Time to "duck and cover" Saddam. Countdown has started. [Archive]

bushmaster

03-18-2003, 05:39 AM

"What about tapping some of that oil to pay for the war? According to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the U.S. won't fund its military campaign from Iraqi oil revenues, but reserves the right to use some of Iraq's black gold for reconstruction. "The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people," Powell said on Jan. 21. "It will not be exploited."

So who will reap the big bucks from getting Saddam's oil fields back on track? At this point, Iraq is believed to have contracts worth about $38 billion pending with such companies as Italy's ENI, Royal Dutch/Shell, Australia's BHP, TotalFinaElf, and Russian giant Lukoil. Sanctions have precluded American companies from doing business in Iraq, and foreign concerns are likely to continue to exploit their long-standing links. Yet the sanctions have also stalled efforts by non-U.S. companies to complete their deals and start development.

France is by far the biggest player. The giant TotalFinaElf now has development rights to roughly 25% of total Iraqi reserves. In theory, France's long relationship with Iraq's nationalistic oil technocrats could put French outfits in good shape for more deals after any war. But at the moment, many French industry officials remain convinced that the Americans will exact revenge if France fails to fully support the war effort. While Russian contracts may be honored, "ours won't be," predicts a top executive of TotalFinaElf. That's why some French observers insist that when push comes to shove in the U.N., France will march in step--mainly to protect its oil stakes.

Russia is in a more delicate position. Iraq owes Moscow $8 billion in Soviet-era debt. In 1997, Lukoil signed a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to revive Iraq's al-Qurnah field, which has 7.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. But the accord was put on ice after President Vladimir V. Putin's support for the U.S.-led sanctions drive. Now Lukoil is sending a high-level delegation in February to heal the breach--the second such diplomatic overture in recent weeks.

Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov claims to have Kremlin assurances that his interests will be protected in a post-Saddam regime. That has many industry observers convinced that an informal accord with Washington is in place, one that would restore Lukoil's stake in Iraq.

For American energy companies, smarting from the charge that former oil execs George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are spearheading their interests, the subject of economic gain from an Iraqi intervention is extremely sensitive. U.S. oil executives queried by Business Week would not speak on the record. Privately, industry sources familiar with discussions with the Administration say the talks focused on nitty-gritty issues such as snuffing out oil fires Saddam's forces may set. And the industry remains torn on what impact war in Iraq will have on its fortunes. In the short term, Iraqi infrastructure rebuilding projects might be sweet deals. Yet over the long haul, a flood of Iraqi oil could depress world prices. Bottom line in the Oil Patch: Keep your lip zipped, hope George W. is right, and go along for the ride."

MTAtech

03-18-2003, 06:16 AM

What about the innocent half million Kurds who have been eradicated by Saddam the last 12 or so years. They represent roughly one-sixth of all the Kurd population.

What about the 250,000 WE killed in the first Gulf war?
What about the 500,000-750,000 civilians that died from our sanctions. What about the near 100% certainty of a terrorist reprisal? (according to CIA, NSA, FBI estimates).
Bush doesn't have the moral high ground here.

"What about tapping some of that oil to pay for the war? There is a name for that, it's called colonialism. If this President is trying to liberate Iraq, which I doubt is the real reason, one can't tap (loot) Iraq to save it.

Let's see how long it takes before there are elections in Iraq - just like Afghanistan, we'll install a puppet ruler.

mireland

03-18-2003, 11:05 AM

It wouldn't surprise me If Bin Laden and Sadam were both over in the U.S working in a 7/11! We will NEVER find them in that case.

:(

jmichna

03-18-2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by MTAtech

What about the 250,000 WE killed in the first Gulf war?
What about the 500,000-750,000 civilians that died from our sanctions. What about the near 100% certainty of a terrorist reprisal? (according to CIA, NSA, FBI estimates)....
Point by point:
1. Please state your sources for that number of deaths (250,000 killed).
2. Those civilians died because Saddam Hussien did not comply with UN sanctions. If he had complied, those people would not have died. If he complied, war would not begin March 19, 2003.
3. Do you seriously belive that terrorist attackes would NOT take place in the US if we do not go to war with Iraq? You must be doing mushrooms...

If there is a 1% chance per year of terrorist attack using WMD, then there is a 39.5% certainty of such an attack in a 50 year period. (figures developed by Warren Buffet). Any action, that reduces this percentage is worth embarking upon.

Peace is NOT a Strategy, it is a Goal.

jmichna

03-18-2003, 11:23 AM

The following is shamelessly paraphrased from an article by Whitney Tilson, published 3/17/2003:

It's important when thinking about geopolitical matters to collect information, seek out all points of view, and keep an open mind. Then, as a salient example, outline the major arguments surrounding the debate over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Today, I will highlight the similarities between how one should think about Iraq.

Focus on what's important, and have a margin of safety. In geopolitical issues, the key is to focus on what's important in the long run, filter out the short-term and/or less-relevant issues, and have a big margin of safety.

The most important goal, by far, of our actions vis-à-vis Iraq (and the broader war on terrorism) is reducing the chances of an attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially an attack on the U.S. Very little could be as devastating to our country.

Consider the enormous harm inflicted upon us on 9/11, and then multiply it by 10 or 100. Beyond the immediate effects, such as the tragic loss of life and direct damages, large-scale terrorist attacks typically result in widespread, long-lasting, pernicious outcomes: a damaged national psyche, loss of confidence, less spending and investing, capital flight, a "brain drain," higher security costs and inconveniences, a reduction of personal liberties, and so forth. These are not speculative consequences. Israel faces all of these things today.

Sadly, a WMD attack on our country is no longer beyond the realm of possibility. Last year, Warren Buffett -- whose primary business is mega-catastrophe insurance -- said he feared an attack of that nature is "virtually a certainty." Why? Just consider the math: If there's a 1% chance of such an attack each year for the next 50 years, then the odds of it happening during this period are an alarming 39.5%. If we can cut this to 0.5% per year, the odds drop to 22.2%. And at 0.25% per year, the odds are "only" 11.8%.

So the debate about what to do in Iraq boils down to one question: What course of action is most likely to minimize the long-term chances that WMD will fall into the hands of those hostile to us, who might then use them against us?

In considering the answer, it's reasonable to insist on a huge margin of safety. For example, even if the costs over time were hundreds of billions of dollars (whether the costs to attack and occupy Iraq, or to maintain a strong military presence in the region as part of a containment strategy), this would be money well spent if it reduced -- even by only a small degree -- the odds of a major terrorist attack against us. Regardless of what course of action people believe to be warranted at this time, it's safe to assume most people agree that this is a -- if not the -- primary goal.

-- Me again: the smartest thing I've seen re the whole debacle is the statement that "Peace is not a strategy... It is a goal."

Bigjakkstaffa

03-18-2003, 11:25 AM

Im quite looking forward to tonights comons vote, if only in the hope Tony Blair get well and truly kicked. Estimate puts about 20 Torys ready to break the party line and vote against, coupled with wide spread rebellion within labour. At best were looking at a vote against of 240 its reckoned. If the vote goes against its expect he will 'go' either this week or by the end of conflict, should he override the vote.

Fingers crossed and we'll get rid of the hypocritical bugger.

The only thing im dismayyed about is Claire Short's behaviour, she stands out as an even larger hypocrite than Blair ATM (unless shes gone while ive been at college today)

--Jakk:t

MTAtech

03-18-2003, 03:36 PM

jmichna,
You could very easily do the search yourself. I found a number of them last week documenting large numbers of civilian casualties due to sanctions.

Your response that the civilian deaths due to sanctions are the fault of Saddam is faulty reasoning. If we are imposing sanctions that are killing innocent, powerless victims, the policy is immoral - especially when we continue the policy for a decade. Kidnappers always blame the fate of the kidnapped on those that don't pay the ransom, yet the kidnapper is culpable. We have been holding the Iraqi people hostage for ten years. Their fate is our responsibility not Saddam's

Koen

03-18-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
The only thing im dismayyed about is Claire Short's behaviour, she stands out as an even larger hypocrite than Blair ATM (unless shes gone while ive been at college today)

--Jakk:t

No Jakk...sadly enough she's still around. She reconsidered and after a good night sleep thought she will be very useful "in the reconstruction of iraq after the conflict"
But I think she'll be more busy reconstructing her **** after Blair kicked her out once the war is over. :t

jmichna

03-18-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by MTAtech
jmichna,
You could very easily do the search yourself. I found a number of them last week documenting large numbers of civilian casualties due to sanctions.

Your response that the civilian deaths due to sanctions are the fault of Saddam is faulty reasoning. If we are imposing sanctions that are killing innocent, powerless victims, the policy is immoral - especially when we continue the policy for a decade. Kidnappers always blame the fate of the kidnapped on those that don't pay the ransom, yet the kidnapper is culpable. We have been holding the Iraqi people hostage for ten years. Their fate is our responsibility not Saddam's MTAtech,
You stated the figure of 250,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the 1st Gulf War. I'm just asking you to disclose your source(s) of this figure... unless you made it up. I'm not going to search for a number you may have just created.

Concerning faulty logic, if a "leader" of a people has had 12 years of opportunities to make the condition of his people improve, merely by complying with sanctions imposed by an agreed-upon world agent (the UN) and refuses to do so despite the worsening of his peoples' condition... I can see no way the US is accountable for the deaths you quote above.

The leader of that nation (Iraq) is the accountable one, just as the US' Commander-In-Chief is, and will be, held accountable for the US government's actions. The kidnapper example is spurious and does not apply.

Saddam held his own people "hostage" - while killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds, despite dozens of UN sanctions over a period of more than a decade. That is "faulty logic." Saddam is responsible for the fate of those he governs.

MTAtech

03-18-2003, 06:44 PM

OK, here are ten pages of links:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=iraq%2Bsanctions%2Bchildren

jmichna

03-18-2003, 07:42 PM

Great links... which one supports the figure ("What about the 250,000 WE killed in the first Gulf war?") you gave?
Here's some other info:
Iraqi deaths:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/869570.asp
Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that “we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred” during the fighting “and may never know,” Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated.

In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraqi Casualties (CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/
Iraq
In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements
6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements
68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground
137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran
3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks
2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles
2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces
19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged
42 divisions made combat-ineffective

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraqi deaths:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00007.html
Copyright 1993 Jane's Information Group Limited,
All Rights Reserved
Jane's Defence Weekly

March 13, 1993
SECTION: Vol. 19; No. 11; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 429 words
HEADLINE: Report puts Iraqi dead at 1500
BODY:

Iraqi combat deaths during the Gulf conflict were possibly as low as 1500,
far below the widely accepted 100 000 figure, a former US Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst reports.

In an forthcoming article in the monthly journal Foreign Policy, John
Heidenrich says fewer Iraqis fought in the theatre of operations than
originally thought. Military prudence dictated that the Pentagon estimate
the highest number; therefore its minimum estimate was 500 000 troops,
logical if all Iraqi units were full strength.

Heidenrich believes the number before hostilities was under 400 000, based
on Iraqi prisoner reports of units deployed at only 50-75 per cent troop
strength. This number fell rapidly with the desertion of several tens of
thousands of Iraqis once Coalition air strikes started. Perhaps only 200
000-300 000 troops were left to fight.

Based on Iraqi prisoner statements, Heidenrich contends that Coalition
aerial bombardment produced an overall casualty rate of only two or even
one per cent, because "its main purpose was to destroy Iraqi equipment",
not dug-in soldiers.

At the 300 000 level, with 1-2 per cent casualties and using the standard
three-wounded-to-one-dead ratio, Heidenrich estimates the total at 750-1500
dead and 2250-4500 wounded from the air campaign. In the ground war,
similar formulas give "a few hundred" to an absolute maximum of 6500 dead,
and an absolute maximum of 19 500 wounded. The upper figures would be if
all vehicles hit had full crews.

Heidenrich points out that of the 71 000 Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner,
only around 2000 were wounded. In addition, US forces buried only 577
Iraqis. His estimate of civilian deaths is less than 100. In May 1991, the
DIA estimated 100 000 Iraqis killed in action, 300 000 wounded, and 150 000
desertions. It added that the data had an error factor of "50 per cent or
higher."

Heidenrich says that the Pentagon's reluctance to publish more definitive
casualty figures was due to "quite simply, fear. Senior officials fear that
any estimate will provide ammunition to Pentagon critics. A high estimate
could bring charges of barbarism. A low one might bring accusations of a
coverup. And any estimate could evoke unwanted (and unfair) parallels
between (the GulfWar) and the body count mentality of Vietnam."

US casualties were low. Despite a pre-war prediction by the Center for
Defense Information of 10 000 dead and 35 000 wounded, the total was 148
combat dead and 467 wounded. Of those, 35 deaths and 72 injuries were from
'friendly fire'.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: December 11, 1994
************************************************** ********************
Copyright 1993 Pacific Press Ltd.
The Vancouver Sun
March 11, 1993, Thursday, 1* EDITION

SECTION: Pg. B12
LENGTH: 221 words
HEADLINE: War victims exaggerated, analyst says
BYLINE: INDEPENDENT
DATELINE: London
BODY:
As few as 1,500 Iraqi soldiers may have been killed by allied forces in
the Persian Gulf War - a tenth of the previous lowest estimate - according
to a former analyst in the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, John
Heidenrich.

The most conservative estimate of Iraqi battlefield casualties from allied
air and ground action had been 15,000 but most range from 25,000 to
100,000. Fewer casualties could help to explain the astonishing speed of
Iraq's military recovery after the war.

According to a former British chief of defence staff, Sir David Craig, the
allies stopped their advance before achieving their objective of destroying
President Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard partly because they feared
accusations of "butchery."

It has always been a mystery what happened to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi soldiers thought to have been in the Kuwait theatre of operations
south of the Euphrates. A senior British officer said after the war that he
assumed thousands of dead lay "in collapsed trenches."

Based on interception of signals from more than 40 divisions, allied
intelligence had to assume that there were more than 600,000 Iraqi troops
when the allied air bombardment began on Jan. 17, 1991. It is now widely
accepted that those divisions were at between 50 and 75 per cent strength,
at most.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 1993
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cusco and others defending Saddam's sons...
"That doesn't change the fact that it's a Geneva Convention war crime
to retaliate against the innocent family members of your enemy."
Check this story from the London Times today regarding Saddams
"innocent" son, and you tell me if he should be included in the roundup...

*There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped
into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head
first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died
screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their
remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be
used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam
Hussein*s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.*

This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by
researchers from Indict * the organisation I chair * to provide
evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken
in the past two weeks.

Full text:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3504-614607,00.html
...................
Encyclopedia Britannica
Kurdish deaths (not even including Gulf War): http://search.eb.com/worldsapart/3_print.html
Iraq
Population (1998) : 21,722,000
Government Type : Republic
Ethnic Groups (1993) : (1983): Arab (77%), Kurd (19%), Azerbaijani (2%), Assyrian (1%), Other (1%)
Major Religions (1994) : Shi'i Muslim (63%), Sunni Muslim (35%), Christian (2%)
Major Languages : Arabic, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Assyrian, Persian
Casualties (since 1987) : more than 200,000 dead (Kurdish areas only; excludes Gulf War casualties)

Swordfish

03-18-2003, 08:47 PM

wow...thats some hard facts...ugly side to a war.

MTAtech

03-18-2003, 10:52 PM

I must say, I have to conceed that point. What I remembered was the 250,000 number from a quote I posted in another forum a week ago. I mistakenly remembered it as casualties but it applied to a the number of Iraqi troops that the U.S. falsely claimed was mounting on the Saudi border in 1991. Here is the text:
Excerpted from "In war, some facts less factual," Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, 6 Sept 2002.

"When George H.W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf--to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait--part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid-September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border--just empty desert. "

However, I do stand by the number of deaths from sanctions, which total between 630,000 to over 1,000,000 based upon U.N. figures. (I didn’t know whether that figure was derived for a 12 year period for all sanctions or just up to the Oil for Food Program [1997])

“According to the UN's own figures the sanctions have resulted in an increase of 90,000 deaths per year. A report released earlier this year by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) said, ‘The Oil for Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq's children from malnutrition/disease. Those children spared from death continue to remain deprived of essential rights addressed in the Conventions of Rights of the Child.’”

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/iraq-o08.shtml
As you can see, our (U.S.) hands are not clean. Leaders continued these deadly sanctions for years after they knew their result. This is why I find it hard to believe Bush suddenly has become a humanitarian. His father along with his now Secy of Defense, Rumsfield and Dick Chenny caused this plight a decade ago and seemingly didn't care - at least until now, when they want to invade Iraq.

By the way, in case one doesn't know, the Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected newspapers for international news.

jmichna

03-18-2003, 11:24 PM

MTAtech,
I never disputed your sanctions casualties figures - only the Iraqi war death figures. I also use the CSM as an accurate -- and independent -- news source. I thought Cameron Barr's March 12th article on the Kurds very interesting/thought provoking.
jmichna

MTAtech

03-18-2003, 11:42 PM

We have agreement! If only our leaders were so lucky.

cbh

03-18-2003, 11:48 PM

Tat's why we should have civilized warfare. Like I said earlier on. We can designate an area as a permanent battlefield and avoid civilian areas. Like a desert! Limit the number of troops and weapons used in the particular war! The warring parties will have to use tactics and strategies to win that war. And not the number of advanced weapons they have.

Only by 'civilized warfare' can we prevent civilian casaulties. Also, no nuclear weapons are allowed. My idea comes from MechWarrior. The story and the PC game. Although the whole concept is just a game, I think the game creators are also anti-war elements.

:t

mcool61

03-19-2003, 12:15 AM

Anybody seen or heard anything from Cheney lately? Is he still alive?
I heard he is part of a group that bought the company that puts out oil well fires.
Gas prices are at a new high here in the U. S.

Bush & Cheney are both big oil men. Unfortunately this war has fringe benefits for them.

May the force be with our troops.

cbh

03-19-2003, 03:00 AM

SIGH!!

Tonite is the time!!

Singapore time!!

The Second Gulf War!!

Good luck to the combatants!!

:(

Spardan

03-19-2003, 06:36 AM

bye:(

bushmaster

03-19-2003, 07:43 AM

Tat's why we should have civilized warfare DUDE! thats the ticket. They could have a massive lan party/fragfest, and all play UT and see who comes out alive.

MTAtech

03-19-2003, 08:07 AM

"Civilized Warfare" is premised on the assumption that both sides want to fight. Iraq doesn't want this fight. The United States is invading Iraq because George W. Bush is a delusional paranoid and has an imaginary feeling of threat from Iraq. I call it Iraqnaphobia - the believe that we have the right to invade Iraq now, not because it has threatened us, but because it may threaten us at some time in the future. In reality, we in the U.S. are much more unsafe with this war than without it.

It is immoral to have this doctrine and undermines national sovereignty. Under this doctrine no nation is safe. It also encourages small countries that cannot compete with the U.S.'s conventional forces to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent of invasion.

Someone asked about Dick Cheney. He is alive and well and calling the shots from a secret location according to theNew York Times.

jmichna

03-19-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by MTAtech
"Civilized Warfare" is premised on the assumption that both sides want to fight. Iraq doesn't want this fight....All Iraq has (actually, at this point had) to do was fully and openly comply with the last twelve years of UN sanctions, there would be no war with Iraq. Their leader chose not to do this. The next levels of Iraqi government and/or Iraqi military could have forced the issue. They too, had twelve years to accomplish this. All of the misery imposed upon the Iraqi people due to sanctions could have (and would have) been avoided. Saddam Hussien and his ring of leadership chose not to comply with a world-recognized agent, the UN.

If the UN had the backbone to enforce the sanctions the UN imposed, including the latest, this new military action would be a coalition response to Saddam Hussien. Unfortunately, the business and commercial interests of the French and the Russians (Guess what! - It's not only the US that has such interests) prevent them from supporting, let alone participating. The French and the Russians are deeply invested in Iraqi oil, to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. The French have commercial rights to the largest minority interest (there is no majority oil interest other thas the Iraqi government itself).

Personally, I expect this military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, to eliminate all presence of WMD within Iraq, thereby improving security for Iraq's neighbors such as Kuwait, Turkey, and even Israel. Terrorist acts will, with almost certainty, occur within the US. They can no longer be considered unavoidable. We can only reduce their probability. I believe this war will reduce the probabilities. Inaction amounts to inviting terrorist actions.

Appeasement never works. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain through the takeover of Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Munich crisis and eventually the invasion of Poland. Chamberlain continued to negotiate peace with the obsessed and erratic Adolph Hitler throughout the appeasement mess leading to WWII. I see real strong parallels of obsession and erratic behavior, let alone paranoia and delusion, between Hitler and Hussien. The behavior of Chamberlain and the UN... at least the faction lead by the French and Russians... also seems quite parallel.

The rest of your comments are simple ad hominem attacks on Bush and Cheney... at best personal opinion of someone who - evidenced from their posts - might be a wee bit paranoid himself.

Peace is not a strategy... Peace is a Goal

MTAtech

03-19-2003, 11:16 AM

I'm tired of the false analogy between Hitler and Saddam. Hitler was bent on world domination and built the strongest army in Europe.

Saddam has a weak military and is clearly not interested in taking over the world. Iraq has invaded two countries in the last 15 years, fewer than the U.S. had invaded in the same time period.

Bush kept claiming that Iraq had not complied with the UN resolution to disarm as a pretext for war. How would Iraq prove that, exactly? If they did disarm, how could they prove it? You can't prove a negative. If Bush knew, somehow, that they didn't disarm he must know where some WMD are. If so, why didn't he share that information with the inspectors who found nothing?

Moreover, not having war is not 'Appeasement.' The pro-war group likes to peg this into two simple options, war or do nothing. Those aren't the only options. 15 years ago, Lybia was to Reagan as Iraq is to Bush and Reagan demonized Qadafi the way Bush demonizes Saddam. 45 years ago, Eisenhower's arab menace was Nassar of Egypt.

Previous administrations successfully contained those countries without war - which incidentally, was considered in each case. There is no reason to believe the same policy wouldn't have worked here.

Bill in SD, CA

03-19-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by MTAtech
"Civilized Warfare" is premised on the assumption that both sides want to fight. Iraq doesn't want this fight. The United States is invading Iraq because George W. Bush is a delusional paranoid and has an imaginary feeling of threat from Iraq. I call it Iraqnaphobia - the believe that we have the right to invade Iraq now, not because it has threatened us, but because it may threaten us at some time in the future. In reality, we in the U.S. are much more unsafe with this war than without it.

It is immoral to have this doctrine and undermines national sovereignty. Under this doctrine no nation is safe. It also encourages small countries that cannot compete with the U.S.'s conventional forces to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent of invasion.

Someone asked about Dick Cheney. He is alive and well and calling the shots from a secret location according to theNew York Times.

Let me guess - you voted for Hillary, right?

:D :D

Bill

ukulele

03-19-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Bill in SD, CA

Let me guess - you voted for Hillary, right?

:D :D

Bill

He sounds like a Tom Dashel supporter to me. :p

I wonder how the Afghanis feel about going back to Taliban rule?
We should send Dashel over there and ask them himself. :D

wallie_x

03-19-2003, 01:13 PM

DASHEL IS A DIRT BAG!!
He is putting his political interests (wanting to ascend to the presidency) above the interests of our nation, and worse, above the best interests of those men and women serving in our armed forces. To blurt out such negative and divisive statements before an eminent war borders on treason. Why don't all you bleeding heart (and blind) leftists who put their political interests above those of our nation AND ESPECIALLY PUTTING YOUR AMORAL AGENDA ABOVE THE LIVES OF OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL:
GO TO HELL!!

Optimus Prime

03-19-2003, 01:16 PM

70,000 military personnell have joined forces with America and Britain, guess who they are?

Iraqi Kurds.

Destroy Saddam, he's a sly, sly guy, he should be tortured so badly, and his sons too :mad:.

Take him out.

Bill in SD, CA

03-19-2003, 01:24 PM

wallie-x,

It's not good to hold back on your feelings!! :t :t

Next time, let 'em have it!!

:r :r

Bill

MTAtech

03-19-2003, 01:30 PM

Just curious to know how old some of you are? The reason why I ask is that so many posts and replies are infantile and/or suggest lack of maturity.

Optimus Prime

03-19-2003, 01:41 PM

16, hope my posts weren't too immature.

bushmaster

03-19-2003, 01:45 PM

It's already started! The U.S. have already done some airstrikes today from the carriers in order to knock out some of the defenses the U.S. troops wiil encounter on the way in.

mcool61

03-19-2003, 01:50 PM

How old am I? your as young as you feel. Must be about 80.:(

bushmaster

03-19-2003, 01:58 PM

Iraqi soldiers are surrendering at the Kuwait border.

wallie_x

03-19-2003, 03:33 PM

DEATH TO SADDAM!!
DEATH TO USAMA BIN LADEN!!
And to all haters of freedom and goodness, an Islamic Blessing for an adversary:
May the smell of a thousand camel farts forever be in your nostrils :r :r

jmichna

03-19-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by MTAtech
Just curious to know how old some of you are? The reason why I ask is that so many posts and replies are infantile and/or suggest lack of maturity. I'll be 51 in July. How old are you?
jmichna

jmichna

03-19-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by MTAtech
I'm tired of the false analogy between Hitler and Saddam. Hitler was bent on world domination and built the strongest army in Europe.

Saddam has a weak military and is clearly not interested in taking over the world. Iraq has invaded two countries in the last 15 years, fewer than the U.S. had invaded in the same time period.

Bush kept claiming that Iraq had not complied with the UN resolution to disarm as a pretext for war. How would Iraq prove that, exactly? If they did disarm, how could they prove it? You can't prove a negative. If Bush knew, somehow, that they didn't disarm he must know where some WMD are. If so, why didn't he share that information with the inspectors who found nothing?

Moreover, not having war is not 'Appeasement.' The pro-war group likes to peg this into two simple options, war or do nothing. Those aren't the only options. 15 years ago, Lybia was to Reagan as Iraq is to Bush and Reagan demonized Qadafi the way Bush demonizes Saddam. 45 years ago, Eisenhower's arab menace was Nassar of Egypt.

Previous administrations successfully contained those countries without war - which incidentally, was considered in each case. There is no reason to believe the same policy wouldn't have worked here. Let's take a few things point by point:

1. "I'm tired of the false analogy between Hitler and Saddam. Hitler was bent on world domination and built the strongest army in Europe." - my analogy was between the behavior of these two men. Saddam has done exactly as Hitler did, albeit on a smaller scale. Fewer Kurds than Jews, as one example.

2. "Bush kept claiming that Iraq had not complied with the UN resolution to disarm as a pretext for war." - Not only Bush but the UN also saw Iraq as not complying, hence the escallation of sanctions over the years, the passing of the latest sanction last fall. The only difference is the UN, lead by Franco/Russian faction, doesn't wan't to enforce the latest sanction. The lack of compliance is not disputed. If the UN believed that Iraq had complied, why would they send in more UN inspectors, time and again?

3. "Saddam has a weak military and is clearly not interested in taking over the world. " - with today's weaponry, you don't need a large military to wreak devastating havoc and destruction on large numbers of peoples, even from remote locations. That is the purpose of biologiocal, chemical, nuclear/dirty nuclear WMDs. Saddam is intent on taking over indigenous peoples' historic lands within Iraq, and Kuwait. The difference here between Saddam and Hitler's aim is only in matters of scale.

4. "15 years ago, Lybia was to Reagan as Iraq is to Bush and Reagan demonized Qadafi the way Bush demonizes Saddam. " - a targeted US air strike attack of Mohamar Qadafi's family compound, with the resultant death of some family members, along with the threat of additional such attacks, resulted in Qadafi discontinuing his terrorist efforts. Little has been heard from him on the terrorist scene since he realized he was vulnerable, and the US meant to take action. And, you may recall, the French did not allow US aircraft engaged in this attack to fly over French airspace either outbound or upon mission return.

Bill in SD, CA

03-19-2003, 04:38 PM

51 here by the way.

3 hours and 20 minutes to go!

Beeblequix

03-19-2003, 05:41 PM

I'm going to have to handle this whole thread in one shot. Long *USA conservative* post warning.

Bill, I'm with you.

Leprechan, that's what we did at school during Cold War era nuclear bomb drills. Each time I kissed my @ss goodbye.

Swordfish, war is a viable solution. To quote myself, war has to be a solution so long as one side believes it is. This means that of 2 opposing sides, if one holds hands and wishes to be at peace, the only peace they'll have is their new dictator controlling their human rights. It cannot be understated the Sadaam Hussein over the course of the past two decades has proved unequivocally that he believes in war.

Jakk, you're suffering from color-coordinated shortsightedness. These gentlemen are far more informed than you or I. They're also willing to have their careers trampled upon by future liberal historians for the sake of doing the right thing. They're courageous, and the world's fortunate we have them.

jmichna, "Throwing money at despots has never worked long term. The price gets higher and higher." Well stated.

Jakk again, responding to jmichna, Similar things were said about a certain Mr Bin Laden also, neither materialised though
You've misstated those 'similar things'. We in the past few weeks have caught the mastermind behind 9/11,Khalid Sheik Mohammed. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,177472,00.html We're rounding them up. We're winning.

Billforce, good man. But you know, the Brits kicked some serious **** back then in the Falklands in '82. I to this day remember a Popular Mechanics mag cover showing the dowry of the British Navy. Your point, though, is well received here.

bushmaster, hehe. :cool:

cbh, Why are you people so engrossed in the Second Gulf War? We can't possibly declare war on Iraq for 'terrorist-related reasons'? A war at the Gulf region will increase the oil price and everybody will be affected. My country suffered the same fate when the First Gulf War erupted back in the 90's. I dun wan another ridiculous conflict to affect my country again.

You're ignoring practically everything relating to the use of force on the Iraqi regime. You're ignoring the original ceasefire. You're ignoring the replete history of Sadaam's untamed brutality and thirst for deitization. It's not like he's a simple politician, just wanting to hold hands with his collegues. He has no redeeming value. He has MURDERED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. He TORTURES his enemies. He throws their bodies in plastic recycling machines feet first so they suffer every milisecond until they expire. Hussein has no value for any life but his own. That characterises many people, but he's in a position of totalitarian rule. There are no citizens of Iraq, only slaves. He *HATES* the United States. He has no intention of altering his views. He's a theif and a liar. And pinkos all around the world would rather support HIM over US?!?!?

I'm sorry you had to pay more for oil. But I'm certain that had Iraq taken control as they intended of the Mid-East's oil, you'd be complaining to this day about those d0g cl@mn Mid Eastern thugs who drove prices far higher than today or even at the peak of GWI. And the millions of decent of Kuwaitis are far better off today by your sacrifice.

walliex, indeed.

mireland, show a bit more optimism. You sell us short.

more Jakk, The US state of the art war machine usually consists of carpet bombing everything and throwing lots and lots of footsoldiers at it
How can you make this statement? You're unjustly neglecting all our attack helicopters, stealth bombers, stealth fighters, oodles of tanks, our naval fleet, our best-of-the-best trained volunteer personell. Mostly, you're ignoring the thing that makes America so great -- we've got our American Spirit to drive us.

DocEvil, the only farce is pretending to peace while the world rests on the manipulative end of the dictator of Iraq.

MTAtech, puppet rulers are best likened to former Eastern Block countries. Remember the people behind the Iron Curtain had no real voice. They were controlled by a ******* government, not of the people, but of the rulers, solely for their personal quest for power. You can't look at it any other way. The good people of Iraq will finally be given the chance to express their views. You can't believe Hussein wasn't "elected " under diress. Their last "election" queried: Do you want Sadaam Hussein to be President? (Y/N) Why don't you liberalatzis try answering en masse under those conditions? How many of you do you think would be alive 1hour later? You people just don't get it. I'm so glad jmichna clarified your numbers.

Stopping, for now.

ßeeßle Qµ!x

Bigjakkstaffa

03-19-2003, 05:56 PM

the dictator of Iraq

Funny you should mention it, but under the terms of Democracy, is Tony Blair not as much of a dictator as anyone else. The fact that he has blatantly ignored the view of the british public whom HE is supposed to represent, and trotted off on his own agenda. As such he is openly flaunting his position as representative of the choice of the people. Although it will be said the commons vote yesterday put him in the right, in all likelyhood this is down to reprasentatives sticking to the party line and the tories votign for in the hope Blair will make a fool of himself. The people of Britain need not worry about dictatorial regiemes abroad, but should be more concerned about the budding dictator in our own halls of power.

If anything this has been my biggest gripe all along, Blair openly defying the ppl he is supposed to represent, coupled with concerns over long term impacts of a war and its effect on a British Army that in all honesty couldnt win a brawl in a bar and doubts over the so called 'justification' for conflict. At the heart of it though is my discontend with blair and the so-called 'labour party' with any luck he'll be out come next election. One things for certain if any door to door labour campaigners come to my door they'll be leaving with a boot up their **** and a stern talking too.

--Jakk:t

Bigjakkstaffa

03-19-2003, 06:02 PM

Having said this, now were there, lets all hope this goes quick and easily, which it should do, and that we dont end up hip deep in the brown stuff at home in terms of increased terrorist activity, the last thing anyone wants is another Israel situation, living in fear of suicide bombers walking into their local shopping precinct.

As for the British lads out there, good luck, your gonna need it given the equipment youve got :x

--Jakk:t

leprechaun_40

03-19-2003, 11:59 PM

Countdown hell, the bombing has begun, just hope they do the job this time

Beeblequix

03-20-2003, 06:33 PM

the dictator of Iraq

The differences between Prime Minister Blair and Saddam Hussein are vast. I'm surprized you even tried comparing them in the same light.

Blair was elected by the citizens of Great Britain.

Saddam brought himself to power in a bloody military coup. Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm

Afterward, think about your own government. You'll soon realize that despite shortsighted people's comprehension of this war, your Prime Minister is far from a dictator or a tyrant. Any slave in Iraq would be far better off living in Britain even if you tripled your society's problems. Blair is doing the right thing, and it's sedicious to undermine your State in wartime.

You have no idea how lucky you are, Jakk.

2penguins

03-20-2003, 11:59 PM

A true leader doesn't "follow" public opinion, he tries to shape it, and if he fails to change public opinion he sticks to his beliefs and "DEFYS PUBLIC OPNION". Blair, Bush & Howard have the marks of true leaders.

*just a note;
I was under the impression I was a bit old for this board...turns out I'm just a baby at 42 :)

iceblue

03-21-2003, 12:33 AM

and he's good at speeches (or have good speechwriters), unlike bush over there (i was hardly touched).:t

cbh

03-21-2003, 01:56 AM

Does we need the UN anymore? Or is it just an empty shell that is manipulated by the US and Britain? Now only France, Germany, Russia and China dares to challenge the US.

What about the other countries? To me personally, the small countries that 'flock' to the US side are just 'leeches'. Like Australia! Wherever the US does something, Britain and Australia sure supports it. 100 percent support! What's up, man? This is ridiculous!

Now the war is still on a dragging mode. When can it end swiftly? Drag.....

****! Luckily, my country does not support the US's 'bulldozing' ideology. We believe that the UN should authorize the attack and not the US. So are we living under the US control? Why can't the British and the Australians think for themselves? WHy must these politicians always support the US?

If the US wants to massacre the whole world, I think Britain will be the first to support it 'blindly'.

:mad:

gjimene2

03-21-2003, 02:02 AM

cbh, think about this.

If your country ever starts to go into poverty, who will be there for you? US.

Who will be there to defent your **** when you get into trouble?

US.

Who will be there with open arms to give you a home? US.

And where can you get the most freedom from? US.

You can do just about anything here, and practice any religeon you want, no matter how silly it is.

You can clearly see where I am from by looking underneath my avatar, and I will be the first to tell you that I will not move out of this country for the world.

And what other country will be like a Father to another country? The US will spank another country and then comfort it.

We can totaly destroy another contry and then fork over some $$$ to let them rebuild themselves, even if they will back-stabb us.

You got to admit, it doesn't get any better than to live with the freedom and rights that we have in the USA.

It can't get any better thant his.

iceblue

03-21-2003, 04:24 AM

and ive never heard Singapore participate or help out in any major war.

cbh

03-21-2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by gjimene2
cbh, think about this.

If your country ever starts to go into poverty, who will be there for you? US.

Who will be there to defent your **** when you get into trouble?

US.

Who will be there with open arms to give you a home? US.

And where can you get the most freedom from? US.

You can do just about anything here, and practice any religeon you want, no matter how silly it is.

You can clearly see where I am from by looking underneath my avatar, and I will be the first to tell you that I will not move out of this country for the world.

And what other country will be like a Father to another country? The US will spank another country and then comfort it.

We can totaly destroy another contry and then fork over some $$$ to let them rebuild themselves, even if they will back-stabb us.

You got to admit, it doesn't get any better than to live with the freedom and rights that we have in the USA.

It can't get any better thant his.

Let me tell you this.

My aunt migrated to New Jersey many years ago. She is still working as a post office personnel. She complains that she and her husband are often despised by the American people because they are Chinese. Just imagine that you migrate to a 'freedom'-based country and gets humiliated by your countrymen. My aunt even says that her workplace is filled with a lot of racist bastards. They often accuse the migrants of stealing their jobs.

If this is your so-called 'freedom' and 'democratic' society, I can say that I will never live there. I'm proud to be a Singaporean Chinese so I will not live in a place where the people hate foreign immigrants. 'Whites are always superior than other races'

:t

cbh

03-21-2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by iceblue
and ive never heard Singapore participate or help out in any major war.

Yes! We never participate in any major wars but we contribute something to the UN peacekeeping effort. Like positioning police officers at the Kuwaiti border and SAF troops in East Timor. You can check out our SAF home page and you'll see that we always participate in UN peacekeeping operations. Our country is small and fragile. Thus, we can't afford to send troops to fight a war and our people are against wars.

Can a war resolve a problem 'permanently'? If can, I can tell you that our planet will be destroyed tomorrow.

Our history taught us that we can't always depend on a foreign power to protect us. Remember WW2? The damned British troops abandoned Sinagpore during the Japanese invasion. Our country was conquered for 2 years and eight months. Countless people were slaughtered mercilessly because they were believed to be British supporters.

After our independence, we request military assistance from Malaysia and Israel. Thus, our SAF was created to defend the island-state from external threats. The SAF is used solely for self-defense and our air force is thinking of purchasing Europe-made aircraft. I dunno the reason but the air force has stopped buying military equipment from the US.

Our submarines are bought from Sweden and we make friends with a lot of countries. We don't just rely on one 'superpower'. In the end, one country needs a lot of different allies to survive in this forsaken world. If the US continues to has its way, many countries will desert it in the near future.

NATO!! It's becoming obselete and useless. Now the EU is planning to mobilize its own military forces. The era of depending the US is finally over for the Europeans. Sooner or later, Europe will not need the US to defend its border. And for China!! It'll overwhelm the US and Japan economcially in the near future. Tat's why my country is investing heavily in China market. Many of our talented businessmen are making profits in that country. Even your McDonald and KFC!!

:t

2penguins

03-21-2003, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by cbh
Does we need the UN anymore? Or is it just an empty shell that is manipulated by the US and Britain? Now only France, Germany, Russia and China dares to challenge the US

My Opinion? Nope, for reasons already stated in this thread. No reason to rehash something you would refuse to accept.

What about the other countries? To me personally, the small countries that 'flock' to the US side are just 'leeches'. Like Australia! Wherever the US does something, Britain and Australia sure supports it. 100 percent support! What's up, man? This is ridiculous!

Australia has the right to side with whoever they want, so does the UK. And as an American living in Australia I'm very happy to have Australian support.

****! Luckily, my country does not support the US's 'bulldozing' ideology. We believe that the UN should authorize the attack and not the US. So are we living under the US control? Why can't the British and the Australians think for themselves? WHy must these politicians always support the US?

Bulldozing? We were attacked by a group that is supported by many people in your country. Has Malaysia done anything except offer lip service to stop these thugs? No...Now the US has the opportunity to stop another thug who promotes attacks on the US and that's what they are doing.

If the US wants to massacre the whole world, I think Britain will be the first to support it 'blindly'.

That statement just shows your ignorance. If you want to talk about massacre well let's talk about the people who have been killed by radical Muslem fundamatalist who are supported by one hell of alot of Malaysians!
:mad:

Why don't you go form yor own opinions about what is happening and stop parroting all of this Anti-American **** you've been hearing.:mad:

cbh

03-21-2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by 2penguins

My Opinion? Nope, for reasons already stated in this thread. No reason to rehash something you would refuse to accept.

[/B]

Australia has the right to side with whoever they want, so does the UK. And as an American living in Australia I'm very happy to have Australian support.

[/B]

Bulldozing? We were attacked by a group that is supported by many people in your country. Has Malaysia done anything except offer lip service to stop these thugs? No...Now the US has the opportunity to stop another thug who promotes attacks on the US and that's what they are doing.

[/B]

That statement just shows your ignorance. If you want to talk about massacre well let's talk about the people who have been killed by radical Muslem fundamatalist who are supported by one hell of alot of Malaysians!
:mad:

Why don't you go form yor own opinions about what is happening and stop parroting all of this Anti-American **** you've been hearing.:mad: [/B]

For your stupid reference, I'm from SINGAPORE. NOT MALAYSIA!! Read the country name below my avatar. Cock-eye!

This island-state is filled with Chinese, Indians, Malays and Eurasians. Multiracial society! Ok?

If you hate multiracialism, you can just ignore this thread. Ok? Read carefully before you make a comment. 'Ensure and don't assume'!! Malaysia and Singapore are not close friends! They have the rights to protest because their religion was 'threatened'.

If someone attacks the Vatican City, will you be angry even though you're an American and not an Italian?

:mad:

2penguins

03-21-2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by cbh

Our history taught us that we can't always depend on a foreign power to protect us. Remember WW2? The damned British troops abandoned Sinagpore during the Japanese invasion. Our country was conquered for 2 years and eight months. Countless people were slaughtered mercilessly because they were believed to be British supporters.

Another ignorant post....
Brittain couldn't even defend itself from the Nazis. How were they supposed to defend Singapore??? They were on the verge of being invaded so they pulled every resource they had back to defend themselves. How in the hell can you fault them for that???

If I remember correctly it was US & AUSTRALIAN forces who beat back the Japanese... You know, the ones who about to massacre the world....

Jeez....:rolleyes:

2penguins

03-21-2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by cbh

For your stupid reference, I'm from SINGAPORE. NOT MALAYSIA!! Read the country name below my avatar. Cock-eye!

This island-state is filled with Chinese, Indians, Malays and Eurasians. Multiracial society! Ok?

If you hate multiracialism, you can just ignore this thread. Ok? Read carefully before you make a comment. 'Ensure and don't assume'!! Malaysia and Singapore are not close friends! They have the rights to protest because their religion was 'threatened'.

If someone attacks the Vatican City, will you be angry even though you're an American and not an Italian?

:mad:

Well pardon me...Singapore-Malaysia, what's the difference....

You explain who and how their religion was threatened...

If someone attcked the vatican??? I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

If you are refering to Iraq as some sort of Holy place then maybe you and some of your Islamic buddies better tell that tin despot to get the hell out.

How the hell do you know I'm not Italian??? I could be Chinese myself, What if I told you I had an ethnic background...I do.:rolleyes:

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 05:56 AM

A true leader doesn't "follow" public opinion,

But isnt that what dictators also do by their definition?

Its not fair to say Blair is a black and white dictator, but on the issue of Iraq he is dictating his own agenda to the people who are against it, regardles sof their will

--Jakk:t

2penguins

03-21-2003, 06:04 AM

Blair is there to do what you elected him to do, lead. His job is to make decisions that most likely most people won't like. When elections roll around he knows he will have to bear what he has done, if you don't like him, you can boot him out. Try that with Hussein...

Mate, that's how representative Democracys work.

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 06:30 AM

The sad ything is that Tony Blair would be out on his dish in no time if we actually had any decent opposition partys. Could you imagine the face that would be IDS as OM :eek:

If only the backbenchers and Robin Cook would make some sort of leadership challenge

--Jakk:t

2penguins

03-21-2003, 06:43 AM

Jakk,

Remember a bloke named Neville(sp?) Chamberlain?
He did the popular thing...he struck a deal with Hitler...remember how that turned out?

Don't use the quality of candidates excuse. It's a cop-out.
Blair is doing what he thinks is in the best intrest of your nation. I happen to agree with him.
At least give him credit for having the stones to stand up for what he really believes. He's going to take a real hit for this and he knows it, that's the diference between a leader and a common polly.

cheers

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 07:02 AM

Hitler and Hussein are two entirely different kettles of fish. Hitler had amassed a STATE OF THE ART military with the sole purpose of fulfilling the lebensraum policy and conquerign the continent of Europe into the bag, Hitler was not provoked into action, it was he who initiated the actions. Hitler also slaughtered millions of Jews

Saddam Hussein is fighting with an obsolete arsenal, supplied to him by those 'shining examples of peace and justice' the US, they knew what sort of person he was, what the hell did they even give them to him in the first place :eek:

Saddam has no realistic chances of posing a threat to nations other than those in immediate proximity and certainly has no ability to conquer the continent and launch ranged attacks at the western world.

Saddam has been provoked by the action of the US and GB into fighting back, it is possible that had we not provoked him we would never have seen his 'WMD's ever, this is only a possibility of course, btu now we know for certain we will see the loss of life at his hands when by lettign the situation be solved diplomatically Saddam would not have had the opportunity to kill ANYONE through the medium of his army

Finally Saddam seems geared toward the extermination of the Kurds, similar to Hitler with the Jews. However had the US+Uk actually managed to be a bit more supportive in the past of the Kurdish we could have seen this number greatly reduced, one example being the kurdish uprising we promised to support and which we then turned away from and left the kurds with their arses swinging in the breeze at which Saddam said thank you very much and had em all slaughtered.

Saddam is not a nice chappie, the world would be a much better place without him, however this should have been dealt with 15 years ago and if not then it could have easily been one covertly up until recently. But war is good for the opinion polls and industry and GWB seems to be lapping it up, on the other hand tony blair looks a tired shell of a man and is taking a **** good kicking.

I am not a hippie, i am not a peace lover, i am keen on military history, guns and warplanes, i am not your typical 'pacifist' and have always maintained that if a real war kicked off and i got the opportunity to volunteer for my country i would. This war is however the only oen in my lifetime i have ever been opposed to based around the fact that this could have been done so much easier so long ago and the consequences of this war could be much graver than the possible threat of Saddam having WMD's. Im also qute worried about the way america seems to be ridign around as the 'police of the free world' trying to kic everyones **** and where that may lead to in the future, but i dont disagree with their asessment of Saddam as a threat, but this threat has been present for twenty years now, and something should and could have been done long ago and that would not have affected the lives of the innocent civilians and indeed soldiers out there who are fighting for a cause, that at least in the Gb army, many of them do not believe in.

--Jakk:t

2penguins

03-21-2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Hitler and Hussein are two entirely different kettles of fish. Hitler had amassed a STATE OF THE ART military with the sole purpose of fulfilling the lebensraum policy and conquerign the continent of Europe into the bag, Hitler was not provoked into action, it was he who initiated the actions. Hitler also slaughtered millions of Jews

That isn't what I said, I was pointing out the dangers of populism.

Saddam Hussein is fighting with an obsolete arsenal, supplied to him by those 'shining examples of peace and justice' the US, they knew what sort of person he was, what the hell did they even give them to him in the first place :eek:

If I'm not mistaken Iraq used Soviet & Chinese weapons...The French set up a nuclear facility in Iraq that gave them the ability to start their own nuclear fission weapons program(I know, the Isrealis bombed the hell out of it).

US interest was pretty limited to countering Iran. All the BS about the US giving Hussein Biological & Chemical weapons is just that, BS.

Saddam has no realistic chances of posing a threat to nations other than those in immediate proximity and certainly has no ability to conquer the continent and launch ranged attacks at the western world.

That sort of thinking changed when the Trade Towers came down... You don't need an ICBM to launch an attack on the other side of the globe.

Finally Saddam seems geared toward the extermination of the Kurds, similar to Hitler with the Jews. However had the US+Uk actually managed to be a bit more supportive in the past of the Kurdish we could have seen this number greatly reduced, one example being the kurdish uprising we promised to support and which we then turned away from and left the kurds with their arses swinging in the breeze at which Saddam said thank you very much and had em all slaughtered.

The US had a very clear mandate from the UN, liberate Kuait . The US wasn't allowed to invade Iraq. George Bush promised he would abide by the UN and he did, you can't bash the US for that.

As far as the Kurds, the US had hoped Husseins own military would topple him, but it didn't happen. Alot of things happen during a war, unforunetly the Kurds did cop it, but the US didn't leave them with their arses hanging in the breeze. The US setup in northern Iraq and stopped the army. The kurds are still there and they still have the protection of the US military.

Saddam is not a nice chappie, the world would be a much better place without him, however this should have been dealt with 15 years ago and if not then it could have easily been one covertly up until recently. But war is good for the opinion polls and industry and GWB seems to be lapping it up, on the other hand tony blair looks a tired shell of a man and is taking a **** good kicking.

Have you been paying attention to the polls or are you just parroting too...

Bush's aproval rating has dropped because of this, he still has a very high aproval rating but it has dropped.

As far as war being good for industry...jeez. Have you seen where the US economy has been because of this mess?
It's going to cost the US a fortune. It's going to take the US economy awhile to get over this.

Im also qute worried about the way america seems to be ridign around as the 'police of the free world' trying to kic everyones **** and where that may lead to in the future, but i dont disagree with their asessment of Saddam as a threat, but this threat has been present for twenty years now, and something should and could have been done long ago and that would not have affected the lives of the innocent civilians and indeed soldiers out there who are fighting for a cause, that at least in the Gb army, many of them do not believe in.

--Jakk:t

This thing about the US as the Police of the free world...

Somebody had to stand up ...Europe sure wouldn't.

The US has been working on this since 91, they didn't just decide overnight " hey, let's go kick somebodys ****"

sorry for the (sp) errors...I'm too bloody tired to fix 'em :))-|

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 07:58 AM

http://www.rense.com/general29/chenam.htm

All the BS about the US giving Hussein Biological & Chemical weapons is just that, BS.

I would quote some evidence against that stament but theres too much. Look at the upper section of the posted link above.

--Jakk:t

Spardan

03-21-2003, 08:54 AM

and how about the training Saddam got off the US...?:D

bushmaster

03-21-2003, 09:51 AM

Meanwhile on the other side of that landmass we are building up troops and playing wargames to ready ourselves for the next "humanitarian effort". Anybody wanna guess where ?.

Bill in SD, CA

03-21-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by bushmaster
Meanwhile on the other side of that landmass we are building up troops and playing wargames to ready ourselves for the next "humanitarian effort". Anybody wanna guess where ?.

Someone is going to be in "deep Kim Chee."

B-52s on their way to Baghdad acording to FOX.

Bill

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 11:22 AM

Under the geneva protocols British troop swont be allowed to have any part in indisciminate carpet bombing such as the B52's are used for, thank god, wouldnt liek to have all that innocent blood on our hands, if this is gonna turn into another 'Linebacker' campaign

--Jakk:t

Optimus Prime

03-21-2003, 01:10 PM

They have just bombed Baghdad... They have just killed innocent civilians.

You use bombs against soldiers, not against civilians, i cannot believe your soldiers did this.

My hate for the tactics of the US Army is so much at the point.

germanjulian

03-21-2003, 01:17 PM

UUUhhhhh uhhhhhhhh we are chickens we only attack people with no weapons of mass destruction. Israel is in 75 EU violations and Iraq is under 40 violations, but Israel has nukes so lets not start a war on them.........

look what they do (something you wont really find on US news)

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml

Bill in SD, CA

03-21-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
They have just bombed Baghdad... They have just killed innocent civilians.

You use bombs against soldiers, not against civilians, i cannot believe your soldiers did this.

My hate for the tactics of the US Army is so much at the point.

How do you figure?

Saddam had the chance to remain an A-hole and still keep on killing innocents but he refused the chance. So if a few hundred civilians die and 10's of thousands will live that otherwise would have been tortured and executed by this A$$wipe then that's just karma!

Bill

BadBadNeil

03-21-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
They have just bombed Baghdad... They have just killed innocent civilians.

You use bombs against soldiers, not against civilians, i cannot believe your soldiers did this.

My hate for the tactics of the US Army is so much at the point.

Do you only complain when the US kills an innocent person or do you also complain when Saddam kills and tortures innocents? Everyone makes such a big deal when the US kills a person accidently but no one says a word when a dictators mutilates and kills people on purpose. I dont get it.

SlightlyDementd

03-21-2003, 02:59 PM

Budweiser Beer, Pretzels, and Cable TV...
This is better than the SuperBowl!

P.S. Who's got the potato salad?

-SD-:r :r :r

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

bushmaster

03-21-2003, 04:15 PM

They have just bombed Baghdad... They have just killed innocent civilians Oh so launching missles into Kuwait city is fine and peachy, nobody innocent there.
I guess it's just a wee oopsy when thousands of women, children, and men are gassed in the small towns to the north.
I can't wait for the day when I hear the loud popping sound around the world when the all the tree huggers of the world collectively pull their heads out of their ****'s.

Why don't you pay attention and observe where most of the bombs are falling.
Saddam Hussein has killed far more of his own Iraqi people since he's been in power than our bombs will during this liberation of Iraq and it's people.

Optimus Prime

03-21-2003, 04:50 PM

Are you people absolute idiots? Saddam is an evil and vicious man, America and Britain say "we'll kill Saddam, and try to keep civilian casualties to the minimum".

I AM FOR THIS WAR, BUT DROPPING SUPER BOMBS ON BAGHDAD, IS NOT GOOD.

So, to keep casualties to the minimum, they drop bombs on Baghdad.

Great.

WTF has this got to do with anything:

" Saddam Hussein has killed far more of his own Iraqi people since he's been in power than our bombs will during this liberation of Iraq and it's people."

SO THAT MEANS ITS OK FOR US TO BOMB IRAQI CIVILIANS TOO!?

Im all for liberating Iraq from the terror that Saddam has done, but using B-52 warplanes on Baghdad, I saw the carnage wrought... if there isn't a single civilian casualty, then fine, but from where i saw the cameras, it was dropping on buildings, badstyle.

You know what Bushmaster, i can't wait for the day you ****ing ignorant people get it through your skulls that two wrongs DO NOT make a right.

:mad:

And i also agree that Saddam is such a prick, if he had been killed so much earlier, none of this terrible "strike and awe" **** would be going on.

On a lighter note, how long do you think it will take to take Bashra? If it's not already been taken.

KenKeith

03-21-2003, 04:52 PM

Personally, I would have been adamently against an attack or incursion on any country, but the 9/11 terrorist act on USA soil turned me into a fully fledged hawk and one begins to weigh the options based on a risk/benefit analysis. The govt. with their intell data and good judgment (requires some trust) are in the best position to make the correct decision. The primary govt. duty is protection of the people and it has highest priority and that is the motivation. The USA can buy oil, and it is ridiculous to believe this country has colonist intentions to profit off the backs of any foreign country.

From my understaning, the war on terrorism includes any country who harbors, sanctions, supports, provides financial aid and training is as guilty as the active terrorist. Iraq fulfills that criteria. The war is justified, and France should be ashamed and vilified for their nonsupport of a cause to liberate Iraq.

Optimus Prime

03-21-2003, 04:58 PM

If the coalition forces find Biological weapons in Iraq, then France should be kicked out of the EU and/or NATO.

cateyes81

03-21-2003, 05:03 PM

As far as Tom Dashel is concerned, ask him if he remembers the Vietnam War and his congressional counterparts. SCREW Dashel.

If they don't have the stomach to make the hard choices, they shouldn't be in office. Any anyone who doesn't back our President in a time of WAR, well maybe they should think again about just how many AMERICANS lost their lives during 9/11. They too didn't ask for their lives to be taken away, leaving their husbands, wives and children to sit at home alone, some struggling just to make it to the next day.

In my book... THE AMERICAN BALD EAGLE STANDS FOR OUR AMERICAN PRIDE AND OUR AMERICAN FLAG STANDS FOR ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL....JUSTICE FOR ALL NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE...PAYBACKS ARE HELL......................I too believe in peace, but how many times do we have to turn the other cheek?

My dad was in the 1st division infintry during WWII. He served his country in the name of Peace and Freedom. He fought and lived his life as a proud American and I know that if he were alive today, he would do it again. So back to the subject of Tom Dashel and all those like him, we Americans are behind our President. We all may not believe in or like the idea of WAR, but we still stand beside him and ARE willing go the distance.

jmichna

03-21-2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
I AM FOR THIS WAR, BUT DROPPING SUPER BOMBS ON BAGHDAD, IS NOT GOOD.

SO THAT MEANS ITS OK FOR US TO BOMB IRAQI CIVILIANS TOO!?Optimus Prime ,
How about before making these statements, we see what actually was used on Bagdad, and what the results really are?

News reports in the US seem to show that - despite all the flashes and explosions - the ordnance used was precisely targeted, and aimed at very specific targets, primarily the Baath HQ and Hussien's Bagdad Palace, plus communications and command posts. There was no dropping of "SUPER BOMBS" unless by that you mean those highly accurate devices that hit specific targets.

Regarding "BOMBING OF IRAQI CIVILIANS" ... I'm certain our joint military (US & UK) are quite sensitive to causing collateral damage, and are doing everything possible to avoid these civilian casualties.

I can't think of any better reason for having so many newcasters/reporters present in both Bagdad and "inserted" with the US/UK forces. Having said this, I'm certain that there will be civilians killed, in large part because Saddam has insisted on using the presence of civilians surrounding legitimate military tagets as policy. If he doesn't hold the safety of his nation's civilian population as of primary importance, then these people are going to - unfortunately - get hurt.

Bigjakkstaffa

03-21-2003, 05:48 PM

My hate for the tactics of the US Army is so much at the point

Thats odd, you used the plural 'tactics', from what i know of the US army then only have one tactic, carpet bomb everything.. :p;)

--Jakk:t

jmichna

03-21-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
If the coalition forces find Biological weapons in Iraq, then France should be kicked out of the EU and/or NATO. Just an FYI,
During Friday's activities, the Kuwaitis have already shot down six SCUD missiles that Hussien/Iraq "did not have." I don't think the UN inspectors found these, either. :eek:

gjimene2

03-21-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by cbh

Let me tell you this.

My aunt migrated to New Jersey many years ago. She is still working as a post office personnel. She complains that she and her husband are often despised by the American people because they are Chinese. Just imagine that you migrate to a 'freedom'-based country and gets humiliated by your countrymen. My aunt even says that her workplace is filled with a lot of racist bastards. They often accuse the migrants of stealing their jobs.

If this is your so-called 'freedom' and 'democratic' society, I can say that I will never live there. I'm proud to be a Singaporean Chinese so I will not live in a place where the people hate foreign immigrants. 'Whites are always superior than other races'

:t

I know what it feels to be put down for your race, and frankly I don't care. Everyone here who's seen my picture knows I'm not white. This country is full of freedom. Your aunt could sue for what she's going through.

And if no one like this country who reside here is "free" to get the hell out.

jmichna

03-21-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa

Thats odd, you used the plural 'tactics', from what i know of the US army then only have one tactic, carpet bomb everything.. :p;)

--Jakk:t Sorry,
I don't think the '91 Persion Gulf war supports that position, and the current attack on Bagdad doesn't support that assertion either. No carpet bombing has taken place. If you have evidence otherwise, please post your source(s).

Also, the "US army" would have a tough time dropping bombs.

gjimene2

03-21-2003, 05:56 PM

I can't wait for the day when I hear the loud popping sound around the world when the all the tree huggers of the world collectively pull their heads out of their ****'s.

ROFLMAO:D

SO THAT MEANS ITS OK FOR US TO BOMB IRAQI CIVILIANS TOO!?

Hey, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Just look at the diaperheads next door from Saddam.

You know what Bushmaster, i can't wait for the day you ****ing ignorant people get it through your skulls that two wrongs DO NOT make a right.

Hey, we have the belt, and it's was time for Saddam to get a spanking along with his people who follow him.

Just an FYI, During Friday's activities, the Kuwaitis have already shot down six SCUD missiles that Hussien/Iraq "did not have." I don't think the UN inspectors found these, either.:eek:

Yea, they "did not have them" but that's why we have 250,000 inspectors inspecting the joint.

BadBadNeil

03-21-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
Are you people absolute idiots? Saddam is an evil and vicious man, America and Britain say "we'll kill Saddam, and try to keep civilian casualties to the minimum".

I AM FOR THIS WAR, BUT DROPPING SUPER BOMBS ON BAGHDAD, IS NOT GOOD.

So, to keep casualties to the minimum, they drop bombs on Baghdad.

Great.

WTF has this got to do with anything:

" Saddam Hussein has killed far more of his own Iraqi people since he's been in power than our bombs will during this liberation of Iraq and it's people."

SO THAT MEANS ITS OK FOR US TO BOMB IRAQI CIVILIANS TOO!?

Im all for liberating Iraq from the terror that Saddam has done, but using B-52 warplanes on Baghdad, I saw the carnage wrought... if there isn't a single civilian casualty, then fine, but from where i saw the cameras, it was dropping on buildings, badstyle.

You know what Bushmaster, i can't wait for the day you ****ing ignorant people get it through your skulls that two wrongs DO NOT make a right.

:mad:

And i also agree that Saddam is such a prick, if he had been killed so much earlier, none of this terrible "strike and awe" **** would be going on.

On a lighter note, how long do you think it will take to take Bashra? If it's not already been taken.

go back in the street with your ****ing picket sign. No matter how much we say your just like the others. You'll never get it.

bushmaster

03-21-2003, 07:15 PM

If in fact you carefully watched the actual bombing you would have seen that they were not carpet bombing baghdad. Rather they were precisely dropping the bomb's first on the building's (govt., admin, and the presidential palaces) and then dropping bunker busters in the exact same spot to get the bunkers built way under those buildings. Many of the explosions you won't even see because they happen deep under the buildings.
The U.S. intelligence teams arent exactly in the dark as to how the underground facilities are built and where most of them are placed.
The U.S. is not about to go and kill large numbers of civilians as the resulting backlash isnt something they are looking for. In any war there is going to be collateral damage thats simply unavoidable. Your own people are in on this. Don't even try to put it all on the shoulders of the "ugly Americans". The U.S. was not the only country thats played footsie with Saddam in the past. Do some reading before you make broad statements.

P.S. What superbombs are you talking about ?. Fuel cell bombs or moabs (mother. of. all. bombs.) would have taken out about ten square blocks at a time not single buildings.

Oh! by the way I'm still on the edge of my seat listening for that "POP"

cbh

03-21-2003, 08:05 PM

Currently, 2 US marines had died during the attack.

I hope we can end the war as soon as possible.

KenKeith

03-21-2003, 10:03 PM

The goal is to oust Iraq's regime and reconstruct so collateral damage would be counter productive to the cause. The bombing is so precise the utility for electricity continues to function and all precautions are taken to maintain the infrastructure. It is the government facilities that is the target.

It is in the best interest of the coalition to keep civilian casualties at a minimum so as not to instill in the population deep feelings of resentment and a wish for revenge. The goal would be working successfully with the population in a post-war Iraq. That is what is going to present the biggest problem, and the co-operation of the people will be a challenge.

iceblue

03-21-2003, 10:17 PM

you peace activists are so irrational :rolleyes:

2penguins

03-21-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by iceblue
you peace activists are so irrational :rolleyes:

No Mate, it's all about idealogy. This has been turned into a battle between the Left and the Right....

If this had happened while Clinton was still President you wouldn't be seeing this sort of resistance to military intervention.
You would be hearing the Right claiming Clinton was using this to divert attention from his involvment in something or other...and it would most likely be true....

gjimene2

03-22-2003, 03:29 AM

hey Bushmaster, do you think that it will be a large pop like when you pop open a champaign bottle, or a bunch of pops like when you squeeze bubble wrap? :D

still laughing my @$$ off at that one, LOL.

Optimus Prime

03-22-2003, 04:41 AM

Jmincha, since you are the only person to answer my post with respect, and without flaming me, then ill only answer yours:

Optimus Prime ,
How about before making these statements, we see what actually was used on Bagdad, and what the results really are?

Yeah, like i said in my post before, if i'm wrong, then i'm wrong, but from the cameras i saw, the city was being wasted. If only Govt, Military and Palaces were hit then that's OK, but from what i saw, those tactical bombs looked like they were just dropping bombs in random places hoping to get lucky.

News reports in the US seem to show that - despite all the flashes and explosions - the ordnance used was precisely targeted, and aimed at very specific targets, primarily the Baath HQ and Hussien's Bagdad Palace, plus communications and command posts. There was no dropping of "SUPER BOMBS" unless by that you mean those highly accurate devices that hit specific targets.

Yeah, i posted this as soon as the bombs hit Baghdad, so i didn't really get any news info. And by Super Bombs i mean the MOAD. I was told that only them and other powerful bombs make mushroom clouds... and those bombs were making mushroom clouds (yes, small ones i know)

Regarding "BOMBING OF IRAQI CIVILIANS" ... I'm certain our joint military (US & UK) are quite sensitive to causing collateral damage, and are doing everything possible to avoid these civilian casualties.

Yeah, i know, that's why i thought this war would be good, no innocent civilians killed and what not. But then they take 14 B-52's over Baghdad and bomb it... in my eyes it was horrific.

I can't think of any better reason for having so many newcasters/reporters present in both Bagdad and "inserted" with the US/UK forces. Having said this, I'm certain that there will be civilians killed, in large part because Saddam has insisted on using the presence of civilians surrounding legitimate military tagets as policy. If he doesn't hold the safety of his nation's civilian population as of primary importance, then these people are going to - unfortunately - get hurt.

Yes, i know, that's why i said Saddam is a prick, if he didnt have those buildings there then we would be OK, bubt he has to place them in cities near public buildings... really pissed me off.

Thanks again for your mature post Jmincha.

Oh, and for the others that say i'm a peace activist. Yes, i am... everybody SHOULD be, peace is what YOUR country, and MY country strive for. If this means going to war (Peace Making) then fine. As i said before, i was for this... but when they dropped bombs on a city it was annoying to me.

Oh and what pop are you listening for?

Originally posted by Bushmaster
POP

Looks like you were the first to do it. Good on you.

Bigjakkstaffa

03-22-2003, 05:37 AM

Given the fact that these munitions have a 10% mechanical failure rate resulting in innacurate deployment and werte dropping about 1500 ATM, thats 150 VERY POWERFUL weapons going astray.. thats got to account for a lot of dead/wounded civvies methinks

--Jakk:t

$1500-P4 gamer

03-22-2003, 06:25 AM

"10% mechanical failure rate"
Wheres the proof of that. I mean last war in the gulf we had 1/10th electronic driven weapons. THis time round we got 9/10ths. Hmmm the other end of the spectrum dontcha think. Obviously failure rates are gonna be lower and theres tons les mechanical things to go wrong now aswell. Still soem out dated equip. out there but hey why send in a tank where a psitol will due-just for the impresion? We can effectivly fight in the night or in a sand storm with no visual with these new weapons. This is new tech-new type of war. A more precise war. With smaller target areas and more narrowed objectives rather than just Bombing the he!! outta the place like in WWII (Germany anyone?). Comunicaton has advanced by light years especially in battle field scnearios. As in the desert-no prob talking back to the US. Not posible not to long ago. This helps for saving lives due to miscomunication and etc. Im no big suporter of war. Im more a peace-type guy. But this war is gonna happen-no matter what we think as a nation or a world. Opinions have been laid out-people are mad-"leaders are mad" heads will roll. That will never change. Its like the real people behind these countries never get to show their true opinions/or make the choices and etc. But are generalised by their current leaders dicatatorship. This shouldnt be the case. If this ONE thing could change alot of wars would be eliminated. But alas it will not.:(

jmichna

03-22-2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Given the fact that these munitions have a 10% mechanical failure rate resulting in innacurate deployment and werte dropping about 1500 ATM, thats 150 VERY POWERFUL weapons going astray.. thats got to account for a lot of dead/wounded civvies methinks

--Jakk:t That was 1500 ordnance over all targets, not just Bagdhad. Vast majority were military command/control/communications targets. Most of those targets were not cities. You'll notice that Bagdhad still has television, electricity and water. These were purposely not targeted, and despite all the "fireworks" we saw, they were not hit.

Also, please quote sources for the "...10% mechanical failure rate...." figure you are using.

jmichna

03-22-2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
... And by Super Bombs i mean the MOAD. I was told that only them and other powerful bombs make mushroom clouds... and those bombs were making mushroom clouds (yes, small ones i know)

Yeah, i know, that's why i thought this war would be good, no innocent civilians killed and what not. But then they take 14 B-52's over Baghdad and bomb it... in my eyes it was horrific.

in cities near public buildings... really pissed me off.

Thanks again for your mature post Jmincha.

...If this means going to war (Peace Making) then fine. As i said before, i was for this... but when they dropped bombs on a city it was annoying to me.Optimus Prime...

By now, you probably know that all sizes of ordnance can make a "mushroom" cloud. Hell, we had a chemical fire near where I work about 25 years ago, and I can still recall seeing mushroom clouds rise up as 55gal drums of flammable solvents would heat to the point that they'd detonate.

Specific to what we saw on the bombing in Bagdhad, my guess would be that a lot of those "mushrooms" we saw were probably the result of secondary detonations of Iraqi ordnance going off within the targets that got hit.

A number of folks in this thread had made reference to B-52s and seem to only associate them with "carpet bombing," or indiscriminate/inaccurate mass bombings. Yeah, maybe 30 years ago in Viet Nam... and they could carry the same style payloads today, BUT today they are being used to drop smart weapons (satellite guided bombs).

"...If this means going to war (Peace Making) then fine. As i said before, i was for this... " - absolutely agree with you. There is a world of difference between wearing a protester button that says "No War" vs one that says "Peace." The first is "Pollyanna Thinking," the second can be realistic.

Peace is not a Strategy... Peace is a Goal.

Finally, please... it isn't "Jmincha" ;)

bushmaster

03-22-2003, 07:34 AM

And on a personal note I'm not a war monger. Even though I served in the military as a volunteer when I was younger, today I'm a single father that has a 7 year old daughter that I waould like to see grow up in a world thats not full of fear and hate, or at least get the chance to grow up.
As for Iraq, it out and out sucks that any blood need be spilled because of the mess that both the corrupt American govt. and a great deal of other corrupt govt's. have contributed to.
Saddam wouldn't have WMD's if other countries hadnt sold and exchanged them for $$$ and oil futures because their greed outweighed their morality and sense of humanity.
I believe it was a fictional character named Spock that said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Saddam was continuing his efforts to build WMD's that he couldnt purchase and it was only a matter of time before he became nuclear capable or mutated a super virus and "accidentally" let it get out of control.
But there is greater deception afoot than any would ever want to believe. Because allthough Saddam needed to be stopped, this action in Iraq serves another purpose. And that is to poke a stick at the sleeping bears across the globe. The U.S. has elevated it's "war games" hoping that between the action in Iraq and the buildup across the continent would elicit a hostile action from N.Korea so that we can"re-act" to any aggression.
When I said in an earlier post that a $hitstorm was about to begin I was speaking of the broader picture and not just of Iraq. Iraq is nothing more than a wargame and a rallying of the troops.
It serves to form a coalition of militaries from other nations and to now have seasoned soldiers that will be gung-ho with the adrenaline of victory running through their veins as opposed to scared kids facing their 1st war with a possible super-power.
Then since we have control of the Iraqi oil everyone will figure it's ok to use some of it to help out the people that just liberated us in their ongoing efforts to "make the planet a better place".
American politicians are the used car salesmen to the world.
Would you buy a used car from this man ?.

ESHAW

03-22-2003, 09:11 AM

:D I for one am glad the U.S. and its allies have broke with the U.N. and went out to rid us of this idiot Saddam .Does any sane person out there really think that this butcher would not share these weapons he has developed with the one of many terror groups around the world but the United Ninnies would have you believe in there Utopiest Nonsensical way that Hanz and his merry men could put an end to it all given enough time.The truth is they have had 12 years and Saddam just gives them the finger and does what he wants and the useless United Ninnies just let him and maybe threaten to hit him with their purse.The U.N. has a great track record of screwin stuff up ie Korea'Veitnam'Gulf war 1,Somolia. The UN should move to a location that is more suitable to their views...LIKE FRANCE... there they can join the French Ninnes who share their socialist veiws and do nothing attitued. The simple truth is that if it was'nt for the Unnited States and certain allies ie Brittan the world would be run by terrorist and dictators.

KenKeith

03-22-2003, 09:54 AM

It is the terrorists' tactics to kill innocent people. The expectations from those acts are to create fear and capitulation from the general population with a result in a democratic society to apply pressure on the govt. to yield to the terrorists goal. It is an extortion tactic and peaceniks aid that strategy.

In a totalitarian regime the people are victims of their govt., and it makes no sense to kill innocent civilians. Anyone that cannot distinquish the difference does not have common sense!

ESHAW

03-22-2003, 10:57 AM

:D I think that France, Russia, Germany, and China and all the rest of the Countries and the United Ninnies should just do their little resolution and condemn the U.S. and then sever all their ties with us and embargo us. No longer will they have to trade or take aid from the United States or sell their wine, cheese or caviar here. They could make a statement stand on their own and not take our dirty Imperialist, Capitalist money or financial aid. Then I would sit back and LOL as they totally economically collapse :D Just think the U.N. could move out of the U.S. and set up in France, Germany, Russia or China and they could support and pay for them. Then they would not have to deal with the U.S. war mongers any more or their wallets witch by the way if you dont like us keep your hands out of. If you want to complain thats fine but quit walking aroung with your hand out!!!

Bill in SD, CA

03-22-2003, 11:23 AM

France is now worried that they will be left out of the $$$ when rebuilding starts in Iraq.

The almighty Franc is their only concern in the world. The hell with torture, murder, rape and tyranny as long as they can make a profit off of the leaders who employ it.

How soon they forgot!

Bill

Bigjakkstaffa

03-22-2003, 01:21 PM

Also, please quote sources for the "...10% mechanical failure rate...." figure you are using.

BBC News 24

--Jakk:t

ESHAW

03-22-2003, 01:30 PM

The Frogs have allways been flighty and self centered.Durring WW2 every French citizen had a Nazi flag and an American flag to wave at whomever passed by they switch sides at the drop of a hat, First on 1441 they were with us now there against us when the truth is after WW1,WW2,Veitnam we have bailed them out enough that any Frenchman should have to kiss an American's a@@ on demand:p how funny they would stick with the Krauts against us when they would all be speaking German without us. We should send a Boy scout troop over there to take them over and shut them up.:D is that splashes I hear of French guns being thrown in the English channel to bad there brand new and only dropped once.

jmichna

03-22-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa

BBC News 24

--Jakk:t Sorry, I can't get BBC 24 in Chicago. Are the normally accurate? Where did they get their info (e.g., were they quoting a military source)?

Bigjakkstaffa

03-22-2003, 01:37 PM

the BBC tend to be fairly straight down the line and comprehensive in their data. They used to be a bit conservative about 50 years ago, but they seem fairly impartial now. They do a crossover too CNN i think it is early morning over here. The BBC are more or less the premier group for world news i'd say. unlike our variosu newspapers over where which are all so biased in their opinionms iuts hardly worth reading any of them for a true idea of whats going on.

--Jakk:t

2penguins

03-22-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
the BBC tend to be fairly straight down the line and comprehensive in their data. They used to be a bit conservative about 50 years ago, but they seem fairly impartial now. They do a crossover too CNN i think it is early morning over here. The BBC are more or less the premier group for world news i'd say. unlike our variosu newspapers over where which are all so biased in their opinionms iuts hardly worth reading any of them for a true idea of whats going on.

--Jakk:t

The only UK news channels I can get here in Australia are SKY & BBC International. From what I have seen they are a bit selective about the way they project news. The BBC does like to appeal to those viewers who are centre or just left of centre.

That tends to reflect journalist political beleifs in general.
They tend to fall just left of center on average.

That's my own opinion of course :)

Bill in SD, CA

03-22-2003, 06:13 PM

Fox saying B-52's now taking off from England. ETA 7-8 hours.

Iraq says none of their soldiers have been captured - only innocent civilians. :rolleyes:

Bill

Bigjakkstaffa

03-22-2003, 06:19 PM

Fox saying B-52's now taking off from England. ETA 7-8 hours

If i set my alarm clock i can eat my frosties and watch the fireworks with any luck in the morning then :x

--Jakk:t

2penguins

03-22-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Bill in SD, CA
France is now worried that they will be left out of the $$$ when rebuilding starts in Iraq.

The almighty Franc is their only concern in the world. The hell with torture, murder, rape and tyranny as long as they can make a profit off of the leaders who employ it.

How soon they forgot!

Bill

One thing you can always count on, when it comes time to saddle up and ride, Europe will mount a dead horse...:D

$1500-P4 gamer

03-22-2003, 06:57 PM

If they wait too long their wont even be a dead horse to mount. they will have already eaten eat due to no food due to war due to this due to that. Hehe just kidding....:eek: :)

bushmaster

03-22-2003, 07:14 PM

Hey wait ! Isn't horse meat a delicassy in france ?.

herosrest

03-22-2003, 08:04 PM

NA --- it's an Aphrodisiac.

cbh

03-22-2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by ESHAW
:D I think that France, Russia, Germany, and China and all the rest of the Countries and the United Ninnies should just do their little resolution and condemn the U.S. and then sever all their ties with us and embargo us. No longer will they have to trade or take aid from the United States or sell their wine, cheese or caviar here. They could make a statement stand on their own and not take our dirty Imperialist, Capitalist money or financial aid. Then I would sit back and LOL as they totally economically collapse :D Just think the U.N. could move out of the U.S. and set up in France, Germany, Russia or China and they could support and pay for them. Then they would not have to deal with the U.S. war mongers any more or their wallets witch by the way if you dont like us keep your hands out of. If you want to complain thats fine but quit walking aroung with your hand out!!!

Are you a twin-headed snake? Firstly, you supported the Coalition forces. Later you supported the UN and its 'little' resolution. What the hell are you talking about? Your English is damned lousy. I can't even understand what the hell you are writing. Please brush up your English before commenting on this thread. :D

I supported the UN and all the anti-war elements because I personally hate wars. We've WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War. What's next? Global Civil War? All the superpowers whack one another to kingdom come? Don't forget our global nuclear arsenal can wipe out seven Earths. How many planets are there in the Solar System?

The UN can just abandon the headquarters in the US and move to China or Russia. The US still refuses to pay its 'UN debts' and dare to oppose the organization. I just don't get it. The US created the League of Nations after WW1 to prevent another war from happening. But it failed terribly. Man! What the hell is Man doing to Himself?

We're annihilating the entire human civilization piece by piece. Nobody cares because the 'stupid warmongers' just want to have fun. REVENGE!! Isn't it? Do we have SOLID proof that Iraq supports all the terrorist groups? What about Iran, Syria, Libya or North Korea? Why don't the US whack Iran? Don't you forget about the hostage situation during the 80's. Iraq is already badly weakened after Gulf War and I don't think Saddam has the resources to rebuild his 'weapons of mass destruction'.

As for 'weapons of mass destruction', why can't we focus on North Korea? Is it because the US is afraid that a war with North Korea will end up in a DRAW like Korean War. What about Vietnam War? The US LOST the damned war to a bunch of civilian-based communist army. The US was forced to evacuate from South Vietnam and abandon the whole area. What does this tell u, gentlemen? That the US can't take on the communist forces. The US has too much ego and ignorance.

When I studied history during my school days, I was horrified that the US just pulled out of South Vietnam after so many years of fighting with the NVA. I can't believe it! The US actually allowed the Vietcong to overran South Vietnam. Shame!!

:mad:

$1500-P4 gamer

03-22-2003, 09:34 PM

"What about Vietnam War? The US LOST the damned war to a bunch of civilian-based communist army. The US was forced to evacuate from South Vietnam and abandon the whole area. What does this tell u, gentlemen? That the US can't take on the communist forces."

Oh lord what BS they teaching you over there? LoL. First off Vietnam was a "CONFLICT" not a "WAR". There is a huge dif. That shows your lack of understanding the situation already. The FACT that it was a CONFLICT means we were totally limited on the # of troops including weapons aircraft etc. in the borders at one moment in time. Yep we the US actually listen to the UN and others hmmm. THerefore there were limits to our power exerted in the vietnam conflict. If'en it were a war we would have won no questions there. If it were declaired a war we could have hit them full force with swiftness and brute. But we were foced to play footsey withem. This taught us the US alot. we learned you must backup the guys in the bush and give them support-THE ENTIRE WAY. That means no more games- its war or its friggen not. Next round its nots taken lightly. We go back at Korea its gonna be like returning to Nam. BOTH playing this game-but this time it will have to be war. Have a point to make-take that as you will but I know the US will not accept a defeat and has more than enuff military power to crush either one. The prob. is the concequences. Like yours mine and every one elses **** that could feel the reprcutions of the war. Its more than who wins-and who dont.

You have a very closed mind-and its all against the US and etc. without justification. Its pure ****- your either afraid of americans or you hate them, this much is obvious from your posts. I dont think you have a clear enuff view to have a serious conversation about this. I.E. your opinions are heavily one sided. Any which way the wind blows against the US. And finally will everyone not sum us up by stereo typing what a US citizen is? I dont do that to you people. I dont have a image of ya britts drinken tea and going about bloody this bloody that and all that **** like on tv. I dont think about Aussies riding dingos and having bommerang battles-wrestling gators and drinken DUF beer. (hehe joking of course). Point is can we get the same. The US citizens are not WAR mongers. They dont like war-they hate it. Death is always bad. Lost familys etc. BAD. You think we are all the greedy SOB's but were not. Our leaders maybe (out to vote on that one yet) fit this bill but not the people of the United states. There is yet another HUGE dif. :t

cbh

03-23-2003, 12:48 AM

U are against war but not all of your fellow citizens. I dunno how many of u want to end a particular conflict or war peacefully but the pro-war elements are winning the anti-war elements in your country. I served two and half years in National Service (conscription) and I know that wars can't solve anything. I'm a hardline anti-war element. But I'm not afraid to use extreme measures to end a bloody and chaotic war.

If you ask me to press the LAUNCH button, I'll do it without thinking. Because humanity is destined to fight to the end and Earth will be annihilated before peace can be established FOREVER. Our human civilization has many nuclear weapons. So I'll not hesitate to use all of them all over the world to end the suffering of Mankind. Do you study our history from the ancient times to modern era?

How many small and major wars (conflicts) have we fought in the history of Mankind? HOW MANY? Including the Greek times. When Man became self-aware and intelligent, we're destined to wage war on one another forever. I'm sick and tired of seeing innocent people suffering because of some stupid and idiotic politicians who just want to show off their political capabilities.

I'm not a terrorist but I'm a normal human being that just want to have peace and harmony. I've seen many Sci-Fi movies and I can say that the human race is becoming a contagious virus. If the movie-makers can make such films, then they also realize that there is no hope for Mankind.

Recently, I posted a thread on the formation of the UEG. Many people like the idea but there're still some people who hate it. The reason: They just can't abandon their OLD WAYS of thinking. The Post-Cold War Sickness! I was born in the 70's and I grew up during the last stages of the Cold War. At that time, many people are against communism and two major conflicts were fought over it. The Korean War and the Vietnam War.

When the Iraqi invasion began, I told myself that the UEG was just a useless and impossible dream. Nobody will care about global unity and peace because everyone is busy plundering each other's resources. Why are we torturing ourselves? Why don't we become the dinosaurs and leave this planet alone?

Before I'm gone from this world, I want to witness the end of humanity at the hands of a mad man or a greedy individual. There's no hope for us anymore!!

:(

ESHAW

03-23-2003, 01:23 AM

Cbh what are you retarded? Ever hear of sarcasim. The FACT is the world always comes to the U.S. for help mostly money. I am simply stating if they dont like the U.S. dont have anything to do with us then and go out on your own dont trade with us or take our money then.We dont need any of their **** anyway.and BTW the U.S. has and does flip most of the bill for the United Ninnies so why dont France,Russia Germany or China do that for a while good luck getting them to do it. Alot of Countries are the first to bit@@ about the U.S. but are the first one's to want us to save there a@@ or bail them out with money for some reason or another. Maybee we should have just let the Jappaneese just roll over you guys in Singapore too.

2penguins

03-23-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by cbh

Are you a twin-headed snake? Firstly, you supported the Coalition forces. Later you supported the UN and its 'little' resolution. What the hell are you talking about? Your English is damned lousy. I can't even understand what the hell you are writing. Please brush up your English before commenting on this thread. :D

Are you a twin headed arsehole? Pull your head in mate.

I supported the UN and all the anti-war elements because I personally hate wars. We've WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War. What's next? Global Civil War? All the superpowers whack one another to kingdom come? Don't forget our global nuclear arsenal can wipe out seven Earths. How many planets are there in the Solar System?

There are nine planets.
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Saturn
Jupiter
Neptune
Uaranus
Pluto
see, nine planets :rolleyes:

The UN can just abandon the headquarters in the US and move to China or Russia. The US still refuses to pay its 'UN debts' and dare to oppose the organization. I just don't get it. The US created the League of Nations after WW1 to prevent another war from happening. But it failed terribly. Man! What the hell is Man doing to Himself?

Or maybe they could move to Singapore, you can have the UN.

We're annihilating the entire human civilization piece by piece. Nobody cares because the 'stupid warmongers' just want to have fun. REVENGE!! Isn't it? Do we have SOLID proof that Iraq supports all the terrorist groups? What about Iran, Syria, Libya or North Korea? Why don't the US whack Iran? Don't you forget about the hostage situation during the 80's. Iraq is already badly weakened after Gulf War and I don't think Saddam has the resources to rebuild his 'weapons of mass destruction'.

I think you need to put your tin foil hat on...those microwaves the aliens are sending out are frying your brain.... :x

As for 'weapons of mass destruction', why can't we focus on North Korea? Is it because the US is afraid that a war with North Korea will end up in a DRAW like Korean War. What about Vietnam War? The US LOST the damned war to a bunch of civilian-based communist army. The US was forced to evacuate from South Vietnam and abandon the whole area. What does this tell u, gentlemen? That the US can't take on the communist forces. The US has too much ego and ignorance.

HUH??? have you seen any sign of the Soviet Union lately???

When I studied history during my school days, I was horrified that the US just pulled out of South Vietnam after so many years of fighting with the NVA. I can't believe it! The US actually allowed the Vietcong to overran South Vietnam. Shame!!

So you think the US should have beaten the NVC? So do I...but ask all the folks who side with you on this Iraq thing and they will tell you the US should have pulled out.... Can't have it both ways boy. :mad:

2penguins

03-23-2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by ESHAW
Maybee we should have just let the Jappaneese just roll over you guys in Singapore too.

ditto.

SlightlyDementd

03-23-2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by cbh
Before I'm gone from this world, I want to witness the end of humanity at the hands of a mad man or a greedy individual. There's no hope for us anymore!!

Somebody needs to put their "hands of humanity" around your neck and put you out of your MISERY

Back to my beer, pretzels and cable TV

:r :r :r

-SD-

Optimus Prime

03-23-2003, 02:05 AM

Don't you ever run out of pretzels?

SlightlyDementd

03-23-2003, 02:13 AM

Actually, I just switched over to popcorn...:D

2penguins

03-23-2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Optimus Prime
Don't you ever run out of pretzels?

Beer and Pretzels are redneck soul food..:D

Billforce

03-23-2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by cbh
Before I'm gone from this world, I want to witness the end of humanity at the hands of a mad man or a greedy individual. There's no hope for us anymore!!

:( [/B]

Son, you been smokin some of that whacky tabaccy, or some of that Indonesian hash.
Fact:
¨There are more people alive on earth today than all men collectively since the beginning of time¨!

Take a lot of killing to get us all. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have survived.

Take a chill pill and relax, you´ll live longer.

cbh

03-23-2003, 03:57 AM

If the Japanese have won the WW2 and the Germans have conquered Russia, I think the US would be still an isolationistic country. There won't be a NATO and the UN would still be the League of Nations.

General McArthur won't be able to go back to the Philippines. Pearl Harbor won't be bombed. The Americans will just sit back and enjoy their lives as normal. Atomic bombs? What are they? NAZI? Who cares what Hitler do to the Jews?

Right? Chinese will be slaughtered slowly and the world will always be divided into three factions. The Allies (Britain, the French Resistance, the KMT and the Russian Resistance), the Axis Powers (Nazi Germany, Italy and Imperial Japan) and the Isolationist (the US). Fine with me, pal!

If time is reversed and history is re-made, the world is still better without the US. Even though, the Nazis and the imperialists are wrecking the world. Within a hundred and fifty years (starting from 1939), the planet will be annihilated.

:(

2penguins

03-23-2003, 04:37 AM

CBH, are you putting saki in your cornflakes???

You haven't been out picking little mushrooms out of tha paddock have you....:x

Optimus Prime

03-23-2003, 04:56 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbh

General McArthur won't be able to go back to the Philippines. Pearl Harbor won't be bombed. The Americans will just sit back and enjoy their lives as normal. Atomic bombs? What are they? NAZI? Who cares what Hitler do to the Jews?

Right? Chinese will be slaughtered slowly and the world will always be divided into three factions. The Allies (Britain, the French Resistance, the KMT and the Russian Resistance), the Axis Powers (Nazi Germany, Italy and Imperial Japan) and the Isolationist (the US). Fine with me, pal!

Yeah, well it's not fine with me if America stayed an isolationic country then Britain would have been conquered by the Nazi's, and that's not OK with me, i'm thankful of the help we received from the yanks in 1939-1945, we would be in Nazi territory, ruled by a ruthless dictator.

The Americans have helped our country a lot during the past 80 years. (Although they rub it in your face a lot too).

And only 3 civilians were killed during the raids, thats good to hear, even though three did die, not as many as i thought. And they were British missiles too...

cbh

03-23-2003, 08:35 AM

Well! From the news report, one of the US marines threw a hand grenade into a bunker and injured several US marines. One of them suffered heavy injuries and died.

I also heard that the culprit is an American Muslim. I think the US will court martial that man and give him a heavy sentence. Then all the US troops will be screened through. All the Muslims are isolated in one corner to make sure that nothing similar happens again.

From the news report, I also heard that the Coalition forces suffered a lot of friendly fire-based casualties and accidents. Well! This is conflict is quite interesting! Those dead soldiers are not killed by the enemies but died at their comrades' wrong doings. This is what I am going to watch!

:t

cbh

03-23-2003, 08:37 AM

We don't need a lot of killing to wipe out humanity. Just unleash all the nuclear warheads and ICBMs will do the trick. Total annihilation! No more wars and no more humans! The planet will take thousands of years to recover from the nuclear holocaust. The end of humanity!

:eek:

$1500-P4 gamer

03-23-2003, 07:49 PM

I too grew up during the cold war era. But that makes no dif. LOL
I cant understand you other than anything against the US is good in your eyes. Wether its good for all of humanity or not. And then you claim to be a humanitarian LOL again. Man how can you say OH all these innocent deaths and friendly fire accidents then turn around and say "id be the first one to press the button and blow up the world"! Are you sain. Or are you Hussain hehe.:eek:

cbh

03-23-2003, 10:23 PM

I'm very sane. Thank you! I just don't want to see anymore innocent people to suffer. If you want to end the pain, end it swiftly and painlessly. Vaporization!

Bill in SD, CA

03-23-2003, 11:15 PM

jmichna

03-23-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by cbh
I'm very sane. Thank you! I just don't want to see anymore innocent people to suffer. If you want to end the pain, end it swiftly and painlessly. Vaporization! I've been reading many of your posts, trying to figure out what you are all about, and I have refrained from responding to anything you have posted until this latest series of comments.

I'm compelled to ask your age. You see, the kind of fated, bleak, hopeless-future type comments you've posted are fairly common among people who are in their teens and early twenties. Aside from the physical/hormonal changes that teens/young adults go through, most haven't had sufficient experience to what Life has to offer - good and bad. Without sufficient experience, a person gets a misbalanced sense of what this world is all about, and tends to slide into a negative, hopeless view of Life and the world. Sort of a "moody-broody" teen syndrome.

cbh, what is your age?

If you are middle aged (or older), you may have a problem with chemical imbalance-caused depression, and you may wish to seek medical attention.

PS: no offense intended to sane teens/young adults.

ESHAW

03-23-2003, 11:30 PM

As long as we start with Singapore:D Maybee we could just get all the people like you in one place and just nuke you guy's, Then you would have no more to cry about. No since trying to drag everyone else down with you. What are you high? Saddam is a ruthless dictator who like Hitler and Stalin even kill's his own people. And would have NO problems freely distributing his weapons for mass teror and death. And Optimus Prime I grew up in the cold war and do verry much appreciate the British people, They have been a great friend and ally to the U.S. and have helped us a great deal. Your probally right about the rubbin it in part, But we do appreciate the Brit's though.

SlightlyDementd

03-23-2003, 11:58 PM

What's the five-day forecast for Baghdad?
Two days.

-SD-:t

ESHAW

03-24-2003, 12:12 AM

2000 lb rain drops:D

cbh

03-24-2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by ESHAW
As long as we start with Singapore:D Maybee we could just get all the people like you in one place and just nuke you guy's, Then you would have no more to cry about. No since trying to drag everyone else down with you. What are you high? Saddam is a ruthless dictator who like Hitler and Stalin even kill's his own people. And would have NO problems freely distributing his weapons for mass teror and death. And Optimus Prime I grew up in the cold war and do verry much appreciate the British people, They have been a great friend and ally to the U.S. and have helped us a great deal. Your probally right about the rubbin it in part, But we do appreciate the Brit's though.

For your knowledge, the US is slowly turning Britain into a lap-dog. Can't you see? Wherever the US supports something, Britain will be the first country to follow suit. Before WW2, Britain was the world's superpower. My country used to be a British colony and there are a lot of British colonies around the world. I just don't get it. After WW2, Britain just threw away its superpower image and became US's lap-dog. I just don't get it.

Can't we settle the whole issue peacefully? Why must everything have to resort to violence and suffering? So many innocent people are suffering under the Coalition bombardment and the Coalition forces claimed that they will try not to harm civilian people. Later the Coalition forces claimed that Iraq is using civilians as human shields. I simply don't get it.

And by the way, if I were the one that press the bloody button, the first country I'll nuke is the US of A. A small country like mine won't need a nuke. It's a waste! It'll simply die out with radiation and acid rain. The US of A needs several nukes to wipe out so there you have it. Pal!!

:t

cbh

03-24-2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by jmichna
I've been reading many of your posts, trying to figure out what you are all about, and I have refrained from responding to anything you have posted until this latest series of comments.

I'm compelled to ask your age. You see, the kind of fated, bleak, hopeless-future type comments you've posted are fairly common among people who are in their teens and early twenties. Aside from the physical/hormonal changes that teens/young adults go through, most haven't had sufficient experience to what Life has to offer - good and bad. Without sufficient experience, a person gets a misbalanced sense of what this world is all about, and tends to slide into a negative, hopeless view of Life and the world. Sort of a "moody-broody" teen syndrome.

cbh, what is your age?

If you are middle aged (or older), you may have a problem with chemical imbalance-caused depression, and you may wish to seek medical attention.

PS: no offense intended to sane teens/young adults.

I'm 24 years old and I served my NS. I know what it's like to be a soldier. The National Service (conscription) is used to enable all the young men in Singapore to DEFEND our country from external threats. Thus, we won't need to rely on FOREIGN countries for help. Except for food and ammo supplies, of course! If our water production plants are complete in the near future, we'll have ample water supplies to supply our population forever. I know what to expect as a soldier.

I also know that the US don't practice conscription. Thus, how do you know what soldiering feels like? I know that war can't solve anything and it will only bring suffering to the people. I'm not experienced in politics or global affairs but I am damned sure that you won't want to shoot your neighbor over some garden disputes. I heard that the US citizens tend to shoot first ask questions later. Thus, foreigners are not allowed to knock on the door of a US citizen's house because the latter will shoot the poor fella with a shotgun. To me, killing is not the way! But if I have to end the suffering of the global population, I'll not hesitate to blow the planet to kingdom come.

I can guarantee you that my country forbids people to own guns and our crime rate is always very low. We don't even have gun shops, for crying loud! Most of the crimes committed are love-related murders, theft and car stealing. A lot of foreigners migrated to my country because they said the land is crime-free and weapon-free.

SlightlyDementd

03-24-2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by cbh

And by the way, if I were the one that press the bloody button, the first country I'll nuke is the US of A.
:t

Another mindless post by our keyboard warrior.:x :eek: :p

-SD-

cbh

03-24-2003, 08:28 AM

For that sentence, I apologise to all the forum users. I was typing out of anger and irritation. I also apologise to the moderators for their tolerance.

I'll restrict myself when I post anything on this thread. I take back my words! Sorry!

:)

bushmaster

03-24-2003, 08:31 AM

You boys need to tuck them back in and zip up your trousers and stop making this so personal. Nobody needs to be nuked.

jmichna

03-24-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by cbh

I'm 24 years old and I served my NS. I know what it's like to be a soldier. The National Service (conscription) is used to enable all the young men in Singapore to DEFEND our country from external threats. Thus, we won't need to rely on FOREIGN countries for help. Except for food and ammo supplies, of course! If our water production plants are complete in the near future, we'll have ample water supplies to supply our population forever. I know what to expect as a soldier.

I also know that the US don't practice conscription. Thus, how do you know what soldiering feels like? I know that war can't solve anything and it will only bring suffering to the people. I'm not experienced in politics or global affairs but I am damned sure that you won't want to shoot your neighbor over some garden disputes. I heard that the US citizens tend to shoot first ask questions later. Thus, foreigners are not allowed to knock on the door of a US citizen's house because the latter will shoot the poor fella with a shotgun. To me, killing is not the way! But if I have to end the suffering of the global population, I'll not hesitate to blow the planet to kingdom come.

I can guarantee you that my country forbids people to own guns and our crime rate is always very low. We don't even have gun shops, for crying loud! Most of the crimes committed are love-related murders, theft and car stealing. A lot of foreigners migrated to my country because they said the land is crime-free and weapon-free. Let's go through a few of your items a point at a time:
1. "I'm 24 years old and I served my NS. I know what it's like to be a soldier." - Is the Singapore NS the actual military of Singapore? The reason I ask is that in the 1930s, the US employed NS (National Service) like the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp) and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) to provide employment to people during a time of economic depression. Have you served in the Singapore "Military," as opposed to the NS?

2. "The National Service (conscription) is used to enable all the young men in Singapore to DEFEND our country from external threats." - Switzerland also conscripts 100% of all able bodied men, AND requires all citizens to possess firearms. Upon completion of their term of service, the Swiss keep their military weapons.

3. "I also know that the US don't practice conscription." - Conscription (draft) has been employed many times throughout the history of the USA. We do not currently have an active conscription, but that can change at any time. All US males, at age of 18, must register with the SSA (Selective Service Administration), which is our "Draft board."

4. "I know that war can't solve anything and it will only bring suffering to the people." - Wars, though probably not the preferred method, do solve problems. You would be a Japanese citizen today, if not for the outcome of WWII.

5. I heard that the US citizens tend to shoot first ask questions later. Thus, foreigners are not allowed to knock on the door of a US citizen's house because the latter will shoot the poor fella with a shotgun." - I think you've been getting some very poor information regarding "shooting first, ask questions later." Regarding foreigners knocking on my door getting shot with a shotgun... Are you serious? I think you've been watching way too many Hollywood Cops & Robbers or Westerns TV shows. You would do well to question your source of information.

Our next door neighbors are Jews to our north and Iraqis to our south... Arab Christians (Assyrian Orthodox Catholic). Their extended family has been displaced from Iraq due to Saddam Hussien's policies and persecution. They've told me quite a bit about what it is like to live under Hussien's regime. Their kids go to a Roman Catholic school with my daughter. My daughter's school has less than 150 kids, but the enrollment comes from more than fifty ethnic backgrounds. There is no majority... the largest minority in my neighborhood are Filipino. Besides Roman Catholics, Assyrian Orthodox, we have several children from other Christian denominations - even Baptists, PLUS we have a sprinkling of Islamic students (my doctor is Pakistani Islamic, and his two kids go to my school). Now, this is just the parochial Catholic school... the public schools in my neighborhood are probably even more diverse.

Guess what? We are not all shooting at one another! We go to each other's homes for dinner. We've shared funeral meals and prayers with our Assyrian neighbors when their mother passed away. In the last seven days my daughter has played with Mexican-American, Iraqi/Assyrian-American, European(too many to mention)-American, African-American and Filipino-American kids.

You mention in an earlier post your relatives are having some troubles assimilating into the US... if they have an attitude similar to yours, I would say it is no wonder they have problems with their neighbors. They are the new kids on the block, and if they desire acceptance, then they need to make adjustments.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Choose your words, for they become actions.
Understand actions, for they become habits. Study your habits, for they become character.
Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny.

Bigjakkstaffa

03-24-2003, 11:48 AM

PS: no offense intended to sane teens

Sane teenagers :eek:

Now theres an Oxymoron if ever ive seen one

--Jakk:t

jmichna

03-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa

Sane teenagers :eek:

Now theres an Oxymoron if ever ive seen one

--Jakk:t ;)

cbh

03-24-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by jmichna
Let's go through a few of your items a point at a time:
1. "I'm 24 years old and I served my NS. I know what it's like to be a soldier." - Is the Singapore NS the actual military of Singapore? The reason I ask is that in the 1930s, the US employed NS (National Service) like the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp) and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) to provide employment to people during a time of economic depression. Have you served in the Singapore "Military," as opposed to the NS?

2. "The National Service (conscription) is used to enable all the young men in Singapore to DEFEND our country from external threats." - Switzerland also conscripts 100% of all able bodied men, AND requires all citizens to possess firearms. Upon completion of their term of service, the Swiss keep their military weapons.

3. "I also know that the US don't practice conscription." - Conscription (draft) has been employed many times throughout the history of the USA. We do not currently have an active conscription, but that can change at any time. All US males, at age of 18, must register with the SSA (Selective Service Administration), which is our "Draft board."

4. "I know that war can't solve anything and it will only bring suffering to the people." - Wars, though probably not the preferred method, do solve problems. You would be a Japanese citizen today, if not for the outcome of WWII.

5. I heard that the US citizens tend to shoot first ask questions later. Thus, foreigners are not allowed to knock on the door of a US citizen's house because the latter will shoot the poor fella with a shotgun." - I think you've been getting some very poor information regarding "shooting first, ask questions later." Regarding foreigners knocking on my door getting shot with a shotgun... Are you serious? I think you've been watching way too many Hollywood Cops & Robbers or Westerns TV shows. You would do well to question your source of information.

Our next door neighbors are Jews to our north and Iraqis to our south... Arab Christians (Assyrian Orthodox Catholic). Their extended family has been displaced from Iraq due to Saddam Hussien's policies and persecution. They've told me quite a bit about what it is like to live under Hussien's regime. Their kids go to a Roman Catholic school with my daughter. My daughter's school has less than 150 kids, but the enrollment comes from more than fifty ethnic backgrounds. There is no majority... the largest minority in my neighborhood are Filipino. Besides Roman Catholics, Assyrian Orthodox, we have several children from other Christian denominations - even Baptists, PLUS we have a sprinkling of Islamic students (my doctor is Pakistani Islamic, and his two kids go to my school). Now, this is just the parochial Catholic school... the public schools in my neighborhood are probably even more diverse.

Guess what? We are not all shooting at one another! We go to each other's homes for dinner. We've shared funeral meals and prayers with our Assyrian neighbors when their mother passed away. In the last seven days my daughter has played with Mexican-American, Iraqi/Assyrian-American, European(too many to mention)-American, African-American and Filipino-American kids.

You mention in an earlier post your relatives are having some troubles assimilating into the US... if they have an attitude similar to yours, I would say it is no wonder they have problems with their neighbors. They are the new kids on the block, and if they desire acceptance, then they need to make adjustments.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Choose your words, for they become actions.
Understand actions, for they become habits. Study your habits, for they become character.
Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny.

I'm glad that you helped me to correct my mistakes. But the NS is a real military life for all Singaporean males. We have go through BMT (Basic Military Training) for three months. Then we'll be transferred to other combat or logistics units. I was transferred to a logistics unit and tasked to repair comms equipment. All Singapore citizens and Permanent Citizens have to go through NS. Thus, I finally explained my point.

My aunt married an American Chinese and lived in new Jersey. She was a Singapore Airline ground personnel before marrying her current husband. Now she's working as a postal service worker and her workplace has a lot of racist people. As herworkplace has a lot of foreigners, the 'Whites' tend to tease and pick on them. Additionally, she has to work very hard to support her three kids and save up as much as possible. Now she's a changed person and she often keeps her guard up wherever she's travelling to New York City to visit her in-laws. She complains that the working people of the US are working their asses off just to feed the homeless and unemployed people. The latter would receive monthly handouts from the government and save the money for future holiday trips.

In order to prove her point correct, I went to Changi Airport and peformed a detailed survey on the inbound American tourists. Surprisingly, most of them are backpackers and they've saving enough 'handouts' to travel around the world. Thus, I believed that the US is going too far by handing out cash to the young and unemployed people to allow them have holiday trips. Luckily, my country don't have this Social Security System. Or everyone will refuse to work and sit back comfortably to receive money from the government monthly. That's why my aunt is getting pressurized down there. Including her husband!

I'm not opposing the US people but I don't like the government's policies. Your country is good in democracy and freedom of speech. That I admire and respect.

:)

bushmaster

03-25-2003, 12:02 AM

"I went to Changi Airport and peformed a detailed survey on the inbound American tourists. Surprisingly, most of them are backpackers and they've saving enough 'handouts' to travel around the world. Thus, I believed that the US is going too far by handing out cash to the young and unemployed people to allow them have holiday trips. "
Are you delusional ?. Do you honestly think the USA hands out social security benefits so that young americans can go globe hopping ?.
Granted there may be far too many able bodied people suckling the American teet for all it's worth, but your vision of whats truly happening is severly warped.

I can see why your aunt feels as though she's being treated as an outsider. Because if your family trait is to feel superior to all other races such as you seem to do here, no wonder people in her workplace treat her rudely. Nobody likes to be looked down upon, and people pick up on that kind of superiority complex in the workplace. Yeesh.
Maybe if she actually made an attempt at socializing with her fellow workers instead of assuming all white Americans are racist malcontents, she might actually make a friend or two and be able to enjoy her life here in the land of the free, where she can work and support her three kids. Please do us all a favor and stay where you are. We surely don't need any more arrogant meatsticks like yourself passing judgement on us white supremicist welfare recipiants.

Cluedo

03-25-2003, 12:07 AM

Luckily, my country don't have this Social Security System. :confused: Social Security system is for the elderly. After having worked and paid into the Social Security system. How much you get back out of it depends how much you have paid into it. Right now an early retirement (at reduced benefits) can be taken at age 62; full benefits at age 65. (Though this is changing to make people be older before drawing benefits.)

As far as the unemployed...yes..there are people that abuse the system. Any system, anywhere in the world. But nobody is working their butts off "just" to pay for the homeless or unemployed. We work our butts off to make a living; some do better, some do worse. Quite frankly, unemployment benefits are minimal, designed to pay for bare necessities, and only last for a short while (depending upon state and other factors.) Nobody who is honest gets rich...or can fully support themselves...off of unemployment benefits.

The U.S. is usually knocked for being a hard-hearted capitalist country that pays out far less in taxes for socialist type programs compared to Britain, France, Sweden, etc.

Do you mean to say that Singapore has no type of programs for the unemployed, old age, etc??

FWIW: Not to be offensive, but your aunt sounds an awful lot like a lot of typical Americans....myself included...in that we like to complain too much about what we don't have instead of appreciating what we do have.

Cluedo

03-25-2003, 12:14 AM

OK, now I understand. You're probably tired from having to work two jobs.

The jobless rate is expected to rise to 4.5 per cent as the economy contracts by 3 per cent in a nation that lacks unemployment insurance.
.....
"The workers are paid very miserably, they have to take on two jobs just to make ends meet, and then the ministers pay themselves millions of dollars," said Chee Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, referring to what are among the highest government salaries in the world.
Full article at this link (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011101ft.htm)

cbh

03-25-2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by bushmaster
"I went to Changi Airport and peformed a detailed survey on the inbound American tourists. Surprisingly, most of them are backpackers and they've saving enough 'handouts' to travel around the world. Thus, I believed that the US is going too far by handing out cash to the young and unemployed people to allow them have holiday trips. "
Are you delusional ?. Do you honestly think the USA hands out social security benefits so that young americans can go globe hopping ?.
Granted there may be far too many able bodied people suckling the American teet for all it's worth, but your vision of whats truly happening is severly warped.

I can see why your aunt feels as though she's being treated as an outsider. Because if your family trait is to feel superior to all other races such as you seem to do here, no wonder people in her workplace treat her rudely. Nobody likes to be looked down upon, and people pick up on that kind of superiority complex in the workplace. Yeesh.
Maybe if she actually made an attempt at socializing with her fellow workers instead of assuming all white Americans are racist malcontents, she might actually make a friend or two and be able to enjoy her life here in the land of the free, where she can work and support her three kids. Please do us all a favor and stay where you are. We surely don't need any more arrogant meatsticks like yourself passing judgement on us white supremicist welfare recipiants.

She can make friends with other foreign workers but she just can't make friends with the 'Whites'. Because they just accuse all the foreigners of taking away their jobs. I don't know what they mean but I think they hate the foreign immigrants for seizing their jobs.

:confused:

cbh

03-25-2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Cluedo
:confused: Social Security system is for the elderly. After having worked and paid into the Social Security system. How much you get back out of it depends how much you have paid into it. Right now an early retirement (at reduced benefits) can be taken at age 62; full benefits at age 65. (Though this is changing to make people be older before drawing benefits.)

As far as the unemployed...yes..there are people that abuse the system. Any system, anywhere in the world. But nobody is working their butts off "just" to pay for the homeless or unemployed. We work our butts off to make a living; some do better, some do worse. Quite frankly, unemployment benefits are minimal, designed to pay for bare necessities, and only last for a short while (depending upon state and other factors.) Nobody who is honest gets rich...or can fully support themselves...off of unemployment benefits.

The U.S. is usually knocked for being a hard-hearted capitalist country that pays out far less in taxes for socialist type programs compared to Britain, France, Sweden, etc.

Do you mean to say that Singapore has no type of programs for the unemployed, old age, etc??

FWIW: Not to be offensive, but your aunt sounds an awful lot like a lot of typical Americans....myself included...in that we like to complain too much about what we don't have instead of appreciating what we do have.

We don't have Social Security System. We only have CPF. The Central Provident Fund.

A Singaporean who is 21 years old gets to have a CPF account. It will deduct 20 percent of your monthly wage and receive 16 percent from the employer's contribution to top up the account. When you are 65 years old, you can withdraw a certain amount of money from the account to use for old age expenses. Another portion of the money will be used for medical expenses. Thus, all Singaporeans tend to take care of themselves when they're old and they do not need to depend on the government. On the unemployed and homeless, the government will encourage them to find jobs and give them a few hundred dollars monthly. But they're constantly monitored for misusing of the handouts.

Thus, the people of Singapore tend to take care of themselves even in old age. We also can use the CPF savings to pay for our house mortages. But the CPF is controlled by the government and it is used for overseas investments to earn interests. Foreign workers that work and stay in Singapore also have to contribute to CPF but they can withdraw when they want to return to their countries.

Maybe I am wrong about the social security! But I realize that there are a lot of American people receive government handouts and not finding jobs. Am I right?

:t