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

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.

---

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. :)

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.

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 ?

---

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.

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---

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

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 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 ?

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. :)

---

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]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: ;) ;)

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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 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.

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

PC_madness

Quote:

---

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...922388,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2885713.stm

Your sarcasm suits you.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

The Iraqis are most certainly not grateful.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...275851,00.html

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
Swatty your a star :)

---

Thanks m8 ;)

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)

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Rape chambers ? What ?
http://www.google.ie/search?q=saddam...-8&hl=en&meta=

---

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie...+chamber&meta= ;)

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

was that confirmed?

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

.

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???

Quote:

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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.

---

.

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.

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. :) :) :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
The Iraqis are most certainly not grateful.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...275851,00.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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

.

Quote:

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

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 ...

.