It was a perfectly acceptable post he made regarding the almighty USA.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Ok, are you going to make any decent posts in this thread?
Maven sounded quite superior in his statement about having the best missles in the world.
And why were those sanctions imposed Jamie? :rolleyes:Quote:
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:
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 ;)
We'll get to Them, Just give us a little time.Quote:
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.
......
;)
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
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.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Rape chambers ? What ?
http://www.google.ie/search?q=saddam...-8&hl=en&meta=
Aah, thank you Dogsby. :) Another intelligent member of the forum. :DQuote:
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
1) Irrespective of why the sanctions were imposed, that's what's ****ing up the country.Quote:
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 ;)
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Now, our little human shield boy thought differently after this little chat. :)
I never said the US purposely targest civilians.Quote:
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.
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.
They have been digging oil trenchs and setting them on fire around bagdad.Quote:
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:
.
I feel you're doing a bad thing by getting rid of Saddam without any legal reason to do so.Quote:
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.
And no-one said that the Iraqi soldiers are actually grabbing children.
Using human shields can me anything in different contexts.
One taximan thought Saddam should be overthrown.Quote:
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. :)
Well okay keep bombing the country, kill civilians, and wreck the entire region.
I'm conviced!
So all replys you can read, understand and are written like you think are written by intelligent members.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Aah, thank you Dogsby. :) Another intelligent member of the forum. :D
This says plenty of your intelligence.
Saddams actions resulted in the sanctions. He choose to "****" up his country. :rolleyes:Quote:
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.
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. :)
Yes, so that you wouldn't use anymore air raids.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
They have been digging oil trenchs and setting them on fire around bagdad.
Yet, even though you know that the missles may not work through such thick smoke and sandstorms, they are still launched.
1) Yes, but you cannot use the fact that the country is now ****ed up as a justification to bomb it more.Quote:
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. :)
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.
Yea he's just suppling his troops with Gas Masks and atropine so I'm sure he doesn't have anything.Quote:
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.
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
Actually, I'm simply stating that Dogbsy comments are logical, yet you guys seem to have trouble accepting this kind of thinking?Quote:
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
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 ?
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.Quote:
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.
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. :)
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.p...postid=1395623
-Lou
I hate the word 'irrespective'
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.
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.Quote:
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 ?
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.
That has been tried twice and both times it ended up with around 100,000 dead.Quote:
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.
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.
So, what, you want civilians to uprise against Saddam, be slaughtered by the Republician guard, and we're back to point a again. Clever.Quote:
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.
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.
You weren't asked to save the bloody Iraqis.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Not the allies who are working to save Iraq.
You decided off your own bat to "help" them.
And read my above post.
Surely the inaction by the UN, would then also make it guility of this crime? :rolleyes:Quote:
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.
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.
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???Quote:
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 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 ?Quote:
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 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 ?
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...Quote:
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. :)
[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: ;) ;)
Thier grabbing women and children....... Sure make excuses for them doing that, its ok the be a coward.Quote:
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.
Which is it, do you want us to be involved or don't you.Quote:
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.
It all depends who's calling who an idiot.Quote:
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 doesn't offend me.
The remarks where someone writes
"Swatty your a star."
can make my day better.
Quote:
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.
I'm not making excuses.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Thier grabbing women and children....... Sure make excuses for them doing that, its ok the be a coward.
I'm just saying that sniping from someone's home could be considered using civilians as shields - when in fact its not.