Printable View
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.
I haven't heard the latest reports, but last I heard the missles that were originally believed to be scuds were more likely to be Al Samouds. But I haven't heard anything about the latest missle attacks.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
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.
Oh well america has tomahawk missiles that are much more deadlier than scuds, let's bomb america while were at it, Oh look the uk has them as well, ooh hang about mostly every country in the world has misiles, let's just nuke the lot and be done with it :)
Maybe we could do a twelve monkeys thing and wipe everyone out, and let the animal get the world back.
Sounds great, except these are the missles that he's been claiming he doesn't have the entire time. Are you missing that point?Quote:
Originally posted by Ianpbaker
Oh well america has tomahawk missiles that are much more deadlier than scuds, let's bomb america while were at it, Oh look the uk has them as well, ooh hang about mostly every country in the world has misiles, let's just nuke the lot and be done with it :)
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.
It's a different story when the WMDs are in the hands of an evil dictator like Sadaam who kills his own people. I'd say most of the world is pretty comfortable with the US having WMDs.Quote:
Originally posted by Ianpbaker
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 would say there are many countries including Vietnam, Sumalia, most of the middle east, and god knows what other countries that rather you didn't and that your politicians (I repeat politician's not people) would keep their noses out of stuff that doesn't concern them :)
So, the US troops didn't really keep hitting the Brits or the Red Cross? Like I said in another thread, I just hope they can hit the right targets this time.Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
It's a different story when the WMDs are in the hands of an evil dictator like Sadaam who kills his own people. I'd say most of the world is pretty comfortable with the US having WMDs.
Oh yes, and lets not forget, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Lets not forget that Japan and Germany tried to take over the entire world too. I'm willing to bet that your countrymen thought it was a good idea to drop any bomb on them at the time.Quote:
Originally posted by GingerNut
So, the US troops didn't really keep hitting the Brits or the Red Cross? Like I said in another thread, I just hope they can hit the right targets this time.
Oh yes, and lets not forget, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh Christ do I really have to repeat myself again!Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
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.
Okay, for the umpteenth time. Nobody thinks Saddam is not a bad man.
I (and a number of others - whom you will no-doubt brand anti-American and then promptly dismiss), do not think that war is going to solve any problems in this situation and will create a lot more.
So no, I'm certainly not feeling foolish. I feel sorry that people are going to die (I hope I'm wrong :( ). (And I don't just mean here, I mean in ten years time when someone who lost their children in this attack poisons the water supply of a major American city killing thousands, and once again people like you throw their hands in the air and say "Why us? What have we ever done to them?", and thus the cycle continues....... :( )
Amen to that Mr G :)
and tkae Afghanistan as an example, bomb it to ****, hand it over to the northern Alliance who are just as circumspect as the taliban. role on 10 odd years and you have another problem :)
go to iraq and chain yourself to a building in protestQuote:
Originally posted by Ianpbaker
and tkae Afghanistan as an example, bomb it to ****, hand it over to the northern Alliance who are just as circumspect as the taliban. role on 10 odd years and you have another problem :)
don't want to add to americas impressive friendly fire list :)
Saddam is beyond what I would call a bad man, he is evil. He is an evil man whom has control of very powerful and dangerous weapons. For someone who claims to care so much about innocent people, I think you would be behind this war more then anyone.Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Oh Christ do I really have to repeat myself again!
Okay, for the umpteenth time. Nobody thinks Saddam is not a bad man.
I (and a number of others - whom you will no-doubt brand anti-American and then promptly dismiss), do not think that war is going to solve any problems in this situation and will create a lot more.
So no, I'm certainly not feeling foolish. I feel sorry that people are going to die (I hope I'm wrong :( ). (And I don't just mean here, I mean in ten years time when someone who lost their children in this attack poisons the water supply of a major American city killing thousands, and once again people like you throw their hands in the air and say "Why us? What have we ever done to them?", and thus the cycle continues....... :( )
Two Reasons:
1. Saddam kills over 10,000 people per year in Iraq according to the UN.
2. Saddam has extremely powerful weapons and he will use them. He supports terrorist organizations like Al-Q’eada who target civilians.
I hope they kill him and his sons.
Why would we want to do that? Oh, that's right, because we don't support the killing of thousands we are inherintly anti-American peacenicks, who love Saddam? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
go to iraq and chain yourself to a building in protest
Er, I would like proof of both of those statements thanks.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Saddam is beyond what I would call a bad man, he is evil. He is an evil man whom has control of very powerful and dangerous weapons. For someone who claims to care so much about innocent people, I think you would be behind this war more then anyone.
Two Reasons:
1. Saddam kills over 10,000 people per year in Iraq according to the UN.
2. Saddam has extremely powerful weapons and he will use them. He supports terrorist organizations like Al-Q’eada who target civilians.
I hope they kill him and his sons.
Yeah the American military are nothing but incompetent. Everyone knows friendly fire incidents only happen to American soldiers. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Ianpbaker
don't want to add to americas impressive friendly fire list :)
Hey but your not one of those Anti-American people by saying something like this right? This is a valid argument for peace....ohhh wait its not its just blatant Anti-Americanism :)
X
Why bother? You wont believe it anyway :)Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Er, I would like proof of both of those statements thanks.
X
I have never had anything against american people, I have everything against american and British politics :)
Hang on, that is a blatant anti-British statement! By deriding the fact that Americans killed more British soldiers in the Gulf War than the Iraqi's did, you quite obviously hate everything British and therefore (due to your anti-British nature) I can completely ignore anything you are going to say or have ever said on any subject. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah the American military are nothing but incompetent. Everyone knows friendly fire incidents only happen to American soldiers. :rolleyes:
Hey but your not one of those Anti-American people by saying something like this right? This is a valid argument for peace....ohhh wait its not its just blatant Anti-Americanism :)
X
So if someone complains about the red cross being bombed by Americans, or if British soldiers are killed by American soldiers then we're "Anti-American". So it's a good thing to be American and kill our allies? Is that what you're saying?Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah the American military are nothing but incompetent. Everyone knows friendly fire incidents only happen to American soldiers. :rolleyes:
Hey but your not one of those Anti-American people by saying something like this right? This is a valid argument for peace....ohhh wait its not its just blatant Anti-Americanism :)
X
Exactly, because you can't produce those figures from a reliable source........Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Why bother? You wont believe it anyway :)
X
At what stage do you not get the idea of the word "proof".
I can make up facts as well, hell, if I don't have to back them up I can win this so-called debate easily.
Ohhh your one of those people who believes that accidents don't happen? With that amount of hardware and troops in the field I’m surprised there were not more incidents. But if it makes you feel better saying it, more power to you :)Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Hang on, that is a blatant anti-British statement! By deriding the fact that Americans killed more British soldiers in the Gulf War than the Iraqi's did, you quite obviously hate everything British and therefore (due to your anti-British nature) I can completely ignore anything you are going to say or have ever said on any subject. :rolleyes:
X
And I repeat, MOST of the world is pretty comfortable with WMDs in the hands of the US. The only people uncomfortable are our enemies, and they should be. But we only use these in EXTREME circumstances, Ginger, like your example. But I don't want to get into the "Well what do you consider a WMD" debate so please don't bring that up.
How many Americans were killed by British soldiers?Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Ohhh your one of those people who believes that accidents don't happen? With that amount of hardware and troops in the field I’m surprised there were not more incidents. But if it makes you feel better saying it, more power to you :)
X
Link for Xanith only......Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Ohhh your one of those people who believes that accidents don't happen? With that amount of hardware and troops in the field I’m surprised there were not more incidents. But if it makes you feel better saying it, more power to you :)
X
Explanation
ROFLMFAO :DQuote:
Originally posted by GingerNut
How many Americans were killed by British soldiers?
Japan could hardly be deemed extreme circumstances. The war was practically over and the only reason America nuked japan was to keep the Russians from going in, and not to stop the japs invading America, which they couldn't have done anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
And I repeat, MOST of the world is pretty comfortable with WMDs in the hands of the US. The only people uncomfortable are our enemies, and they should be. But we only use these in EXTREME circumstances, Ginger, like your example. But I don't want to get into the "Well what do you consider a WMD" debate so please don't bring that up.
I have to laugh at this because I have seen you dig up "sources" from far left propaganda pages and come here proudly proclaiming it as if it was sent from God himself.Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Exactly, because you can't produce those figures from a reliable source........
At what stage do you not get the idea of the word "proof".
I can make up facts as well, hell, if I don't have to back them up I can win this so-called debate easily.
You tend to discount the mainstream and tend to believe facts and figures from far left rags and people with Anti-American agendas.
X
Hehe thanks for the link ;)Quote:
Maybe next time use some [Sarcasm] tags so I understand better? :)
X
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?Quote:
Originally posted by GingerNut
Japan could hardly be deemed extreme circumstances. The war was practically over and the only reason America nuked japan was to keep the Russians from going in, and not to stop the japs invading America, which they couldn't have done anyway.
Not extreme circumstances, gimme a break.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
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.
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.
It sounded like you meant they were nuked for extreme reasons, not that the nuking itself was extreme.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.
And even if it was for revenge, that's just as bad. They still killed a **** load of people in the process of surrendering.
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.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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by GingerNut
It sounded like you meant they were nuked for extreme reasons, not that the nuking itself was extreme.
And even if it was for revenge, that's just as bad. They still killed a **** load of people in the process of surrendering.
Really? Could you point me to some? I almost always try to find unbiased news sources, unless it is a very specific item about a specific group of people (like the Vietnam Vets against the War - where I will also post their website).Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I have to laugh at this because I have seen you dig up "sources" from far left propaganda pages and come here proudly proclaiming it as if it was sent from God himself.
I am dissapointed that you have not noticed that I have gone to extreme efforts to make sure my sources are unbiased and reliable.
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
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.
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.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.
And at the end of the day, people living in and around Pearl Harbour today aren't still suffering the effects of the war.
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: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
X
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.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.
X
Alright then. Here's one for you. How is America any diferent from all the other "Bad" countries who have killed civilians?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
Exactly, not to mention the unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor...The US wasn't even involved in the war at that time.
The is probably not the best time for jokes.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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Er, I would like proof of both of those statements thanks.
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
UN Saddam Targeting ChildrenQuote:
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.
yeah Maven... or at least shoot it in Gaffer's face ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Perhaps you should think of Marion Allbright's face before you shoot your load....
Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
yeah Maven... or at least shoot it in Gaffer's face ;)
Like a Weapon of Milky Discharge?
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).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.
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.
It wasn't Saddam's fault?:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
It is the repercussions of the Gulf War and the sanctions which are causing huge casualties.
Remind me again please why there was a Gulf war and sanctions in the first place?