Starting to feel a little bit foolish?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
LMFAO. What the hell are you talking about? I'd call it the most extreme case. It's the only time we've EVER nuked ANYONE!!! If that's not extreme...jesus christ you act like we go around dropping our nukes anytime there's a war. The biggest reason America nuked Japan was for retaliation, even Japan knew that. "...we've awoken a sleeping giant..." Remember that one?
Not extreme circumstances, gimme a break.

---

Againk the nuking of Japan is something that US history can conveniently package as "justifiable". Whereas historically, it is documented that General MacArthur was disspleased with the US government for dropping the bombs - in his mind Japan was already decimated, and they had already been in talks with Russian to formalise a surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
And Japan didn't kill a ****load of people when they bombed Pearl Harbor? The US wasn't even completely involved in the war before that. It was determined at that time that serious consequences needed to happen as a result of their bombing us. I can only assume, since I wasn't alive at the time, that most of our Allies supported it.

---

If America sent in a load of soldiers and killed a load of Japanese soldiers then fine. But instead they dropped two nuclear bombs which not only took out the soldiers who were fighting but the civilians too. That's where I have the problem. As far as I'm concerned there is no reason good enough to justify killing civilians. And yes, fair enough Japan attacked Pearl harbour, but that was a military target, they weren't targeting civilians.
And at the end of the day, people living in and around Pearl Harbour today aren't still suffering the effects of the war.

Quote:

---

Your optimism is admirable, but it's hardly likely that they would've found anything else with their inspections. Hell Mr Blix seems to think they're pretty clean over there. If it turns out that they are firing scuds, that proves how absolutely pointless inspections would be anyway. I think 12 years is long enough.

---

Where are you getting you information from? This is not a forum for speculatory comments like "Oh I think Mr Blix seems to be know there are no weapons". Making up facts is a dangerous game. Blix said this morning that his job had not nearly finished:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2867913.stm

The sad fact of life is that there has been wars from the beginning of civilisation and there will be wars until the end. The funny thing is I expect that people will keep saying "We shouldn't have/need war in this day and age".

At the end of the day, both sides (antiwar and prowar) are fighting for a cause which neither side knows enough about to have a valid argument. It's a case of the teaboy telling the company director how to run the company. It is for this reason, and this reason alone that I trust that the government is doing the right thing. I'm just a teaboy after all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
All morning? erm, I see from both news stories that the estimated figure is 4 missiles, and the make of the missiles has not been completely confirmed yet.

Whilst it's too early to estimate exaclty if and how seriously Saddam has broken UN resolutions, it still does not absolve the US/UK government from not allowing UN weapons inspectors more time to find a peaceful solution to this incident.

---

I agree with the first part the make of the missiles hasn’t been confirmed yet and there is no reason to say "I told you so" yet.

As far as the inspectors finding a peaceful solution I think it would have been better if France et al had taken a stronger stance against Iraq rather than the path of obstruction they did take. If Saddam saw that the world was against him maybe he would have disarmed peacefully and this war would not have been necessary.

X

What I'm saying is he hasn't found anything yet, and he never will. I'm the pessimist here. I figure 12 years is long enough for them to disarm. You seem to think that given enough time, the inspections will uncover every and all the weapons that Sadamm has. I, on the other hand, think that Sadaam will continue to move and hide his weapons. Your argument, conveniently, allows the escape of "Well, he's using weapons he's not supposed to have. Longer inspections would have uncovered that." Clearly optimistic. I wasn't quoting or making up any facts about the inspections, just making a joke about the success of inspections.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GingerNut
If America sent in a load of soldiers and killed a load of Japanese soldiers then fine. But instead they dropped two nuclear bombs which not only took out the soldiers who were fighting but the civilians too. That's where I have the problem. As far as I'm concerned there is no reason good enough to justify killing civilians. And yes, fair enough Japan attacked Pearl harbour, but that was a military target, they weren't targeting civilians.
And at the end of the day, people living in and around Pearl Harbour today aren't still suffering the effects of the war.

---

What about all the civilians that Japan killed in Korea, China, and all the territories they occupied? You make it sound like Japan was this poor innocent country that the US decided to just bomb the hell out of for no reason. Do you even know the extent of the atrocities committed by Japan during the war? If not I suggest you do some reading so you can understand the situation better before posting any more.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
What I'm saying is he hasn't found anything yet, and he never will. I'm the pessimist here. I figure 12 years is long enough for them to disarm. You seem to think that given enough time, the inspections will uncover every and all the weapons that Sadamm has. I, on the other hand, think that Sadaam will continue to move and hide his weapons. Your argument, conveniently, allows the escape of "Well, he's using weapons he's not supposed to have. Longer inspections would have uncovered that." Clearly optimistic. I wasn't quoting or making up any facts about the inspections, just making a joke about the success of inspections.

---

What people fail to understand is that the only reason Saddam even started to comply with inspections was because there were 300,000 troops parked outside his borders. It wasn’t because the inspectors had a mandate from the UN. It was because the US, UK, and others had the guts to back up 1441 and its "serious consequences" it called for.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
What about all the civilians that Japan killed in Korea, China, and all the territories they occupied? You make it sound like Japan was this poor innocent country that the US decided to just bomb the hell out of for no reason. Do you even know the extent of the atrocities committed by Japan during the war? If not I suggest you do some reading so you can understand the situation better before posting any more.

X

---

Alright then. Here's one for you. How is America any diferent from all the other "Bad" countries who have killed civilians?

Exactly, not to mention the unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor...The US wasn't even involved in the war at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
What I'm saying is he hasn't found anything yet, and he never will. I'm the pessimist here. I figure 12 years is long enough for them to disarm. You seem to think that given enough time, the inspections will uncover every and all the weapons that Sadamm has. I, on the other hand, think that Sadaam will continue to move and hide his weapons. Your argument, conveniently, allows the escape of "Well, he's using weapons he's not supposed to have. Longer inspections would have uncovered that." Clearly optimistic. I wasn't quoting or making up any facts about the inspections, just making a joke about the success of inspections.

---

The is probably not the best time for jokes.

I don't think anything about time taken, I listen to people who know about such things, such as Mr Blix and the UN council. I'd rather be optimistic about the chances of saving thousands on innocent peoples lives than a pessimist when it comes to warfare. Pre-emptive strikes should not become the new world order; it has been tested on a smaller scale with internment in Northern Ireland in the 70s, and that was an unmitigated failure.

I don't ever think there's ever a bad time for a joke, assuming it's not in bad taste. If you think it was, you've got major hypersensitivity issues.

It's not a pre-emptive strike, necessarily. It is on some levels but non-compliance with 1441 did call for serious consequences.

Maven:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ets/index.html

"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile. "

Perhaps you should think of Marion Allbright's face before you shoot your load....

Quote:

---

Dennis Leary
None of it is gonna make a lick of difference, casue we got the bombs, OK?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Er, I would like proof of both of those statements thanks.

---

I'll send the dead bodies your way. Perhaps you know the history of Stalin whom ruled russia. Saddam sees himself has that man reborn. He keeps him self in power with fear. If someone defects he kills their family.

Some insight on some of the things he does:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99d.htm
http://www.ecoi.net/pub/nz302/00978irq.htm

Based on Iraqi Government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5000 Iraqi children under five every month, or 60,000 every year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate, containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under five.

Thats inoccent deaths just to keep saddam contained alone reported by the Iraqi Governement.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st.../thestory.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/iraq_defector/
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
http://www.usis.usemb.se/human/1996/neareast/iraq.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect4.html
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/...ry/a50-734.htm

Quote:

---

The Security Council tonight strongly condemned the targeting of children in situations of armed conflict including killing and maiming, sexual violence, abduction and forced displacement, recruitment and use of children in armed conflict in violation of international law and attacks on places that usually have a significant presence of children such as schools and hospitals, and called on all parties concerned to put an end to such practices.

---

UN Saddam Targeting Children

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer

Perhaps you should think of Marion Allbright's face before you shoot your load....

---

yeah Maven... or at least shoot it in Gaffer's face ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
yeah Maven... or at least shoot it in Gaffer's face ;)

---

Like a Weapon of Milky Discharge?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
I'll send the dead bodies your way. Perhaps you know the history of Stalin whom ruled russia. Saddam sees himself has that man reborn. He keeps him self in power with fear. If someone defects he kills their family.

Some insight on some of the things he does:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99d.htm
http://www.ecoi.net/pub/nz302/00978irq.htm

Based on Iraqi Government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5000 Iraqi children under five every month, or 60,000 every year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate, containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under five.

Thats inoccent deaths just to keep saddam contained alone reported by the Iraqi Governement.

---

Thank you for two excellent links, they are most informative and un-biased. I ignored the other links (after I had read them) as they were either extremely biased or I couldn't open them (the UN one).

However, whilst the two links show what we all know (Saddam is a bad man), they do not support the figures you quote. The 10's of thousands of deaths are a direct result of sanctions, not of any action or inaction of Saddam. As the WHO has repeatedly stated, the country is devastated, with poor water supplies and distribution. Before the Gulf war it was very progressive with public health etc. Don't worry, I'm not trying to suggest that Saddam is a benign dictator, but it is back to responsibility for our actions. It is the repercussions of the Gulf War and the sanctions which are causing huge casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
It is the repercussions of the Gulf War and the sanctions which are causing huge casualties.

---

It wasn't Saddam's fault?:confused:

Remind me again please why there was a Gulf war and sanctions in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
It wasn't Saddam's fault?:confused:

Remind me again please why there was a Gulf war and sanctions in the first place?

---

Don't get me wrong, it was Saddam's fault, but we also have to take responsibility for our actions.

It's a lot like saying to a murderer, surrender, or I'll shoot one of your kids every year? Technically, you could argue that it's their fault for not surrendering, but you still have to assume some responsibility for the childrens deaths.....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Don't get me wrong, it was Saddam's fault, but we also have to take responsibility for our actions.

It's a lot like saying to a murderer, surrender, or I'll shoot one of your kids every year? Technically, you could argue that it's their fault for not surrendering, but you still have to assume some responsibility for the childrens deaths.....

---

Why should we accept responsibility for anothers fookup. Provisions were written into the sanctions that permitted Iraq to export as much oil as they want as long as they were paid in food and medical supplies. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the planet. Your telling me that they didn't have the ability to feed or nurse their people? Sheit, If saddam was smart he would have fed his people, or even over fed them. Then you have an entire population of people willing to kill/die for their dictator(meal ticket). Taking care of his people would have made him much more powerfull in the world stage let alone the region. Hell they'd prolly give him the nobel peace prize and a boat load of shiny new nukes with pretty pink bows on them as a birthday present. Saddam fooked up. Not The coallition. (Which is now at 40 countries) BTW

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
The is probably not the best time for jokes.

I don't think anything about time taken, I listen to people who know about such things, such as Mr Blix and the UN council. I'd rather be optimistic about the chances of saving thousands on innocent peoples lives than a pessimist when it comes to warfare. Pre-emptive strikes should not become the new world order; it has been tested on a smaller scale with internment in Northern Ireland in the 70s, and that was an unmitigated failure.

---

What people don't realize is you cannot save them either way. If you go with just containment then you are going to kill around 6,000 a month and most of them will be kids.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Thank you for two excellent links, they are most informative and un-biased. I ignored the other links (after I had read them) as they were either extremely biased or I couldn't open them (the UN one).

However, whilst the two links show what we all know (Saddam is a bad man), they do not support the figures you quote. The 10's of thousands of deaths are a direct result of sanctions, not of any action or inaction of Saddam. As the WHO has repeatedly stated, the country is devastated, with poor water supplies and distribution. Before the Gulf war it was very progressive with public health etc. Don't worry, I'm not trying to suggest that Saddam is a benign dictator, but it is back to responsibility for our actions. It is the repercussions of the Gulf War and the sanctions which are causing huge casualties.

---

Allright fine don't believe it, pretend he treats his people well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Allright fine don't believe it, pretend he treats his people well.

---

Christ! Would you guys stop putting words in peoples mouths. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Allright fine don't believe it, pretend he treats his people well.

---

Oh sorry, I've just realised that maybe you don't know what benign means (see my post that you quoted).

here, this will clarify it

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=benign

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Christ! Would you guys stop putting words in peoples mouths. :rolleyes:

---

I'm not... Your saying those deaths came from containment. they didnt, thier independent of that. Deaths from containment is around 60,000 per year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GingerNut
Alright then. Here's one for you. How is America any diferent from all the other "Bad" countries who have killed civilians?

---

How about the fact that the USA does not target civilians? BUT, civilians will be killed because if you drop 2000 pounds of boom boom, whether or not you can guide it in to within 2 feet of what you want to hit, the explosion will kill some. More will die because saddam uses civilians as cannon fodder and he hides his military amongst them.

Yea he puts his military posts near hospitals and schools and ****.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Yea he puts his military posts near hospitals and schools and ****.

---

Yeah, thats right, the country that fires the missile is completely without blame for the resulting deaths :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Yeah, thats right, the country that fires the missile is completely without blame for the resulting deaths :rolleyes:

---

In this case, yah pretty much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
In this case, yah pretty much.

---

:p Oh look, Arc stuns us once again with his knowledge! :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
Maven:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ets/index.html

"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile. "

Perhaps you should think of Marion Allbright's face before you shoot your load....

---

Pratice what you preach:

Quote:

---

Kuwaiti officials said earlier that Iraq fired at least two Scud missiles at the Gulf state but they were intercepted, though Iraq denied having Scuds and any involvement in a strike.


The officials also said Iraq fired two other missiles -- smaller, Chinese-made ones -- into Kuwait's northern desert.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Pratice what you preach:

---

But I think your right, need to wait till more information comes in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
[B]Oh Christ do I really have to repeat myself again!

Okay, for the umpteenth time. Nobody thinks Saddam is not a bad man.

---

no worries, this will be your last time. Count me out. Finding the bad guy is part of the mechanical process of natural selection.

74 replies, ~ 400 views (this thread only), hundreds more replies and views across all the war threads, in this forum only...

What do we have?

Saddam Hussein is Evil
Saddam Hussein is a Liar
Saddam Hussein is a Bad Man
Saddam Hussein has not told the truth
Saddam Hussein is a Villain
Saddam Hussein hides the truth
Saddam Hussein is Disgusting
Saddam Hussein speaks in haf-truths
....
I mean, ***? He is bad, he is evil, he has lied, he is lying. So f***ing what? Why murders hundreds of others and totally demolish and eradicate, cities and towns? Can the CIA still not invent an explosible cigar?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
Dennis Leary
None of it is gonna make a lick of difference, casue we got the bombs, OK?

---

Is that not the same number which goes?

Quote:

---

I am an ***HOLE

---

Also is that not the same number which says?

Quote:

---

I've got to have fun at someone else's expense

---

At least I know its the same fella.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

posted bi Ianpbaker:

Quote:

---

not at all, I'm just going on the fact that they are being bombed because he has weapons of mass destruction by countries that have weapons of mass destruction. the entire concept of this war is ironic.

---

I think that is the point:

I don't like WMDs in hands of a proved assasain like Saddam, but I don't like them in the hands of a cow-boy like Bush.

I don't think that evilness can be fighted with evilness, because anyway wil win the evilness.

I can't approve a war unilaterally adopted, against the UN and against almost the entire world. I think that the affair could be managed in a pacific way.

I wouldn't even call this a war, this is an invasion.

Why the US are not a little sincere and admit that they are after the oil?

Quote:

---

I can't approve a war unilaterally adopted, against the UN and against almost the entire world. I think that the affair could be managed in a pacific way.

---

Unilaterally? How is 40 countries supporting this effort in a variety of ways considered unilaterally?

Or do you mean that just because France, Russia and China (who by the way have sold weapons equipment to iraq in clear violation of the sanctions.) aren't behind this then the whole would obviously isn't?

Don't get you facts confused by thinking this is unilateral...it isn't...the whole world may not be behind this, but the largest and most powerful countries are, in one way or another.

Quote:

---

Iraq has been firing Scud Missles at USA troops all morning. These missiles are banned and surprise, surprise ... the Inspectors found no evidence of them on the ground (They found no evidence of their destruction either, but that didn't seem to matter to the French or half the anti-war people on this board) Not to mention that a crop duster like plane fell to the ground that Iraq didn't have too, right in front of our military camp.

---

Just to back up the original post....

"Troops have secured "Huge" chemical weapons facility" Is what Fox News is saying right now. They say they have many sources confirming the news. Hmmm... I thought they said they didn't have any?..:)

Added:
They are saying it is 100 acres in size....That is huge, how could the UN miss that? I guess if we would have let them go another 4 months, they might have tripped over it at some point.