http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html
If it wasnt so serious it would be extremely amusing
If it wasnt so serious it would be extremely amusing
Cheating Yanks
- Thread starter DraizeTrain
- 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.
apparently it was just enforcing the no-fly zone, has nothing to do with the opening moves of war. Personally, I dont beleive them.
Also, it appears that a fair portion of the US, including George Bush Snr disagree, seems the only person backing him is Blair. I think the figure was 90% of Labour MPs dont support action right now either. All very very scary to see we are beginning bombing anyway.
Also, it appears that a fair portion of the US, including George Bush Snr disagree, seems the only person backing him is Blair. I think the figure was 90% of Labour MPs dont support action right now either. All very very scary to see we are beginning bombing anyway.
every so often there's enforcement of the no fly zone.. thats nothing too new.
a year since the thing thats set this crap all in motion, public opinion of bush seems to be swinging the other way.
some polls show 50%-30% (others undecided i guess) people supporting vs. not. i'm part 'o that 30%. bush plans to present this all to the UN soon enough. there are two things that i would have to see before even considering supporting it-
1. International support (i.e. not just Blair)
2. Solid evidence that they're hiding something thats a no-no.
and to the war games.. you can look at it many ways. the ex marine in charge of the iraqi's used hit and run style tactics it looked like and suicide mission type 'o stuff. from what i've seen looking back the iraqi's didn't seem to be much into that style- but that is pretty worse case scenario. also, its hard to say whether iraq would take the first shot; i personally don't think it would be wise from a political standpoint, but of course from a military stand point it would be a wise move
a year since the thing thats set this crap all in motion, public opinion of bush seems to be swinging the other way.
some polls show 50%-30% (others undecided i guess) people supporting vs. not. i'm part 'o that 30%. bush plans to present this all to the UN soon enough. there are two things that i would have to see before even considering supporting it-
1. International support (i.e. not just Blair)
2. Solid evidence that they're hiding something thats a no-no.
and to the war games.. you can look at it many ways. the ex marine in charge of the iraqi's used hit and run style tactics it looked like and suicide mission type 'o stuff. from what i've seen looking back the iraqi's didn't seem to be much into that style- but that is pretty worse case scenario. also, its hard to say whether iraq would take the first shot; i personally don't think it would be wise from a political standpoint, but of course from a military stand point it would be a wise move
If the U.S continues to fuck about with Iraq then summat big is obviously gonna happen. O.K so if this was just about airspace or whatever it was.. then fine it's just a one-off.
The truth is that, as the bigger nation, the U.S should have by now found other means to prove points about airspace and stuff. Shooting shit is best left behind screens.
They wan't to save lives?
Spend the money on the third world countries where ppl are starving and dying from easily curable disease, rather than making all these weapons, planes and hgue excursions just to prove a point. Cos imo, it's funny how we find people dying in poor countries from EASILY curable disease and starvation, and living in shite conditions, how we find this acceptable, and then an incident where some thousand people in a developed country die as a 'disaster'. Not that either is good, of course not, but funny how their views are different.
THe link shows the U.S losing a war. It shouldnt fucking well be about a war at all. The U.S should do something more responsible to get what they want, like trying an approach where they don't use brute force. Bunch of gun-ho twats.
The truth is that, as the bigger nation, the U.S should have by now found other means to prove points about airspace and stuff. Shooting shit is best left behind screens.
They wan't to save lives?
Spend the money on the third world countries where ppl are starving and dying from easily curable disease, rather than making all these weapons, planes and hgue excursions just to prove a point. Cos imo, it's funny how we find people dying in poor countries from EASILY curable disease and starvation, and living in shite conditions, how we find this acceptable, and then an incident where some thousand people in a developed country die as a 'disaster'. Not that either is good, of course not, but funny how their views are different.
THe link shows the U.S losing a war. It shouldnt fucking well be about a war at all. The U.S should do something more responsible to get what they want, like trying an approach where they don't use brute force. Bunch of gun-ho twats.
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel it is very unlikely that they will lose the real thing. They will simply bomb everything in sight for a few weeks/months then go in on foot and with Tanks. Easy battle nah, tough i doubt that either.
This isnt about saving people Crack, this about the potential threat Saddam may be to the US and US interests.
This isnt about saving people Crack, this about the potential threat Saddam may be to the US and US interests.
"Interests" I agree with TT.
Threat to America? - they wouldn't be if America had not sold them the arms in the first place.
Once again America will flex its pec's by going and bombing the shit out of a nation of little brown people, who have got fuck all and have done nothing to deserve it.
A potential conflict would be all about money.
We are blinded by the propoganda about how bad the Iraqi's are ffs. Tactical strikes? Bollocks. They can't even avoid hitting their own soldiers. America can smell blood. FS can't let themselves go for a decade without killing some poor bastards.
Threat to America? - they wouldn't be if America had not sold them the arms in the first place.
Once again America will flex its pec's by going and bombing the shit out of a nation of little brown people, who have got fuck all and have done nothing to deserve it.
A potential conflict would be all about money.
We are blinded by the propoganda about how bad the Iraqi's are ffs. Tactical strikes? Bollocks. They can't even avoid hitting their own soldiers. America can smell blood. FS can't let themselves go for a decade without killing some poor bastards.
2. Solid evidence that they're hiding something thats a no-no.
Problem is that no inspecters are allowed in Iraq.
Think about it from Sadam's view,..
Would you let inspectors see ur toys and have the mean yanks take them away ?
No you just do what he did and say all the inspectors are mostly yanks and u dont want yanks etc, then when they have unscom or whatevre inspectors just dont recognise them.
Point is those sattelite images dont prove shit :/
Those buildings could be of anything. And Europe is against war.
Saddam is doing pretty well now, its been like 4 years since inspectors last came in so he has had a long time to develope weapons, the longer he gets the closer he can get to having biological and chemical weapons.
Then he just says : why should I let inspectors in, The usa is gonna attack anyway ?
So the us is screwed, they cant get proof and they cant attack without proof.
It's political bullshit really, every1 knows Iraq has biological, chemical and prolly nuclear anyway. As if nuclear matters anyway fs, biological and chemical is prolly cheaper and better to kill with anyway :/
Problem is that no inspecters are allowed in Iraq.
Think about it from Sadam's view,..
Would you let inspectors see ur toys and have the mean yanks take them away ?
No you just do what he did and say all the inspectors are mostly yanks and u dont want yanks etc, then when they have unscom or whatevre inspectors just dont recognise them.
Point is those sattelite images dont prove shit :/
Those buildings could be of anything. And Europe is against war.
Saddam is doing pretty well now, its been like 4 years since inspectors last came in so he has had a long time to develope weapons, the longer he gets the closer he can get to having biological and chemical weapons.
Then he just says : why should I let inspectors in, The usa is gonna attack anyway ?
So the us is screwed, they cant get proof and they cant attack without proof.
It's political bullshit really, every1 knows Iraq has biological, chemical and prolly nuclear anyway. As if nuclear matters anyway fs, biological and chemical is prolly cheaper and better to kill with anyway :/
RE:
Saddam is a cock, he needs to be removed just because of that reason, he is a bad leader, there is no democratic way to remove him in that country and I doubt the majority of people agree with his policies. He is a mass murderer, he has used mass destruction weapons in the past, caused numerous wars and abused his position. Now to remove him does not require a full scale war in my opinion, a tactical assault by US/UK special forces would do it. This would require extremely precise inteligence before hand however. The people of Iraq have suffered enough, just remove the master of puppets not the puppets.
Saddam is a cock, he needs to be removed just because of that reason, he is a bad leader, there is no democratic way to remove him in that country and I doubt the majority of people agree with his policies. He is a mass murderer, he has used mass destruction weapons in the past, caused numerous wars and abused his position. Now to remove him does not require a full scale war in my opinion, a tactical assault by US/UK special forces would do it. This would require extremely precise inteligence before hand however. The people of Iraq have suffered enough, just remove the master of puppets not the puppets.
I doubt he has nuclear weapons. Iraq has no Nuclear power stations? These are pretty key in making Nuclear weapons. And no Biological and Chemicals arent as an effective weapon as a 20 Kiloton Atomic bomb! So unless China or USSR and maybe Pakistan has helped him out i think he will not be a nuclear power. If he was to have such a weapon he would use them against Isreal who in return would use their own potent (3 times the size as UK) nuclear arsenal.
The isreali arsenal is made up of mainly Neutron bombs, so that fall out is minimised but deadly effects are maximised.
The isreali arsenal is made up of mainly Neutron bombs, so that fall out is minimised but deadly effects are maximised.
Yeah, the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon is a heluva lot more complicated than "build a nuke" type bollox on the net would suggest. Personally, I would be surprised if they had home grown nukes, but not surprised in the least to find some russian "surplus" turning up..
not in immediate effect, perhaps, but an air release of botulism toxin (for instance) over a metorpolitan area like wahsington or new york would kill >80% of the population in a 3 square mile area, and render the entire place uninhabitable until major cleanup operations were carried out.
no as destructive, but highly effective as a "society" weapon.
I would have to agree, he is just too twitchy at Israel. I can't imagine him sitting there with a nuke, and not getting it off..
Hmmm difficult point this 1.
America will attack and britain will help.
The netherlands allready gave their support.
France china and russia promised their support when the UN approves of the attack. Question is not will they attack but imo when will they attack.
imo an attack can be easily justified, everyday innocent people are killed by the reign of saddam. He uses his people to make human shields of strategical targets.
Remove his ass and tensions will surely be decreased in the mid east. Saddam is a known terrorist supporter and funds a lot of terrorist movements. This makes him a BIG target, since the USA promised a war or terrorism they can not back down now.
America will attack and britain will help.
The netherlands allready gave their support.
France china and russia promised their support when the UN approves of the attack. Question is not will they attack but imo when will they attack.
imo an attack can be easily justified, everyday innocent people are killed by the reign of saddam. He uses his people to make human shields of strategical targets.
Remove his ass and tensions will surely be decreased in the mid east. Saddam is a known terrorist supporter and funds a lot of terrorist movements. This makes him a BIG target, since the USA promised a war or terrorism they can not back down now.
Re: RE:
anything except brute force.
Andy says it pretty much perfect.
Like he says u need intelligence, but if the U.S knows (as it says it knows) precisely what Iraq is doing, then going that extra mile to pinpoint him can't be that hard tbh can it.
Seems to me that just cos the U.S havent found Osama that they are looking for someone else's head to fill with bullets.
anything except brute force.
Andy says it pretty much perfect.
Like he says u need intelligence, but if the U.S knows (as it says it knows) precisely what Iraq is doing, then going that extra mile to pinpoint him can't be that hard tbh can it.
Seems to me that just cos the U.S havent found Osama that they are looking for someone else's head to fill with bullets.
and the truth is that none of these so called "facts" found by the americans wil be released into the public domain, so are we fighting blindfold? did American make em up?
even if they didnt, by the time they(we) strike Iraq it'll have been too late to have found out.
even if they didnt, by the time they(we) strike Iraq it'll have been too late to have found out.
public opinion from what i've seen wants him to have backing from other countries/UN. at this point, that looks difficult, because i believe the 3 other countries with veto power in this case disagree with bush. also, the resolution from congress he needs will be difficult to get, because it looks like the senate majority leader is going to try and delay some of it, at least til after elections this november
edit: also, even bush's father doesn't support this i dont' think
edit: also, even bush's father doesn't support this i dont' think
Well he may sit there and not let it off. The Isrealis do have a formidible nuclear arsenal themselves, though mainly Neutron bombs rather than full 'Dooms Day' weapons that western countries have. You could argue theirs are more suitable for the type of conflict they are likely to encounter. Supposedly they have 200 Warheads. Being mainly Neutron bombs they are relatively clean and could be easily cleaned up after use. Though the human toll of the use of these weapons would be truely massive, especially over populated areas.
Should Saddam launch a nuclear or serious BIO/Chem attack against Isreal I fear their response would be swift and almost surely decisive.
In my opinion he deserves oustin purely for setting the oil wells on fire, the enviromental damage that caused and financial cost to the region was beyond belief. He is a crazy guy who thinks he will kick the USA's a$$(i think he believes he can do it)
The Americans lost political and public backing when they dropped FAE on the Basra road. This was tactically a coup 150 000 Iraqi troops for a few million $s worth of munitions, but politically a disaster. They lost the media War, this time Saddam wont be so lucky.
People should be forwarned that such events can take place. That is war, people do die, including the 'innocent'. From our point of view, the idea is to make sure there are as few deaths on our own side as possible, hope the Americans have updated their Friend or Foe software!
Should Saddam launch a nuclear or serious BIO/Chem attack against Isreal I fear their response would be swift and almost surely decisive.
In my opinion he deserves oustin purely for setting the oil wells on fire, the enviromental damage that caused and financial cost to the region was beyond belief. He is a crazy guy who thinks he will kick the USA's a$$(i think he believes he can do it)
The Americans lost political and public backing when they dropped FAE on the Basra road. This was tactically a coup 150 000 Iraqi troops for a few million $s worth of munitions, but politically a disaster. They lost the media War, this time Saddam wont be so lucky.
People should be forwarned that such events can take place. That is war, people do die, including the 'innocent'. From our point of view, the idea is to make sure there are as few deaths on our own side as possible, hope the Americans have updated their Friend or Foe software!