too. Personnaly I like our current solution better.
BTW Saddam killed a **** load more than any of our sanctions and you know it.
-
anyone heard the latest news? They are saying that Hussein and his two sons might be dead.
-
they've been saying that for the last two and a half weeks,
is there any new news, I've been away from media for the last twelve hours (other than this collage computer I'm on)
-
dunno, there was apparently something new a few minutes ago; my parents said that there was something on TV about him being found dead and confirmed by DNA tests but I was too busy with a math problem to pay much attention...
-
The Paras grabbed the oil fields on day 1...........
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
US really? I thought that was a UN sanction. Therefore everyone agreed to it. Your fault too. Personnaly I like our current solution better.
BTW Saddam killed a **** load more than any of our sanctions and you know it.
I think it was the Security Council who passed the resolution and thereby making it binding on all UN members.
-
we just shot a hotel filled with jornalists...
great :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we just shot a hotel filled with jornalists...
great :rolleyes:
Nice move :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Nice move :sigh:
bah, they probably gave people the wrong view of the war...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we just shot a hotel filled with jornalists...
great :rolleyes:
Al Jazeera'll love it.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we just shot a hotel filled with jornalists...
great :rolleyes:
Looks like someone's not photogenic!
-
The tank gunner thought the camera flashes were muzzle flashes apparently.
-
:blah:
*takes picture*
*gets blown away by a 45mm tank gun*
:blah:
-
I hope not
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I hope not
Well thank you :D:p
-
well, I was refering to the camera's being confused for guns thing,
not that I don't care about you, but more becase I know you're not in Baghdad and probly didn't get blasted :)
-
Blah. Journalist embedded in a tank column, shrapnel embedded in a journalist, it's all war.
-
well, i think iraq's infromation minister has become the unofficial 'joke' of this war.... he kinda reminds me of officer barbrady from south park
"Move along people there's nothing to see here"
-
Iraqi civilians are looting government and UN buildings throughout the contry, major celibrations in the north and south, as well as some in parts of Baghdad.
I do beleve me and my contry have been proven right.
thank you, come again :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Iraqi civilians are looting government and UN buildings throughout the contry, major celibrations in the north and south, as well as some in parts of Baghdad.
I do beleve me and my contry have been proven right.
thank you, come again :)
I just hope Saddam isn't waiting until "the right moment" to reveal some sort of ace up his sleeve. :-/
-
that's a lurking thought in the back of my mind too.
-
you mean like nukeing Baghdad or something?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Iraqi civilians are looting government and UN buildings throughout the contry, major celibrations in the north and south, as well as some in parts of Baghdad.
I do beleve me and my contry have been proven right.
thank you, come again :)
about the WMD? no...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you mean like nukeing Baghdad or something?
Or other targets, yes. And I'm not worried about conventional means of nuking a place (ICBMs) - it's the "give these nuclear warheads to Al-Quaida / Hezbollah before the UN annoyances come in here and see them" scenario that has me thinking.
-
Usama was given all the weapons he could ever have wanted during that nice long 9 month warning we gave Sadam that we were comeing for his ass
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Usama was given all the weapons he could ever have wanted during that nice long 9 month warning we gave Sadam that we were comeing for his ass
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Iraqi civilians are looting government and UN buildings throughout the contry, major celibrations in the north and south, as well as some in parts of Baghdad.
I do beleve me and my contry have been proven right.
thank you, come again :)
Yup I agree. There is one problem with all the religious stereotypes people are saying... but I imagine we can get over that. **** we did with Japan.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Iraqi civilians are looting government and UN buildings throughout the contry, major celibrations in the north and south, as well as some in parts of Baghdad.
I do beleve me and my contry have been proven right.
thank you, come again :)
Yeah, you've killed people - didn't see that coming. Well done :rolleyes:
-
we've freed people, _millions_ of them, people who were suffering and would give there life to free there people, hundreds of thousands are releving in the streets all across Iraq, there pulling down the statues and throuing there shoes at the vestages of Sadam.
I heard a story about a guy down in Al Basarah who got shot in a cross fire, as he lay bleeding in a british military medical center he said "I know you wern't shooting at me, thank you, thank you for freeing us".
people are showing us were the Fedayeen are and chearing when we hit them, hell civilians are riseing up draging them out of cars and beating the Fedayeen to death them selves.
are you not seeing the same things as us?
do you not see the joy in the faces of these people?
draging Sadam's head (the statue) throughout the strees, rideing on it, kicking it.
"I will kill Sadam with my own teeth" one Iraqi said
Iraqis flying American flags from there cars (as seen in Al Jarzera), waveing us on
I _can_ _not_ _beleve_ you are still holding on to that "you're killing people" line
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I _can_ _not_ _beleve_ you are still holding on to that "you're killing people" line
But America is. Of course, there's no need to mention the famous "Can't-make-an-omelete-without-breaking-a-few-eggs" quip, nor is there need to point out how in the original Gulf War, Saddam actually caused more Jews to come into the world than he took out, by virtue of the birth rate skyrocketing 9 months afterwards as well as the lowering of road accidents due to lowered traffic, thus reducing the number of deaths... :rolleyes:
But no one said "Oh, please Mr Saddam, keep on tossing Scuds at us - it's saving lives!"
Same here. Yes, people are being killed. War is a pain. War hurts people. So do vaccinations, operations, and life's lessons. But no one is screaming "Stop the heart-transplants - people are dying!!" :rolleyes:
-
today is the day that will go down in history as the day Iraq tasted freedom,
thouse of you who wish to refuse to beleve what we truely have done and the joy that this day has brought to tens of millions of people can take there place in the flat earth society.
if you need me I will be with the hundreds of millions of people around the world reveling in the victory of freedom over tyrany and the liberation of a people.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
today is the day that will go down in history as the day Iraq tasted freedom,
thouse of you who wish to refuse to beleve what we truely have done and the joy that this day has brought to tens of millions of people can take there place in the flat earth society.
if you need me I will be with the hundreds of millions of people around the world reveling in the victory of freedom over tyrany and the liberation of a people.
Great! Next targets: China, Iran, Belarus, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, Rwanda and all the other countries that are undemocratic and/or that have a dictator. Lots of people to liberate so get going! :rolleyes:
-
The anti-US guys are now angry that we have prevailed; they were expecting it all along, but as the saying goes, nothing succeeds like success itself. :D Anyway, now I can laugh at all the people who were saying that Baghdad will become a very tough military target with urban guerilla fighting and civilian rebellions earlier in this thread. :D (although as I said before, they knew what would happen all along, but did not want to show it)
well, i think iraq's infromation minister has become the unofficial 'joke' of this war.... he kinda reminds me of officer barbrady from south park
He said just yesterday that "Iraq is safe, secure and great." I guess he himself didn't realize how much meaning those words had... :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
He said just yesterday that "Iraq is safe, secure and great." I guess he himself didn't realize how much meaning those words had... :D
This guy is hilarius, he should get his own talkshow.
-
I don't think it even matters that they haven't found any WMD's to me at least. Seeing the reaction from the people of Basra and Baghdad makes me think that this should have happened twelve years ago. Yes people died, civillians at that, but I think that unless America really balls it up now, the ends justify the means.
Rumours flying about now that the Russian Embassy is hiding Saddam....
-
Originally posted by Pez
Great! Next targets: China, Iran, Belarus, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, Rwanda and all the other countries that are undemocratic and/or that have a dictator. Lots of people to liberate so get going! :rolleyes:
:nervous: And this is a problem why? :nervous: :p
-
I am glad they finished the job this time. But if they establish a US government for longer then 3-4 months they'll have new problems. Especially since even Blair is against long-term US goverment in Iraq. You have to remember that there will always be a part of the Iraqi population that likes the afct that the US got rid of Saddam but don't want a US gov.
Though I might not like the US way they got to this war, they way they handled it was quite good :)
-
Originally posted by vyper
:nervous: And this is a problem why? :nervous: :p
My previous post (which you qouted) was a sarcastic response to Bobboau post about that the liberation of the Iraqi people when the agenda for US in this war was not to liberate the Iraqi people (US wanted to get rid of Saddam and the alleged WMD). The US has never cared about if a country is undemocratic or if it run by a dictator (just look at the recent war in Afghanistan where the US supported Pakistan or in the 80's when the US gave weapons to Saddam).
And no it's not a problem but you gotta realize why states to these things (read CP5670 posts and you'll understand). The remark was ment to be sarcastic cause I don't see the US liberating a poor country that aren't a threat to the US. So don't you ever say it's about liberation or freedom. It's about a goverment that protects their own citizens and about money. It's that easy.
[EDIT]This goes for most states so it's not some anti-US bull****. The only thing is when people (most of the times americans) say that US or some other country does something because of freedom and liberation of the people when it's obviously that's not the case.[/EDIT]
-
To people claiming that there's great rejoice, you only have half a picture. You think the US media'll cover any unfriendly response to occupation? nope... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12825322&method=full&siteid=50143 at the very least it's a mixed response, you can't decide what the majority think with biased media coverage (btw, I'm not saying the majority is against. just that what the media claims is not necessarily truth like you think)
Oh and the US may have supposedly freed people (merely a by product, not at all a goal of war) but was the excuse provided a good one? nope.... http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2154&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258
All the US officials provided in multiple articles I've read was (a few days ago) we'll go find weapons after the way (i.e. they don't have any, but we'll make sure to plant some later :p)
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2535904 <-- CP was right after all :nod:
-
Funny how the hawks seem to imagine mass looting is a good thing. "Hey, anarchy and chaos are healthy! They're just getting it out of their systems! Good for them!"
Not that I'm particularly against anarchy, mind, but the looting-and-lynching variety generally isn't so great, particularly if you have any plans on "rebuilding" the place afterward.
****, look at Watts. It's been forty ****ing years, inside the very same country that is now so big on "rebuilding", and the place still is a burned-out hole in half the parts.
-
the people looting the government buildings shows that they arn't afraid of themany more and they are riseing up and fighting Sadam, not nesasaraly that them breaking and stealing **** is an inherantly good thing but looting and linching is the sort of thing that happens in revolutions, wich this truely now has become.
-
No, not really. It's the sort of thing that happens in sieges. It's called mass chaos. And seeing as they're looting damn near everything, I wouldn't consider it "symbolic" so much as "indiscriminate". They ain't particularly scared of the government right now, but they're not likely to be any more scared of, say, US troops.
It's called a riot, man, and just in case you've never been in one, it's ****ing insane. It's like everyone's got rabies, and it doesn't always stop.
-
Stryke: If this goes succesfully and we do what we said we were going to do and the people support us... I want you to eat crow and take a picture of it... and right now I'd start finding some crow.
-
And if this doesn't, I want you to go take a vacation in Basra.:p
Or, for that matter, anywhere in the general area of the Middle East. **** gonna get pretty hot.
-
Stryke, you are so CYNICAL!
And I agree with Falcon X.
-
Why can't you accept what is happening. The people realize that were serious this time and are rising up against Saddams regime. Besides where do you get your information. I don't even think you are very well informed. You seem to be more like someone who just mindlessly forms oppinions based on hate or political stance.
-
'Course I am. And I'm almost always right, too.
Fact, it's usually when I'm not cynical that I'm wrong. Anyway, there's one ****load more risk in losing the war than gain in winning it- and I'm talking about the extended war, too. Any half-decent Iraqi commander would have seen that the initial conflict wasn't a winnable one and would have reorganized for an extended guerrilla warfare, to basically blow up the US's victory in its face. And what with the anarchy, the lack of real combat, and the sudden unexplained dissapearance of an awful lot of Special Republican Guard units, I'd say that the writing's on the wall, and it's not a happy message. You'd better believe that Baghdad is child's play to what happens when all those guys start spreadin' the hate.
Though I am going to have so much fun watching as Bush's "reconstruction" is forced to take place in the form of armed US thugs forcing the people to do everything, simply because they won't cooperate except at gunpoint.
But maybe I'm wrong, unlikely as it is. Still, it's infinitely better to suspect the likely worst case than blithely assume that everything is gonna be fine and not wake up to what's going on until more buildings start exploding and the heads of Turkey, Saudia Arabia and whatever poor **** we put as puppet governor of Iraq are dancing a foot above the ground from a streetlight.
As to your second post: Oh yes, stop the hate, spread the love, looting and pillaging shops is now a legitimate form of revolution when armed soldiers from a foreign country are marching down your street. And it's called every major newspaper and radio source. You might have heard of them.
Sure, they realize it's serious this time. I think they figured that out when American planes started bombing the **** out of their cities, Einstein. It's kinda a little late to be "rising up against the regime", though, eh? Seeing as its effectively gone and all. The Baghdadders aren't revolting, they're just rioting- the Kurds (remember them? The guys we told to revolt, left to die, and then tried to sell out to Turkey?) revolted. The Shias (the guys we keep oppressin'? Might ring a bell?) revolted. Hell, those twits in Washington revolted, such as it is (though what kinda revolution ends with you in some cushy pad in DC while your comrades are blown up in trenches is a mystery to me).
-
But will you eat crow?
-
every major newspaper, radio, TV show, internet article I ve seen sais they are primarily looting government buildings though I havn't been able to read/watch/hear any news for the last 10 hours so I may be out of date
and yes will you?
-
Falcon X: Will you take a long trip? Remember to bring Kevlar.
Bob: Possibly. Where are you imagining the things worth stealing are? Government always gets all the cool ****, and in a welfare state like Iraq where the government manages all the food and medicine for 60% of the people, that goes doubly so. There aren't any shops to loot.
And it's not like looting's ever really organized, either. If you had a few coordinated militias or individuals going from government center to government center shooting 'em up, I'd buy it, but mobs just don't work that way. You're in a crowd, it's an angry, scared crowd, you see something attractive in a shop window, smash, grab, repeat. Everyone else imitates. Soon it's time to call out the fire brigade, 'cos there's no stone left unburned.
-
If my nation called for it... I would. But thankfully the US actually has a good VOLUNTEER military.
So will you eat crow?
-
So you're ducking out. Nice. And, I might add, shows how much faith you have that the US is doing fine.
Never tried crow. I'd imagine it'd taste rather gamey. I certainly don't see why the crow-eating fetish.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Why can't you accept what is happening. The people realize that were serious this time and are rising up against Saddams regime. Besides where do you get your information. I don't even think you are very well informed. You seem to be more like someone who just mindlessly forms oppinions based on hate or political stance.
Umm.... who're the people who pull biased, dumb information out of the American media (i.e. bull****)? Yes, you supporters (excluding people like CP I mean).
-
you know as looting goes what I've seen isn't eactly what I think of when I think riot, if you have wached any of it it's basicly a long line of people walking into a building (in an almost orderly fasion) grabing something of interest (hey look a frige, just what I'v always wanted) and walking out. now some of the seens of people burning pictures of Sadam and smashing monuments does look somewhat riot-like,
though I guess so do many jubulant celebrations, honestly most of what I've seen so far hasn't been much worse than our average peace riot,
I am not by any strech of the imagination implying that what is happening is organised, but it isn't complete chaos ether, they don't seem to be just cruseing for someone to beat the crap out of, for the most part it looks like there just reclaiming what is there's.
I am actualy quite suprized that we havn't seen any pictures of Ba'athist officals naled to the tops of tall buildings by there testicles yet. though I guess that's cause they all ran for there frik'n lives last night, probly a good idea,
personaly I hope the angry mob gets to them before they get to Syria
-
Might also be because the mobs ain't so big, and they're rather confused (there've been attacks on the Army, too, but mostly scattered). All in all, it looks to me like a coty being invaded, but I dunno.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Or, for that matter, anywhere in the general area of the Middle East. **** gonna get pretty hot.
Deal! ;7 ;7 ;7 :p :lol:
-
The struggle was never going to be to win the war, it was to be to win the peace. If the US (and UK, though we've seemingly got bugger all say in the political machinations behind this, as per bloody usual) doesn't bring a stable, free, democracy to Iraq (i.e. if it just leaves a puppet government, or worse still a single person in charge), then the stated aim of this whole war would have been betrayed.
Oh, and where did you come from, Pez? Been ******* ages since I last saw you online....
-
Thought I'd throw in a few responses to the war that have been going around an email thingy recently.
UN Petition for Peace
The US Congress has just authorized the President of
the US to go to
war against Iraq. Please consider this an urgent
request.
Stand for Peace.
Islam is not the Enemy.
War is NOT the Answer.
Today we are at a point of imbalance in the world and
are moving toward
what may be the beginning of a THIRD WORLD WAR.
If you are against this possibility, the UN is
gathering signatures in
an effort to avoid a tragic world event.
Please COPY (rather than Forward) this e-mail in a new
message, sign at
the end of the list, and send it to all the people
whom you know.
If you receive this list with more than 500 names
signed, please send a
copy of the message to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Even if you decide not to sign, please consider
forwarding the petition
on instead of eliminating it.
1)... 253)...
Saddam Hussein is a murderer and an ethnic cleanser. He has been responsible for the murder of thousands if not millions of Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims since he came to power. Do the people who signed this petition realise that?
Why didn't the US receive UN approval for the war in Iraq? It's because two permanent members of the Security Council swayed the UN. Who were these countries? Russia and France. Why did they not support the war? Is it due to altruism on their part? No. It is because both countries have lucrative oil contracts with Iraq.
So really, I can't see any problem with this war. It will remove a despot from power, liberate the Iraqi people (who, by the way, have shown amazing support for Coalition troops) and result in a drop in oil prices across the world. That's why I won't be adding my name to this petiiton and if anyone is going to, just have a look at the facts before you make up your mind.
Perhaps the saddest fact of this whole affair is that 253 people can
be persuaded to add their names to such a cause. Much as I hate to
admit it, Patrick's got a point. No-one's acting on altruistic
motives - not the US, not Britian, and certainly not France or
Russia.
In light of the recent declaration by the US that it's no longer very
important to them to kill Saddam Hussein, one wonders at the
incompetence displayed by the Americans. But the fact remains that
they will remove him from power, and though it's unclear they have
very much intention of insituting a truly democratic government, it
cannot be argued that Saddam's government is better for the Iraqi
people than a Western-friendly government. If for no other reasons,
humanitarian aid will have an easier time working, and UN sanctions
will be lifted.
I will take issue with the fact that the resolution was not put to
the UN due to the actions of France and Russia. Tony Blair had,
earlier that week, attempted to pave the way for receving "moral
approval", which of course, would have been better than no
approval. The fact that they pulled the vote altogether suggests that
they were not capable even of achieving this victory, and the
question must certainly be raised as to whether two countries on a
power trip to recapture the glory of the days when they still
mattered could have so much power over the smaller countries who are
dependant on the US for more than half their aid - or, in Pakistan's
case, to keep their government in power.
The past fortnight has shown that while some Iraqis have certainly
met US troops with support, many have held back, and Coalition forces
are now meeting unanticipated resistance from the people of Iraq. But
in defense of the other side of this debate, that fact is
understandable given the actions on George Bush Snr. on the
conclusion of the war in '91.
While there's certainly something to be said for national
sovereignty, high ideals have little place in a world dominated by
practicalities. At a time when everyone's shouting slogans they don't
believe in, perhaps it's an idea to look at the possible outcomes of
the war, before making a decision as to who's morally superior.
Your idealism is touching. But people will die no matter what. What's
sad is not that people can be persuaded to sign an anti-war document.
What's sad is that they can be persuaded to sign a document which
appeals to the idealism, rather than rationalism within them. It's
people with idealism that the peace movement is drawing into riots,
and its people with idealism that the US is able to persuade to join
their cause. What's sad is that you can think with great sympathy of
all the Iraqi people dying under American bombs, but think nothing of
those dying under the half-hearted measures the UN has tried to
insitute to look like it's doing something. What's sad is that you
can rule out war so absolutely as an answer to the world's problems
when a brief glance at history makes it clear that other,
"diplomatic" solutions will lead only to fueds that will
end up killing more people than the wars would have in the first
place. For examples, refer to the 3 wars fought over Kashmir,
and the fueds that followed, the 6-day war and the subsequent riots
in Israel.
You want to talk about people dying? How many people were killed in
Nazi Germany because the Allies were reluctant to interfere with
Germany's internal affairs - or even to look into them? How many
people died in Sraba & Shatila because the Israeli army refused to
look into the activities of the Phalanges?
That's some strong language you're using there - "the altar of
political and economic expediency"? Unfortunately, it's been
said before. Numerous times, by people just as determined to win over
public opinion, and just as ready to use shouted slogans and George
Bush is. I've got news for you that you may not like - people die
anyway. Either they die because it's convenient for Bush, or they die
because it's convenient for Saddam Hussein.
Most Arabs hate the Americans anyway. So they've got one of two
choices - pacify them, or keep them down. And I'm sorry if that's a
little too cynical for you, but the truth is, the second option's
just easier and more effective. But if the US - or the UN - can hold
their own in post-war Iraq, the relative stability of the government
in Iraq will actually make it easier to handle Palestine. There are
too many states in that region hostile to the West handle - some have
to eliminated. So we can wage war on Iraq now, or leave Lebanon to
dissolve into Civil War again, and Palestine as it is, and - well,
you know the story.
Just an afterthought, the fact that Iraq has an army doesn't mean
Iraqis are opposed to the Coalition forces. After all, Australia has
an army in Iraq, and there are at least 253 people who are anti-war.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Umm.... who're the people who pull biased, dumb information out of the American media (i.e. bull****)? Yes, you supporters (excluding people like CP I mean).
Coming from someone that quoted the ****ing Dail Mail which is the most biased piece of **** tabloid i've ever had the misfortune of reading, that's pretty rich.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and where did you come from, Pez? Been ******* ages since I last saw you online....
Well, as always real life catches you up. I've basically been busy with university and i've gotten a new apartment, i've been going to more awaymatches (including a nice trip to Ireland) to support my team etc etc. I haven't lost interest in Freespace but I don't play it as frequantly as I used to, it's still my favorite game though.
Btw does anyone have the link to Descent-Freespace.com that let you use the better/higher resolution textures?
-
Sandwich: Offer applicable to Falcon X only. I just really wanted to see if he even swallowed his own bull****, and since he clearly doesn't I think he can be safely ignored for the duration of this thread, and any that follow it.
Besides, you're in the IDF. You get to see what's goin' on already.:p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we just shot a hotel filled with jornalists...
great :rolleyes:
It really surprises me that NATO hit so many of it's "friendly" targets. I believe that about 1000+ people died this way. Wow talk about "inteligent" weapons. :rolleyes:
-
I take it you haven't heard the joke about the US wars in the Middle East really being an excuse to take out the Canadian Army so we can invade...
-
Originally posted by Razor
It really surprises me that NATO hit so many of it's "friendly" targets. I believe that about 1000+ people died this way. Wow talk about "inteligent" weapons. :rolleyes:
Yes, as opposed to gassing people or using area bombing. Those are far less likely to cause collateral damage. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Razor
It really surprises me that NATO hit so many of it's "friendly" targets. I believe that about 1000+ people died this way. Wow talk about "inteligent" weapons. :rolleyes:
Has nothing to do, really. Most of those incidents are from incorrectly targetting friendly forces, not from a precision weapon missing.
-
Shrike: Technically, we were carpet-bombing Baghdad. And I'm not sure whether or not we used the MOAB (not really of interest to me), but if we did, that sure would qualify as an "area" bomb no matter what definition you use.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Shrike: Technically, we were carpet-bombing Baghdad. And I'm not sure whether or not we used the MOAB (not really of interest to me), but if we did, that sure would qualify as an "area" bomb no matter what definition you use.
Wrong. Over 80% of the munitions were guided. Carpet bombing involves leveling a city. We were extremely targeted.
-
Remember, the CIA was gutted and neutered by the end of the Clinton administration, the same CIA that mis-targeted hospitals and embassies is the same group that was abso-****ing-lutly clueless about an attack that killed nearly 3000 of our people,
hits on civilian targets are treated the same as if they were hits on our side,
fortunately things seem to be straitening up as I don't think there was a single bomb drooped on something we thought was something else, this is likely because we have had 10,000 special ops guys in there for the last few months, as opposed to relying solely on the nutless CIA
-
It doesn't matter how precise the bomb is, if you use ten thousand of them in rapid succession on everything nearby its target the effect is exactly the same. So we nailed optic guidance systems to the end of a bomb so that it would hit the right building in an entire block of buildings we intended to destroy. It's just expensive carpet-bombing then.
And they're blowing up all those cool sensors just for no reason... why not just send them to me???:sigh:
-
there seems to have been something of a find in Al Tuwaitha,
weapons grade plutonium, some are saying that is IAEA stuff, but it was suposedly found in an underground facility that 'didn't exsist'
-
Trippy.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Wrong. Over 80% of the munitions were guided. Carpet bombing involves leveling a city. We were extremely targeted.
Thats how you hit Baghdads markets.
-
yes that is how after the thousands and thousands of bombs we droped only one (or was it two) hit a market place. though it could just as easily been a malfunctioning Iraqi missle, though I will accept that they were ours, seeing as there would be absolutly no malfunctioning bombs if not for this and that seems a bit odd given the number of bombs droped,
does anyone have any statistics of bombs droped people killed Iraqi vs coalition/military vs civilian
you know I find it some what funny that the only people in the world that seem to beleve us when we say we are not targeting civilians are the people in the contry we are bombing
-
Actually, they don't. But this is probably the time to note that I never said anything like that the Army was going for civvies. Y'all seem to confuse everyone like that, so that if one person has a certain political stance, and also thinks that the Illuminati is trying to plant a mind-controlling bullfrog in his brain when he sleeps, ya assume we all do. Razor and such do not represent the views of the management.
Anyway, it'd serve really no function to intentionally slaughter civilians. The Army was a bit less careful than it maybe should have been ideally, but they're soldiers- indiscriminate killing is their modus operandi. The damage was relatively contained compared to most wars, and a PR nightmare was averted.
-
I know you have never said that but there have been those who have implied it here, and there are many in the world who do beleve we are intentionaly killing civilians
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Shrike: Technically, we were carpet-bombing Baghdad. And I'm not sure whether or not we used the MOAB (not really of interest to me), but if we did, that sure would qualify as an "area" bomb no matter what definition you use.
Oh, come on. The brits and americans did thousand-bomber raids in WWII. That is carpet bombing.
-
AFAIK, bombs as a general weapon type have always been 'inaccurate', for whatever reason - including both incorrect term and lack of precision. Strategic rather than tactical.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
Thats how you hit Baghdads markets.
Oh nice try skippy. Military analysts at the pentagon and also abroad have said that couldn't have been us for two reasons.
1. Way off course.
2. The blast looked nothing like a cruise missle detonation, or even a bomb detonation. It resembled more of a car bomb blast.
Even if we did hit the market, that's like one in a million. Are you expecting perfection?
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Oh nice try skippy. Military analysts at the pentagon and also abroad have said that couldn't have been us for two reasons.
1. Way off course.
2. The blast looked nothing like a cruise missle detonation, or even a bomb detonation. It resembled more of a car bomb blast.
Even if we did hit the market, that's like one in a million. Are you expecting perfection?
As a general note, may I say there is no room for mistakes in war. :nod:
-
Originally posted by vyper
As a general note, may I say there is no room for mistakes in war. :nod:
May I note; "A war isn't a war without mistakes."
Hell,
"War IS[/u] a mistake"
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
or even a bomb detonation. It resembled more of a car bomb blast.
:wtf:
Ok, what is wrong in that sentence?
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Oh nice try skippy. Military analysts at the pentagon and also abroad have said that couldn't have been us for two reasons.
1. Way off course.
2. The blast looked nothing like a cruise missle detonation, or even a bomb detonation. It resembled more of a car bomb blast.
Even if we did hit the market, that's like one in a million. Are you expecting perfection?
Two different markets, an orphanage(sp?), the Al Jazeera and Abu Dabhi TV stations in Iraq (don't think that they were mistakes).
It reminds me of the Chinese embassy bombing in Yugoslavia. They were lucky this time.
-
we did go after Iraq's TV stations but not Al Jazeera and Abu Dabhi, though some of them did get hit the other day when we were getting sniped at from there building
-
The Palestine is the hotel that all the foreign reporters live. The tank couldn't be sniped from the balcony of the spanish reporters room. Of course you can say that he was taking "shots" with his camera. No, your soldiers are just stupid.
They can't even understand who is the enemy and who is the ally. The brits had more loss from your soldiers than from Iraqis. Hell, even you had more casualties due to friendly fire you than from the Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
No, your soldiers are just stupid.
:wtf:
Ok, I think its best for you to shut up now seeing as you know absolutely nothing regarding this topic.
I'm not a US invasion fan but thats just not true (Though every army has its exception ;)).
-
I know nothing??? How did you understand that?
-
go fight a ****ing war and come back here and say that you ****ing dumbass.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
go fight a ****ing war and come back here and say that you ****ing dumbass.
Careful...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
go fight a ****ing war and come back here and say that you ****ing dumbass.
I am not saying that I don't respect the soldiers, as they are the people that had the most chances to die, but I still believe what I said.
I mean, the brits didn't hit any americans, or kurds, or journalists. And they had difficult assignments, like Basra.
-
*awaits Sandwich's responce*
-
In the first gulf war the iraqis fakes a market bombing with and rpg or other small explosive, the bomb damage was far to small for it to have been any allied munition, even a cluster bomb.
The Iraqi air defence minister was sacked after the 2nd market bombing, the blast craters in both are tiny, the damage superficial flame damage which would come from large amounts of rocket fuel cooking off (which would happen if a SAM crashed soon after firing). Stop being so quick to blame the Allies, you guys are just sore that the Iraqi Regime has been ****ed over by the vastly superior western forces, you probably wanted to see US lose.
-
BTW the brits have had constant experience of this type of warfare especially over the last 30 years, the Americans are peforming bloody well as its their first proper urban combat since WW2, and this time they have to keep the gloves on.
-
No, I didn't want to see the Iraqis winning, nor did I expect it. And I don't like Saddam.I just don't like to see so many civilian casualties.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
No, I didn't want to see the Iraqis winning, nor did I expect it. And I don't like Saddam.I just don't like to see so many civilian casualties.
:wtf:
On what planet have you been? It was an invasion, and that means WAR. In war there are civvilian casualties. And considering the human-shield factor its still VERY low for a full blown invasion.
-
Haven't been in here for a few days; let us see what's up... :D
The Palestine is the hotel that all the foreign reporters live. The tank couldn't be sniped from the balcony of the spanish reporters room. Of course you can say that he was taking "shots" with his camera. No, your soldiers are just stupid.
They can't even understand who is the enemy and who is the ally. The brits had more loss from your soldiers than from Iraqis. Hell, even you had more casualties due to friendly fire you than from the Iraqis.
The friendly fire casualties have been a part of every war in recent history; there is nothing special there. However, these deaths are not so dependent on the strength of the enemy, and thus do not vary as much from war to war. That these casualties exceeded the actual combat deaths is a testament to the power and effectiveness of the coalition forces, since they are normally a vanishly small percentage of the losses.
No, I didn't want to see the Iraqis winning, nor did I expect it. And I don't like Saddam.I just don't like to see so many civilian casualties.
This overly simplistic viewpoint has already been addressed countless times earlier here; read the thread before posting things that have already been discussed. :p
I'm not even going to bother any further with this guy... :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I'm not even going to bother any further with this guy... :D
why are you even bothering at all, tard?
-
as you were too busy watching al jezzera you must have missed the scenes where the Iraqi mob tried to lynch one of the human shields. Should have let them have her to be honest, she was still screaming at the US marines that the iraqis didnt want them here.
Some of the banners have been brilliant, "GO HOME US HUMAN SHIELD WANKERS!" "Syria are bastards!" etc.
-
why are you even bothering at all, tard?
ha, is that the best insult you can come up with? :D some of your earlier absurdities in this thread have shown that you are the real 'tard around here when it comes to anything related to politics.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
ha, is that the best insult you can come up with? :D some of your earlier absurdities in this thread have shown that you are the real 'tard around here when it comes to anything related to politics.
no, it is not.
and well, at least I stand for it. I just don't see why you feel so obligated to reply to a lot of these posts, without having anything to say. oh, and don't forget, a retarded and misplaced smilie beside it, just because they have a cool color or wtf. :D
you get the idea, :confused: nm, you don't. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf:
On what planet have you been? It was an invasion, and that means WAR. In war there are civvilian casualties. And considering the human-shield factor its still VERY low for a full blown invasion.
Say that to these people: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO HAVE WEAK HEARTS
But I agree with CP, these things has been discussed before and I know that war = civilian casualties but it's the lack of respect for these civilians on these board that are pissing me of. If it was people from some western countries we would all cry like little babies.
-
no, it is not.
and well, at least I stand for it. I just don't see why you feel so obligated to reply to a lot of these posts, without having anything to say. oh, and don't forget, a retarded and misplaced smilie beside it, just because they have a cool color or wtf. :D
you get the idea, :confused: nm, you don't. ;)
standing for nothing at all is far better than standing for utter nonsense. :p I do not feel obligated at all, but it is simply fun to trash flawed arguments when I see them, which is why I am posting in this thread in the first place. so now let us hear your reasons for posting here.
as for "misplaced and retarded smilies," where did that confused one in your post come from? seems completely random...
-
Originally posted by Pez
But I agree with CP
Jag skulle hellre hålla med en yxmördare...
-
Originally posted by kode
Jag skulle hellre hålla med en yxmördare...
:)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
standing for nothing at all is far better than standing for utter nonsense. :p I do not feel obligated at all, but it is simply fun to trash flawed arguments when I see them, which is why I am posting in this thread in the first place. so now let us hear your reasons for posting here.
as for "misplaced and retarded smilies," where did that confused one in your post come from? seems completely random...
but you do stand for something. you at least seem to stand for your "objective" opinion that the US is teh gratest, just cuz they can!11. that, if something, is a flawed opinion.
Why I post here? to piss you wankers off. I succeded excellently in that ch-whatever shuttle crash thread.
you don't say it was random? no!!!! you must have totally misunderstood why I put those misplaced and retarded smilies in my post...
-
But I agree with CP, these things has been discussed before and I know that war = civilian casualties but it's the lack of respect for these civilians on these board that are pissing me of. If it was people from some western countries we would all cry like little babies.
Certainly, but the thing is that the only people whose crying makes a difference in the world is those who have the ability to do something about (so if the Iraqi government cries it won't matter as much as if the US government cries).
Jag skulle hellre hålla med en yxmördare...
I suppose this was intended for me not to understand; what, you too scared to show your thoughts? :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose this was intended for me not to understand; what, you too scared to show your thoughts? :D
no. it says about the same thing that I've told you in my previous posts. but you don't need to understand, because you supposedly speak "the most useful language of them all"... which by the way really isn't math. it's violence.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This overly simplistic viewpoint has already been addressed countless times earlier here; read the thread before posting things that have already been discussed.
I answered to Mr. Carrot. And I don't have the time to make a more complex post.
-
hey, snakeseyes... you need to update your siggy...
-
Originally posted by Pez
Say that to these people: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO HAVE WEAK HEARTS
But I agree with CP, these things has been discussed before and I know that war = civilian casualties but it's the lack of respect for these civilians on these board that are pissing me of. If it was people from some western countries we would all cry like little babies.
****. me.
:(
However... It is horrific, but if there is a larger good to be found in all this then it is worth this price.
-
but you do stand for something. you at least seem to stand for your "objective" opinion that the US is teh gratest, just cuz they can!11. that, if something, is a flawed opinion.
I stand for something which can be defended, since I am able to do exactly that, while you obviously are not able to defend your stance. :p and yeah, of course, it's because they "can!11;" tell me about your better method of measurement of superiority and let us how it stands up to mine.
Why I post here? to piss you wankers off. I succeded excellently in that ch-whatever shuttle crash thread.
well, in the eyes of some people (such as myself), you only managed to make a fool of yourself, not because of your comments on the people's deaths (I couldn't care less about that) but because of your total lack of understanding of how the world works. :D
you don't say it was random? no!!!! you must have totally misunderstood why I put those misplaced and retarded smilies in my post...
ah! well you must have also totally misunderstood why I put mine in there!
-
Originally posted by Pez
Say that to these people: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO HAVE WEAK HEARTS
But I agree with CP, these things has been discussed before and I know that war = civilian casualties but it's the lack of respect for these civilians on these board that are pissing me of. If it was people from some western countries we would all cry like little babies.
Lack of respect? You haven't read my posts at the beginning of the thread, eh? I was and still am against this war for these kind of things. But I understand that there are civilian casualties, and I deeply regret that.
Now, don't come with those pictures, thats what I call a lame arguement. We all know they suffer. They suffer a lot. But if you want to stop the US military or Saddams regime and not kill any innocents be my guest.
And the western people dying **** is all wrong as well. We had the "Bijlmer-ramp" where an airplane flew into a 14 stories high flat. Did the rest of the world care? For 2 minutes maybe. There have been dozenbs of train accidents and a few plane accidents here in Holland and nobody cared besides the people from Belgium who helped with the plane crash in Brabant (South of Holland).
A major political figure gets assasinated in Holland, nobody beside every single Dutch person gives a ****.
Sheez... Don't gimme that excuse of western people being more valueble. I mourn about Islamic people as much as I do for American or any other western human being that gets killed.
Don't draw your conclusions about a person from 1 or 2 posts.
-
how the world works for dummies (yes, even inept forum members should understand this):
You're born, you're screwed, you're dead.
what did I get wrong?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Sheez... Don't gimme that excuse of western people being more valueble. I mourn about Islamic people as much as I do for American or any other western human being that gets killed.
hmm... I said the exact same thing in that shuttle thread and got ignored by 5+ members...
-
Originally posted by kode
how the world works for dummies (yes, even inept forum members should understand this):
You're born, you're screwed, you're dead.
what did I get wrong?
Its "You're born, you screw or get screwed, you die." :D
-
Originally posted by kode
hmm... I said the exact same thing in that shuttle thread and got ignored by 5+ members...
Then you got ignored by 5+ ignorant people.
If I was one of them I must've missed your post and apologize :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Its "You're born, you screw or get screwed, you die." :D
you screw and get screwed, in that case.
-
Its "You're born, you screw or get screwed, you die."
yes, that is more like it. :D (in other words, there is no perpetually stable middle ground)
-
Originally posted by kode
you screw and get screwed, in that case.
No, it says "or" not "and". :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
yes, that is more like it. :D (in other words, there is no perpetually stable middle ground)
while we're at it, could you explain my case? I seem to have misplaced it under all this rubbish you're posting...
-
I am supposed to explain your case? :wtf: that's for you to do...
-
Originally posted by Tiara
No, it says "or" not "and". :p
I know. but you can't screw without getting screwed.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am supposed to explain your case? :wtf: that's for you to do...
no, it isn't. you have carefully explained that my beliefs are rubbish, and that seems to be your department...
-
I know. but you can't screw without getting screwed.
I can give you numerous examples to the contrary; how about the US for one? :D Sorry, the world is not always the way one wishes it was.
no, it isn't. you have carefully explained that my beliefs are rubbish, and that seems to be your department...
you told me to explain your case, which doesn't make any sense. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by kode
I know. but you can't screw without getting screwed.
:wtf:
Ow yes I can... You don't understand, you're probably too young or don't know enough about "us" :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I can give you numerous examples to the contrary; how about the US for one? :D
wait, what's that september 11 now again?
-
wait, what's that september 11 now again?
compared to what we have done? pretty pathetic, if that's the best the others can do; Qaeda could have at least gone for something more important... :p :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf:
Ow yes I can... You don't understand, you're probably too young or don't know enough about "us" :p
I didn't know you could live a whole life without getting screwed over at least once, being screwed also involves dying.
-
Those pictures are horrifying...... but remmber there were no Al Jezzera cameras in the torture chambers and gassing showers of Saddams secret police buildings. Personally id rather be shot through the head like that bloke then bleed slowly to death because i have razor blades surgicaly implanted in my scrotum and rectum.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
compared to what we have done? pretty pathetic, if that's the best the others can do; Qaeda could have at least gone for something more important... :p :D
like what? your house? I wish...
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Those pictures are horrifying...... but remmber there were no Al Jezzera cameras in the torture chambers and gassing showers of Saddams secret police buildings. Personally id rather be shot through the head like that bloke then bleed slowly to death because i have razor blades surgicaly implanted in my scrotum and rectum.
I'd rather be tortured, I must say. At least I'd prefer it over the cuba treatment.
the US should release the swedish citizen from that cuba base. he's innocent, you know...
-
like what? your house? I wish...
my house would have been worse from their point of view, since it is not very important for the nation. I meant like the white house or capitol building, which would be have been much more useful and a big victory for them.
-
Originally posted by kode
I didn't know you could live a whole life without getting screwed over at least once, being screwed also involves dying.
I'm not talking to you anymore.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
my house would have been worse from their point of view, since it is not very important for the nation. I meant like the white house or capitol building, which would be have been much more useful and a big victory for them.
so where were they going with that plane that crasched? the worlds largest ball of twine?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I'm not talking to you anymore.
good. only a thousand or so to go.
-
Whats his problem? Does he have a minority complex to fill by pissing off every member on the board? :p
-
so where were they going with that plane that crasched? the worlds largest ball of twine?
what exactly is your argument there and how is it relevant to the piece you quoted? two were going for the WTC, and the other two had other targets but didn't quite succeed; they should have sent all of their resources to those places instead.
good. only a thousand or so to go.
you are going to have tough time with me, as I like reading your posts; they provide a good laugh if nothing else. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I like reading your posts; they provide a good laugh if nothing else. :D
:lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
what exactly is your argument there and how is it relevant to the piece you quoted? they were going for the WTC.
you are going to have tough time with me, as I like reading your posts; they provide a good laugh if nothing else. :D
now, I couldn't really care much less for foreign politics, but weren't there four planes involved or something?
well well... got some stuff to do. 'll swing by your house later.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf:
Ok, what is wrong in that sentence?
Let me clarify. Gravity bomb is what I meant by the "bomb". That creates a unique blast. A car bomb blast is totally different.
-
How come the British troops have begun (limited) peacekeeping and law-enforcement operations in Basra, whilst the US says the looting in Baghdad will 'die out in a few days'. Our lads seemed to start laying down the law as a natural extension to the liberation... the Merkins seem content to sit in their tanks 'until the police can be reactivated'.
What the hell is this? The trained police were part of the regime, so they'll be keeping their heads down. Do the US plan to recruit people off the streets and have a working police force inside of a week? Merkins in the audience, can you explain to me - has the US gone in and liberated Baghdad with no real plan for keeping law and order until this interim government thingy is set up? I've been an adamant supporter of the campaign and it seems that the British forces in Basra have the right idea. But the US letting the citizens of Baghdad run wild for days on end is cuasing me much concern over plans for reconstruction - if martial law is not declared, there will be no city to reconstruct.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
compared to what we have done? pretty pathetic, if that's the best the others can do; Qaeda could have at least gone for something more important... :p :D
Yes they could have. LIKE A MILITARY TARGET. They crossed the line when they went after civilians. In war when that usually occurs the other side crosses the line. They were lucky we didn't.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
How come the British troops have begun (limited) peacekeeping and law-enforcement operations in Basra, whilst the US says the looting in Baghdad will 'die out in a few days'. Our lads seemed to start laying down the law as a natural extension to the liberation... the Merkins seem content to sit in their tanks 'until the police can be reactivated'.
What the hell is this? The trained police were part of the regime, so they'll be keeping their heads down. Do the US plan to recruit people off the streets and have a working police force inside of a week? Merkins in the audience, can you explain to me - has the US gone in and liberated Baghdad with no real plan for keeping law and order until this interim government thingy is set up? I've been an adamant supporter of the campaign and it seems that the British forces in Basra have the right idea. But the US letting the citizens of Baghdad run wild for days on end is cuasing me much concern over plans for reconstruction - if martial law is not declared, there will be no city to reconstruct.
you make sense. thank you.
-
lack of experience tbh geezer, good at fighting crap at peace keeping, lesson one in peace keeping is NEVER wear sunglasses, the Para instructors were teaching them how to do it last week and theyve forgotten already. The eyes and handmovements are all youve got to communicate with an iraqi who doesnt know english, and the eyes can be a lot more telling about your intentions then the cold steely glare of some mirrored ray bans which make you look intimidating and come accross the the civies like your trying to create an air of superiority (why all the drug lord bastards henchmen wear them).
-
Stryke 9: And it's called every major newspaper and radio source.
And you eat that up? Most newspaper and radio sources have personal interests. Its called propaganda.
-
*gently but firmly pushes kode away*
So what you're all saying is that the American army should be run by Brits? Blimey... ph34r the ultimate fighting force :cool:
-
nah the yanks should just stop paying 8 billion a year to the isralis so they can buy brand new bulldozers to bulldoze orphanages with and give it to the MOD instead :p
-
Deepblue: And so you're more trusting of... what, exactly? Some militant rightist Dixiecrat rag produced by the Freemen with tinfoil hat making tips on the back page? I'm sure they're so much more reliable.:rolleyes:
Of course, "reading between the lines" is a foreign concept to you. It requires conprehension and a basic understanding of geopolitics.
FalconX: I'll say to you what I said to Sandwich. Give 'em guns, give 'em bombs, give 'em the ability to fight the military without it being just outright suicide, and I can guarantee they would pick Army targets over civilians every time. Nobody likes killing civilians when it's avoidable, even if you don't care about them it's bad tactics on the whole as compared to military, but with the current military power gap and governmental indifference to damn near everything not war anyone who has a beef with the US has pretty much no alternative but terrorism. It's not like they're about to just go stand in front of one of our tank columns waving little signs saying "Shoot me!"
Or, just remove the contention point. Takes a lot more work, but until you're willing to treat the problem one way or the other don't complain. 'Cos there's only gonna be more and more, and you might as well get used to it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Lack of respect? You haven't read my posts at the beginning of the thread, eh? I was and still am against this war for these kind of things. But I understand that there are civilian casualties, and I deeply regret that.
Now, don't come with those pictures, thats what I call a lame arguement. We all know they suffer. They suffer a lot. But if you want to stop the US military or Saddams regime and not kill any innocents be my guest.
And the western people dying **** is all wrong as well. We had the "Bijlmer-ramp" where an airplane flew into a 14 stories high flat. Did the rest of the world care? For 2 minutes maybe. There have been dozenbs of train accidents and a few plane accidents here in Holland and nobody cared besides the people from Belgium who helped with the plane crash in Brabant (South of Holland).
A major political figure gets assasinated in Holland, nobody beside every single Dutch person gives a ****.
Sheez... Don't gimme that excuse of western people being more valueble. I mourn about Islamic people as much as I do for American or any other western human being that gets killed.
Don't draw your conclusions about a person from 1 or 2 posts.
I have read most of your post here and I know what side your on. And the my previous post wasn't really adressed as a remark at you. I shouldn't have quoted you, sorry.
Maybe you mourn about every single people who dies but that is not what most people do and as I wrote I still thing there is a lack of respect for the iraqi people. I see alot of "well, you know that it's a war, civilian causualties are unavoidable". And sure I agree in some degree but if it would be 5000 americans, 5000 swedes or 5000 dutch people who were being killed this board and the media would report in another way.
Pim Fortuyn were big news over here when he was murdered. And just I couple of weeks ago I heard that the murderer was remorseful over what he did. So sure we get dutch news over here. :)
-
1200-odd replies and it's all going around in a circle now. I think it's time for a new topic.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
*awaits Sandwich's responce*
Don't look at me - I ain't no American soldier... thank God.
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf:
On what planet have you been? It was an invasion, and that means WAR. In war there are civvilian casualties. And considering the human-shield factor its still VERY low for a full blown invasion.
Yea and Amen. Jeez, people, where has this wishy-washy generation gotten to? You get the freaking WAR televised directly into your home. That's mistake Number One, but nooo, the public has a freaking Right to Know - even though they don't have the capability to understand. :rolleyes: I know what goes through military people's minds when making various decisions, I also know how incredibly insane it is to try and get perfect coordination of military forces - especially from different countries. Mistakes happen, especially in war. Quit harping on this ten-thousdand year old fact to cover up your embarassment at not having known this previously - or not having cared.
Mistake Number Two: All the bragging about the "precision" munitions the Allied forces are using. Yes, they are precise, and yes, they will hit within a few meters of their designated target. But that's the catch.... "their designated target". Human error is one of the worst killers in wars.
But imagine this: Iraq puts up a serious fight. Heavy loss of life on all sides, with Allied losses in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Would the world be nit-picking over every single unaccounted-for explosion in some flea-bitten market in Bagdad? Gimme a break. Just because there hasn't been heavy fighting compared to previous wars (not counting the 1st Gulf War, which was run by remote control), single-minded civvies the world over feel the need to harp on every uncrossed 't' and undotted 'i'.
Get a life.
Originally posted by Pez
Say that to these people: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO HAVE WEAK HEARTS
But I agree with CP, these things has been discussed before and I know that war = civilian casualties but it's the lack of respect for these civilians on these board that are pissing me of. If it was people from some western countries we would all cry like little babies.
Why thank you for posting this, but you need to amend your warning. Something like this should do:
PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SPECIFICALLY THOSE WHO HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY SEEN THE UGLY REALITIES OF WAR. IF YOU ARE SUCH A CIVILLIAN, UNDERSTAND THAT THESE BATTLEFIELD PICTURES ARE A HARSH AND GROTESQUE RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENS IN ANY AND ALL WARS.
THEY ARE NOT ALL THAT UNIQUE AS FAR AS WAR GOES, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE NEWS MEDIA PROVIDING THE PICTURES IS HEARTLESS ENOUGH TO REVEAL THESE PICTURES TO THE PUBLIC IT REPORTS TO. BUT THIS SHOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE RULING POWERS IN THIS INVADED COUNTRY ARE UNSUITABLE TO LEAD MERE CIVILLIANS AND MUST BE REPLACED FORTHWITH.
There, that's more like it.
Originally posted by kode
I'd rather be tortured, I must say.
Then I'm sorry, but you're an ignorant human being who has no idea of the horrors we are capable of inflicting on each other. :(
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So what you're all saying is that the American army should be run by Brits? Blimey... ph34r the ultimate fighting force :cool:
Hey, get rid of those sunglasses, mister! Are you a soldier or a policeman? ;)
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
nah the yanks should just stop paying 8 billion a year to the isralis so they can buy brand new bulldozers to bulldoze orphanages with and give it to the MOD instead :p
Oh, please - don't even start. As is obvious from this one post, you are quite uninformed about what happens here. In short, the BBC loves reporting about the bulldozed orphanages while forgetting to mention that they were being used as explosives labs or whatnot. We see this pattern of half-reporting recurring constantly and consistantly.
-
Wheee!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
BUT THIS SHOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE RULING POWERS IN THIS INVADED COUNTRY ARE UNSUITABLE TO LEAD MERE CIVILLIANS AND MUST BE REPLACED FORTHWITH
Er... how? They didn't blow up those people.
But you're right. Saddam should have opted to have his soft target civilians replaced with a populace of heavily armored robot-men when he knew the war was coming, so as not to inconvenience enemy forces or cause city conflict to put actual people at risk. Then none of this wouls have happened! Damn him!
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Wheee!
*seconds that*
-
blah blah blah..... ok, this really isn't going anywhere anymore. Just people throwing the same arguments around repeatedly.