Printable View
Saddum Hussein has already killed over 2 million of his own ppl. Now a couose in this war inocent ppl will die. But by getting him out of power will save lifes. He crazy and gasses his own ppl and is a mad man. Were doing the Iraqy ppl a favor. So peace in not the answer and it cant be and nver will be. Also iraqy soldiers are dressing up as civilians.
Well, a lot of dictators have killed millions of people, & we didn't do anything.
I don't see the problemn with Iraqi soldiers dressing as civilians. It's a quite good idea actually. And I should add that a lot of Iraqi are joining the para-military militia... Seems that even if they hate Saddam, they don't want to be 'liberated' by the coalition.
I in most terms agree with you - Sadam Hussien must be "decapitated" from Iraq and the smaller severed half terminated (as being realistic, keeping him alive wouldn't go down a treat). Personaly I am against war but saying war is good for nothing is wrong. Some people don't listen, diplomacy has been tried with the leage of nations during the decade of appeasement. Hitler marched into the Rhineland, we done nothing. Ok, we did over-estimate how many troops marched in by 100thousand and all important french and british people were "coincedently" out of town (thus not get the news asap) so thats why we done nothing. However, when hitler wanted checkoslavakia's most money thriving area diplomacy set in and to avoid war we, as in Britain, had the audacity to talk about it and allow checkoslavakia to lose thier area. The same with Polland, we talked and agreed. This made Hitler as you know get greedy, then they fallowed the famous old plan they had for years and then Britain fearing a powerful nation having France they stepped in. Anyway, enough history, my point being I think diplomacy is good but diplomacy is only and always will be (when talking about countries) something putting off the inevitable.
The best way to look at Sadam Hussien is as the Hitler of the twenty-first centuary historically (of course nothing similar geographically) they are very similar perhaps a worse-scale war can be avoided with finally getting him out in GW2 (Gulf War 2)
The fact that it's against the rules of war! :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 10:35
I don't see the problemn with Iraqi soldiers dressing as civilians. It's a quite good idea actually.
Yes even in war there are rules
just like executing prisoners of war and then broadcasting those images :angry:
not only that it puts innocent civilians at much higher risk :angry:
The fact that it's against the rules of war! :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX+27 March 2003 - 11:18--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 27 March 2003 - 11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 10:35
I don't see the problemn with Iraqi soldiers dressing as civilians. It's a quite good idea actually.
Yes even in war there are rules
just like executing prisoners of war and then broadcasting those images :angry:
not only that it puts innocent civilians at much higher risk :angry: [/b][/quote]
Man, when an army is much more wicker than the other side, it's not surprising that they use trickery.
It allready happened it Vietnam.
two words: Guerilla Warfare
IT PUTS CIVILIANS AT MUCH HIGHER RISK.
LOOK AT COLOMBIA THAT"S WHAT GUERILLA WARFARE DOES :angry: :angry: :angry:
When you defend your country, you expect that people will die.Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 11:30
IT PUTS CIVILIANS AT MUCH HIGHER RISK.
LOOK AT COLOMBIA THAT"S WHAT GUERILLA WARFARE DOES :angry: :angry: :angry:
War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills.
by the caps I thought I should reply, I wasn't for Guerilla Warfare I was merely stating what I felt Iraq were doing when someone said something about Iraq not having any rules for war, when there should be.
Yes but saddam has killed more muslims than anybody EVER IN HISTORY.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 11:32
War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills. War kills.
Over a third of the number of jews that hitler killed.
sorry about the caps dudeQuote:
Originally posted by ezyryder@27 March 2003 - 11:33
by the caps I thought I should reply, I wasn't for Guerilla Warfare I was merely stating what I felt Iraq were doing when someone said something about Iraq not having any rules for war, when there should be.
saddam cares nothing about his people dying.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 11:32
When you defend your country, you expect that people will die.
did he care about that when he fought two useless wars with Iran
or when he inveded kuwait
OR WHEN HE GASSED THEM :angry:
its ago, i thought u were agry thats all (when u used caps). Anyway, yes Sadam Hussien is a bizzare chap. Sorry to any Muslems for saying this, but I believe he became Muslem to get more support in Iraq and surrounding countries. What is weird about him, is the fact he cares not for his people or any other one. Most facist or any other sort of dictators have always done a form of genicide to help thier own race. The most common being the Ayrian (spelling wrong). Russia was similar, blonde blue eyed typed person was idolised. Anyway. Sada is a weird case, 'nuff said.
Here's an idea. Let's use women and children as humand shields. The Iraqi war defense plan. Ain't that sweet. I wonder how many meetings and conferences that the Iraqi generals and leaders had, before they approved that genius plan. What kind of ball-less plan is that. Fight your enemy like a man.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@27 March 2003 - 11:32
War kills. War kills.......
The Iraq army is one huge terrorist power. A heartless gang of terrorists who will put nothing in front of them (except women and children, excuse the pun) to win a war in any inhumane way.
Trust me. If the coalition forces used women and children as a human shield, Saddam's forces wouldn't blink an eye to shoot at them.
Where are the people who protest the Iraqi defense methods? There are no "HUMAN SHIELD" protestors, but there sure are a lot of anti-war protestors.
"But oh, the Iraq army is so powerless compared to the super power. It isn't fair fighting against them with the weapons they have". BULLCRAP, there is no excuse. Iraq had a lot of money coming in and a lot of time. They could have easily afforded to buy build, educate and train their military properly and ehtically. No excuse for wasting your knowledge, money or time on trying to be deviate and criminal-like.
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!
You might not have heard this before, but since the last Golf War they were not allowed to import any more weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by Spindulik@27 March 2003 - 12:14
BULLCRAP, there is no excuse. Iraq had a lot of money coming in and a lot of time. They could have easily afforded to buy build, educate and train their military properly and ehtically. No excuse for wasting your knowledge, money or time on trying to be deviate and criminal-like.
I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?
You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.
I don't really know why people think that it is clean and proper warfare to strike an enemy from the air when they have literally no means of defending themselves against it.
I think the war you are going to face after the removal of the current regime is going to be even more atrocious and more difficult to comprehend, if your president really insists on a military occupation, for this is bound to create terrorism (and not only from former Saddam supporters).
This is not a game, and the Iraqis are no spoil-sports, they are trying to fight an enemy they haven't attacked in the first place. How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and how much are people trying to defend their country no-one can tell.
I agree. He is a ruthless and dangerous dictator trying to keep his power, but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 11:42
saddam cares nothing about his people dying.
did he care about that when he fought two useless wars with Iran
or when he inveded kuwait
OR WHEN HE GASSED THEM :angry:
The two useless wars against Iran were backed and supported by your government, in order to keep Iran occupied, which was perceived to be even more dangerous at that time.
I think the US missed the chance to remove him honourably by supporting the uprising in 1991.
I would have supported it then, and I might even have supported a war now if it was backed by the UN (I'm not sure).
They should have disarmed.Quote:
Originally posted by puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50
I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?
this does not make it right! :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50
You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.
they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.Quote:
but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).
I don't think they watch Iraqi TV in Jordan that much. Those are people who left the country because they hated Saddam. They are returning, because (Quotation from an interview on BBC world) "I hate Saddam, but he is an Iraqi. I would rather put my hand in his than give one inch to a foreign invader".Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 14:20
they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.Quote:
but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).
I think I personally wouldn't need any TV to identify a foreign army on my land as an invader. As soon as someone starts shooting my countrymen, I would guess that that could be an enemy.
Not all of the Iraqis think like that. But I can understand those who do - and that is what I said before the war: I don't think the coalition has taken the mentality of the people into account as much as it was probably necessary.
this does not make it right! :angry: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX+27 March 2003 - 14:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 27 March 2003 - 14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50
You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.
I agree. I don't think there is any right and wrong in a war. It's an awful bloody mess, and people try to hurt the enemy without getting hurt.
But what irritates me is that some people here seem to think it is brave to sit in a tank and shout at a man with a rifle who is hiding in a house:
"Come out you coward and fight like a man."
They should have disarmed. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX+27 March 2003 - 14:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 27 March 2003 - 14:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50
I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?
In other words: Surrendered. They believe in something. Some in the regime, others in their right to defend their country.
I wonder what you would think if it was vice versa: If a superior enemy who believes that your government needs to be removed invades your country. What would you do: Surrender?
No they should have disarmed like they agreed to do after they lost the gulf war wich THEY STARTED
As much as i like to stay out of these topics, i can't....Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 15:20
they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.Quote:
but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).
WHAT IS WRONG BEING ANTI-WAR PPL ?? What is wrong being anti war, anti violence...???
Really the topic title is a paardepoep title....
An to Master Yodax...
Which TV stations do you watch that are not from your country.... Makes you think that you are well informed?
Why do you think those people doesn't see the right news and have acces to the right information and you have that....??
Just a few remarks..
Sorry, misunderstood you there. Well, that is a different issue, and I don't want to get into that now, because it would again come down to whether the position of the UN or the US was right - it's been discussed here too much and too often, and we are obviously not able to convince either side.Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 15:23
No they should have disarmed like they agreed to do after they lost the gulf war wich THEY STARTED
Ok heres my point. The war is allready started. We all have the right to protest and support the war. But I think now that protesters should relax a little till after the war to protest because what they are saying or doing will not stop the war. Maybe they will have a impact possibly after the war but in no way are they going to stop it. Now is the time I think everyone should be supporting the men and woman that are risking thier lives to do thier duty. I also think that a majoraty of people will not be happy till American troops get hit with Chemical or biological weapons. Not till then will a lot of people and countrys support this war. That is so wrong. I stand proud behind my country and its troops because what I see is them making life safer for all countries and the same time being as humane as possible to a country with a leader that kills its own people. I mean come on watch the news...Marines carry out injured Iraq soldiers....feeding them and treating like the rules state....humanely. America has made some mistakes and Im sure all countries have but America is not trying to take over Iraq just remove a regime that supports terrorism, hinds biological and chemical weapons and killing thier own and forcing them to fight when they dont want to. Someone needs to clean up the streets and that someone is America. We take the job because other countries are too busy worring what every one will think. So protesters take off your ductape from your mouth and put down your pickit signs for a while and support your troops and when all is said and done go back to protesting and be happy that it all over and you have a safe place to pickit. I mean you dont think you could do that kind of stuff over in Iraq and not get shot for it ......do you? God Bless America and its Troops.
BLUE = puremindmatters' quotes
BLACK = Spindulik's reply
You might not have heard this before, but since the last Golf War they were not allowed to import any more weapons.
Allowed or not they managed to get what they have now. Agreements mean nothing to them, thus the war.
I was referring to "pre-1991". If Saddam wasn't so greedy, he could have managed a way for their economy to be fruitful. Let the money work for itself, so the citizens and businesses could grow. At the same time, Saddam could build a legitimate armed forces and still have his prestigeous power as a leader.
I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?
Yes. Otherwise, you say they are justified in risking the lives of women and children being fired upon. It is possible that the coalition forces may have to fire back to protect themselves.
Besides, "fight with what they have" is not the answer when all they have is women and children. This is one of the MAIN REASONS that the war exists.
You say a "merciless enemy"? The "enemy" could very easily take out Saddam's military with the innocent civilians, in a minute.
The idea is to liberate Iraq and its people, not conquer it and take it over.
You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.
What "past wars" are you referring to? Terroristic wars? Wars of the past are no excuse for the Iraqi army to use human shields.
I don't really know why people think that it is clean and proper warfare to strike an enemy from the air when they have literally no means of defending themselves against it.
As YOU said "fight with what they have" (air power is what we have), however, it is proper warfare when you strike from the air (especially when the enemy is using terroristic tactics). The idea is to take out the enemy's key branches with minimal damage to the civilians and their comunity, and not to create casualties of your oun men too. Air strikes are very accurate and effective.
Anyhow, you say "..they have literally no means of defending themselves against it." Again, Saddam should have been prepared years ago, and not have been so evil and greedy. You don't do ilegitimate, or contraversial, business and have no backup plan if somebody or nation gets pissed off about it. The boyscouts motto is "Be prepared".
I think the war you are going to face after the removal of the current regime is going to be even more atrocious and more difficult to comprehend, if your president really insists on a military occupation, for this is bound to create terrorism (and not only from former Saddam supporters).
Our president isn't insisting on military occupation, as you are indicating. As with any recovery after a war, there is military control to help the communities to rebuild with their own people and respected leaders. For the post war, there have been immense careful planning and recovery tactics discussed months before the war was initiated.
Military occupancy is there to protect the innocent civilians. The military will gradually fade away as the people gain control to a civilized, humane Iraq.
This is not a game, and the Iraqis are no spoil-sports, they are trying to fight an enemy they haven't attacked in the first place. How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and how much are people trying to defend their country no-one can tell.
I agree, this is not a game. I have to admire the courage and strength of the Iraqi's attitude. After all, it is their country, and they are defending it, even if they are defending a ludicrous and shakey terroristic regime.
...an enemy they haven't attacked in the first place....
You don't have to attack an enemy, to have an enemy. Saddam has attacked his own people, therefore he has attacked mankind. Saddam has overwhelming evidence of terroristic activities. Saddam supports terrorists. His enemy is anyone who doesn't deal in his kind of shakey business.
...How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and...
None of this killing would have happend at all if Saddam would have completely complied with the UN inspectors. If Saddam has nothing to hide, he wouldn't have been in this situation. If he really cared about his people, his entire government would have been controlled and applied differently.
This war can end now. Saddam just has to admit that he is wrong, and his forces are going to be taken down, in time. Many lives can be saved.
This would get lengthy if I start quoting, so I summarize and repeat:
So far they have used what they are supposed to have according to UN inspectors. So far, there were no surprises.
Actually, you are contradicting yourself - you are saying before they should have bought more weapons, what's the point if he isn't allowed to possess them. Part of the problems the people have now is that he was doing what you recommended before 1991, meaning instead of caring for his people he was buying weapons to lead endless wars.
The airstrikes: There was hardly any airforce worth mentioning before the war (one of the agreements after 1991), and the few anti-aircraft missles they had would never been able to reach a B52 bomber or the vessels launching missles and bombs. I know that everyone thinks that it is particularly "humane" to hit "military targets in this fashion" - but hell, there are actually human beings sitting in these targets. They can't fight back. I would call that slaughter. That is why I say merciless. Again, they have not attacked. If Saddam had attacked another country before the war, I had seen the point, but he hasn't, if there had been any reports of a current genocide of the tribes in his country, I would have seen the point, but that simply wasn't the case. You have attacked because he "potentially" could have done that again.
In WW2 many smaller countries had a resistence movement, funny enough even France, part of which was formed by former military, which changed the tatics because they could not oppose the Germans openly. They reverted to what you would call terrorist tactics nowadays. They might not have used "human shields" (others have, see Vietnam), but no-one complained about the Geneva convention being flaunted, on the contrary, they were considered heroes afterwards, and look - the ones who collaborated and surrendered were considered traitors and cowards afterwards. The only difference now is that they use it right from the beginning of the war.
It is easy to play by the rules if you have all the advantages on your side. If some revert to guerilla tactics, it is because they wouldn't stand a chance in conventional combat. If you force fanatics to guerilla warfare, you shouldn't be surprised that the results are extreme.
There is no country in this world which could resist a force like the one attacking Iraq now - would you say that they all should be prepared and make sure they have enough weaponry to put up a decent fight, just in case the US might fancy having a go at them in the future? That is a logic which really really scares me.
And it's the same logic - we have relative safety with our high-tech equipment, and we have every right to use it. They don't have it, and that is their fault, so they should just accept that and die. They wouldn't have to use human shields, if their country wasn't invaded.
War is the supension of all ethics, and that is why I oppose it when I think it is unnecessary. You see dropping two nuclear bombs on two civilian targets was backed by the Geneva Convention - that was "proper" warfare, and still that doesn't appear ethical to me. I know that the coalition forces are trying to obtain their objective with as little damage as possible, and as ethical as possible - but that doesn't make me feel any better about it, and all the people killed, civilians and soldiers sure don't care anymore if they've been killed by ethical or unethical means.
Yes. It could get lenghty. I'll summerize too.
"Some" of the missles that they used were in violation to what they agreed not to have at all.
Saddam is allowed to have weapons. Just not the ones he agreed not to have. Also, you said the problem was, he increased his armory before 1991 (exactly what we don't want him to do). There is no problem with that, except that he used them on people without justified reason.
"...there are actually human beings sitting in these targets.". Too bad, it is not as if we didn't warn them in enough time. Saddam had months, days and hours to do something about it.
"If Saddam had attacked another country before the war...". Remember Kuwait? He even attacks his own country.
I agree with you about the guerilla tactics.
"...would you say that they all should be prepared..". In a sort, yes. Many smaller countries have formed allies. You can never under, or over, estimate the enemy's strength.
"...if their country wasn't invaded." This is an invasion of a different type. But it has to be done. If the USA and its allies weren't doing anything about it, the Iraqi regime would result into a greater threat, not only to its own people, but the rest of the world. Sooner or later, some nation would take a stance against Iraq.
War is tragic. I don't like it. Personally, I would do "everything humanly possible", before going into a war. I think Bush did almost that, but could have tried a little harder.
------------------------------------
Nice chatting here, with you puremindmatters, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. At the same time, I get to practice my typing skills better. :)
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.
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.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!
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.
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.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.
@ketropak
Name a couple in power right now, besides N Korea.
and if we haven'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'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. <_<
Well, 50% of African countries.Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@28 March 2003 - 00:40
@ketropak
Name a couple in power right now, besides N Korea.
Almost the whole Middle East.
Taiwan, China, Pakistan, India...
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:Quote:
and if we haven'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'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.
This 'prevention' doctrine is just crap. It'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 'Purely Arabian War'....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'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 'secure' 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 'Politiclly acceptable', 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 'Oil Wars' predicted as early as the 1970'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 'Conventions' 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.
'Honour' 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 'Liberated'. There are also Arabs from most of the Arabian world fighting alongside the Iraqi army against the 'infidels'.
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'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 'invader' 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 'liberation' of their 'liberated' country...these groups are not bound by any 'Conventions' 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 'alterntive, replenishing fuels' 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 'Geneva Convention' wont hold with the Iraqi'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.