Anti War Ppl Kiss My Ass!

Kuwait was 1991, I was saying now, an immediate threat to any sovereign country. And one of the missles fired was reputedly travelling 190 miles instead of 150, at least I haven't heard of any more. There is still an embargo. But let's leave it that.

I can just respond to this the same way I have to Master YodaX - we'd be turning in circles, because (I notice that in my argumentation already) we'd be coming back to the point of whether or not the invasion was justified.

But it doesn't matter what we think really - the Iraqis have made up their mind as well as the coalition theirs. Each side will fight to win - as long as Saddam is alive, he will feel he's got his victory - for in the eyes of the arabic world his defiance elevates him... I think he is counting on the sparks he creates, and it is a darn volatile area there...

And I can return the compliment, I can respect your views and partially understand them - but that doesn't mean that we have to be of the same opinion. I think a lot of this mindless flaming going on in some of these threads doesn't lead anywhere - especially if people think in categories and boxes like "it's one of them" and attack without even reading the arguments of the other. BTW I had an equally difficult time when I supported the involvement of the US in the Kosovo conflict, which I felt was justified - and as I said, I might even have felt differently if this was backed by the UN.

Just wanted to say you guys have kicked the ball all over the field without flaming, and it made for a refreshing change. Maybe we should have begun with our own little Geneva Convention, detailing how to agree to disagree. Or maybe just review your discourse here? Well done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Romeo187@27 March 2003 - 12:46
there is this little thing called the Geneva Convention.. what it does is it outlines basic guidelines for war to protect the people invovled and not involved..

here is a scenario..

3 Para are moving into um qasr and they get fired upon and the 6 gunmen are dressed in civvies.. and they flee into a group of say 30 odd civilians.. now in this firefight.. the RMC's have lost 4 soldiers... so obvisouly they are going to use retaliative force.. and so if they were to fire into the crowd would they be in the wrong?


and the answer is a bit dodgy to say the least... but technically speaking they would get off scot free.. because the Enemy broke the convention by changing into civvies instead of theyre militia uniform.. therefore as they broke the treaty we cant be punished for wasting what we think is the enemy but it civilian.. those sort of things they are USA & UK troops killing civilians.. those are Iraqi's killing civilians!

---

As Saddam's spokesman said, the other day(by-the-way, where is Saddam?), "Muslim religion over-rules the Geneva Convention rules". And yes, Iraq did sign and agree to the Geneva Convention. Humans sheilds is one of the violations that Iraq is already guilty of.

Hey, what ever happened to the inmates (jailed criminals) that Saddam gave amnesty, and weapons to?

Where did Iraq just happen to suddenly get American iniforms from? eBay? Too bad it isn't working. The American uniform's pants are different, due to the chemical suits.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 March 2003 - 21:04
Just wanted to say you guys have kicked the ball all over the field without flaming, and it made for a refreshing change. Maybe we should have begun with our own little Geneva Convention, detailing how to agree to disagree. Or maybe just review your discourse here? Well done.

---

Thanks j2k4, puremindmatters and me have been having a good debate without flaming. Others have too. I am glad that the mods created this temporary WAR forum, as not to clog up the lounge.

@ketropak

Name a couple in power right now, besides N Korea.

and if we haven&#39;t dealt with it in the past, should we never deal with it? good idea, lets make sure freedom is suppressed and people go without food and water. lets confirm that all people who speak against saddam are publicly executed. yeah, good idea. while we&#39;re at it, lets allow saddam to get nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons to use on his own people and anybody he feels like. hell, lets ignore everything and allow those weapons to get to terrorists so nyc and S.F. can be obliterated. hmm, not a bad idea. <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb@28 March 2003 - 00:40
@ketropak

Name a couple in power right now, besides N Korea.

---

Well, 50% of African countries.

Almost the whole Middle East.

Taiwan, China, Pakistan, India...

Quote:

---

and if we haven&#39;t dealt with it in the past, should we never deal with it? good idea, lets make sure freedom is suppressed and people go without food and water. lets confirm that all people who speak against saddam are publicly executed. yeah, good idea. while we&#39;re at it, lets allow saddam to get nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons to use on his own people and anybody he feels like. hell, lets ignore everything and allow those weapons to get to terrorists so nyc and S.F. can be obliterated. hmm, not a bad idea.&nbsp;

---

Saddam was not involved in 9.11. His alliance with al-qaeda is just an hypothesis, that might maybe happen one day. But a lot of hypothesis of this kind can be made. For instance, who knows, maybe France will help al-qaeda one day. After all there was a Frenchman incolved in 9.11... :lol:

This &#39;prevention&#39; doctrine is just crap. It&#39;s like if our governments decided to kill every poor because we know that the poors can become criminals...

Iraq was virtually invited to Invade Kuwait by Dick Chaney.

They had been fighting a very expensive war, with US help against Iran. Dick told them officialy that the US had no interest in a &#39;Purely Arabian War&#39;....which is why they invaded Kuwait (which they have always considered a part of Iraq), to pay for the Iran war.

The world reaction, including the US reaction....is WHY Hussain hates the USA..He see&#39;s the whole of Desert Storm as the USA backtracking on their word and stabbing him in the back.

Runsfeld has publicly ben after a huge US military presence in the area ever since Desert Storm, publicly ststing again and again that the US forces should &#39;secure&#39; the Iraqi oilfields.

The last time was THE DAY AFTER Sept 11th, publicly saying the USA should invade Iraq to secure the oilfields. However this is not &#39;Politiclly acceptable&#39;, which is why the emphasis shifted to NBC and Human Rights....something everyone will agree on.

The USA now imports 60% of its oil, much of it from South America at a subsidiced rate....however Strikes in the Oil Companies in this area have massively increased the Price of Oil, and hence Gasoline in the last year or so.


Iraq is only the 1st of the &#39;Oil Wars&#39; predicted as early as the 1970&#39;s.

Every oil producing nation in the world, except the Middle East is in Decline (eg last year fields to the value of 14 Billion Barrels were discovered, against a need for 28 Billion Barrels).....The Iraqi fields are large enough to fuel the world for 4 years at full capacity and at current levels of use. This is a much needed breathing space, for the Developed world.


Every country will defend itself, using any means possible. This is despite any &#39;Conventions&#39; laid down. France did it in WWII with their resistance movement, and Im sure both UK and USA would do it if the situations were reversed.

&#39;Honour&#39; and the Conventions of war are only ever followed by professional soldiers of any country, and hardly ever by the defenders on their OWN territory, whilst defending their own home country.

In the case of Iraq...I have so far seen one shot of almost 1000 Iraqi civilians looking for a coalition airman, and firing guns, throwing rocks etc into the Reed covered river that the guy had come down in......this is hardly the reaction of a civilian population that wishes to be &#39;Liberated&#39;. There are also Arabs from most of the Arabian world fighting alongside the Iraqi army against the &#39;infidels&#39;.


No matter how much you hate the people in charge, unless you have your own political agenda for afterwards (ie are a collaborator with the invader, in the parlance of the defender) then it is often a case of "Better the Devil you know". Hence the return of many Iraqi&#39;s from Jordan, to defend their homeland....despite being chased out of there by Hussain in the first place.


This is especially the case when the &#39;invader&#39; is perceived to be an enemy of your Religion. (NOTE: I said PERCEIVED to be, not is)

The great shame is that which the French Resistance showed the Nazi during WWII and many others have shown the world since...Guirilla tactics do not stop with the signing of a treaty. And the aftermath will, as i predicted months ago, go on for years. Guirilla warfare is not restricted to the country being defended once the treaties are signed.

A new terrorist group awakes, fighting for the &#39;liberation&#39; of their &#39;liberated&#39; country...these groups are not bound by any &#39;Conventions&#39; of war. Anything is a legitamate target, as the death of their own Civilians has shown them that THEY were legitamate targets...

And so the world turns again.....yet another example of man never learning anything.



And for what?

4 years breathing space, until Oil is a scarce commodity....


And the most Ironic thing? The Oil companies have been buying up the Patents of &#39;alterntive, replenishing fuels&#39; for years to keep their profits up, so the technologies could never be developed to the extent that they could have been by now.


Bush, Chaney, Rice, Runsfeld.....they will all make personal fortunes out of this. But even if none of them had ANY links to the Oil Industry, it would still have happened, and it would still be over the one thing the Developed World is in desperate need of........Fresh supplies of OIL.

Ironic that Russia and France had deals in place with Hussain to develop the oilfields...and the veto holders in the UN are?



Can we PLEASE just try and support the troops out there now?

And get this over with as quickly as posible?


Whether its right or wrong, is no longer an issue......the &#39;Geneva Convention&#39; wont hold with the Iraqi&#39;s....as it never has with any desperate defender.....its not an issue.

The above are Facts of life.....there is nothing ANYONE or any organisation can do to change them....so why not just get it over with as Quickly, and painless as possible

:(

:ph34r:

Just a thought, if the coalition are so certain that Iraq has WMD, there is a good chance that these weapons will be stored in buildings that the coalition are dropping very large bombs on.