Jatt13 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 One more post like that, and you will be reported. Do not bash other people because they have other opinions than you. ok, if he's anti-american, i'll say whatever i want to him. i'm not just gonna sit there and watch. Well, there is absolutly no proof that he has chemical and biological weapons. Ever heard about 'Innocent until proven guilty'? i never said that he did. the thing is, several weapons (such as bombs and stuff) were found that he didn't list in the weapons inventory that he said was complete. i think that's enough to make us distrust him at the very least. Evil doesn't excist. ok, that's one of the stupidist things i've heard in a long time. report me or whatever, but it is. oh, and i said your statement was, not you, so it's not flaming. but evil exists. whether you belive it does or not. and if you don't believe it exists, then it just has more power over you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Calm down everyone please. Keep this conversation free of personal insults or this thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Geez damn it! First of all I'm NOT anti-american. I don't hate them. Just some stupid goons that are at the head of the government. You may have money but hmmm...don't the US has economical problems? Do you think that should be dealt with first? And besides...why do you think our dear old mr Bush wants to attack Iraq now while the US had the opportunity to overthrow him 12 years ago. Saddam may be a madman but why doesn't somebody else do it for the US? Britain maybe? Oh I forgot they are just the US' little pawns... And the fact that having money doesn't mean you should "protect the world"...face the facts...the cold war made the US what it is today...they spent so much money on that they now suffer from that error... And let me tell you something! I'm South-Vietnamese! You're gonna say your little US helped us? NO! They turned the place into a hellhole and made the war last longer so more people died! And guess what? You guys left us!!! And put economical sanctions on us! Although I came to Canada, it's still something that's left in my mind...not the way you helped us...but the way you LEFT US! If you can even think that I should be grateful... If you didn't help then maybe you wouldn't have lost your pride...and the carnage would have lasted a lot less longer...then maybe not so many people would have died... And don't say that men died over there! 20 vietnamese were killed for every american. So I highly doubt that you should even start to think that Bush's motives are good. Maybe Saddam really has a nuke...is he gonna use it? maybe yes maybe no. But you should open your eyes and see how it really works... And by the way I'm almost 16 and somebody who is very aware of what happens in the world. And our medias aren't affected by Bush' propaganda. Just don't be so sure that attacking Irap is a good idea...it's gonna wreck the world economy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I made a mistake in my earlier post that lead everyone into thinking i'm anti-american. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad i'm anti-american i'm anti-bush To make it clear, I wanted to say: I'm NOT anti-american, I'm anti-Bush So sorry if anyone thought I insulted the US which I didn't mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrunkMan Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 US did not really help Vietnam during the war. The American soldiers even killed many of their allies by mistake. ****ing War. So many lives lost for......nothing. Well.....I hope it won't happen again. oh.....and lukeimyourfather......I agree with you for all what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 23, 2003 Author Share Posted January 23, 2003 i never said that he did. the thing is, several weapons (such as bombs and stuff) were found that he didn't list in the weapons inventory that he said was complete. i think that's enough to make us distrust him at the very least. Let's talk about these "bombs and stuff". They are missiles from the late 80s with empty warheads that have a range of about 12 miles. They were found by the U.N. Inspectors in a bombed out factory. They were still packed away in their crates and they appeared to have been untouched since Desert Storm (I've heard reports that the crates were covered in bird droppings). Oh, and these empty missiles were mentioned in the inventory, they just hadn't been physically accounted for, and now they have been. These things are far from ICBMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I personally am of mixed opinion at the moment. Yeah, sure, the warheads were found, but JediMonk said, they were empty, and that in itself doesn't constitute a crime. But the potential is there for filling them with chemical or biological weapons, or even buying a nuclear warhead from one of the eastern european countries that has some left over stashed away from the Cold War... But at the same time, I can honestly say that seeing as the UN weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for around 12 years, I reckon that's a hell of a lot of digging and burying time... I still do believe that the US' main motivation for going to Iraq is the oil. I watched BBC News 24 today, and around 2pm, the viewers voted something like 82% - 18% that this was the case in their opinion. Saddam may be a madman but why doesn't somebody else do it for the US? The thing is that the UK isn't getting much coverage on US general opinion towards the idea of going to war and I imaging the opposite is true as well. Just to let you know - Britain on the whole thinks the whole war thing is BS. For a start, we can't afford it either... In a documentary on tv about the equipment that the British troops have for use in the desert - it's nigh on useless, and we're probably only being sent in as cannon fodder for the US troops (who are more likely to kill each other than the enemy, going on their past record... :prplgh ) Anyway, getting back to the equipment issue, they say: 1) Most of our war vehicles were designed for Northern Europe - the Challenger tank air filters which have a normal life time of a year only last four hours in the desert. The engines constantly overheat and any attempts to counteract this results in the cabin heating up to the point where the drivers have to get out and cool down every few minutes. 2) The rotor blades on some of our helicopters have a standard life of 500 hours. The desert sand reduces this life time to 27 hours. 3) Our standard-issue boots melt in the heat. So that's us pretty-much knackered then. An army major did say a few days ago that extra equipment was needed and had already been ordered though, but even still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 But the potential is there for filling them with chemical or biological weapons, or even buying a nuclear warhead from one of the eastern european countries that has some left over stashed away from the Cold War... Just like to reiterate that these things can only go 12 miles. They wouldn't even be able to reach into Israel from Iraq--not by a longshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Yeah, good point there, Jedi_Monk. Oh well in that case, sod it, it doesn't matter then does it? LoL. Just before xmas, I was walking along Oxford Street in London, and there were posters over nigh-on every empty flat surface available, telling the public how stupid the whole weapons inspectors thing is. It read... "IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT WEAPONS THEY HAVE, JUST LOOK AT OUR RECEIPTS!!!" ...pointing out the simple fact that most of the weapons that Iraq actually has, we sold to them. It also stated something about the oil giant Esso (or "E$$o" as they called them) were somehow involved with Bush and his "quick, let's grab all the oil for ourselves for the good of everyone" plan. Can't remember what exactly it said, but there was definitely something of significance there. Curse my lack of photographic memory... Grrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by Jatt13 ok, that's one of the stupidist things i've heard in a long time. report me or whatever, but it is. oh, and i said your statement was, not you, so it's not flaming. but evil exists. whether you belive it does or not. and if you don't believe it exists, then it just has more power over you. Ah, let me explain that statement a bit further. Evil people doesn't excist. It is not in human nature. Let us take Bin Laden as an example. I can admit that he is a bastard, but he only does what he thinks is best for the world! Of course, killing loads of civillians isn't good for the world, but still, he thinks he is doing good. Therefore, he is not per definition, evil, neither are any human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 i agree qui gon every one wants what they think is best wheather they beleive in allah and use the torah or they beleive in jesus and read the bible-we do it in different ways they fell that they need to take them out while we(most americans) beleive that it is easierly done peacfully-now our govt. is made up of many things and its the big buisness men in office that wreck "oh we need oil lets make up an excuse yeah call it the ais of evil blahhh" now i would rather have bush than gore but when john mcain tried to run but wasnt elected i think he was best and then the peole who ran who are "tree huggers" what would they say "love the earth make love not evil" this better nbot turn into another vietnam where they have no real outcome and its a war where its fought for nothing,in vietnam they drafted kids put then=m into boot camp for 8 weeks or whatever and considered them soldires ....no they need more so they were not trained in the proipper things to do and were emotionally upset some went crazy....now we have reserves that have been trained and hoinestly if in a few years i get drafted i would fight my hardest for my country becasue i am a patriot, but now the people cant hide away in college because they are rich toget away from war " ohhh but im in college i cant be drafted" no! now hahahaha senetors sons and all that can be drafted. and i say if they dont find war heads try more thins but dont wait too long im all for action if there is a direct threat like noreth karea but no they dont have oil if thuis is over oil then i say the govt. official go over there and pick up arms instead of sending our boys in to get killed , our armed forces are eccelent but i say the senators who are greedy and the cabinet who are greedy can go fight .. they try goin to boot camp and get them selves killed when we should bomb instead of putting in ground forces to get killed> sry i had to get that out-osama bin laden i can understand fighting and the taliban all that- but no war for oil-im not a hippi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Yeah, but what does bombing solve, Daring Dueler? You blow up cities full of people with absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. I mean, sure, occasionally, a person believing that what Saddam is doing is right will be killed, but otherwise it's pointless. Occasionally, if they get lucky, the USAF might actually hit a designated target of importance, like a military airstrip or something, instead of a hospital or a school. The problem is this: the general idea of aerial bombardment is actually to either clear a path for ground forces or to blow up a few buildings and scare the country's rulers into saying, "oh crap, they're killing our people, we'd better get back to the negotiating table." But it doesn't seem to work like that anymore. I mean, the US bombed Afghanistan continuously for more than six months, I believe, and it took ground forces to go in and clear the remaining soldiers from what was left of the country. The thing that gets me most of all about these "carpet bombing" campaigns is the sheer ridiculous cost. Each JDAM or cluster bomb costs tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars EACH, and the US was dropping probably about six per plane per sortie every day. What the hell is the point, when A) the entire country was a pile of rubble after the russia thing and, if not, the first week's bombing at the most anyway; B) the US economy is apparently going down the pan at the moment; C) the US education system is falling apart and the number of homeless and unemployed is skyrocketing... ? This is all money that could do with being pumped into all these projects instead, don't you think? I understand that Bush or whoever went shouting their mouth off just after 9-11 about essentially wanting to stop such atrocities ever happening again, which is understandable, but to say that they were going to wipe out all known terrorists throughout the entire world was just stupid and over-ambitious. The problem is that he can't back out of it now, because he's committed himself and the US to it, and backing out would make them look A) stupid, B) cowardly, C) not serious, D) like they can't do it / can't afford it / can't be bothered with it anymore. I want to know how far this anti-terrorism war is going to go. Are they going to launch attacks on the Basque seperatists in France in years to come? And what about the IRA? I can't somehow see US landing forces and paratroopers deploying on the coast or Ireland near Belfast and storming several houses and Sinn Fein-related buildings, to be honest. Bush has really backed himself into a corner here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Oh, and before I forget, my friend just reminded me of that itme in 1998 when the US bombed a "chemical weapons factory" in Somalia. It turns out that it was actually a medicine factory which was the countries number 1 source of the malaria vaccine. That year over 10,000 people died because they never got the vaccine. It was proven to be a hospital after the bombing, but the US still hasn't apologised. Goes further to prove the fact that bombing is not a good idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 honestly now - war is bad we all agree on that and what im going to say is harsh but would you rather us be bomed or them -think about that-yes bombs are bad but i personnaly would rather have there armies bombed than ours-yes there will probly be savilian caulties but those are caulties of war -would you rther have us get bombed and have you family be a casulty of war-noone would so if it comes down to it they willl probly be bombed and civiains will die-noonne said war was easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler honestly now - war is bad we all agree on that and what im going to say is harsh but would you rather us be bomed or them -think about that-yes bombs are bad but i personnaly would rather have there armies bombed than ours-yes there will probly be savilian caulties but those are caulties of war -would you rther have us get bombed and have you family be a casulty of war-noone would so if it comes down to it they willl probly be bombed and civiains will die-noonne said war was easy. I agree with Taters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 Saddam doesn't have any bombs that can reach us, at least we don't have any evidence that he does, and this is, after all, America, a nation of laws. They say Iraq is guilty until proven innocent, a decidedly un-American philosophy, that the burden of proof is on Iraq. Of course, there's also a little thing called International Law. Our own Constitution says in Article 6 that treaties entered into by the United States are "the supreme law of the land." The U.N. Charter would qualify as one of these treaties, and that document states in Chapter 1, Article 2: 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state… So, attacking Iraq now would be unconstitutional and against international law. Now, here's a little clip from an article on cbsnews.com: On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said. The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons. "So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman. (link to article) A Pentagon official is comparing this to Hiroshima! This attack could kill thousands of innocent people, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands, if it goes forward--including women and children, and the vast majority non-combatants! What the hell is happening to this world!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 My history teacher thinks that Bush only wants the people to focus on something else then his economical problems. So by telling look at Saddam, people won't bother him so much with his true problems. It will probably satisfy his ego also. He probably wants to be remembered as the president who saved the free world from the evil of terrorism instead of the president who had so many economical problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 LONDON (Reuters) - A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London at the weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad. "The potential for white Western body parts flying around with the Iraqi ones should make them think again about this imperialist oil war," organiser Ken Nichols, a former U.S. marine in the 1991 Gulf War, told Reuters. His "We the People" organisation will be sending off a first group of 50 human shields from the London mayor's City Hall building on Saturday, part of a series of departures organisers say will involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of volunteers. Full article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler honestly now - war is bad we all agree on that and what im going to say is harsh but would you rather us be bomed or them -think about that-yes bombs are bad but i personnaly would rather have there armies bombed than ours-yes there will probly be savilian caulties but those are caulties of war -would you rther have us get bombed and have you family be a casulty of war-noone would so if it comes down to it they willl probly be bombed and civiains will die-noonne said war was easy. I would rahter have none bombed at all, but an American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. Thinking that it is would be racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 me 2 but honestly im not racist -as far from - but just think now if there happened to be a bomb where would you rather it fall-harsh isnt it -like i said noone said war was rite or easy-dont make me look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Daring Dueler - I'm not trying to make you look bad, I'm just saying that the plans that Bush and his "War Council" are making should not be the way forward. To solve the entire thing, it's not bombing campaigns that should be being thought about, but the reasons behind Saddam's ill feelings towards the west. Remember, something that no-one's mentioned yet is that it's the idea that has to be taken out of the equation, not the dictator. If we kill Saddam, there will always be another stepping up to take his place. It works in the same way as sharks teeth - you knock one out and another springs forwards to take its place with the exact same killing power as before. They'll only go making him a ero and a martyr. If I remember rightly, Iraq is under horrifically fierce trade embargoes and sanctions, and has been since the Gulf War. What we need to do is to look at these blockades we've enforced and reason whether or not they're needed any more. The country is in a right state at the moment. The economy is all but non-existant, education is still limited to boys only, halving the potential workforce, and all the west does is to stop it from being able to make money so that its people can afford to feed themselves. I can't see why Iraq would even need "weapons of mass destruction" unless it planned to use them at some point. I think that some countries should be allowed to have some as a deterrent, be they US, UK or whoever. But the countries that are more dubious about being peaceful should not really have any need for them at all. You don't pull out a gun unless you intend to use it. So why sould Iraq be making all these weapons that Bush is convinced tey have? The only way that I can see for Iraq to use such weapons anyway would be to stow one away aboard a passenger aeroplane and detonate it over a western country's airspace, leaving the radioactive fallout to rain down on them for weeks to come and make the land uninhabitable for approximately 100 years. And even if they succeeded with such a horiffic plan, there would be no way in hell that anyone would want to trade with them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Rive Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London at the weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad. Bloody hell! What the hell makes them think that the Iraqi forces won't just mow them down? If they have a task force advancing behind a wall of civillians with the intention of disarming or killing them, the logical thing to do would be to either throw grenades over the civillians' heads at the soldiers, or just mow them down with machinegun fire. It's only logical. I know that the individual soldiers would have moral issues with that, but I imagine the punishment for non-compliance in the army is pretty harsh in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 oh ok i agree darth rive-no war is best -bush wants oil and he got rich off it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 between darh rives and my postes it sums up how i feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by Darth_Rive Bloody hell! What the hell makes them think that the Iraqi forces won't just mow them down? If they have a task force advancing behind a wall of civillians with the intention of disarming or killing them, the logical thing to do would be to either throw grenades over the civillians' heads at the soldiers, or just mow them down with machinegun fire. It's only logical. I know that the individual soldiers would have moral issues with that, but I imagine the punishment for non-compliance in the army is pretty harsh in Iraq. The Iraqi won't mow them down or the US and UK will have a REAL reason to attack them...it would just be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.