Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
A quote ...
JackN
<font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[quote]Iraq dismissed the ultimatum, and Saddam said if Iraq was attacked the battle would be "wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world".[/quote]
This is a rather sobering look into the state of mind of Saddam...
This is a rather sobering look into the state of mind of Saddam...
Comments
This idea is as mad as planning to kill ten or hundred thousends Iraq citizens.
do we need to have a long philosophical discussion on the impact of direct intention versus unintended/unavodiable consequences on moral consideration?
[B]
This idea is as mad as planning to kill ten or hundred thousends Iraq citizens. [/B][/QUOTE]
Of course, the US is going to send in the B52's and start carpet bombing Bhagdad :rolleyes:
I honestly wish we had people here who actually *KNEW* how military air campaings work...
[B]Of course, the US is going to send in the B52's and start carpet bombing Bhagdad :rolleyes:
I honestly wish we had people here who actually *KNEW* how military air campaings work... [/B][/QUOTE]
Hm, how many Iraq people were killed in the 1991 war? This time, the US military plans to use as much firepower in the first hours of the attack as in the whole 1991 war.
[B]Yes, he is.
This idea is as mad as planning to kill ten or hundred thousends Iraq citizens. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but Saddam intends to kill as many people as possible, not caring who they are, civilian or military.
The US knows that it simply cannot afford any civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty makes it that much harder for them to have support for whatever government they set up in the aftermath. If they kill thousands of cililians then the general Iraqi populace is going to be rather against the idea of the US setting up a government for them.
[B]Hm, how many Iraq people were killed in the 1991 war? This time, the US military plans to use as much firepower in the first hours of the attack as in the whole 1991 war. [/B][/QUOTE]
My question still stands, do you know how a real world air-war is planned, and executed ? Nevermind this "It's going to be like the carpetbombings of WWII/Vietnam" BS you've probably heard everywhere.
or are you just going to skip the question and, in the words of one angry iraqi expatriate, [url=http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3]"play ping pong"[/url]
[B]My question still stands, do you know how a real world air-war is planned, and executed ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I am not a soldier and not a military leader.
Not many people are.
But every human has the ability to understand that XXX.XXX killed people are far too many to be excused, no matter how they are murdered technically.
And don't tell me that the death of civilians in this war would be inevitable. No-one has forced the US to attack Iraq. If you don't want to kill innocents, then don't start this war... voilá.
[B]... No-one has forced the US to attack Iraq...[/B][/QUOTE]
I beg to differ...
Number 1 in forcing the issue is Saddam himself.
Number 2 is the lack of followthrough from the UN.
Someone has to stand up and do something, What are you gonna do, bury him under yards of more wasted paper in resolutions that have no bite?
The fucker has had 12 years to get his shit together, come on now!
If you don't like the way the US is stepping in, than quit trying to pacify the fucker and let's all remove him together!
:mad:
[B] If you don't want to kill innocents [/B][/QUOTE]
Your ignorance on this matter is EXACTLY WHY I'm arguing like this..
Innocents are dying every single goddamned day in Iraq, whether or not there are bombs falling.
and don't give me this BS about how they can be completely blamed on the sanctions in place.
Through aid and various agreements such as the infamous "food for oil" Iraq gets a shitload of money to feed it's people...
now tell me...
[b]
WHERE
DOES
IT
GO ?
[/b]
A) Raped
B) Raped by their father/uncle/(other close relative)
C) Is just some dumb fucking American
D) Has no idea what is going on
E) Is a capitalist bastard who wants $$
I agree, dont give me this shit about how war is going to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. Do you know what percent of bombs were "smart" in the first war? about 10%. How many are now? Just about every damn one. I'm sorry, but this little fuck has had 12 YEARS to disarm- and for every day we wait, he builds more chemical weapons. And prepares for more attacks against his own civilians or anyone elses civilians. Do you not remember/never read about the 4000 Kurds that died on orders of Sadamm? Or how about the towns that became testing grounds for new diseases/bio weapons/chem weapons. So, yes, war is necissary. Sadamm will not leave. HE will not give up his weapons. He will not help his people. The longer we wait, the more people die.
My main gripe with Saddam is what he DOES to his OWN civilians, I mean, he lets his son get his kicks by going into town (CITIES!) with his royal gaurd and killing all the civilians!
Then theres the whole non-disarming thing....but that is second in my mind.
[B]I hope he dies a slow, painful death. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think sick fuck's like Saddam and Bin Laden should be reserved to a special kind of Capital Punishment... Throw the fucker's in an active volcano and have live footage of it broadcasted worldwide.
;)
Low Tech and Cheap!
:D
(You just knew I'd work a volcano angle in there somewhere didn't you?)
As a rather prominant professor at a tactical research institure in Washington said, most weapons research in the last decade has been aimed at making weapons kill less people and more accurately and remove their targets. Just about every air weapon is precision now (at least in the US arsenal). They arn't going in there to kill as many people as possible, anyone who believes they are is blind to logic and reason. The idea is to [b]demoralise[/b] the population. Killing civilians like crazy, even if by accident, sure as hell won't achieve that, it'll just get them all worked up.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dictator that I would like to see thrown from his throne, the sooner the better. Most people agree with that.
What I am telling you is that war, and especially this war, is the wrong way. You have obviously been told a lot of lies to believe that there is no other way, but this is wrong. And you could notice this if you tried to get your head out of the TV and other war-mongering media and start to think for yourself... "intelligent weapons", oh my god!!
Just to be sure that we all know that there is no such thing as black and white in this conflict:
Yes, Iraq has been disarming. The UN inspections have proven this. The inspectors are also saying that Iraq might have been quicker and more helpful, although they noticed a growing helpfulness. -- By saying that the UN didn't work, you are ignoring these facts.
The USA are producing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons themselves. In fact, Mr Rumsfeld himself said that they would use chemical weapons in the planned war against Iraq (a gas similar to CS, afaik). Chemical weapons, whether deadly or not, are forbidden by the international law since the 1920's.
Killing Mr Hussein is a poor idea, just like Bin Laden, they should live in a jail for the rest of their lives until they are forgotten and let to drift away till natural death. No need to make martyrs.
[B]This is to all the anti war people, I'm going to give it one last try, please try and have an open mind for a moment: [/B]
Is Iraq disarming. Yes.
How many years have they been disarming for? 12
What have they been inspecting? In twelve years inspectors have carried out 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites, including universities, military bases, presidential sites, and private homes.
How much longer would inspections and disarmament have to go on? Ari Fleischer, said even given current cooperation it would take them another 300 years for Iraq to disarm at its current pace and to complete a full inspection.
What if Ari Fleischer is exaggerating? If he was exaggerating by a multiple of 10 it would still take another 30 years. If he was exaggerating by a multiple of 20 it would still take 15 years to complete the inspections given current Iraqi cooperation.
Why is Iraq suddenly cooperating more? Because the United States and Britain have 200,000 troops in the Middle east.
Who is paying for that deployment? US and British taxpayers, NOT the French, Russians, and Germans who are more than happy to have us there on the door step - just not invading.
What is the monetary result of 15, 30, 300 years of deployment in the Middle East? Billions/Trillions of dollars paid by the US and Britain with not one cent of help from the French, Russians, or Germans.
What is the social result of 15, 30, 300 years of US deployment in the Middle East? This is the question that makes me think every Frenchman and German wants the United States to fall on its own sword. IF the US were to stay in the Middle East with such a force for even only 10 more years I think you are well aware of the HATE and animosity that would be felt about that kind of an occupation. I understand why the residents of the Middle East don't want our forces in the Region, the Germans and French policies are dooming the US into a situation of occupation where there is growing hatred towards the US.
I starting to suspect that many Germans and French want the USA to fail and have the shit kicked out of it by a bunch of Extremist Terrorists who think we are occupying their land. If we stayed for 10 more years with that kind of a force to pressure Sadamn to disarm and be open to inspections even I would think we were occupying.
No, we can't afford to keep up the kind of pressure, for both Monetary and Social reasons. We can't be an occupying force for 10,15,30,300 years while Iraq slowly disarms. That would create more terrorism than this war ever will.
SO: Iraq has been disarming to slowly and only because of US pressures which for two reasons we can't afford to keep up. The time has come to put an end to it. It is better to risk going in and removing Mr Hussein and establishing a Muslim oriented democracy and getting out in two or three years than occupying the Middle East for 15, 30 300 years.
[B]exsqueeze me ? :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, I was Refuring to Saddam.
I starting to suspect that many Germans and French want the USA to [/b]fail.[/B][/QUOTE]
Your making it sould like that The USA Controls Everthing buy using the word "Fail"
[B]
The USA are producing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons themselves. In fact, Mr Rumsfeld himself said that they would use chemical weapons in the planned war against Iraq (a gas similar to CS, afaik). Chemical weapons, whether deadly or not, are forbidden by the international law since the 1920's. [/B][/QUOTE]
Umm, the U.S. has decreased its arsenal drasticly since the end of the cold war. It is not increasing it. The total force is now a shadow of its former self being mantained for deterence. Don't be so quick to throw out slogans from the anti-war camp.
[B]Umm, the U.S. has decreased its arsenal drasticly since the end of the cold war. It is not increasing it. The total force is now a shadow of its former self being mantained for deterence. Don't be so quick to throw out slogans from the anti-war camp. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that's still totally insignificant, because the current amount is still enough to wipe out the whole planet. You know, it doesn't matter if you have an arsenal to destroy 1 planet or 100 planets, if you still have enough to destroy a planet.
Btw, why is this same discussion going on in two separate threads?
- PJH
Also a recent tv-document which I saw told exactly the same history.
- PJH
[B]Yeah, but that's still totally insignificant, because the current amount is still enough to wipe out the whole planet. You know, it doesn't matter if you have an arsenal to destroy 1 planet or 100 planets, if you still have enough to destroy a planet.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Such power is insignificant when compared to the force....
Jokin aside, the relavance of this is a bit tenuous...
[B]Jokin aside, the relavance of this is a bit tenuous... [/B][/QUOTE]
?
- PJH