Forums > Social Discussion > War on Iraq

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
ray, going through the UN isn't breaking the law, and if im being naiive please tell me how.
Also if you, a US soldier (or whatever part o the forces) open fire on an iraqi WITHOUT

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
I think it was Kev who said there is going to be a war.Make no mistake about it whether it is long and drawn out or very short there will be one.To back down now would only be a show of weakness.I would just say to hope for the best.

Bush didn't break the law he got in on a technicality huh.What technicality would that be?The U.S. hasn't used any WMD's since WW2 huh.How would you know?It's funny that you slam people for making assumptions all the time yet you make them just as often.Oh and as for name calling who looks like a thirteen year old now?Practice what you preach my man.I presented a theory that I never said was true or false,just to make you think.Then again though,you know what you are told.

Is anyone on this site impartial?It seems to me everyone is either on the left or the right.The possibility does exist that some good will come from this as well as does the possibility it will make things worse.I think Drome has got it right if I decyphered her post correctly.Make the best of your own situation and just hope for the best.There are a lot of things in this existence that are out of our hands.

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
Hmm...

Poiaholic, if something isnt done for 50+ years, it doesnt mean it is illeagle. It just means it hasnt been used. Who said you were 13, I just said you looked like a moron. Now if I said you were a do doo head then I can see you reasoning but I didnt.

Simian, point taken, though perhaps you should have mentioned that.

LL, could you please umm repost that, and try not to hit the post button 5 times hehe. No worries, I am very interested in what you were about to say.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
Yep Kev! I understand that! We all have to indulge...

One question for all that have posted...

Have you, if you have expressed concern either for or against the 'war on iraq', done anything relevant towards helping your given POV.

Ray the Core (whooops sorry!) crops (oops did it again) corps! thats it... yeah, it doesnt count as you joined before this whole war thing started...

So what have you (all reading) done to make your point of view of this part of your life...

drome

JUGGLEwithyourmind!

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
Why do you think that misspelling the word Corps is an insult?


Marines do two things, train and fight.

What do I do to help my Point of View? I express my views through varius outlets. I pass on knowlege and information and a view point that many either refuse to acknowlege or consider lagitimate.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 4th Feb 2003
I don't know if I have allowed this to effect me on a personal level.I second guess myself so often that my opinion on this changes everyday.I will say,along with a great many other things,it makes me realize I don't have all the answers.Sometimes I have noticed I'm too quick to pass judgement,like I don't think long enough about something before I respond.Though I still can't stand people who think they do have all the answers.

Raymund,I don't want to keep dragging this on but I didn't ask if it has or hasn't been done in the last 50 years.I asked what makes you so sure it hasn't?With all the bio-and-chem weapons used in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf how are you so sure none of those were some of ours?Don't misconstrue this as me saying that we have.Also,just because I question things rather than just believe everything I'm told is the truth doesn't make me a moron,it justs means I don't trust anybody.Especially people I don't know on a personal level.

The 13 year old comment came from another thread that wasn't as civilized as this one.Remember the Say No To War thread?Lets try to keep it friendly.

I was thinking about all this before and it occured to me that everyone who is anti-war doesn't seem to have any better ideas.The truth is that we can't just ignore what is going on over there but if we don't do a war than what do you suggest?

I also think Simian made a valid point in saying should we accept the sacrifice of lives now or wait until there is no longer a choice involved and more have died that quite possibly may not need to. Not saying I'm suddenly for a war but it is food for thought.

On the thought of murder,it really amuses me the double standard that exists when it comes to this subject.Whether it be for revenge,justice or the so called "greater good" isn't killing another human being murder?How do you justify murder with murder?

On that note why can't we just assassinate Saddam and all his flunkies rather than make those who have as much control of what he does as we do suffer?Oh wait that's right,that would be against the rules.

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
The Geneva Convention that the US and many other countries signed prevents assasination and actually makes it a war crime to do so. Also murder is killing out of malace. That is why there is accidental homicide and not accidental murder. Really all it is, is a redefinition of the word kill.

Like I have said quite a few times there are no easy answers. Just do it and just dont do it, do not work in this situation. It sucks that things arnt always that easy.

I wasnt alive 50 years ago hell I wasnt alive 22 years ago so I dont know if chemical weapons have been used or not. I am not privleged with that information, but I do know that you are in the same boat as me in that case, you know nothing. So... in this great country you are innocent untill proven guilty so I will extend that right to the government as well.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
Bush and Blair
are a right old pair
of modern day imperialist thieves
kick up a fuss
start acting tough
try to bring Iraq to it's knees

Afghanistan
part of the plan
needed for a pipeline through
from afghanistan
to uzbekmenistan
a land rich in oil too

Now Saddam and Putin
ain't no disputing
have a 60 billion dollar deal
to supply the oil
from Iraqi soil
the same oil bush is trying to steal

Bush is Pissed
cause saddam missed
bush out from the deal agreed
blairs just there
to claim a share
of the spoils of war and greed
(abbreviated version)

was going to stick this in the limmericks thread but figured it was better here.

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
Lets play a game...

Bush decides not to attack Iraq... The UN inspecters leave because they dont have the political backing to be there. 15 years down the road, Iraq drops a chemical warhead in down town (insert your city here), luckily you happend to be somewhere else at the time spinning your little heart out.

You hear the news... who do you blame? Do you blame anyone?


Can you sleep soundly at night knowing that if someone doesnt do something now the above hypothetical situation might happen?

I cant, but maybe I should blame that on Bush and Blair too.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
Ok another little game,
You live in a democratic society, You,re happy, you do a job you don't mind, you should be able to afford a new car in a few months, you enjoy your spare time you have friends and family. Your a good person and are proud to be part of a liberal, freedom loving society.
Although your jobs a little boring you can save money and take a holiday abroad in the summer and at least you have your social life and your poi.
Then you run out of oil.
The deliveries of food into town stop.
Much of the electricity stops.
You can't run your car.
Your not happy.
Your president tells you about a place far away.
This place has a president too but he is a bad man
and he has oil.
And he doesn't want to give you any.
What do you do?

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
Hmmm, erect a windmill in my yard, install solar panels on my house and ride my bike to my boring little job.

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Good one promethius, personally I think it is a load of crap that the US is running out of oil second... you dont have to fight the shark to fight for the wave! In other words you can find alternate souces of energy.


Why dont you answer my questions? I answer yours.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Rayman,if you look back you will notice I never said I did know anything.I just presented the possibility.

If we are so willing to go into Iraq without UN approval then why should we care about the Geneva Convention?And don't pull the we haven't gone into Iraq yet card on me.They have made it very clear we are going to disarm Saddam with or without backing.

How is it okay to kill someone in the pursuit of "justice" and not out of malice?I'm not asking about the different definitions of murder,I'm asking how is killing another human being right for any reason?

Could someone fill me in on what Saddam has done to us in recent memory?AQ knocked down the WTC and we don't seem as concerned about them.And no I'm not defending Saddam.And yes I do know about the crimes he has committed in his country and the things he has done to surrounding countries.

I have another scenario.We go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam from power.We put a government in place that we deem appropriate and work with the people of these countries to make things better.However,the terrorist groups who are already enraged by our presence in that region plot and carry out another attack of the magnitude,or maybe greater than,of 9-11.Who do we go to war with then?Not saying it will happen but extending the possibility.

Take care everyone


Non-Https Image Link

Posted: 5th Feb 2003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymund

"15 years down the road,Iraq drops a chemical warhead in downtown (insert your city here), luckily you happened to be somewhere else at the time spinning your little heart out."

"You hear the news...who do you blame?do you blame anyone?"

---

You blame the USMC.

No but seriously where did this mentality come from that the people will blame the services for terrorist attacks?No one blamed the military for 9-11.Or Pearl Harbor.I only presented the theory whether the government allowed these events to happen but never blamed them for them happening.And we all know there is a distinct difference between the government and the military.One makes the decisions,the other only carries them out.If anything the people will probably focus their blame on those who carry out these kind of attacks.

However,when this is all said and done who do you think is gonna get a mountain of sh1t piled on them if this happens after the war on Iraq?

Posted: 5th Feb 2003
First off, my name is Raymund. I get your name right you should alteast have that much respect for someone to spell their name right.

Shooting at Americans is a crime, in fact that in itself is an act of war. Every time a US plane flies over the no fly zone, they are shot at. That in itself is well documented. That is why you hear reports of bombs being dropped on SAM sites and AA guns. Some times they like to plop a SAM next to a school and shoot at our planes, we kill the SAM they blow up the school and blame us. The fighting never stopped in Iraq.


If somebody decides to do a similer attack like that of 9-11 what will happen as a result would be dependent on who was in office.


Feel free to blame the USMC, just be sure to come down and knock on our front door when you do. I'll sit back and laugh as they shove a .50 cal up your ass sideways! (for those of you who dont know the .50 Cal machine gun that we use is about 4 1/2 feet long)

Who said anything about blaming the military?

I however disagree with you, the people will do the same thing that they have always done, find the closest easiest scapegoat. That would more than likly be the US government.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Prometheus, fair play. What I was saying is I don't think everyone is the same. This Bush is an oil man, he has recieved a large amount of funding from exxon-mobil. This war is about oil trade, this seems to me obvious. I think alot of people are happy to believe whatever they may hear about Saddam in order to justify a brutal act of imperialism on the part of our governments.

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Yet you are willing to believe Saddam's propiganda.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Okay, I am about tired of this shit. I have been trying to see the presentation that Powel made before the UN. I have also been trying to see the political shows that debate the presentation.

So far I have been unsuccessfull. The chanel has done something stupid every time something contraversial comes up. Like an unscheduald comercial break or it will flip to another show entierly.

This makes me about ready to swap sides, I'll never believe that it is all about oil but this really really raises my bull shit flag!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
My mate Greg says:

My job is exactly the same as your job Raymund (British Army). But the only thing is i work for a more democratic society. Bush is a warmonger and all he wants to do is get revenge (and oil) because of the attack on 11-9 and the war on terrorism. He wants to improve his popularity by showing to be acting against terrorists which is exactly the same situation as what Blair's in.
(thats why his saying AQ is in Iraq)

Greg
(why do we have to fight your battles?)

[ 07. February 2003, 01:21: Message edited by: Pink Poi ]

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Please relay this to Greg. Hmm actually advise him to hop on HOP... ohh bad pun.

Anyhoo...

I am trying to ignore everything that he said that is... irrelevent though I do wish to comment on it. If I did it might flame things up and I realy would rather debate rather than fight.


Is Bush's popularity going up? Honestly I dont know for sure but I dont think it is. Is he a war mongerer? I absolutly believe that he is! I still dont think that he is after oil. Terrorisim has to be stopped, I dont believe that war is the only way but with the situation in Iraq, I have not seen a better way to get things done.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
The idea that Bush is in this for popularity is the most laughable idea in this thread yet. And its had some competition.

I'm having difficulty believing the way that the USA is being portrayed as some kind of rabid aggressor. Its demands aren't exactly unreasonable. Comply with weapon inspectors and disarm, as required by the UN after the invasion of Kuwait. What do you do when a country refuses to cooperate with the international community? Say, "hey, thats ok man. If they want to have biological weapons, thats their own choice, y'know. give peace a chance "
No. You A) apply economic sanctions. That doesn't work then B) threaten military action. Still nothing C) military action. Its frankly astounding that Iraq has been idiotic enough not to comply already. Unless of course you believe that Saddam has no weapons

I agree that UN backing is required, though. The mystery is why the UN are so reluctant to enforce their own rules.

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
SO WOULD YOU CALL P.I.R.A., R.I.R.A, U.V.F.,U.F.F. ECT TERRORIST GROUPS IF SO WHY ARNT AMERICA AND THE BRITISH GOVENMENT GOING TO WAR IN NORTHERN IRELAND? BECAUSE THEY ARE CLASSED AS TERRORIST GROUPS
GREG

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Posted: 6th Feb 2003

quote:

---

SO WOULD YOU CALL P.I.R.A., R.I.R.A, U.V.F.,U.F.F. ECT TERRORIST GROUPS IF SO WHY ARNT AMERICA AND THE BRITISH GOVENMENT GOING TO WAR IN NORTHERN IRELAND? BECAUSE THEY ARE CLASSED AS TERRORIST GROUPS

---

Well Actually their is a reason the P.I.R.A is associated with Sinn Feinn and they don't recognise the R.I.R.A. That and the U.V.F and the U.F.F are fighting each other. So I honestly think that they don't know who to look for since the actual players look like they will eventually wipe each other out.
Or boiled down to it I don't think they know who is just pissed off and angry and who to actually charge with being a terrorist.

Blessings to all,
Peter
When you find yourself in the company of a halfling and an ill-tempered Dragon, remember, you do not have to outrun the Dragon ...you just have to outrun the halfling.

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Terrorism is a very strange thing.

It's wonderful if you're poor and you need to attack someone. It's cheap, you don't need a lot of really fancy equipment, and it's very difficult to stop because you are being so unpredictable.

Furthermore, every time you successfully complete an attack, it's a success, but when your operatives are captured, it is not a failure. All you've lost is a disposable operative and some cheap equipment. That's actually one of the reasons why I doubt that Al-Qaeda is really interested in walking a nuke into the U.S. It would cost too much money and then if they got caught, they'd be in the poorhouse. They'd rather stick to little, cheap attacks that keep everyone terrified.

So that's why it's great to use terrorism when you need to get a message across.

Terrorism has a few problems, though. First, rarely do governments deal with terrorists. England and the IRA is a very rare exception in this case. In a conventional war, one side wins and one side loses. In a terrorist war, it is always one side terrorist attacking the other side, which is conventional (people call the Israelis or Americans "terrorists" but they aren't because, regardless of what you think of their attacks on others, the attacks are performed by uniformed personnel acting under direct orders from their government). Remember, now, terrorists can not possibly ever lose a war because there is no central command to destroy. Kill Bin Laden and a replacement will pop up somewhere else. By contrast, if you take Baghdad, the war is over. Ok, great to be a terrorist, then...except that while terrorists never lose, they almost never win, either! The only way for a terrorist network to successfully topple a regime is if the majority of the populace is in opposition to the regime, anyways. And even then, the usual outcome is the re-establishment of another dictatorship. The U.S. is a very rare exception to this because while our revolution from Britain was terrorist (we shot at troops out of trees, raided trade ships, etc.) we actually managed to set up a representative government. This can only happen if the controlling regime is not in the region where the revolution occurs and if the people running the terrorist network are very wealthy and educated.

Finally, a major problem with running a terrorist network is figuring out how to turn it off. Terrorism necessarily requires fanatics. Conventional militaries don't work that way. When an order to cease fire (or retreat or surrender) comes in from high command in a conventional army, the order is generally obeyed. Trying to stop a terrorist organization is like trying to halt an avalanche. Once you've started it, giving an order to stop isn't going to workb because the fanatics that you've been controlling aren't obeying your strong central command, but are simply, in their minds, working with you towards the same cause. If you decide that the cause is finished and they don't see it that way, they won't stop fighting just because you said so. They might even try to kill you as a traitor.

So it was no surprise when the RIRA popped up. Sinn Fein had much better control over the IRA than most terrorist leaders have over their organizations, but even still...there are people who are going to fight because they like killing and this is their excuse.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 6th Feb 2003
Greg:

the IRA split into two groups, the more extreme PIRA and the less extreme RIRA! so technically they are the same thing! So why does everyone think they are two different organisations when they are one!
Greg


Me (Alice):
I dont want to start a massive argument! Just to let people put their views so everyone and stay chilled!

Alice

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...