War or no war?

[Billforce]

Having just watched the Security Council WAFFLE over the Iraqi issue, it is obvious that the primary intent of the US, British faction is the irradication of Saddam. I sincerely believe that Saddam is NO immediate threat to the US or GB. It smacks of a Steven Segal movie whereby the good guys are out to get the bad guy. Sure he hasn´t complied with 1441 resolutions but who ever expected that he would. Still, he is NO immediate threat to anyone albiet Isreal. The US satellite country of Isreal has created unrest in the entire Middle East with all the Arab Nations. Their constant proliferation of territory has the entire Arab world furious, although Palastinian terror bombings is not the answer. No indesciminate bombing by any group is justified, witness a second such bombing here in Colombia yesterday. Give the Palastinians their own state and end the aggression.

I am convinced that Saddam will eventually go the way of all tyrants but poses no more immediate threat than Fidel Castro sans Russia, just another loudmouth wannabe. The Iraqi people most assuredly support their leader as they should, what do you expect, a bunch of quislings?

My immediate concern is the Sabre Rattling of No. Korea, this is a REAL and emminent threat not only to it´s neighbors but the continental US as well. They will not hesitate a moment to try to annialate the US, Japan and So. Korea.

I hate all wars, I fought in Korea in the last one there. It isn´t pretty to go in a ship that hit a mine and scrape body pieces off the walls. Maybe worse is to go into the interior and witness the devastation on the populace. I was a public information photographer in the US Navy and saw more than I wanted to see.
Little children with limbs missing, horrible burn scars etc. but at the same time, just as they set a backfire to stop a forest fire, sometimes it may be necessary to preempt a threat.

My fondest wish would be to place 12 politicians from each side in a ring with Uzi´s and let then decide the fate of a country.

Above my personal feeling in regard to war or peace, I will support my country and it´s leadership at all costs.

As the lord said, ¨Noah, get thy SHIP together!¨

.

[HerbertKornfeld]

I love that pic. Ahh. . . the Guardian, such an objective media source, lol.

I don't know if I am for or against the war. My only feeling is that Gorge's daddy really screwed up during the 1st gulf war. It is really trajicK that Saddam is still in power. We could have finished this off so long ago and not be in this situation now :(

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Its a war with no real reason, as bill said Saddam is no threat to the US or GB. Indeed the only person in GB who seems to want a war ATM is Tony Blair.

WWI was started over nothing, and look what happened there, could be in for another mass loss of life over nothing if we dont watch out

--Jakk:t

[BadBadNeil]

I say let the inspections last a few months longer to satisfy everyone and see what they find. War at this point is premature and congress needs to stop Bush. I dont understand what he is honestly trying to do, we shouldn't be in the middle east to begin with. He is playing with human lives, enraging the world, helping to rise oil prices, isolating us from the favor we had after 9/11, and going off on a mad quest when a lot of people and stepping back a bit and taking a look at the bigger picture and ten years down the road. This is going to cause more problems in the future.

If the entire world was backing us and everyone was in agreement he was a imminent danger to the world i'd be all for it but hes rushing.

North Korea is a problem. I am VERY glad they went to the UN council on it though because its NOT THE US's PROBLEM, its the worlds problem. I hate when the US gets singled out to solve everyone's problems. The koreans are talking tough about destroying the US, they are blatantly disregarding agreements, I say screw em. We better give them nothing.

[wallie_x]

Sodom is a threat. A threat that he may give biological weapons to terrorists, especially the Palestinian terrorist groups. He already supports them by giving a small fortune to those families whose sons or daughters who blow themselves up and commit murder in the name of God. They in turn might give biological weapons to Usama B.L.
Oil maybe a factor in the reasons why we may go to war, but it is not the whole picture. If any one believes that it is entirely about oil then you're falling for a rope-a-dope propaganda ploy.
I say we preemptively use a 'Blitzkrieg' tactic. Attack in force now, so as to have the element of surprise (and save US lives) at one point and pour through the breach. Then spread out and flank the front lines cutting them off. If the Republican Guard comes out to fight, level them with B-52's and fighter jet/Apache helicopters. His defenses would crumble like a house of cards because most of his soldiers dread facing the might of the US armed forces, and would rather surrender than fight. Then push toward Baghdad and surround it. Tell Sodom to leave or face storm. Also allow any Iraqi citizens who wish to leave free passage. (I doubt Sodom would let them.) He is a ruthless tyrant and the whole world should be pushing for his ouster. The boot lickers in France and Germany are only giving his regime validity by stalling. That is the worst type of hypocrisy. You cannot say you are a humanitarian and at the same time support Sodom.

[BadBadNeil]

ok we go in guns blazing....

then after that we have to spend 50 years in iraq, commit troops there probably permanently, spend billions of our tax dollars reconstructing a country that most of us could care less about, destabalize the entire region, encite more hatred toward the US (like we need it), give people another reason to terrorist bomb us, and who will lead the country with all the factions or will it just stay in chaos like afghanistan.

I'm all for going in and getting him when the time is right but without more support all those things above are going to be very difficult on us for a long time.

[Bovon]

Until very recently, I was right in George Bushs corner about this issue in Iraq. Now, I am not quite as positive.

I do think Saddam hates the US enough to right in the middle of any Al Quada business where the US is concerned...that is, if the Al Quada will let him. It appears Saddam and Al Quada support each other in their own way...maybe not actually working together.

I will say one thing...George Bush better have the intelligence and it sure as he** better be accurate if we go in there to overthrow Saddam. If by some chance we (and GB) go do battle in Iraq, and no weapons of mass destruction are found...or other allegations, Bush will go down in history as the absolute worst President of the US and the Republican Party will take a hit that will probably do them in forever.

We can always hope the powers that be, are putting up one huge smoke screen with no real intentions of invasion...that is stretching it a long way however...considering the cost in military and allied expenses so far. With all of the speeches and other comments by Bush, it doesn't add up to a smoke screen IMO.

[tony_j15]

IMO, we should go to war against Iraq. Some people say its about the oil. Har, har. We have cheaper and better ways to get oil. Who does buy Iraqi oil? THE FRENCH. Now why do you think they are stalling over the war? :rolleyes:

Others say we shouldn't go until the UN approves or more of are allies back us. BULLSHXT! The world is full of people that would rather look the other way. Why? They are too lazy to want to do the right thing.

[Billforce]

The threat that Saddam poses right now is like a pin prick relative to the long term committment and expense we would have to commit to. It is relatively easy to overcome a foe such as Saddam militarily but you can't destroy the ideals he has implanted in his followers. I can tell by the posts on this thread that most have no concept of the current might and capability of the entire US military. We killed by estimate 450,000 Iraqi's in the last scirmmish, how many more will we have to annihalate to overcome this tyrant. The Iraqi people do support their leader but who is to say they deserve to die for it, certainly not a godly country like the US, Bull Feathers.

I seriously doubt that we would even have to invade. If you completely destroy the entire infrastructure the remainder would be is such chaos they not only wouldn't be a threat, they would barely exist. Most of you are approaching this from a hear say attitude and not first hand experience. I have seen a landscape completely wipped off the map, not 1 tree standing and this was before the current state of the art weapons. We have the capability right now of completely destroying Saddams war machine without nukes.

Most of you grew up in the Vietnam era whereby we were entertaining limited warfare, Marquis of Queenbury Rules. WW11 was an all out effort by the US and a total committment to the success of our engagement. If we were to completely unleash the dogs of war, neither Saddam or No. Korea would last 6 mo.

During the last campagagne in Korea, Nixon gave standing orders to NOT bomb the basic infrastructure in No. Korea for fear we would have to support them forever. If we had bombed the impounds that supplied all of the electricity to No.Korea, they would not have lasted 6 mo. We never bombed any of their main facilities. The fact that they have a massive foot soldier army is of no consequence. A 1 kiloton bomb will remove one hell of a lot of foot soldiers. Their airforce is antiquated like Saddams also, mostly old Russian fighters and bombers.

I don't ever want to see another war in my lifetime but if it comes, and there is an all out committment, god help our foes!

[TARP2]

Most of you grew up in the Vietnam era whereby we were entertaining limited warfare, Marquis of Queenbury Rules. WW11 was an all out effort by the US and a total committment to the success of our engagement.

'We' were not in any limited warfare. Bullets killed and maimed my friends. There was a total commitment to success. WW2 was a different war, as this one will be. Marquis of Queensbury my ***.

[BadBadNeil]

N Korea is a whole different story because a WHOLE lotta ppl would die before that one was over. If N Korea knew they were going down im sure they'd go down gunzablazin. I bet thered be well over 2 million deaths in koreas, probably american deaths there as well and not including japan which would get hit.

I hope we dont see the day when N Korea has nuclear missiles that can reach the whole world.

I think someone needs to take some idea from GI Joe and build forcefields for the US. :)

[wallie_x]

Billforce sez:
During the last campagagne in Korea, Nixon gave standing orders to NOT bomb the basic infrastructure in No. Korea for fear we would have to support them forever.
Nixon? He was president from 1969-1974. That was the Viet Nam era not Korea.

[ronach]

Take it easy on ole Billy now, he's getting up there in age, show some respect. We have to appreciate the fact that Billy takes the time to share his views with us from a senior point of view. Thank you Billy, from me.

Now, when you guys see our troops being loaded on ships real quick like over there in Korea, get yourself down to your nearest store and buy up everything Korean that you can find, it may very well be your last chance to see any korean merchandise for quite a spell. Can you imagine the panic up there in North Korea, when they note us movin out in double time, and this time, not bothering to go thru the peace table BS all over again. Do it GWB !

[Bovon]

Originally posted by wallie_x
Billforce sez:

Nixon? He was president from 1969-1974. That was the Viet Nam era not Korea. Yep, you are correct..but, both conflicts were micro-managed from Washington. Viet Nam much more than Korea. This is exactly how Saddam runs his military...it will never work in the end by armies that have the Independence to make battlefield decisions when needed.

In Korea, Truman ousted MacArthur because he would not take any direction from Washington, and subordinated his Commander in Chief. He was ready to take on Communist China...with nuclear bombs if necessary. Clearly MacArthur had a problem... I believe its called...ego!!.

Viet Nam was a whole different problem. Nixon tried to win the conflict (I still have a problem within myself calling it "war".) from his easy chair from the White House. Every military Commander who has written anything concerning Viet Nam has said the same. There is no question at all...that we could have left that conflict under very different circumstances had the war been fought by the commanders on the ground.

Even the POWs who were existing in the living hell of the Hanoi Hilton say it would have been much better if we had simply flattened Hanoi back to the stone ages...which we were very capable of doing...but Nixon felt differently. Of course, this is not to say that the POWs were very gratefull to make it back home again...and, I am glad they did. The fact remains...we (or somebody) may have to do it all over again.

Right now, the Allies do not want to kill civilians...thats a good humanitarian way to look at it. But wars are not won like that. As much as I dislike the "march to the sea" by General Sherman in the Civil War..he knew it would help bring a quick end to the war...which it did. WWII was much the same..GB and the Allies bombed Germany (almost) back to the stone ages with 1000 plane bombing raids. It did help convince many (not all...mind you, but many) Germans that the war was lost.

In a way, I can understand Germany's unwillingness to do battle on someone Else's battlefield...after all, twice they were kicked in the ****...good. But...France?... I donno...just gotta be something in the makeup of the French people. True, both France and Germany may have big bucks invested in Iraq (oil?....did I hear oil?..isn't that what everybody is saying about us?). I tend to believe that France, Germany..and many other peoples have failed to realize that the Muslims hate white people..its not only Americans..its the way of life anyone other than an Arabic Muslim leads. America is simply in the forefront at the time. If Al Quada (Muslims in general) were successfull in removing all traces of American influence in the near east...the rath of the Muslims would then turn on any other white, Christian nation that remained in their domain.

Of course...the above is... IMO

[Billforce]

Originally posted by TARP2


'We' were not in any limited warfare. Bullets killed and maimed my friends. There was a total commitment to success. WW2 was a different war, as this one will be. Marquis of Queensbury my ***.

I was not slighting the fighting men who fought, of course it was very intense for them, I am referring to Washingtons policies of limited warefare and the non-comittment of the entire govt. of the US. The same policies that prevailed in Korea. Hands off strategic targets. We had the resources to completely level the country if we had chosen to do so. The politicians would rather sacrifice our young men than risk political correctness.

[wallie_x]

Bovon,
I agree with what you said. In Desert Storm G. Bush Sr. let the generals plan and fight the battle (battle? rout is more like it). But one must also remember that ole George was a WWII fighter pilot and was shot down in the pacific theater defending our country. He had better sense than to make the mistakes of his predecessors LBJ and Nixon. Our current pres, ole Dubya, has as his mentor Colin Powell, former head of the 'Joint Chiefs of Staff'. I really think they have something up their sleeve. I don't know what it is, but when the bombs begin to fall we'll probably know.
I still say the French are pansies for not being firmer against Sodom. But hey, most the world seems to have turned its back on the religious cancer that has invaded Islam. It’s perfectly acceptable to kill infidels (including babies and children) by blowing yourself up and taking as many infidels as you can with you. Do this and you will be a martyr and gain paradise.
The whole world should be outraged and push all Arab and Moslem leaders to viciously denounce such blasphemy. But I don’t hear hardly anything, even from the French or the Germans. Now that bothers me.
Billforce,
I agree with you too: f*** those politically correct a**holes. We should spare no cost in protecting the lives of our soldiers. And when they do fight, we should let loose storm and make our enemies face the full force of the US Armed Forces with the generals at the helm, not the Bozo politicians.

[krazefinn]

we,re being pushed into dealing with ubl/afghanistan, pakistan, even the entire region. Not meaning war in all those places. We are conducting warfare in Afghsnistan, Pakistan presently, and in two weeks, we'll book two to baghdad. We'll deal later withmadman Kim of pyongang. Maybe in an entirely different way

I don't believe some of the blocking nations (fr,ger,bel) will deter what unfortunately must be...well be there, and 50/50/b4 march.

And we'll win. We'ere also gong to have to deal with the fallout of the troubled rdical masses, deluded and used by their ruling clerical class to believe america, (specifically our support of israel, and support of known corupt, squandering leaders that gave them no future without oil).

But look at israels world economy sans oil, compared to the future of a (non-one of the thousand=plus royalty) saudi?

It would have been expeditious to deal with sadman in '91,and we should have. Although I believe ubl/distorted jihaad, we would also have them (the 9-11elkaidoh) on a run, scattered further, fewer numbers. They would have attacked sooner, '93 wtc wouldhave been immediately followed...etc

But not am i not only armchair quarterbacking, i have "stock" in the company, and have to livwith the consequences.

[TARP2]

Originally posted by Billforce


I was not slighting the fighting men who fought, of course it was very intense for them, I am referring to Washingtons policies of limited warefare and the non-comittment of the entire govt. of the US. The same policies that prevailed in Korea. Hands off strategic targets. We had the resources to completely level the country if we had chosen to do so. The politicians would rather sacrifice our young men than risk political correctness.

You are right Billforce, many times I wondered why we did not have the backup that we all knew was available. I was not concerned with any big picture. But I was a lucky man.

I have a hard time disagreeing with my Commander -in -Chief , this time I cant see the need to send our sons to fight. I just pray that the president of our country is not plunging us into a war that is not winnable.

[Billforce]

Let's examine Bush's (US POLICY) reasons for bombing the hell out of Iraq, certainly not to kill the innocent populace. He claims his intent is to disarm Iraq and institute a regime change. Do we really need to devastate an entire country to do this? Kill 100's of thousands of non-combatants? NO!!!

I haven't seen anyone propose what I personally would do to remedy this situation for a small fraction of the cost in money and lives.

Budget a goodly sum of money, go to Isreal and HIRE a squad of Israeli Mussad, arguably the best trained soldiers in the world, equip them with WHATEVER they ask for, give them air support and go into Irag and take out Saddam and his closest followers.
A la Raid on Entebe, get rid of a problem and save countless lives.
Just another approach!!!

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Id have no qualms over us doing what bill suggests, but im totally opposed to war. Of course the CIA regulations say they cannot hire merc's (or third parties), but hell they did it when they were trying to despatch Castro didnt they (if the suit fits wear it).

It seems George just wants a good ol fashioned gung ho war, i bet his favourite movie scene ever is the nuke riding one in Dr Strangelove :rolleyes:

--Jakk:t

[tony_j15]

Let's examine Bush's (US POLICY) reasons for bombing the hell out of Iraq, certainly not to kill the innocent populace. He claims his intent is to disarm Iraq and institute a regime change. Do we really need to devastate an entire country to do this? Kill 100's of thousands of non-combatants? NO!!!

Dont start that bull again!!:mad: True, some innnocent people get killed when they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with our precision bombs, the chances are extremely unlikely. One of the biggest rules in the US military is minimization of non-combatant casulties. In our war against the Taliban, we constantly held our fire when they entered neutral structures (hospitals, mosque's, ect.) where civilians could be present. We could have just bombed the heck out of the building and say "hey, we got 'em!" No, we waited. The US is very good at determining military targets. The bad guys always say it was civilian and we murdered the people in the structure. Who you gonna believe? You gonna believe what Saddam says?

[Bigjakkstaffa]

But with our precision bombs, the chances are extremely unlikely.

Are these the LGB's that wont work when the weathers iffy :rolleyes:

--Jakk:t

[Bigjakkstaffa]

As for the iudea of using Mossad it has just occured that Isreal is far too isolated out in its position as it is anyways, for it to carry out such a mission on behalf of the US would leave its ***** well and truly hanging in the breeze and half of the middle east with their anti-west leanings would see fit to pretty much level Israel

--Jakk:t

[germanjulian]

some of you pro war people dont know ****

the USA buys 70% or Iraques Oil.

god didnt you know that? really? :eek: didnt you know the USA gave 3 Billion in aid to Saddam?

no....

the US gov is full of ****. and anyone who says we should go to war is stupid. the inspections are more then enough, and the sanctions kill hundrets or thousends of kids in Iraque.

NO WAR

(the buy the oil indirectly)

PS: we had a funny thing yesterday on TV. Politics show with members of parlimant getting questioned. Since yesterday all Smoking avertising is banned. Well all except for Formula 1 racing. weird isnt it

TV guy ask parlimament guy " why is that" other parlimanet guy from other groups says " cause the labour party got 1Million in aid from Erni Ekelstone (formula 1 owner)".

the labour party guys says "no, that has nothing do do with that"

well make up your mind on that one :t

[germanjulian]

oh and what really pisses me off is that Bush called germany etc OLD EURPOE>

how dare he say that? US is old. use fighting as the means of getting their way instead of the NEW way! called politics

[bushmaster]

Saddam isnt in hiding, He's out in the open on a daily basis. Take one of our starwars weapons, send down a particle beam, and vaporize his mentally unbalanced ****. When his cohorts watch his steam and ashes blow away they'll be fighting to be first in-line to disarm their country. We do have the technology to reach out and touch people that way. We have planes armed with high powered lasers to vaporize highspeed missles. Does anybody think it would be much harder to aim at and hit one slow moving, fat pile of walking excrement ?.
Ya know why they won't do that ???? It's too cost effective.

[BadBadNeil]

Originally posted by germanjulian
oh and what really pisses me off is that Bush called germany etc OLD EURPOE>

how dare he say that? US is old. use fighting as the means of getting their way instead of the NEW way! called politics

It wasnt Bush who said that it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. So please don't blame the president for that. Its as though the rest of Europe seems to not matter to them, Germany and France are only 2 countries in Europe but they act like they ARE europe. And people call the USA arrogant....

Politics isn't new. It's just the first way of solving a problem and when it fails sometimes war is necessary, and also you can say this comment when we actually go to war. At this moment I still see inspectors doing their jobs.

Europe is going to become a muslim continent one day, just you watch. Right now the fastest rising population in Europe is muslims and they are a big majority who protest and a big reason presidents in Europe have to play to them as they will be the next generation voters. If presidents in Europe are seen as disensitive to muslims they wont last another term.

Also if you talk about oil, look who gets 100% of their oil from Imports....Europe. Europe gets a large chunk of oil from the middle east and one of the major reasons they DON"T want to go to war is they dont want to disrupt the flow of oil to their region which would totally cripple themselves. They are putting human lives behind their need for oil as well, so can't blame the US totally on this one. I realy hate when people protest with signs saying "blood for oil".

Giving aid to people.. Yes the USA gives aid to lots of countries including still to N Korea because unlike what most of the world thinks we arent just arrogant fat cowboys, we actually do care about other people. In fact we give more aid every year than entire countries GDPs. I wish we'd stop so the world could finally see how much we do help others instead of all this hate talk toward us.

Sanctions..... STOP USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE. There is a good reason why there are sanctions. Possibly because he invaded two neighboring countries, fired missiles at a third, tried to take over the world oil supply, tortures people, and uses WMD on others. If he was honest there would be no sanctions. Did you see the article the other day about his son Uday owning 1200 exotic cars? Did you see his over 100 palaces? He has all this built while his country is in poverty and because he doesnt use his money for his people he uses it for himself. Sanctions are never an excuse because they are HIS fault and will never be ours.

[wallie_x]

I get the feeling that France and Germany would oppose anything president Bush supports just because they don't like him. They would rather have the do nothing feel good liberalism of Bill Clinton. Ah, just wag the dog; lob a couple of cruise missiles and that will be the end of it. I also wonder if those two countries have some dirty little secrets of underhanded deals with ole Sodom that they don't want the rest of the world to find out about.

And germanjulian:
the US gov is full of ****. and anyone who says we should go to war is stupid.
Your closing your mind to other people’s opinions has a slight stink of Third Reich to it.

[germanjulian]

u guys have some good points. anyway, there wont be a war now anyway cause bush finally realised nobody wants war.

and Europe is going to become a muslim continent one day
doesnt only sound racist but is redicolous.

Europe will be europe, with french, germans, italians, british, polish etc etc etc.

muslim is a religion not some sort of people. and to be frank i rather have the muslim religion as my religion that the cathlic church.
Its much better. But i am not religiours.

and and USA has a lot of muslims too. Its the fastes spreading religion in the world and I like it.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Agreed, Religion is a farce, more often than not is an excuse for a war rather than anything else, look at Northern Ireland for example, the truly religious caused bloodshed ceased there a long time ago, the violence that remains is those few violent nutters who continue to hide behind 'religion' in the name of their bloodthristy behaviour.

Lookit 9/11 too, i doubt anywhere in religion does it state its a good thing to harm hundreds of innocemts, but again we see people hiding behind and using religion as a tool for their ends. At best, religion is a comfort at times of personal loss (deaths etc) more often than not though it is a hotbed for corruption and hypocracy

--Jakk:t

[Cluedo]

But...France?... I donno...just gotta be something in the makeup of the French people. Strange makeup Bovon, have to agree there. Let's see, WWII history and collaboration with Nazi Germany sure wasn't a bright spot. Then after Dien Bien Phu the collective consciousness of France becomes benevolent and pacifist ? (Except of course for colonies in Africa.) Even today France seems to have no qualms about sending forces into former African colonies.

Thirty-year-old Dien Donne from Burundi complains that it is only when there are problems in the Arab world that people get out to protest.

She believes that when something bad happens in Africa the French don't care unless it's a former colony.

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2766715.stm)

Based on history, if we were allies with France on a battlefield, I'd sure want them out in front of me, not behind, so I'd know what they were up to. Many people think all of the United State's actions are based entirely by our capitalist interests. That just makes me sick, because (a) there is too much truth in it, and (b)IMHO, France is absolutely no different. Their foreign policy and humanities is based entirely on their economic ties.

That's all of my little rant. Sorry. France's high and mighty attitude just trips my trigger.

[Billforce]

Originally posted by tony_j15


Dont start that bull again!!:mad: True, some innnocent people get killed when they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with our precision bombs, the chances are extremely unlikely. One of the biggest rules in the US military is minimization of non-combatant casulties. In our war against the Taliban, we constantly held our fire when they entered neutral structures (hospitals, mosque's, ect.) where civilians could be present. We could have just bombed the heck out of the building and say "hey, we got 'em!" No, we waited. The US is very good at determining military targets. The bad guys always say it was civilian and we murdered the people in the structure. Who you gonna believe? You gonna believe what Saddam says?

Hey Toe Knee,
Our PRECISION bombs killed 450,000 people during Desert Storm. May be insignificant to you but not me if it can be avoided.
Tell that to the Chinese when we blew up their embassy with all their diplomats. Precision equal to MS. GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO SETTLE CONFLICTS.

[TARP2]

There must be a better way to talk about this.

Tarp

[ronach]

About that Chinese Embassy thing awhile back, they were aiding and abetting Mr. M's goons, they were asked to stop, they denied complicity of course, BOOM. Not a miss, a hit.
The marquis of Queensbury Rules have been declared null and void. We ask first, they hand us BS, they are outta here. New Rules, New Game. Play to win, or you lose. About time I say. ronach

[Bigjakkstaffa]

The above ronach still does not disgiuse the fact these 'smart' LGB's are in fact far from it

--Jakk:t

[Cyber101]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Its a war with no real reason, as bill said Saddam is no threat to the US or GB. Indeed the only person in GB who seems to want a war ATM is Tony Blair.

WWI was started over nothing, and look what happened there, could be in for another mass loss of life over nothing if we dont watch out

--Jakk:t

WHAT? the assasination of the ARCH DUKE and soem other events started ww1!

[Bigjakkstaffa]

If you actually look at the events of WWI historically, the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was little more than a convenient excuse for a war everyone expected to be over within the year, how wrong they were. Historians generally belive the assasination was little more than a trigger,not a cause for war, a trigger that would have been found in other circumstances anyway.The main cause of the war was Germanys intended expansion as a resultant factor, Ferdinands death served as a convenient excuse for them to begin this expansion, Britain, then seeing itscolonies and empire as being a prime threat (due to proximity with german colonies) responded.

--Jakk:t

[wallie_x]

God must love the people of the UK a little more so than others. He designed the earth so your asses were saved twice, by a small body of water called the English Channel. Otherwise, especially in WWII, the Germans would of let loose their Blitzkrieg on England as well.

Just think if all the time, human energy and resources that went into making war and its machines throughout the ages were instead channeled into humanitarian ventures, the world might now be a utopia.

Paranoid little devils aren't we.
If we do venture out into the stars I hope by then we are spiritually mature enough not to take this attitude with us lest we vaporize some world preemptively out of paranoia.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Indeed Britains geographicalproperties have saved us several times, however they have also impeded us severely, examples of such being our inability to grow food supplied sufficient to feed ourselves due to our small size. The result in a combat situation is (as happened in WWII) our import supplies are targeted and we almost starve o death,and strict rationing schemes are brought in. Strategically our position may be helpful in some respects, but it isnt allways.



Just think if all the time, human energy and resources that went into making war and its machines throughout the ages were instead channeled into humanitarian ventures, the world might now be a utopia.

Indeed, having said that coinflict is an internal part of human nature, hence such a utopia could never occur as someone would be unhappy with something and act out violently as a result, similarly communism always fails, not due to it being a structurally weak ideology but through the human characteristic of greed. The human nature is not one that lends itself to any ideal or perfect social orders simply because it is flawed :(

--Jakk:t

[Billforce]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa

Indeed, having said that coinflict is an internal part of human nature, hence such a utopia could never occur as someone would be unhappy with something and act out violently as a result, similarly communism always fails, not due to it being a structurally weak ideology but through the human characteristic of greed. The human nature is not one that lends itself to any ideal or perfect social orders simply because it is flawed :(

--Jakk:t [/B]

Flawed??? What a cavalier attitude, just because we kill each other in the name of religion i.e., believe as I do or I will kill your *ss. There have been more people on earth killed in the name of religion, than any other reason. As stated before, the last time that communism actually worked in the US was the British Pilgrims at Plymouth rock because their survival depended on it. It only lasted for a short time before they started pilfering from the storehouses. Can´t trust those bloody Brits.:D :D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Flawed??? What a cavalier attitude,

Well it is clearly not perfect, what else can it be?

There have been more people on earth killed in the name of religion

I agree, if you would careto readmy earlier post:

Agreed, Religion is a farce, more often than not is an excuse for a war rather than anything else, look at Northern Ireland for example, the truly religious caused bloodshed ceased there a long time ago, the violence that remains is those few violent nutters who continue to hide behind 'religion' in the name of their bloodthristy behaviour.

Lookit 9/11 too, i doubt anywhere in religion does it state its a good thing to harm hundreds of innocemts, but again we see people hiding behind and using religion as a tool for their ends. At best, religion is a comfort at times of personal loss (deaths etc) more often than not though it is a hotbed for corruption and hypocracy

[Optimus Prime]

I think he was havin' a laugh jakk :p, nice thread, quite interesting.

[Billforce]

Jak, the FLAWED thing was toungue in cheek, you know cheeky!!
A little levity (very little):r

[Bigjakkstaffa]

I dunno, im getting such a thrashing of narrow minded ppl who refuse to bear in mind any of my opinions of late im starting to get a bit paranoid :x

--Jakk:t

[Billforce]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
I dunno, im getting such a thrashing of narrow minded ppl who refuse to bear in mind any of my opinions of late im starting to get a bit paranoid :x

--Jakk:t

Jak,
We appreciate you and your views and observations. BUT, sometimes you have to put on your smile face and not take life so seriously, you will live longer. :t

[tony_j15]

Hey Toe Knee,
Our PRECISION bombs killed 450,000 people during Desert Storm. May be insignificant to you but not me if it can be avoided.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

You have got to be kidding me! Where did you come up with that figure???

Remember that we gave diplomacy a chance in '91. Saddam wouldn't back down. His troops were in Kuwait looting, raping, and destroying. I think action was called for.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Indeed, for all of the flag waving and moaning and what not going on here, we have to bear in mind none of this will have any bearing on future events, if theres going to be a war and maybe apocalypse as a result of it, a debate on an internet forum will not be able to prevent any of it, in all actuality its an exercise in futility, but a very intellectually and politically gripping and engaging one no less :)

--Jakk:t

[Bigjakkstaffa]

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

*whistles and bites tongue*

Actually quite a few of those lads were from just up the road, they were out on a tank patrol and got cooked by an A10 warthog, quite sad really, their commanding officer is taking quite a part in the antiwar movment ATM simply on the grounds we need better inter- force communication before we launch a war with a coalition force. Sadly however it must be accepted, these things are inevitable, although increasingly high for what have recently been small scale operations.

But please remember, as that great British icon Winston Churchill himself said, 'There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics'. Thats not to say these stats are inccorect, but they may be being somewhat 'ecenomical with the truth' too.

--Jakk:t

[BadBadNeil]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Indeed, for all of the flag waving and moaning and what not going on here, we have to bear in mind none of this will have any bearing on future events, if theres going to be a war and maybe apocalypse as a result of it, a debate on an internet forum will not be able to prevent any of it, in all actuality its an exercise in futility, but a very intellectually and politically gripping and engaging one no less :)

--Jakk:t

just like protestors...they can burn stuff all day, block traffic, shout slogans but in the end they arent gonna change anyones minds. The people that protest are the hardliners who are set on their opinion.

I'm not trying to change the world here, just seeing how other ppl in the world react to all this stuff and posting how I feel about this stuff, nothing more.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Indeed the only ppl with the power to shape the world are the politicians and the 'terrorists' if you really want your opinion to count you either get into politics on a professional or go out and buy a bomb. The fact is once you get elected you got four years to do whatyou like, even if you upset the public massively they still gotta wait 4 years to get rid, unless they try some armed uprising, for this reason Tony Blair wont and doesnt need to listen to do what the British public want him to and keep his neb out of the Iraq situation, despite him loosing massive amounts of support from several sectors.

--Jakk:t

[MTAtech]

I find it scary that so many Americans are fooled by Bush II’s claims. GWB has done a very good job spreading U.S. propaganda.

Bush gets on TV and says that Iraq is linked to al Qaeda and 9/11. Americans take his word at face value with little or no proof.

Bush says that war is necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. However, as long as U.N. inspections are going on, Iraq’s plans to develop such weapons are contained without war.

Bush says that Iraq is a threat to the U.S. There is no evidence of this either. This is paranoia as well as propaganda. How many times has Iraq threatened the U.S.? Ans: 0. On the other hand, Prez Bush gets on TV everyday and threatens Iraq and puts 200,000 troops on its boarder. Who is the aggressor?

Why do I not believe Bush II? For one reason, his father lied to start the first Gulf War. He convinced Saudi Arabia to allow a base by telling them that ‘satellite photos show massive Iraqi tank buildup on the border.’ However, commercial satellites reveled that nothing was there. The Bush I administration claimed that Iraqi soldiers were pulling babies from incubators. Later, this was found to be a fabrication. I expect the same lies from his son.

Most of the world doesn’t believe these claims either and rightfully so, because the evidence points the other way. Bush’s most recent claim is that he wants a war to liberate the Iraqi people. He says that Saddam is an evil tyrant that kills his own people. This is true. However, in the last Gulf War 250,000 Iraqis died – mostly civilians. The U.S. sponsored sanctions – which prevented medicines from being bought by Iraq another 750,000 died through 1998. Therefore, more Iraqi people died from this than were ever killed by Saddam’s tyranny.

Moreover, in the last Gulf War the U.S. military used Depleted Uranium Weapons. They certainly will use them in this Gulf war. According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, “During the Gulf War up to 800 tons of munitions containing depleted uranium were used by United States forces in military actions in Kuwait and Iraq.” (http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/c97-5w.html) Most likely, the military will use them again in Gulf-War II.

Depleted uranium is highly radioactive, with a half-life of around four billion years. When used in artillery, the shell penetrates all known armor and explodes conventionally. However, the depleted uranium tip of the shell disintegrates into fine specs and gas and is scattered over the target area. This causes a contaminated area forever. It is believed by some that it was the cause of Gulf-War Syndrome. In addition, the number cancers in Iraq, especially in children have dramatically risen (Children play in the areas which were once battlefields.)

To be objective, it isn't conclusive that depleted uranium is a danger because there are experts that disagree with each other. However, since there is disagreement, it also isn't conclusive that DU isn't a hazard and there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is.

Considering that President Bush has now changed the rationale for this new war to a humanitarian effort to save the people of Iraq, it is hypercritic to be using weapons that contaminates Iraq forever and will be killing Iraqi civilians millennia from now.

What bothers me about the postings here about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is among those in favor of invading Iraq there’s a cavalier way in which they talked about it. Their message, essentially, was: "Saddam's a bad guy. It's time for him to go."

I get no sense that they thought of war as a horrible experience. No one mentioned the inevitable carnage. No one speaks as if they understood that war is always hideous, even if it's sometimes necessary.

Since half the population of Iraq is under the age of 18, let's not kid ourself into thinking that lots of them are not going to die in an invasion. Those air-raids are not as surgical as the government would like you to think.


Remember that we gave diplomacy a chance in '91. Saddam wouldn't back down. His troops were in Kuwait looting, raping, and destroying. I think action was called for.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait but only when the U.S. Ambassador told him that "the U.S. had no defense treaty with Kuwait," giving him the basic green light for invasion. It was a trap.
see this link:
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

also see my response in another tread regarding the U.S. providing Saddam with WMD:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=860259&highlight=demonize+your+enemy#post860259

[cbh]

War? What is a war?

A conflict that involves the military and the people.

Over political, economic and territorial reasons.

Nowadays, our wars are often linked to economic and political reasons. The coming Second Gulf War is based on political reasons and not other 'valid' reasons.

The First Gulf War erupted because Iraq conquered Kuwait within a day. Pathetic! But its oilfields were also captured by the Iraqis. Thus, the UN launched a UN strike force to push Iraq out of Kuwait. This war is like World War Two! Liberating an allied nation from tyranny!

Can we avoid wars? No! Definitely no! Humanity is Created to wage war on Earth. I believe that! We're not perfect! Our minds are influenced by post-Cold War ideas so we can never abandon our barbaric and brutal ways.

What if we change the concept of war to save the innocent civilians from certain harm? Isn't a great idea? We'll not have a 'total war' in the future.

We can designate a massive plateau on each of the major continents as a permanent battlefield. We'll manufacture massive and powerful weapons to replace all the existing ones. The new weapons will be deployed to the designated battlefields and engage in combat. The battle damages will be done to the specific areas so all the civilian territories are spared. The outcome of each conflicts will be permanent and the victor will get what it wants. The UN will oversee this 'civilized warfare' and nobody can use nuclear weapons anymore.

Including biological and chemical weapons! All these weapons and technologies will be banned. All the nuclear power plants will shut down permanently and solar energy will replace nuclear power. Or we bury countless neutron jammers all over the world to render nuclear power useless! These jammers will prevent nuclear-based weapons from deploying. Good idea! Huh?

'Civilized warfare' will ensure that we do not need to endure another 'total war' again. It already wrecked the world in the 40's and 30's. We'll invent new and massive weapons (example: robots and super tanks) to fight in the designated battle zones. Then we'll have a new media network to broadcast different conflicts all over the world daily. It'll be like watching a real-life competition between different countries. Entertainment! Sickening, isn't it? But it'll happen in the future!

Entertainment with warfare and violence!

:D

[Billforce]

The entire concept of war is inane! Each party should choose a representative, place them both in a phone booth with sawed off shotguns and the last man standing wins for his country.:D
Think of all the lives and money that could be saved.

[cbh]

Originally posted by Billforce
The entire concept of war is inane! Each party should choose a representative, place them both in a phone booth with sawed off shotguns and the last man standing wins for his country.:D
Think of all the lives and money that could be saved.

It's a very good idea.

:)