Who wants another war?+ air strikes on iraq
- Thread starter Tnega
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
where do you make a statment if you do agree with blair ?
im persaonally split asto what is morally right and what is in my best interests... morally this war is wrong legally if we invade without a secnd UN resolution its wrong.....
but i have to ask myself if we dont go in and sort him out now and we go the way of the german, french, belgium, china and Russian way ... will we be looking at sadam in 10 years thinking FFS i wish we had gon in 10 years ago before he had Nukes now we CARNT go in atall.......
thats not fantasy thats very much reality..
but i also hear the UK/US argumants about why they are saying its time to go in .. because he is a oppressing his people, he has flouted UN resolutions etc ... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm the US/UK turned a blind eye when Isreal flouted UN resolutions " we friends" they also turned a blind eye to plastinian opression ( but then sadam does finance suicide bombings against isreal), and theres iran .....who the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq so they could use them on Iranians...
so all sides are as bad as each other .. inwhich case i will do whats best for me and thats to remove sadam..
im persaonally split asto what is morally right and what is in my best interests... morally this war is wrong legally if we invade without a secnd UN resolution its wrong.....
but i have to ask myself if we dont go in and sort him out now and we go the way of the german, french, belgium, china and Russian way ... will we be looking at sadam in 10 years thinking FFS i wish we had gon in 10 years ago before he had Nukes now we CARNT go in atall.......
thats not fantasy thats very much reality..
but i also hear the UK/US argumants about why they are saying its time to go in .. because he is a oppressing his people, he has flouted UN resolutions etc ... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm the US/UK turned a blind eye when Isreal flouted UN resolutions " we friends" they also turned a blind eye to plastinian opression ( but then sadam does finance suicide bombings against isreal), and theres iran .....who the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq so they could use them on Iranians...
so all sides are as bad as each other .. inwhich case i will do whats best for me and thats to remove sadam..
DISCLAIMER: The following post is made from my own feelings on that matter and from various articles I have read on the subject, which I can't be arsed to go look for all the links again. So feel free to ignore it, or laugh 
The bad news when it comes to removing Saddam is I don't think the US or the UK has the guts to do it. What I mean by that is neither leader of either country is tip top about the idea of using ground forces to actually go in? Coz at the end of the day, 1 man dying in the field of battle is one more than they are probably prepared to let die.
Why do you think most wars these days are more about who got the bigger bombs and who has the most of them. Simple, nobody actually wants to send peeps of to fight.
Now although that in itself maybe a good thing, you can't remove someone who, when the bombing starts, is going to hide about 5 miles underground. Sending in ground forces who fight all the way up the the bunker door from the beach they landed on will be very messy indeed, but will prolly get the job done. It's the reason why Germany, France, Chine and Russia won't go in at all. I know they want to send in UN peacekeepers, but that's a lot different from a full attacking force.
The same could be said for Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora. Instead of actually sending in 10,000 marines to go and get him, a great many of which may have died, they dropped bombs and we saw what the end result to that was.
my $0.02 anyways
The bad news when it comes to removing Saddam is I don't think the US or the UK has the guts to do it. What I mean by that is neither leader of either country is tip top about the idea of using ground forces to actually go in? Coz at the end of the day, 1 man dying in the field of battle is one more than they are probably prepared to let die.
Why do you think most wars these days are more about who got the bigger bombs and who has the most of them. Simple, nobody actually wants to send peeps of to fight.
Now although that in itself maybe a good thing, you can't remove someone who, when the bombing starts, is going to hide about 5 miles underground. Sending in ground forces who fight all the way up the the bunker door from the beach they landed on will be very messy indeed, but will prolly get the job done. It's the reason why Germany, France, Chine and Russia won't go in at all. I know they want to send in UN peacekeepers, but that's a lot different from a full attacking force.
The same could be said for Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora. Instead of actually sending in 10,000 marines to go and get him, a great many of which may have died, they dropped bombs and we saw what the end result to that was.
my $0.02 anyways
... iraq used C-weapons against the iran but because the iran was the bad guy back then us and all others didnt do shit...
does china fulfill human rights? obviously no
y dont they declare war on them? they re too powerful
not even the us doesnt fulfill human rights completely ( death penalty )
they dont have to... they re the good guys
and didnt the us support the fanatic muslims because they were opposing the evil guys? in this case ussr
same goes to the iraq they supported sadam because he was fighting the evil guys in the iran
i think many of their prolems in the muslim world r homemade
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
im fully aware of whats said in that url i dont dissagree with any of it. or with Fire's post above i agree with what he says
all the US/UK bluffs to go to war are bieng called and again and again ther governments are trying to find a new reason,
im aware of the HUGE hypocrasys in ther human rights argument for war, palistine,china,burma,zimbabwi the list goes on and on and on were human rights are bieng ignored all over the world.
there is no good side to this,
all i am saying is IF Saddam is alowed to stay in power i think he WILL develope nukes, and once that happens a new cold war situation will arrise and his nieghbours are gonna what nuke protection etc etc and were back in 1984 territory, its going to be like that with north korea and thats frieghtening enough,
so id like whats best for me and thats remove saddam, so i can keep living a happy little life without the threat of a nuke coming over from Iraq.
all the US/UK bluffs to go to war are bieng called and again and again ther governments are trying to find a new reason,
im aware of the HUGE hypocrasys in ther human rights argument for war, palistine,china,burma,zimbabwi the list goes on and on and on were human rights are bieng ignored all over the world.
there is no good side to this,
all i am saying is IF Saddam is alowed to stay in power i think he WILL develope nukes, and once that happens a new cold war situation will arrise and his nieghbours are gonna what nuke protection etc etc and were back in 1984 territory, its going to be like that with north korea and thats frieghtening enough,
so id like whats best for me and thats remove saddam, so i can keep living a happy little life without the threat of a nuke coming over from Iraq.
no one likes war but in this case its probably 4 the best saddam is as mad as a march hare and has total control over his subjects who are living under a cruel and vicious dictatorship if u took out sadam without taking the country over untill democracy can be introduced his son would take over and that would be worse
its a case of your damned if you do and your damned if you dont
pple that say its 4 oil should look at the wider implications in the long term the pple of iraq will be better off like those in kosovo and serbia after milosivich was removed and it was only by bombing the infrastructure that he was removed
saddam has no morals or concience he will move civillians into the warzone 4 publicity
ask yourself this would you be happy 2 live there with your family ?
its a case of your damned if you do and your damned if you dont
pple that say its 4 oil should look at the wider implications in the long term the pple of iraq will be better off like those in kosovo and serbia after milosivich was removed and it was only by bombing the infrastructure that he was removed
saddam has no morals or concience he will move civillians into the warzone 4 publicity
ask yourself this would you be happy 2 live there with your family ?
hm... well i actually feel pretty save at the place where i am...
us policy can be reduced to 2 sentences:
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
and "whos not with me is against me"
this scares me
a war wouldnt stabilize the region the opposite i believe
us policy can be reduced to 2 sentences:
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
and "whos not with me is against me"
this scares me
a war wouldnt stabilize the region the opposite i believe
Go Ice go Ice go Ice go
As with most things in life you can have an opinion but you cant beat the system and the system wants saddam out
they dont want a war just saddam out
if you want 2 change things U could always try this ?
(prolly as much good as a march and protest does)
they dont want a war just saddam out
if you want 2 change things U could always try this ?
(prolly as much good as a march and protest does)
Last edited:
tbh i dont see the problem with a war in this case.
saddam is a sick puppy and i would not mind a war to remove him from his position.
problem is, they won't remove saddam
and if they do their are like 20 people who would be able to replace him and be as bad as he is.
I would prefer a marinedrop in the middle of the night which would capture saddam.
but since that wont be possible, war is the only viable option.
saddam is a sick puppy and i would not mind a war to remove him from his position.
problem is, they won't remove saddam
and if they do their are like 20 people who would be able to replace him and be as bad as he is.
I would prefer a marinedrop in the middle of the night which would capture saddam.
but since that wont be possible, war is the only viable option.
Personally I am not opposed to military action against Iraq, but it should only happen IF they gain the necessary evidence to prove he is a threat to innocent people. Nobody wants a war, or if they do they are very sick people, however they may recognise the need for one to prevent a greater evil and that is a very different thing. Waiting till Sadam actually drops some chemical weapons in an Allied country is not an option, millions of people may die if that happens. If we are sure he has intentions of that sort then he needs removing quick sharp.
Imagine if Hitler had been removed from power before he started WW2 - if we had known his intentions and removed him from power before he had a chance to build up support and a decent army. Millions upon millions of lives would have been saved, and yet the same people would of been protesting against us launching a military strike to remove him from power because they weren't looking at the big picture.
War is never a good thing, however there are times when it is the lesser of two evils and if we can prove beyond doubt that is the case with Iraq then I will fully support whatever action is deemed necessary.
Imagine if Hitler had been removed from power before he started WW2 - if we had known his intentions and removed him from power before he had a chance to build up support and a decent army. Millions upon millions of lives would have been saved, and yet the same people would of been protesting against us launching a military strike to remove him from power because they weren't looking at the big picture.
War is never a good thing, however there are times when it is the lesser of two evils and if we can prove beyond doubt that is the case with Iraq then I will fully support whatever action is deemed necessary.
religion is the root of all evil, eliminate religion and bring peace to the world. Religion breeds ignorance, bigots and perverts. Religion has always held back truth and knowledge and has seperated and divided the peoples of the world.
ffs Copernicus (the genius astronomer) was executed by order of the church for being a heretic. What evil did he do you ask? he pointed out that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe and that the Earth went around the Sun.
ffs Copernicus (the genius astronomer) was executed by order of the church for being a heretic. What evil did he do you ask? he pointed out that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe and that the Earth went around the Sun.
I disagree, religion is not the root of all evil - people have the right to belive in what they want and it is entirely possible for a world in which every person has a different religion to live in harmony.
The problem you have highlighted there Foxy is people trying to force their religion on others and that is a 'big neddy-no-no' (classic Simpsons quote
)
The problem you have highlighted there Foxy is people trying to force their religion on others and that is a 'big neddy-no-no' (classic Simpsons quote
)
kopernikus was executed? 
well anyway even though im atheist i dont think religion in general r the root of all evil
it has been misused a lot i assume but generally
in my opinion religion is the root of many problems just think how many wars would have not taken place if it wasnt for religion...
and to the hitler thingy... i dont think thats a valid point to
destroy anyone who u think is threating u
y dont they get them americans who supported saddam or osama in the 1970s and 1980s fs?
isnt that laughable that the us rely on human rights that they dont fulfill themselves?
aint that double standards?
isnt that undemocratic?
yeah im probably baised... so be it
well anyway even though im atheist i dont think religion in general r the root of all evil
it has been misused a lot i assume but generally
in my opinion religion is the root of many problems just think how many wars would have not taken place if it wasnt for religion...
and to the hitler thingy... i dont think thats a valid point to
destroy anyone who u think is threating u
y dont they get them americans who supported saddam or osama in the 1970s and 1980s fs?
isnt that laughable that the us rely on human rights that they dont fulfill themselves?
aint that double standards?
isnt that undemocratic?
yeah im probably baised... so be it