How do the US expect to win support when they do stuff like this ?

[plenderj]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12275844,00.html

[Gaffer]

Agreed - it make the war experts statements of "this could be a war without civilan loss" absolutely ridiculous.

And there's me thinking this was a war against Saddam and terrorism. Looked pretty terrifying to me....

I hope this is worth it :(

[plenderj]

We'll never know :(

[Pc_Madness]

Your an idiot. The US doesn't have control over how a missile will ultimately react, and, in reality, the Iraqi's brought this on themselves by burning the oil and such. (I'm assuming this is what they mean by poor weather.)

20 people dead is hardly worth cracking a hissy fit over, its war gentlemen. Some people seem to be forgetting this.

[swatty]

War you say.

Cause GWB calls is War.

GWB is a terrorist himself and is using the us citizens to reach his goal.

He calls it WAR and therefore can bomb anything he wants.

I'll hope his day will come as well, and you'll open your eyes.

[plenderj]

Its a war the americans started to "help" and "save" the Iraqi people.
They would have been better off left alone!

[Pc_Madness]

Define the word "war" for me Swatty. :rolleyes:

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
Its a war the americans started to "help" and "save" the Iraqi people.
They would have been better off left alone!

lol. Better off? I doubt that. Why is it that other countries have been "flooding" (thank Mr howard for that term ;)) by Iraqi refugees? Why is it that people in the southern Iraqi cities are fighting against Iraqi soldiers? Cause there country has sucked ever since Saddam came into power. Since they aren't willing/able to save themselves, it is only the right thing to do but to help them. :)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The US doesn't have control over how a missile will ultimately react

If the US can't control their own missles they shouldn't be firing any.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
lol. Better off? I doubt that. Why is it that other countries have been "flooding" (thank Mr howard for that term ;)) by Iraqi refugees? Why is it that people in the southern Iraqi cities are fighting against Iraqi soldiers? Cause there country has sucked ever since Saddam came into power. Since they aren't willing/able to save themselves, it is only the right thing to do but to help them. :)

There aren't floods of Iraqi refugees.
Iraqis are leaving other countries and going back to Iraq to fight the Americans.

There were reports there might have been an uprising in Basra.
But no-one knows how big it was.
It could have been a handful of people for all we know.

They are being punished because they can't overthrow Saddam.
And where was the US last time they said they'd help the people overthrow Saddam ?

Odd and sudden change of heart.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
If the US can't control their own missles they shouldn't be firing any.


Would you prefer that they just bomb the hell out of all the cities with dumb bombs like the allies did during WW2? If the Iraqis didn't keep soldiers in the cities in the first place, then there wouldn't need to be a bombing of cities. ;)


Originally posted by plenderj
There aren't floods of Iraqi refugees.
Iraqis are leaving other countries and going back to Iraq to fight the Americans.

Might want to do a search on the Tampa crisis, Mr Plenderj, it should lead onto the more serious problem that is the flooding of illegal immgrants to western nations, notably Australia. :)

Large proportations of the people were from Iraq and Afganistan. :)

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Define the word "war" for me Swatty. :rolleyes:

Battle between two or more states.

He uses his presidenthood to use the word war , chief of state.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
If the US can't control their own missles they shouldn't be firing any.

If your so smart lets see you make a better one.... We have the most acurate in the world...

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
If your so smart lets see you make a better one.... We have the most acurate in the world...

My opinion is that you shouldn't be firing any at all.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
My opinion is that you shouldn't be firing any at all.

And clearly, 12 years of that has done an excellent job. ;)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Would you prefer that they just bomb the hell out of all the cities with dumb bombs like the allies did during WW2? If the Iraqis didn't keep soldiers in the cities in the first place, then there wouldn't need to be a bombing of cities. ;)




Might want to do a search on the Tampa crisis, Mr Plenderj, it should lead onto the more serious problem that is the flooding of illegal immgrants to western nations, notably Australia. :)

Large proportations of the people were from Iraq and Afganistan. :)

1) I would prefer you don't bomb anything at all.
2) Most of the people were from Afghanistan. I don't even think there were any Iraqis there.

[swatty]

Originally posted by Maven
If your so smart lets see you make a better one.... We have the most acurate in the world...

The allmighty said.

Time you learn there are others on earth too.
Don't think you know it all and can do whatever you like.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
My opinion is that you shouldn't be firing any at all.

Go be a human sheild for one of Saddams rape chambers if you feel the need to help out.

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And clearly, 12 years of that has done an excellent job. ;)

I wonder if GWB wasn't elected .:confused:

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And clearly, 12 years of that has done an excellent job. ;)

No-one's lifted a finger in 12 years to make him prove he doesn't have any illegal weapons.

And what about Russia ?
No-one has found any illegal chemical weapons in Iraq yet, but russia actually used chemical weapons not too long ago.
The US doesn't seem to care about that.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
Go be a human sheild for one of Saddams rape chambers if you feel the need to help out.

Rape chambers ? What ?
http://www.google.ie/search?q=saddam+%2B+%22rape+chamber%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) I would prefer you don't bomb anything at all.
2) Most of the people were from Afghanistan. I don't even think there were any Iraqis there.

Pull up the figures on population detention origins, I'm sure australia has it somewhere.

And if your feeling really clever, and have an excellent search engine, you could do a search to find the total % of iraq orgin in western nations.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Your an idiot. The US doesn't have control over how a missile will ultimately react, and, in reality, the Iraqi's brought this on themselves by burning the oil and such. (I'm assuming this is what they mean by poor weather.)

20 people dead is hardly worth cracking a hissy fit over, its war gentlemen. Some people seem to be forgetting this.

Burning oil wells could hardly be called bad weather. Of course if GWB has coined a new term called "Bad Weather" to represent it, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

From what I know, the oil wells in the Southern Iraq have been set on fire, and the air raids were taking place on Baghdad. Consult a map if you are unsure and you will find out yourself how ridiculous it is to blame the misbehaving missiles on the burning oil wells.

Yeah, 20 dead civilians is nothing to you, because you lost about 3000 didn't you? So you will start to worry about civilian deaths only after the toll reaches 3000, because then the old score will have been settled :rolleyes:

So much for the technical accuracy of the US weapons. :rolleyes:

.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by swatty
The allmighty said.

Time you learn there are others on earth too.
Don't think you know it all and can do whatever you like.

Don't quote that ****, if we wanted fairy tales, we'd get a disney book. :mad:

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Don't quote that ****, if we wanted fairy tales, we'd get a disney book. :mad:

Fairy tales ?
Like Saddam being a threat to the rest of the world ?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Maven
Go be a human sheild for one of Saddams rape chambers if you feel the need to help out.

What an informed comment :rolleyes:

.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Pull up the figures on population detention origins, I'm sure australia has it somewhere.

The Iraqis involved in the Tampa crisis came from Indonesia.



Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And if your feeling really clever, and have an excellent search engine, you could do a search to find the total % of iraq orgin in western nations.

What ?

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by honeybee
Burning oil wells could hardly be called bad weather. Of course if GWB has coined a new term called "Bad Weather" to represent it, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

From what I know, the oil wells in the Southern Iraq have been set on fire, and the air raids were taking place on Baghdad. Consult a map if you are unsure and you will find out yourself how ridiculous it is to blame the misbehaving missiles on the burning oil wells.

Yeah, 20 dead civilians is nothing to you, because you lost about 3000 didn't you? So you will start to worry about civilian deaths only after the toll reaches 3000, because then the old score will have been settled :rolleyes:

So much for the technical accuracy of the US weapons. :rolleyes:

.

Are you saying smoke and dust storms wouldn't affect a piece of machiney?

Clearly, you are misinformed. The Iraqi's have dug trenches around Baghad, filled them with oil, and set them alight to hide Baghad from bombers. Whether thats the cause of the missile going astray, no-one can say. Maybe the Iraqi's used one of there jammers on it?

20 people dead is nothing. 1 man killed 37 people in a shooting spree, and I won't go into detail of how he killed them. Only 20 people killed in a war is excellent. What were the figures from WW2? Vietnam? Korea? Gulf War 1? The US is doing the best it can to control civilian deaths, and for that I think it should be congratulated.

Jamie
I don't believe in god, and I would have to doubt that anyone should over the last few years of the amount of blood spilt.


Swatty
Even if Mr Bush wasn't elected properly, Mr Gore would have done something similar, if of course, there was anything wrong with the vote, which I doubt. The right man is in office, I believe. :)

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Don't quote that ****, if we wanted fairy tales, we'd get a disney book. :mad:

An american disney book that is.:o

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Jamie
I don't believe in god, and I would have to doubt that anyone should over the last few years of the amount of blood spilt.

God has nothing to do with this. These are actions by people on other people.
We should realize by now that war isn't the answer.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
The Iraqis involved in the Tampa crisis came from Indonesia.


What ?

Well done. ;) The people work there way done through the asian countries, where policing of such matters is also zero, and use Indo as a launching point into australia.


Do a search for the % of US population to see how many of them originated from Iraq. Will give you a picture on how many people are trying to run away from the place. ;)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Well done. ;) The people work there way done through the asian countries, where policing of such matters is also zero, and use Indo as a launching point into australia.


Do a search for the % of US population to see how many of them originated from Iraq. Will give you a picture on how many people are trying to run away from the place. ;)

1) Irrespective of what country they came through, its hardly proof of why they left.

2) So? People emmigrate from countries all the time.


People emmigrated from Ireland to the UK and US because this country was so poor in the past.
Does that mean we should be bombed just because we had mass emmigrations ?

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
God has nothing to do with this. These are actions by people on other people.
We should realize by now that war isn't the answer.

Did you even read Swatty's post? It made reference to god. Tell him that it has nothing to do with it ;)

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness

Swatty
Even if Mr Bush wasn't elected properly, Mr Gore would have done something similar, if of course, there was anything wrong with the vote, which I doubt. The right man is in office, I believe. :)

I don't think you can say what another one would do.

Wrong votes or not, my point is GWB wants to settle things which his father couldn't.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Did you even read Swatty's post? It made reference to god. Tell him that it has nothing to do with it ;)

1) You quoted me, and then replied re; god.
2) I don't see any reference to god by swatty ?

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Did you even read Swatty's post? It made reference to god. Tell him that it has nothing to do with it ;)

Then you didn't read it properly.

The allmighty American said.

If God was an american it wasn't referring to him.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Irrespective of what country they came through, its hardly proof of why they left.

2) So? People emmigrate from countries all the time.


People emmigrated from Ireland to the UK and US because this country was so poor in the past.
Does that mean we should be bombed just because we had mass emmigrations ?

It still shows us that alot of people are leaving a country for a reason. Connect the dots. The state of which Iraq was in before the war is all the result of Saddams actions as president.

[plenderj]

But nothing to do with the sanctions imposed and the fact that he's only limited on the number of barrels of oil per day he can sell :rolleyes:

[plenderj]

And irrespective of what sort of situation the country is in, what right does that give the US to overthrow the president ?

There are many many countries around the world far worse off.
But the US doesn't lift a finger for those countries does it.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by swatty
Then you didn't read it properly.

The allmighty American said.

If God was an american it wasn't referring to him.

Ok, are you going to make any decent posts in this thread?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Ok, are you going to make any decent posts in this thread?

It was a perfectly acceptable post he made regarding the almighty USA.
Maven sounded quite superior in his statement about having the best missles in the world.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
But nothing to do with the sanctions imposed and the fact that he's only limited on the number of barrels of oil per day he can sell :rolleyes:

And why were those sanctions imposed Jamie? :rolleyes:




It was a perfectly acceptable post he made regarding the almighty USA.
Maven sounded quite superior in his statement about having the best missles in the world.

Name a better missile then? The US do have the best missiles. :rolleyes: And Swatty never made reference to allmighty america, just the allmighty, implying god. ;) "The allmighty said. "

My point about the exit of Iraqi's from the country is that the country is not better off if the US had never come, and really, the UN should have stepped in about this a while back, but the US is having to do it because of the risk Iraq poses. :)

What risk? Korea would be more than happy to sell one of its super long range missiles, and I'm sure the Iraqi's could find something nice to fit in that war head ;)

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by plenderj
And irrespective of what sort of situation the country is in, what right does that give the US to overthrow the president ?

There are many many countries around the world far worse off.
......

We'll get to Them, Just give us a little time.

;)

[dogsby]

If you had ever been in a middle east desert sadn storm, you would know that you can barely see 10 feet in front of you at times. This coupled with the iraqi trick of burning oil would have made it damn near impossible for anything to see through. And once again, the US DOES NOT purposely target civilians, unlike saddam, who has killed tons of HIS OWN PEOPLE. With Chemical weapons I might add. And He will use them again.
Regretfully, some civilians died, but this is war people, bad stuff happens during wars.
There will be more dying as well. The iraqis are well known to use civilians as shields, its a proven fact. Not to mention the hospital that was a staging area for iraqi troops. That is totally against the rules of war. If you really want to stop this war, I suggest you fly over to Baghdad and volunteer your pitiful services. Saddam can always use a few more torture victims, human shields, cannon fodder, etc.

Dogsby

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
Rape chambers ? What ?
http://www.google.ie/search?q=saddam+%2B+%22rape+chamber%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

You feel that we are doing such a bad thing getting rid of Saddam then maybe you should go protect some of his things. Heck just go up to one of the Iraqi soldiers who took a kid away from his family to use as a human shiled and offer to trade out.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by dogsby
If you had ever been in a middle east desert sadn storm, you would know that you can barely see 10 feet in front of you at times. This coupled with the iraqi trick of burning oil would have made it damn near impossible for anything to see through. And once again, the US DOES NOT purposely target civilians, unlike saddam, who has killed tons of HIS OWN PEOPLE. With Chemical weapons I might add. And He will use them again.
Regretfully, some civilians died, but this is war people, bad stuff happens during wars.
There will be more dying as well. The iraqis are well known to use civilians as shields, its a proven fact. Not to mention the hospital that was a staging area for iraqi troops. That is totally against the rules of war. If you really want to stop this war, I suggest you fly over to Baghdad and volunteer your pitiful services. Saddam can always use a few more torture victims, human shields, cannon fodder, etc.

Dogsby

Aah, thank you Dogsby. :) Another intelligent member of the forum. :D

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And why were those sanctions imposed Jamie? :rolleyes:




It was a perfectly acceptable post he made regarding the almighty USA.
Maven sounded quite superior in his statement about having the best missles in the world.

Name a better missile then? The US do have the best missiles. :rolleyes: And Swatty never made reference to allmighty america, just the allmighty, implying god. ;) "The allmighty said. "

My point about the exit of Iraqi's from the country is that the country is not better off if the US had never come, and really, the UN should have stepped in about this a while back, but the US is having to do it because of the risk Iraq poses. :)

What risk? Korea would be more than happy to sell one of its super long range missiles, and I'm sure the Iraqi's could find something nice to fit in that war head ;)

1) Irrespective of why the sanctions were imposed, that's what's ****ing up the country.

2) So what if you have the best missles ? If you can't guarantee you're not going to hit homes and markets then you shouldn't be using any.

3) Ah yes Korea. That united country. I see.
And no-one has any proof that Saddam has anything.


North Korea could also sell a missle to Al Queda.
Yet you're not attacking North Korea are you.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by Maven
You feel that we are doing such a bad thing getting rid of Saddam then maybe you should go protect some of his things. Heck just go up to one of the Iraqi soldiers who took a kid away from his family to use as a human shiled and offer to trade out.

Speaking of human shields, an australian went over there, but was kicked out cause he refused to defend a military target, and once they were out of Iraq, the driver (an iraqi) revealed that he would love to see Saddam over throne.

Now, our little human shield boy thought differently after this little chat. :)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by dogsby
If you had ever been in a middle east desert sadn storm, you would know that you can barely see 10 feet in front of you at times. This coupled with the iraqi trick of burning oil would have made it damn near impossible for anything to see through. And once again, the US DOES NOT purposely target civilians, unlike saddam, who has killed tons of HIS OWN PEOPLE. With Chemical weapons I might add. And He will use them again.
Regretfully, some civilians died, but this is war people, bad stuff happens during wars.
There will be more dying as well. The iraqis are well known to use civilians as shields, its a proven fact. Not to mention the hospital that was a staging area for iraqi troops. That is totally against the rules of war. If you really want to stop this war, I suggest you fly over to Baghdad and volunteer your pitiful services. Saddam can always use a few more torture victims, human shields, cannon fodder, etc.

I never said the US purposely targest civilians.
But do you think a sandstorm would justify the deaths of those civilians to their families ?

Yes Saddam used chemical weapons.
But where's the proof that he will again ?
Russia also used chemical weapons against civilians remember.

Rules of war?
You're dealing with guerrilla warfare.
The only way they can defend their country against the likes of the US is to resort to those sorts of tactics.

Look at Michael Collins' 12 apostles for example.

[Maven]

Originally posted by honeybee
Burning oil wells could hardly be called bad weather. Of course if GWB has coined a new term called "Bad Weather" to represent it, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

From what I know, the oil wells in the Southern Iraq have been set on fire, and the air raids were taking place on Baghdad. Consult a map if you are unsure and you will find out yourself how ridiculous it is to blame the misbehaving missiles on the burning oil wells.

Yeah, 20 dead civilians is nothing to you, because you lost about 3000 didn't you? So you will start to worry about civilian deaths only after the toll reaches 3000, because then the old score will have been settled :rolleyes:

So much for the technical accuracy of the US weapons. :rolleyes:

.

They have been digging oil trenchs and setting them on fire around bagdad.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
You feel that we are doing such a bad thing getting rid of Saddam then maybe you should go protect some of his things. Heck just go up to one of the Iraqi soldiers who took a kid away from his family to use as a human shiled and offer to trade out.

I feel you're doing a bad thing by getting rid of Saddam without any legal reason to do so.
And no-one said that the Iraqi soldiers are actually grabbing children.

Using human shields can me anything in different contexts.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Speaking of human shields, an australian went over there, but was kicked out cause he refused to defend a military target, and once they were out of Iraq, the driver (an iraqi) revealed that he would love to see Saddam over throne.

Now, our little human shield boy thought differently after this little chat. :)

One taximan thought Saddam should be overthrown.
Well okay keep bombing the country, kill civilians, and wreck the entire region.
I'm conviced!

[swatty]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Aah, thank you Dogsby. :) Another intelligent member of the forum. :D

So all replys you can read, understand and are written like you think are written by intelligent members.

This says plenty of your intelligence.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Irrespective of why the sanctions were imposed, that's what's ****ing up the country.

2) So what if you have the best missles ? If you can't guarantee you're not going to hit homes and markets then you shouldn't be using any.

3) Ah yes Korea. That united country. I see.
And no-one has any proof that Saddam has anything.


North Korea could also sell a missle to Al Queda.
Yet you're not attacking North Korea are you.

Saddams actions resulted in the sanctions. He choose to "****" up his country. :rolleyes:

So you'd prefer that troops went in, and blast the **** out of an area with artillery, tanks, mortars and rifle fire instead? Honestly...

Your knowledge of war amazes me Jamie. Why in the world, would you declare war on an enemy when your army is in the Gulf? Korea won't be left out of the fun, don't you worry about that. :)

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
They have been digging oil trenchs and setting them on fire around bagdad.

Yes, so that you wouldn't use anymore air raids.
Yet, even though you know that the missles may not work through such thick smoke and sandstorms, they are still launched.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Saddams actions resulted in the sanctions. He choose to "****" up his country. :rolleyes:

So you'd prefer that troops went in, and blast the **** out of an area with artillery, tanks, mortars and rifle fire instead? Honestly...

Your knowledge of war amazes me Jamie. Why in the world, would you declare war on an enemy when your army is in the Gulf? Korea won't be left out of the fun, don't you worry about that. :)

1) Yes, but you cannot use the fact that the country is now ****ed up as a justification to bomb it more.

2) No I'd prefer you didn't blow up markets at all.


"Why in the world, would you declare war on an enemy when your army is in the Gulf?"
What ?


"Korea won't be left out of the fun, don't you worry about that"
North Korea you mean.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Irrespective of why the sanctions were imposed, that's what's ****ing up the country.

2) So what if you have the best missles ? If you can't guarantee you're not going to hit homes and markets then you shouldn't be using any.

3) Ah yes Korea. That united country. I see.
And no-one has any proof that Saddam has anything.


North Korea could also sell a missle to Al Queda.
Yet you're not attacking North Korea are you.

Yea he's just suppling his troops with Gas Masks and atropine so I'm sure he doesn't have anything.

I'm going to be the first to tell you what is about to happen before you even suspect anything:

When they launch the nerve gas, thier is going to be more civilians die then you'll ever know about.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
--John Stuart Mill

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by swatty
So all replys you can read, understand and are written like you think are written by intelligent members.

This says plenty of your intelligence.

Actually, I'm simply stating that Dogbsy comments are logical, yet you guys seem to have trouble accepting this kind of thinking?

And I never stated that because Dogsby took my viewpoint on the issue, that he was intelligent. Jamie is intelligent, even though his recollection of certain events in the past is blurred, but I'm sure a good knock on the head can cure that. :) And all of the other people that are putting forward decents arguments, are intelligent. :)

And where is an example of your intelligence Swatty?

[swatty]

I know i'm stupid.
I am against this war and therefore called stupid by an aussie.

Don't give a damn about it.

Like i've said allready if you can't read them reply's don't reply on them.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
Yea he's just suppling his troops with Gas Masks and atropine so I'm sure he doesn't have anything.

I'm going to be the first to tell you what is about to happen before you even suspect anything:

When they launch the nerve gas, thier is going to be more civilians die then you'll ever know about.


1) Just because he's supplying his troops with the equipment it doesn't mean he has the stuff.
It could be perfectly normal operating procedure.

2) You mean, If.

3) Your quote is reprehensible.
So we should all want war. We should all want to fight for the things we want ?

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Yes, but you cannot use the fact that the country is now ****ed up as a justification to bomb it more.

2) No I'd prefer you didn't blow up markets at all.


"Why in the world, would you declare war on an enemy when your army is in the Gulf?"
What ?


"Korea won't be left out of the fun, don't you worry about that"
North Korea you mean.

I never gave that as my reason to bomb Iraq, Mr Jamie. I merely stated why Iraq is in the ****ter, how it got there, and how it is about to brought out of that by Allied Forces.

Then how would you get the bad guys out of the an area, Jamie? Leaving them in there is not an option.

You complained that NK wasn't being treated the same as Iraq, and I simply pointed out that when the US has the force available to back up its demands for the ending of building nuclear weapons, then it will do it. :)

[NotLKH]

BTW, civilian deaths, in any military action, is always a tragic thing.

Unfortunately, the only way to prevent that from happening requires the effort of both sides. The US has given ample warning that war was coming, and certainly attempted to get the word to the Iraqi general populace, but ultimately had no capability to place them out of harms way.

The Iraqi Gov't knew war was coming, propably gave some form of warning their population it was coming, but evidently didn't feel it necessary to evacuate the civilians to safer environs.

Ultimately, safeguarding a countries civilian population is the responsability of the host country. No one else can do it.

http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1395623
-Lou

[run_GMoney]

I hate the word 'irrespective'

[plenderj]

How do you get rid of Saddam ?
You incite a coup. Like I've said about fifty times now.
You incite, organize and support a coup.



Anyway. To get back on topic.
How can the US expect to win the support of the people when they are killing civilians ?
Irrespective of why its happening or who else is doing what.

The families of the people who have been killed will resent the Americans - and could very possibly turn into freedom fighters.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Just because he's supplying his troops with the equipment it doesn't mean he has the stuff.
It could be perfectly normal operating procedure.

2) You mean, If.

3) Your quote is reprehensible.
So we should all want war. We should all want to fight for the things we want ?

1. We do not use checmial weapons and its common knowlege that we don't. So why would Saddam be supplying his troops with Gas Masks and Atropine if they don't need to carry them. Thats to protect them from the stuff he is about to launch.

2. Thats right "if" the USA fails to target and destory it before he launchs.

3. Nobody wants war, I don't want war. But we should all know when we need to fight it.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
How do you get rid of Saddam ?
You incite a coup. Like I've said about fifty times now.
You incite, organize and support a coup.



Anyway. To get back on topic.
How can the US expect to win the support of the people when they are killing civilians ?
Irrespective of why its happening or who else is doing what.

The families of the people who have been killed will resent the Americans - and could very possibly turn into freedom fighters.

That has been tried twice and both times it ended up with around 100,000 dead.

[plenderj]

You incited a coup and walked away.
How do you expect a people to overthrow a military government without military assistance ?

You didn't lift a finger last time. You didn't do a tap.
That in itself should be a crime.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
How do you get rid of Saddam ?
You incite a coup. Like I've said about fifty times now.
You incite, organize and support a coup.



Anyway. To get back on topic.
How can the US expect to win the support of the people when they are killing civilians ?
Irrespective of why its happening or who else is doing what.

The families of the people who have been killed will resent the Americans - and could very possibly turn into freedom fighters.

So, what, you want civilians to uprise against Saddam, be slaughtered by the Republician guard, and we're back to point a again. Clever.


The US doesn't need support anymore, the war has already begun. And again, civilians die, **** happens. People die all the time. Saddam could have avoided this from happening, but instead he tried to screw the world around. You want someone to blame about civilian deaths, blame him. Not the allies who are working to save Iraq.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Not the allies who are working to save Iraq.

You weren't asked to save the bloody Iraqis.
You decided off your own bat to "help" them.

And read my above post.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
You incited a coup and walked away.
How do you expect a people to overthrow a military government without military assistance ?

You didn't lift a finger last time. You didn't do a tap.
That in itself should be a crime.

Surely the inaction by the UN, would then also make it guility of this crime? :rolleyes:

[plenderj]

The UN didn't incite the coup.
The UN had nothing to do with it.

The US said they were going to support it.
And then after Saddam had moved his troops back and was preparing for a fight, the US said they weren't going to provide any assistance and Saddam walked all over the people.

[BodwadUK]

IT WAS A ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In fact it is said 2 missiles hit the market and it has not been confirmed as to who fired them :) :)

As for those saying it is not really a war and it is just Bush calling it one, wake the F**k up. America and her allies have gone to ware to remove Saddam and the possible threat that he poses to the rest of the world. Yes it isnt ideal but all other options HAVE been explored and failed.

I really really am sorry for the deaths of these people but it is about time Saddam was removed for the thousands of Murders on civilians since his regime started!!!!!

It is also reported that Iraqi soldiers were using Hospitals to house weapons and troops!!! Oh yes i see that they care so much about their people!!!!!!

It is also reported that the Uprising in Basra may be because the Iraqs where using civilians as shields. One incident is reported where civilians were walked in front of soldiers to prevent them being shot at by the British, if we are such barbarians then why did we not open fire?????

Civilian Vehicles where also used when the column of tanks tried to get out of Basra yesterday. This is the caring Iraqi soldiers is it??? The people in Iraq are oppressed through fear and would welcome freedom.

The US said they were going to support it.
And then after Saddam had moved his troops back and was preparing for a fight, the US said they weren't going to provide any assistance and Saddam walked all over the people.

So that gave Saddam a right to gas them and innocent people in Basra then did it???
:( :( :(


The UN is a shambles now, it is even reported that the French have said that anymore negotiations on Iraq will be Vetoed without question. Because they are looking for a peacful solution arent they:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


The City of Basra has not had electricity in some parts since before the assualt on Basra began and has been left to suffer from lack of clean water and food ever since. Saddam has tried to weaken them to prevent an uprising. See how most of his big forces are in the areas that he has more chance of getting support (by force).

The claims have been made by the Iraqis when it comes to these weapons so lets wait for the confirmation before removing the idea that Saddam isnt trying to get support by blowing up his own people. You just have to look at the anger to see that it would work :( :( :(


The only reason i think he hasnt used any chemical weapons is because he still thinks there is a chance that other countries will come to his aid in some way. The use of chemical weapons would destroy that chance and he knows it!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh and the Paveway bombs are both GPS guided and Laser guided and YES they are the most accurate bombs to date

[plenderj]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
IT WAS A ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In fact it is said 2 missiles hit the market and it has not been confirmed as to who fired them :) :)

As for those saying it is not really a war and it is just Bush calling it one, wake the F**k up. America and her allies have gone to ware to remove Saddam and the possible threat that he poses to the rest of the world. Yes it isnt ideal but all other options HAVE been explored and failed.

I really really am sorry for the deaths of these people but it is about time Saddam was removed for the thousands of Murders on civilians since his regime started!!!!!

It is also reported that Iraqi soldiers were using Hospitals to house weapons and troops!!! Oh yes i see that they care so much about their people!!!!!!

It is also reported that the Uprising in Basra may be because the Iraqs where using civilians as shields. One incident is reported where civilians were walked in front of soldiers to prevent them being shot at by the British, if we are such barbarians then why did we not open fire?????

Civilian Vehicles where also used when the column of tanks tried to get out of Basra yesterday. This is the caring Iraqi soldiers is it??? The people in Iraq are oppressed through fear and would welcome freedom.



So that gave Saddam a right to gas them and innocent people in Basra then did it???
:( :( :(


The UN is a shambles now, it is even reported that the French have said that anymore negotiations on Iraq will be Vetoed without question. Because they are looking for a peacful solution arent they:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


The City of Basra has not had electricity in some parts since before the assualt on Basra began and has been left to suffer from lack of clean water and food ever since. Saddam has tried to weaken them to prevent an uprising. See how most of his big forces are in the areas that he has more chance of getting support (by force).

The claims have been made by the Iraqis when it comes to these weapons so lets wait for the confirmation before removing the idea that Saddam isnt trying to get support by blowing up his own people. You just have to look at the anger to see that it would work :( :( :(


The only reason i think he hasnt used any chemical weapons is because he still thinks there is a chance that other countries will come to his aid in some way. The use of chemical weapons would destroy that chance and he knows it!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh and the Paveway bombs are both GPS guided and Laser guided and YES they are the most accurate bombs to date

How does he pose a threat to the rest of the world ?
How come, at length, US and UK generals have said that the battles will be quick and decisive because they're so badly equipped and have little morale etc.
Yet at the same time Saddam is a big threat to the rest of the world somehow ?


I'm sure a lot of things have been reported.
Whether its true or not is another matter.


No it doesn't give Saddam the right to gas civilians, but he did that because the US didn't help when they said they would.


There is still no proof that he has chemical or biological weapons.
And there's no proof that he's a threat to the US.
Yes obviously since the start of the conflict he is, but why wasn't he 5 years ago, or after septmebter 11th ?
Why is it only now ?


I'm sure they are accurate.
But if the Iraqis are burning oil to cause big black clouds of smoke, and there are sandstorms aswell, surely you know that there is a high probability that weapons will not hit their intended targets.
So then surely they should not have been used ?

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
You complained that NK wasn't being treated the same as Iraq, and I simply pointed out that when the US has the force available to back up its demands for the ending of building nuclear weapons, then it will do it. :)

And just how can you be sure of that, genius? If you're going to question people's intelligence (personally, I take great offense from being referred to as an idiot), then solid facts might help your cause instead of spouting inane speculative statements conjoured out of thin air. Tin pot ****iing shooting straight from the hip - that's how we're in the mess we're in at the moment...

[BodwadUK]

[Quote]No it doesn't give Saddam the right to gas civilians, but he did that because the US didn't help when they said they would. [Quote]

You are blaming America for Saddams Actions then!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


It is widely beleived that Saddam has WMD and that they COULD be used on America and her allies. The Army is Weak but they are not the threat Saddam in control of WMD's is the threat!!!! There is a significant difference and if you used your brain you would know that :) :) :)


They attack now because they obviously beleive he is a threat now!!!!


Accidents happen it is just bad that it had to happen to civilians who want no part of this :( :( :( :( . They may want to soften elements quickly hence the attack now, Chemical weapons would dissolve too quickly in the winds and so the sooner they can attack the less chance there is Saddam will be able to use them :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;) ;)

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
I feel you're doing a bad thing by getting rid of Saddam without any legal reason to do so.
And no-one said that the Iraqi soldiers are actually grabbing children.

Using human shields can me anything in different contexts.

Thier grabbing women and children....... Sure make excuses for them doing that, its ok the be a coward.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
You incited a coup and walked away.
How do you expect a people to overthrow a military government without military assistance ?

You didn't lift a finger last time. You didn't do a tap.
That in itself should be a crime.

Which is it, do you want us to be involved or don't you.

[swatty]

Originally posted by Gaffer
If you're going to question people's intelligence (personally, I take great offense from being referred to as an idiot), then solid facts might help your cause instead of spouting inane speculative statements conjoured out of thin air.

It all depends who's calling who an idiot.
It doesn't offend me.
The remarks where someone writes
"Swatty your a star."
can make my day better.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
You are blaming America for Saddams Actions then!!!!!!


It is widely beleived that Saddam has WMD and that they COULD be used on America and her allies. The Army is Weak but they are not the threat Saddam in control of WMD's is the threat!!!! There is a significant difference and if you used your brain you would know that


1) It would be a completely legitimate point to argue - but no I'm not.
Think about it. If the US did roll in with the tanks to help protect the civilians protesting, do you think Saddam would have gassed anyone ?

2) "believed" .... "could"
A justification for war I think not.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
Thier grabbing women and children....... Sure make excuses for them doing that, its ok the be a coward.

I'm not making excuses.
I'm just saying that sniping from someone's home could be considered using civilians as shields - when in fact its not.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
Which is it, do you want us to be involved or don't you.

I don't want you involved at all.
But if you did have to poke your nose into other people's business, you could at least let them decide what way things are going to be done.

[Gaffer]

PC_madness

So, what, you want civilians to uprise against Saddam, be slaughtered by the Republician guard, and we're back to point a again. Clever.

Hmmm, seems that Mr Blair thinks it's clever, as do the citizens of Basra..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922388,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2885713.stm

Your sarcasm suits you.


And again, civilians die, **** happens. People die all the time.

Very blasé. Care to share those sentiments witht he victims of 9/11?

Saddam could have avoided this from happening, but instead he tried to screw the world around. You want someone to blame about civilian deaths, blame him. Not the allies who are working to save Iraq.

True, he is the casue of many civilian deaths. But an eye for an eye is not the solution. Especially when we were almost promised that this could be a bloodless war. I suppose that's nothing to do with Allied incompetance then?

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by swatty
It all depends who's calling who an idiot.
It doesn't offend me.
The remarks where someone writes
"Swatty your a star."
can make my day better.

Swatty your a star :)

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by Maven
Which is it, do you want us to be involved or don't you.

I think you kind of missed the point - Jamie was asserting the fact that not so long ago this issue wasn't so important to the West - in fact the was a civilian coup in Iraq around 10 years ago. They even came to the West asking for help, but the West didn't want to know.

Seeing as you know quite a lot about the allied cause, can you answer me why they never went in when asked for help?

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
One taximan thought Saddam should be overthrown.
Well okay keep bombing the country, kill civilians, and wreck the entire region.
I'm conviced!
Its a lot more than 1 taximan as you put it. Casualties of civilians have been really light due to the fact that coalition forces are risking and giving up their own lives to save the lives of Iraqi citizens. While Iraqi troops are firing from hospitals and day care centers the coalition forces can't fire back because they are their to save innocent Iraqi's.

As far as wrecking the entire region as you put it the coalition forces are only targeting military targets not degrading civilian infrastructure. Also billions of dollars in aide and to rebuild the country have already been earmarked for helping to build up Iraqi infrastructure for the people.

Civilians will die. It's war, I don’t know why you cant understand that. Also I cant understand why you don’t get that the coalition forces are not targeting civilians and even losing/risking their own lives to save them. No one in history has taken more care to see innocents don’t die. Some even feel the coalition is taking to much care because soldiers are dying due to the fact they can't fire back into civilian areas.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
The UN didn't incite the coup.
The UN had nothing to do with it.

The US said they were going to support it.
And then after Saddam had moved his troops back and was preparing for a fight, the US said they weren't going to provide any assistance and Saddam walked all over the people.
The UN mandate called for the liberation of Kuwait not the removal of Saddam. The reason coalition forces pulled out of Iraq was because of the UN. Had the US and others stayed you would just be marching in the streets again calling them imperialists and occupiers.

Also the no fly zones were set up to protect the peoples in the north and the south. I wouldn’t call that "no assistance" as you put it.

X

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
I don't want you involved at all.
But if you did have to poke your nose into other people's business, you could at least let them decide what way things are going to be done.

Why is it you don't want us involved?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
Why is it you don't want us involved?

I don't want the UK involved either.
And the reason - its none of your business and I think that the US has ulterior motives in this conflict.

[Gaffer]

Its a lot more than 1 taximan as you put it. Casualties of civilians have been really light due to the fact that coalition forces are risking and giving up their own lives to save the lives of Iraqi citizens. While Iraqi troops are firing from hospitals and day care centers the coalition forces can't fire back because they are their to save innocent Iraqi's.

As far as wrecking the entire region as you put it the coalition forces are only targeting military targets not degrading civilian infrastructure. Also billions of dollars in aide and to rebuild the country have already been earmarked for helping to build up Iraqi infrastructure for the people.

Civilians will die. It's war, I don’t know why you cant understand that. Also I cant understand why you don’t get that the coalition forces are not targeting civilians and even losing/risking their own lives to save them. No one in history has taken more care to see innocents don’t die. Some even feel the coalition is taking to much care because soldiers are dying due to the fact they can't fire back into civilian areas.

It's amazing how press releases can conveniently skew the facts, and turn one's perception of the allied forces into one almighty facade of piousness.

You don't understand why we don't understand civial deaths? , How about the quoted "this could be the first war without civilian casulaties"?

Every day the miltary have been telling lies about their plans: "Coalition forces have taken the "strategically important" town of Umm Qasr" on day two, when actually no, they hadn't taken it on day two.

How about the classic "The coalition forces have no intention of taking Basra because it would involve street fighting and therefore a potential danger to civilians. "

Errrm, sooo, it IS now a target becausse, er, there is a danger to civilians. Errr...

And there are more, but I won't bore you. Now, you can argue that this is a ploy to deter the enemy. I suspect (as does the journo who provided me with some of these details), that it may indeed be a ploy to deter the enemy. But it's also as likely to be a large dollop of miscalculation and incompetance.

Don't expect us to feel gratful that teh Allies are being "careful" in this war. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. Full stop.

[plenderj]

The Iraqis are most certainly not grateful.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12275851,00.html

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
I don't want the UK involved either.
And the reason - its none of your business and I think that the US has ulterior motives in this conflict.

So tell me how does leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq and for the world for that matter.

It is our business, anyone who is threaten our national security is our business. We tried to take care of that threat peacefully and it failed.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
So tell me how does leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq and for the world for that matter.

It is our business, anyone who is threaten our national security is our business. We tried to take care of that threat peacefully and it failed.

1) I never said leave him in power.

2) It is not your business.
Saddam hasn't said boo to anyone in twelve years and you bomb his country.

North Korea says it would pre-emptively strike the US with a nuclear strike and you haven't done anything with them yet.



And anyway, how did the US point the finger at Iraq?
You couldn't find Osama bin laden so you're going to go after the next possible person who might be a threat ?


Why don't you go after the russians - or the myriad of other counties in the world that have a dislike for the US and at the same time have nuclear weapons.

[swatty]

Originally posted by Gaffer
Swatty your a star :)

Thanks m8 ;)

[Memnoch1207]

The key word to war is fear, yes FEAR.
Fear of another 9/11 attack not ony directed at the US, but possibly other countries as well. All countries have seen their fair share of terrorism. Whether it be domestic terrorism or not. The motivating factor of going to war is fear.

We're afraid that Iraq might have WMD's, no one has proved they do have them and no one has proved they don't have them. So until that knowledge is 100% sure, we will continue to live in fear.

We're afraid that Iraq (if it does have WMD's) would be willing to give (or sell) those weapons to terrorists, in an effort to aid attacks on the US or other countries. (Remember Saddam has paid money to the hijackers families, which leads people to believe that he not only supports terroistic acts against the US, but also might be providing money to support their activities)

[plenderj]

Its easy in incite fear in a people.
Its how you get the public to back you.

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The key word to war is fear, yes FEAR.
Fear of another 9/11 attack not ony directed at the US, but possibly other countries as well. All countries have seen their fair share of terrorism. Whether it be domestic terrorism or not. The motivating factor of going to war is fear.

We're afraid that Iraq might have WMD's, no one has proved they do have them and no one has proved they don't have them. So until that knowledge is 100% sure, we will continue to live in fear.

We're afraid that Iraq (if it does have WMD's) would be willing to give (or sell) those weapons to terrorists, in an effort to aid attacks on the US or other countries. (Remember Saddam has paid money to the hijackers families, which leads people to believe that he not only supports terroistic acts against the US, but also might be providing money to support their activities)

No, you're living in fear becasue you've been TOLD that he has WMDs. I'm surprised that after 6 or so years of politicians honing the fine art of spin, that suddenly we all forget about spin and the effects it has had on politics and the nation, and the majority now believe every word spouted from every politician that have polarised to wither pro or anti war.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by plenderj
[How do the US expect to win support when they do stuff like this ?

6 well fed clean cut Iaqi built like brick shithouses carrying a body. Wonder if they are soldiers? *** are people thinking going to the market when rockets are flying all over the place?

[nishantp]

Originally posted by plenderj
Rape chambers ? What ?
http://www.google.ie/search?q=saddam+%2B+%22rape+chamber%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta= http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=saddam+rape+chamber&meta= ;)

[nishantp]

I hate to say it, but 20 people dying in a war of this scale is hardly big news. This war will probably have one of the best records in history in terms of civilian casualties. The difference is that we know about everything small thing now. Whenever a mistake is made in targetting, or a bomb goes astray, it hits the headlines in a matter of hours.

PS - I highly doubt that cruise missiles are affected by smoke. I'm almost certain that GPS signals are unaffected.

[Maven]

Originally posted by Gaffer
No, you're living in fear becasue you've been TOLD that he has WMDs. I'm surprised that after 6 or so years of politicians honing the fine art of spin, that suddenly we all forget about spin and the effects it has had on politics and the nation, and the majority now believe every word spouted from every politician that have polarised to wither pro or anti war.

Until we are proven otherwise we are going to assume he still has what he use to.

[Maven]

Originally posted by nishantp
I hate to say it, but 20 people dying in a war of this scale is hardly big news. This war will probably have one of the best records in history in terms of civilian casualties. The difference is that we know about everything small thing now. Whenever a mistake is made in targetting, or a bomb goes astray, it hits the headlines in a matter of hours.

PS - I highly doubt that cruise missiles are affected by smoke. I'm almost certain that GPS signals are unaffected.

the smoke is really to help hide whatever from sats... but those radio jamming tools the russians sold to them does effect them. Takes away thier on the dot acuracy

[nishantp]

was that confirmed?

[Pc_Madness]

I think cruise missiles have a backup targeting system anyway. Maybe the system got hit by anti-aircraft fire? Who knows. :)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Are you saying smoke and dust storms wouldn't affect a piece of machiney?
Dust storms? Yes. You didn't mention it before, so I didn't mention it too. So keep your argument restricted only to the oil smoke. Also you only talked about oil wells being set on fire, and didn't talk about trenches filled with oil set on fire. That's why my comment.

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
20 people dead is nothing. 1 man killed 37 people in a shooting spree, and I won't go into detail of how he killed them. Only 20 people killed in a war is excellent. What were the figures from WW2? Vietnam? Korea? Gulf War 1? The US is doing the best it can to control civilian deaths, and for that I think it should be congratulated.


I fail to understand why 20 civilians dead in an unjust war is NOTHING. One man killing 37 people in a shooting spree means that one man was (probably a lunatic) criminal. When 20 civilians die in an unjust war, should I call the nation responsible for it a lunatic and criminal nation?

Why do you think those 20 civilians killed are NOTHING? Perhaps because they are not US citizens, perhaps because they are not your relatives?

Oh, but then this war is about giving freedom to the Iraqis, and what more freedom than freedom from life? :rolleyes:

I congratulate you on your views about those civilian deaths. May the 9/11 victims rest in peace :rolleyes:

.

[BodwadUK]

Was it not you who said it had nothing to do with terrorists and now you have the stupidity to point out 9/11 :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


It is an unjust war only in your mind not in the mind of all people.


The reason this war has happened is because as usual the UN did not do anything about it. Lets face it the UN is a failiure and could never have reasonably prevented this war. War was the last option available and quickly became the ONLY option available to the coalition. It is said something like 43 countries support this action and yet 3 countries were going to stop it happening. The UN no longer functions, it it slow, undesicive (Spelling!!! ;) ) and has no power. Many said the UN would have to take a hard line on Iraq if it was to prove it could still function in the the next century. They failed and they fell they are more a aid council now than a peace one.


America were pi**ed off at the UN for continuosly failing, now they have had to take things into their own hands trying to gain as much support from the rest of the world as possible.

Imagine a world where it takes years to come to a decision on the threat of a country and you have a world that is continuing to listen to the current UN. The UN has blood on its hands as well as they SLOWLY make dicisions and have no power to enforce them. After all what are they going to be able to do about this war???

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Was it not you who said it had nothing to do with terrorists and now you have the stupidity to point out 9/11 :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Strictly speaking, this had nothing to do with the terrorism angle, I was merely commenting upon the civilian deaths, and how the Americans were bloody pissed off about 3000-odd non-military personnel dying in the attacks, how the terrorists should have targeted the military personnel instead blah blah blah.

And now if 20 civilians die in the course of the bombardment, that's peanuts. It happens. Isn't it? So those Al Qaeda terrorists can bloody well say the same to you, "It happens".

I am pissed off because when 3000 of your people died, you destroyed one whole country and are onto destroying another one. While when 20 people on the other side die, you merely shrug it away as unavoidable?

And yes, thanks for bringing in the terrorist aspect. I think the US is even worse than Al Qaeda.

.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by honeybee
Strictly speaking, this had nothing to do with the terrorism angle, I was merely commenting upon the civilian deaths, and how the Americans were bloody pissed off about 3000-odd non-military personnel dying in the attacks, how the terrorists should have targeted the military personnel instead blah blah blah.

And now if 20 civilians die in the course of the bombardment, that's peanuts. It happens. Isn't it? So those Al Qaeda terrorists can bloody well say the same to you, "It happens".

I am pissed off because when 3000 of your people died, you destroyed one whole country and are onto destroying another one. While when 20 people on the other side die, you merely shrug it away as unavoidable?

And yes, thanks for bringing in the terrorist aspect. I think the US is even worse than Al Qaeda.

.

And I think India is even worse than America.


Those 3000 that died were targets, whilst the 20 killed in war were accidental. They knew there was a risk of them being hurt, where as the yanks didn't have a clue. (well, atleast the civilian population)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And I think India is even worse than America.
Proof? Oh, sorry, you are on the US side :D

Those 3000 that died were targets, whilst the 20 killed in war were accidental. They knew there was a risk of them being hurt, where as the yanks didn't have a clue. (well, atleast the civilian population)
It's an unauthorized war, an invasion of a soverign country without reason, and so those 20 civilian deaths are acts of international crime. If the US were really serious about the civilians getting hurt, it should have not bombarded them with missiles. If you can't do your job right, don't blame it on accidents.


.

[Pc_Madness]

And wheres your proof that America is even worse the Iraq? Your not the only one who can make bull**** statements. ;) Although, atleast the US is trying egg Iraq into launching a missile carrying a nuclear weapon....

Was the terrorists actions legal? The civilians should never have been there in the first place. They new the risk of being outside, and they choose to ignore it. Its there own fault. If they had half a brain, they would have left the city before the shots were fired. Since they decided to stay, the US cannot be held responsible if they are injured.

[BodwadUK]

So there is authorisation of wars is there????? By the UN i suppose!!! The waste of space and money that it has become in the past few years.

War has been declared and is legal, aside from many resolutions that could incite an attack, America and her allies have the right to defense without the UN Approval if neccassary. Judging by the fact that 3 countries could silence 40 odd with Veto's and that one was wielding it at every suggestion made i dont see how it can count as an acceptable organisation anymore.



Terrorists attacked civilians directly without warning, the coalition struck baghdad when

A) Warning was given
B) War Was decared

Get your facts right as to what the difference between terrorists and countries defense rights. :) :) :)

[Xanith]

It's amazing how press releases can conveniently skew the facts, and turn one's perception of the allied forces into one almighty facade of piousness.
The truth is the coalition forces are indeed taking great care not to hurt any civilians, even to the extent of giving up military advantage and possibly the soldiers own lives to ensure innocent civilians don’t get hurt.

You don't understand why we don't understand civial deaths? , How about the quoted "this could be the first war without civilian casulaties"?
Don’t know who said that but whoever did is naive. No matter how careful you are there will always be accidents. Not only that we are seeing Iraqi soldiers using civilians as human shields and Iraqi troops dressing up coalition forces and killing their own people. This is done for propaganda purposes to convince people that the coalition forces are out to destroy and kill innocents. Do you actually believe that coalition forces are deliberately killing civilians?

Every day the miltary have been telling lies about their plans: "Coalition forces have taken the "strategically important" town of Umm Qasr" on day two, when actually no, they hadn't taken it on day two.
I guess I am more realistic in my assessment of this. I saw this as coalition forces feeling they had taken Umm Qasr but underestimated and didn’t know about the paramilitary forces embedded within the civilian population that would fight back. It took a few more days to secure the town and drive them out but it was eventually done. Don’t know why you would see this as lies especially when embedded reporters are giving everyone a first hand view of what is happening. I just see this as a miscalculation on the part of the coalition forces in underestimating and not knowing about these paramilitary forces.

How about the classic "The coalition forces have no intention of taking Basra because it would involve street fighting and therefore a potential danger to civilians. "

Errrm, sooo, it IS now a target becausse, er, there is a danger to civilians. Errr...

Not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

And there are more, but I won't bore you. Now, you can argue that this is a ploy to deter the enemy. I suspect (as does the journo who provided me with some of these details), that it may indeed be a ploy to deter the enemy. But it's also as likely to be a large dollop of miscalculation and incompetance.
No bore me. I am interested to hear what you think. I would hate to feel you believe all of the anti-war propaganda because you seem like a reasonable person. And I’m not sure what you mean what’s a ploy?

Don't expect us to feel gratful that teh Allies are being "careful" in this war. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. Full stop.
This argument has been fought already. I believe that this war is necessary to oust Saddam and clear his country of WMD’s you feel its better to sit back and hope Saddam goes away peacefully and actually trust this man to disarm when called for. If you know your history you will find that leaving dictators alone and giving them the benefit of the doubt is the wrong thing to do. But I don’t expect everyone to learn from history. It’s quite obvious because it keeps repeating itself due to people such as yourself who choose their own idealistic view over what history should have taught them.

As far as this missile that dropped in the market killing civilians there is no evidence that it was from coalition forces. I know you are quick to believe it due to the fact that you so desperately want to prove your point. From briefings and lack of any proof on the part of the Iraqi's I have heard we can’t discount this being an errant Iraqi surface to air missile or even a bomb exploded in a market for propaganda purposes. I wouldn’t put it past the Iraqi’s seeing as how they are disregarding the Geneva Convention on many levels.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
The Iraqis are most certainly not grateful.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12275851,00.html
It will take some time for the people to trust the coalition forces. This is due to the fact of the brainwashing of the Saddam controlled Iraqi TV. Its hard to get an objective opinion when all you see is one side. Some soldiers that have been captured were surprised that the coalition forces didn’t inject them with poison to kill them. When they were actually treated humanely and told that we don’t do that kind of thing they were relieved.

So you see once the people find out the truth that this isn’t a war of occupation or a war on the IRaqi people but a war to remove Saddam more and more people will come around. It will take time due to all the propaganda and lies they have been told but once they see with their own eyes they will understand better.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And I think India is even worse than America.


Those 3000 that died were targets, whilst the 20 killed in war were accidental. They knew there was a risk of them being hurt, where as the yanks didn't have a clue. (well, atleast the civilian population)

India and their human rights violations in Kashmir are well documented. The India security forces have routinely tortured prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention. That’s why I always find it amusing that HB is always talking about how bad the US is when India and their human rights violations in Kashmir keep mounting on a daily basis.

Do a google.com search for, India atrocities Kashmir, if you want to read more. I know a lot of people tend to ignore the plight of the people in Kashmir but I think it important to show just how brutal India has been and how I find it amusing how HB can say what he does about the US when his own country is guilty of far worse crimes.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
And wheres your proof that America is even worse the Iraq? Your not the only one who can make bull**** statements. ;) Although, atleast the US is trying egg Iraq into launching a missile carrying a nuclear weapon....

Was the terrorists actions legal? The civilians should never have been there in the first place. They new the risk of being outside, and they choose to ignore it. Its there own fault. If they had half a brain, they would have left the city before the shots were fired. Since they decided to stay, the US cannot be held responsible if they are injured.

Want to learn more about India in their atrocities? Search Google for, India atrocities Kashmir, this should give you thousands of pages where you can read the well documented brutality of India against the people of Kashmir.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The civilians should never have been there in the first place. They new the risk of being outside, and they choose to ignore it. Its there own fault. If they had half a brain, they would have left the city before the shots were fired. Since they decided to stay, the US cannot be held responsible if they are injured.

How simple!! When a nation goes to war, the civilians should abandon their homes and work and move to designated refugee camps so there are no civilian casualties of war!

:rolleyes:

The 9/11 attack was never legal. But that's why it was condemned by virtually all nations in the world. However, if you think that since the terrorist attack was illegal it's justification for a war against some nation in the world, I can't fathom your logic. :rolleyes:

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
So there is authorisation of wars is there????? By the UN i suppose!!! The waste of space and money that it has become in the past few years.

War has been declared and is legal, aside from many resolutions that could incite an attack, America and her allies have the right to defense without the UN Approval if neccassary. Judging by the fact that 3 countries could silence 40 odd with Veto's and that one was wielding it at every suggestion made i dont see how it can count as an acceptable organisation anymore.



Terrorists attacked civilians directly without warning, the coalition struck baghdad when

A) Warning was given
B) War Was decared

Get your facts right as to what the difference between terrorists and countries defense rights. :) :) :)

Whatever claims you make, the stark reality is Iraq never was a direct or imminent threat to the US which could justify a pre-emptive strike. The US government can't give proof of Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda, and the expectations that this war would get over within a matter of days itself speaks much about what military strength Iraq has. There's simply no rational reason to believe Iraq was of any threat to the US or the UK.

That is why the war is unjust and unauthorized and illegal.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
Want to learn more about India in their atrocities? Search Google for, India atrocities Kashmir, this should give you thousands of pages where you can read the well documented brutality of India against the people of Kashmir.

X

I don't even want to get into a debate on issues such as Kashmir with someone who uses Google to form his/her opinions. Study the books on Indian freedom struggle, and then you will get some idea of the British politics which came into play during the liberation of India, what led to the creation of Pakistan and how Kashmir became a debatable issue.

I don't even hope you will ever get to learn about what are the issues, because you are simply blinded by your own country's so-called righteousness. Just remember that although Kashmir is an issue today, that's a parting gift from your ally in the Iraq war, and that India has not resorted to war for solving the Kashmir issue. I don't even expect you to understand the significance of it.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
Whatever claims you make, the stark reality is Iraq never was a direct or imminent threat to the US which could justify a pre-emptive strike. The US government can't give proof of Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda, and the expectations that this war would get over within a matter of days itself speaks much about what military strength Iraq has. There's simply no rational reason to believe Iraq was of any threat to the US or the UK.

That is why the war is unjust and unauthorized and illegal.

.

The Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN.

Iraq didn’t live up to that cease-fire agreement and 17 further resolutions passed against it.

Cease fire off.

Seems pretty simple don’t know why you cant follow that.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
It will take some time for the people to trust the coalition forces. This is due to the fact of the brainwashing of the Saddam controlled Iraqi TV. Its hard to get an objective opinion when all you see is one side. Some soldiers that have been captured were surprised that the coalition forces didn’t inject them with poison to kill them. When they were actually treated humanely and told that we don’t do that kind of thing they were relieved.

So you see once the people find out the truth that this isn’t a war of occupation or a war on the IRaqi people but a war to remove Saddam more and more people will come around. It will take time due to all the propaganda and lies they have been told but once they see with their own eyes they will understand better.

X

You see, there's something called "patriotism" and "somebody's own business" of which you don't seem to know anything.

Just like you defend your president's decisions in front of others, whether they are good or bad, the Iraqis don't want you to help them get rid of Saddam.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
The Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN.

Iraq didn’t live up to that cease-fire agreement and 17 further resolutions passed against it.

Cease fire off.

Seems pretty simple don’t know why you cant follow that.

X

It's YOU who doesn't seem to be following what you are talking.

Gulf war was authorized by the UN. So if this war is a continuation of the Gulf War, it must be authorized by the UN alone, and not unilaterally by the US.

As simple as that. Or maybe not for some ...

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
I don't even want to get into a debate on issues such as Kashmir with someone who uses Google to form his/her opinions. Study the books on Indian freedom struggle, and then you will get some idea of the British politics which came into play during the liberation of India, what led to the creation of Pakistan and how Kashmir became a debatable issue.

I don't even hope you will ever get to learn about what are the issues, because you are simply blinded by your own country's so-called righteousness. Just remember that although Kashmir is an issue today, that's a parting gift from your ally in the Iraq war, and that India has not resorted to war for solving the Kashmir issue. I don't even expect you to understand the significance of it.

.

Ohhh wait its OK for India to torture and kill innocent civilians because Pakistan invaded them in the past? What a crock. There is countless documentation from well-respected human rights organizations about India and their atrocities in Kashmir. How can you back wholesale murder and torture of innocents inside of Kashmir by your government and then in the same breath criticize the US. You’re a hypocrite of the worst degree.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
You see, there's something called "patriotism" and "somebody's own business" of which you don't seem to know anything.

Just like you defend your president's decisions in front of others, whether they are good or bad, the Iraqis don't want you to help them get rid of Saddam.

.
I live in a country when I have access to any press information across the globe and I am able to make up my own mind about things. The Iraqi people only have the Saddam show running 24-7 to form their opinions. I think if the Iraqi people had more access to the free press they might form a different opinion.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
Ohhh wait its OK for India to torture and kill innocent civilians because Pakistan invaded them in the past? What a crock. There is countless documentation from well-respected human rights organizations about India and their atrocities in Kashmir. How can you back wholesale murder and torture of innocents inside of Kashmir by your government and then in the same breath criticize the US. You’re a hypocrite of the worst degree.

X

You prove my conclusion that you are ignorant of many things. As I said, get your details right, read a few books on the subject, if you can, and then talk about Kashmir.

You have not observed anywhere that I have avoided criticizing Pakistan, our sworn enemy, over Kashmir and other issues as consistently as you people seem to be doing with Iraq. Know what's the reason? Because I believe the coin has two sides, and I choose to see the other side before I decide about the coin.

When you learn that, you can debate with me.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
It's YOU who doesn't seem to be following what you are talking.

Gulf war was authorized by the UN. So if this war is a continuation of the Gulf War, it must be authorized by the UN alone, and not unilaterally by the US.

As simple as that. Or maybe not for some ...

.

Hey if the UN can't back up their own resolutions they passed someone has to right?

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
I live in a country when I have access to any press information across the globe and I am able to make up my own mind about things. The Iraqi people only have the Saddam show running 24-7 to form their opinions. I think if the Iraqi people had more access to the free press they might form a different opinion.

X

You should learn that there's a world outside press.

.

[Mage]

Ok on the news they have just found proof that Saddam is ready to use chemical weapons.

Are Bush and blair braodcasting the exicution of Iraqi soldiers on TV.... NO

Every one is harping on about the market getting bombed and the 14 dead people, I agree that it is harsh but no ones is sure where the rockets came from for all we know Saddam could have done it as part of his propaganda!! how many people where killed by iraqi forces when the when they tried to bring down saddam and are the US and UK forces using innocents as shield in fire fights.

All in all the war is already on all we can do know is give our support to the poor guys that are out there fighting, and hope that they make it back safe and it is all over soon.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
Hey if the UN can't back up their own resolutions they passed someone has to right?

X

There goes your arrogance. It's the UN's business what to do with its resolutions, not yours.

It's like I see my neighbour beating his wife, I complain to the police, but they don't seem to be effective, so the next day I beat the shi t out of my neighbour.

It's "Illegal", it's called "taking the law in your own hand".

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
You prove my conclusion that you are ignorant of many things. As I said, get your details right, read a few books on the subject, if you can, and then talk about Kashmir.

You have not observed anywhere that I have avoided criticizing Pakistan, our sworn enemy, over Kashmir and other issues as consistently as you people seem to be doing with Iraq. Know what's the reason? Because I believe the coin has two sides, and I choose to see the other side before I decide about the coin.

When you learn that, you can debate with me.

.

I just want to know if you support your governments position inside of Kashmir. That will tell me everything I need to know about you.

And you seem to be ignorant of the fact of human rights violations by your government. How can you discount all of the confirmed reports from human rights organizations? You want me to pick up a history book and read about India and their conflict over Kashmir and their break away from England when innocent civilians die each day in Kashmir because of your government? And I have read about this but how does that explain and justify the torture and deaths of innocent civilians inside Kashmir committed by your government?

X

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Mage
Ok on the news they have just found proof that Saddam is ready to use chemical weapons.

Are Bush and blair braodcasting the exicution of Iraqi soldiers on TV.... NO

Every one is harping on about the market getting bombed and the 14 dead people, I agree that it is harsh but no ones is sure where the rockets came from for all we know Saddam could have done it as part of his propaganda!! how many people where killed by iraqi forces when the when they tried to bring down saddam and are the US and UK forces using innocents as shield in fire fights.

All in all the war is already on all we can do know is give our support to the poor guys that are out there fighting, and hope that they make it back safe and it is all over soon.

Fine, if you are in doubt over whose missile it was, just say it could be either this way or that way and keep quiet. You shouldn't keep saying "Yeah, accidents do happen" and things like that.

As for how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam to suppress the riots, I think that's an internal matter to Iraq, and Uncle Sam should keep his long nose out of it. I don't think the US attacked China after students were killed in Tienanmen square. Perhaps China is too mighty for them.....

I have absolutely no problems with the US troops fighting the war. They have got a job to do, however unpleasant, and I don't hold them responsible for these accidents. It's the US government that I hold responsible for all these deaths, because it's their fault the war is on.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
There goes your arrogance. It's the UN's business what to do with its resolutions, not yours.

It's like I see my neighbour beating his wife, I complain to the police, but they don't seem to be effective, so the next day I beat the shi t out of my neighbour.

It's "Illegal", it's called "taking the law in your own hand".

.
Wrong.

If you read the resolutions and what they actually say this war is perfectly legal and is sanctioned by the UN.

It really is that simple. Sorry I don’t buy your weak analogy.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
I just want to know if you support your governments position inside of Kashmir. That will tell me everything I need to know about you.

And you seem to be ignorant of the fact of human rights violations by your government. How can you discount all of the confirmed reports from human rights organizations? You want me to pick up a history book and read about India and their conflict over Kashmir and their break away from England when innocent civilians die each day in Kashmir because of your government? And I have read about this but how does that explain and justify the torture and deaths of innocent civilians inside Kashmir committed by your government?

X

X

If you are so adamant on the human rights violation, do me a favour and also find out the incidents reported from the US and the UK and the other countries, and tell me what you think of those reports.

As far as Kashmir is concerned, take a break, read some books, get some information and then talk to me. I think I have repeated it enough times for you to understand.

Breaking away from England is your choice, I didn't suggest you to do it. However I was merely reminding you that it's the Western world which has created most of these problems in the first place. History of the last couple of centuries will teach you that, if there's any history thing in your country.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
Wrong.

If you read the resolutions and what they actually say this war is perfectly legal and is sanctioned by the UN.

It really is that simple. Sorry I don’t buy your weak analogy.

X

I don't think the UN has sanctioned THIS particular war. I think this point is fairly established. Sorry you don't understand it :rolleyes:

.

[BodwadUK]

But it is not illegal!!!!!!!!!!! You kid yourselves


Everytime Kashmir has been brought up you dismiss it without true reason i wonder why.

double standards maybe ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D

You sound so certain that America has no proof yet what they put in front of you is quickly dismissed. You dont want America to be so 'Powerful' so you try to kick them down its as simple as that :) :)

oh and I repeat for the zillionth time 40 + countries make up this coalition so stop calling it America's war as though they are alone and running amok :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
But it is not illegal!!!!!!!!!!! You kid yourselves


Everytime Kashmir has been brought up you dismiss it without true reason i wonder why.

double standards maybe ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D

You sound so certain that America has no proof yet what they put in front of you is quickly dismissed. You dont want America to be so 'Powerful' so you try to kick them down its as simple as that :) :)

oh and I repeat for the zillionth time 40 + countries make up this coalition so stop calling it America's war as though they are alone and running amok :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If the US did really have any evidence, it would have risked a vote much earlier. Then if the majority of the UNSC nations had voted in favour, it would at least have had a "moral majority" despite any vetoes. That would have lent some credibility to a war. But the evidence was so thin, the president was busy buying support for war from all those insignificant nations which couldn't care either ways about Iraq but couldn't risk hurting the US.

Read out the nations in that 40-nation coalition please, that would be interesting to see.... I hear Soloman Islands was included at the last moment and finally it has officially said it's not part of the coalition, and one other nation initially in the co-alition has been dropped without any explanations later.

The only countries who have sent the troops in Iraq are the US, UK and Australia. The only nations paying for the war are the US and the UK. The rest are merely lending their "moral" or "political" support. I wonder why you still call it a coalition war :rolleyes:

The simple fact that it was a UN authorized war in 1991 and it's a UN-unauthorized war now makes it illegal. Add to that the fact that Iraq simply isn't any kind of threat to the US, so the self-defence argument is cut short there. Whatever is left is probably too ugly to accept.

I have said it earlier and I don't mind saying it now, that if WMDs are indeed found in Iraq, I am ready to swallow some of my statements about that part of war. So there's no question of any double standards. And as far as Kashmir is concerned, it's completely different than the US-Iraq conflict or any other conflict the US has poked its nose in. Therefore I don't want to waste my energy with ignorant and arrogant twats discussing it.

.

[BodwadUK]

OUCH :D :D :D :D


Its still a coalition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:) :) :)


40+ countries support it what part of that dont you understand, doesnt mean millitary support :) :) :)


UN is not the law and does have flaws.

I have also heard of Polish special forces being in there ;) ;)

The war in the west of Iraq is fought mainly by special forces and contains many countries special forces so your statment isnt strictly true :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Legally speaking that war in 1991 never ended!!!!

[OrdinaryGuy]

While we are on the topic of Kashmir, I had read an article somewhere on the Internet a month ago. Don't remember from where but I had saved it to my desktop. Here it is:

A Kashmiri Muslim Woman Talks About Pakistan
Author: Mrs Hamida Shah



I am an aware, Muslim Kashmiri woman and a responsible member of society. My husband, also a Muslim Kashmiri, is an army officer and one among the best in our army. Since I am a commoner, I am sure my comments would be taken as impartial and devoid of rhetoric.

It is rather unfortunate to witness the steady and gradual degeneration of Pakistan over the decades sinking into the abysmal cesspool of India-baiting. One had expected a lot from the rapproachement which appeared imminent during the Lahore Declaration days in 1999. However, that great leap forward was soon swallowed by the Kargil intrusions and subsequent increase in cross border terrorism. Presently, Pakistan is just short of being declared a terrorist state, a centre of narcotics smuggling and home for wild eyed muslim fundamentalists. What amazes me is the shamelessness of the whole situation which Pakistan has itself landed in. This reminds me of the famous couplet by Mirza Ghalib, "KIS KE GHAR JAYEGI BALLA MERE BAD" (God knows whose home is going to be the next victim).

Since its creation, Pakistan, has tried to become the self-styled guardian of all Muslims in the sub-continent, which at the outset has been a flawed assumption. Although ever since 1947, in one form or the other, Pakistan has made sneak attempts at such portrayal, the first major signs of it manifested during the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's Premiership, when he hosted the first Islamic Summit in Islamabad in 1974; a brilliant piece of tatesmanship and world-class diplomacy by the astute Bhutto, even when the nation was still gathering itself from the defeat and genocide of fellow Muslims in the then East Pakistan( now Bangladesh). During that summit, Mr Bhutto was much restrained in voicing his so called concern for Kashmir as in fact he had earlier accepted the Cease Fire Line in Jammu and Kashmir to be the Line of Control and subsequently to be recognized/adopted as the boundary between the two countries. But subsequent rulers like the shark-eyed General Zia-ul-Haq and now General Parvez Musharaf chose to throw caution to the winds and voice their crocodile concerns over the plight of Muslims in the whole of India, perceived human rights abuses against them and so called liberation of Kashmir through the barrel of the gun; in the bargain accumulating the collective responsibility of massacre and mayhem, disorder and disruption, desecration and degeneration by employing ercenaries like Afghan hordes, Sudanese bushmen and Pakistani marauders. Their latest action has been the sabotaging the of the peace initiatives in J&K. As someone has rightly said, "BADSHAH DUNIYA KE MHORE HAIN MERI SHATRANJ KE, DILLAGI KI CHAAL HAI SAB RANG SULAH JANG KE" (Pawns are kings of this world of my game, these ceasefires and negotiations are but frivolities of my heart).

Let me discuss the two issues about which Pakistan has been kicking up such a shindy: Kashmir and the plight of Muslims in India. First Kashmir; ever since partition, Pakistan has been a constant source of trouble in Kashmir. It is well known that Pakistan has no love for Kashmiris as their so called co-religionists. The necessity is a geo- political one. It has been a great travesty of destiny that one third of the Valley came under Pakistan control and remained so ever since. That part rightfully belongs to India and is the only unresolved issue between the two countries. Imagine a Pakistan without the POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir); no strategic access to China and Central Asia, no Siachin and no Karakoram. Second, the so-called pilght of Kashmiris; a Kashmiri Muslim is as divergent and as far removed from, say, a Pakistani Punjabi or Sindhi Muslim as a German from a Pole (and the pun is intended). It has been the misfortune of Kashmiris and one of the greatest cruelties of history that invaders had to enter India through these parts, thus leaving a stamp of eternal conflict and chaos.

Kashmir is no pocket borough of Pakistan and Kashmiris no pawns on Pakistan's political chess board. They are a proud, ancient and most cultured community in the sub-continent; be they Hindus or Muslims. It has been the short-sightedness on the part of our leadership that we did not wrest POK from Pakistan soon after that country invaded the valley in 1947.

Now for the plight of Muslims in India; to a very large extent Pakistan is responsible for the ghetto-like existence of Muslims in India. It is Pakistan who has been constantly reminding Muslims in India, through poisonous propaganda, that they are Muslims first and Indians later. The Muslim community has long realised these designs. Muslims are Indians, as much Indian as are believers of any other religion, as much Indian as George Habbash is a Palestinian, as much Indian as Boutros Ghali is an Egyptian or a Tariq Aziz is an Iraqi. Muslims in India are not rented, they have their own distinct identity and pride and belong to the soil. They don't require a certificate from an Ishaq Khan, who played dirty with all his benefactors-a tenet absolutely un- Islamic; or a Zia-ul-Haq who trampled the Constitution he had sworn to defend- an offence punishable by death in Islam-and yet went scot-free, and flogged his nation for ten long years, thus revealing the most ugly face of the faith ; or from General Pervez Musharaf, who is yet to exchange his kneepants for long trousers in the field of international politics.

On the contrary, Pakistan junta should turn a page or two in the history of Independent India and they would find that Muslims in India are Abdul Hamids, Brig Usmans, Idris Latifs or Abdul Kalams or my father-in-law, a Second World War veteran, a freedom fighter and a pious Muslim who was assassinated in cold blood by an ISI-hired Afghan mercenary in July 1992 while offering afternoon prayers. Indian Muslims and Kashmiris in particular do not require to be authenticated by Pakistan. It is therefore, time that the present leadership in Pakistan woke up to the realities and considered accommodation instead of confrontation.

The court of history will judge Pakistanis harshly in case they fail in their duties of nation-building and instead become the instruments of their own destruction, thus perthaps living up to their late Prime Minister's prophecy when just a day prior to commencement of the 1971 war, the fierce Zulfikar Ali Bhutto rose like the legandary Roman General Cassius Gaius in the Security Council facing Indian Foreign Minister Sardar Swaran Singh and said, "Believe me, Mr Foreign Minister, this is the lesson of history from the beginning of time......what belongs to a people will go to that people". By this corollary then, Sind should go to the Sindhis, Punjab to the Punjabis, Baluchistan to Baluchis and NWFP to the Pathans so on. There ought to be a limit to trouble- making. "The malice of the wicked" may have got reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous"; but no more. We shall pray that Pakistanis see the light and leave India's Kashmiris to their own destiny which is secure in Secular India. One can`t help recalling legendary Faiz Ahmed Faiz,

"HAZR KARO MERE TUN SE YEH SIM KA DARYA HAI, HAZR KARO KI MERA TUN WHO CHOB-E-SEHRA HAI, JISE JALAO TO SAHAN CHAMAN MEIN DEHKINGE" (Beware of me for my body is a river of poison. Stay away from me for my body is a parched log in the desert. If you burn it, you won`t see the cypress or the jasmine, But my bones blossoming like thorns on the cactus)".

[scostell]

Originally posted by honeybee
You should learn that there's a world outside press.

.


And where do you get all your knowledge about the subjects that you have formed your opinions on?

Is the Sky News, or any of those indian News sources you are always quoting not a part of the world press? Is that jouranlist(I think that's what you meant when you refered to journo in a prior post) that seems to be feeding you information not apart of the world press? What do you form your opinions from being in the middle of the action and sit in's on the UN Meetings??

I've been reading these war threads for the past 2-3 weeks and you, HB, are the most hypocritcal person. Don't say I'm against all anti_war people because alot of the people on this board have given me many things to consider, both for and against this war. Plendarj, while greatly against any war, at least is true to his word and is not hypocritcal like yourself. you make me sick !:mad:

[BodwadUK]

OUCH!!!!


Is this the point that we kick HB while he is down?????
:D :D :D :D

[Shaggy Hiker]

To get back to an earlier part of this thread:

I find it humorous that a bunch of programmers are arguing about missile guidance. Some suggest smoke, others suggest jamming, etc.

When the military spokesman said "Pick a window.", maybe he wasn't talking about targeting, but about operating system. GPF, baybeee!

We all work in tech fields. Does anybody believe that the failure rate on a cruise missile is 0%? They will go astray at some rate, that's money in the bank!

Most of the people in this forum know this, why do we even wonder what happened?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
OUCH!!!!


Is this the point that we kick HB while he is down?????
:D :D :D :D

Ouch! That's against the rules of war to kick your opponent when he's down!!

:D

.

[BodwadUK]

Most of the people in this forum know this, why do we even wonder what happened?

Thats not what the American government says. To be honest we wont know until an investigation is carried out but claims have been made that the air defense minister for Saddam has been sacked over the incident, make of it as you will!!! :) :) :)




Ouch! That's against the rules of war to kick your opponent when he's down!!



But i like Saddams rules of engagment, find somebody i dont like and gas them!!!!!!:D :D :D

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
But i like Saddams rules of engagment, find somebody i dont like and gas them!!!!!!:D :D :D

I like Bush's rule: If you cannot fu ck around with your country, because it's already been fu cked by a lot of other factors, just use another country for it.

.

[BodwadUK]

I Cant see how America's Fu**** up!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:


America seems a nice place in contrast to Iraq so again your argument is made of bull**it:D :D :D :D :D

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Does anybody believe that the failure rate on a cruise missile is 0%? They will go astray at some rate, that's money in the bank!

Its exactly the same as when someone pointed the problem of the US aircraft crashing. They fly thousands of missions. and that sort of thing only happens 5 or so times?

Same thing applies with Cruise missiles. ;)

[noble_c]

agree with u all.
yes.GWB and such that r ridiculus.