[Pez]

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?

[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.

[Pez]

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?

[Warlock]

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.

[Tiara]

Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started 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.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara
Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started No point to keep whining about it.

Who's whining ?

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.

[Pez]

Originally posted by Tiara
Eh... in case you didn't notice. The war already started 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

[Warlock]

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.

[Tiara]

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]

[Warlock]

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.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara



I am Anti-anything that harms The Netherlands [/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.

[Tiara]

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."

Well... i guess its kinda ok...

[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.)

[Pez]

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

[Pez]

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?

[Warlock]

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"

[Warlock]

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.

[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?

[Pez]

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.

[Tiara]

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?

And do you know what those reporters get paid?