Invasion of iraq!!
- Thread starter Rich
- 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.
Well the problem is, do you leave him to go on building up any weapons he has? I think the Americans are going in because they are worried for their own safety and that of Isreal. The Americans will be fully aware of the consequences to the region should Saddam attack Isreal.
Should the world sit back and watch Saddam try and build a more powerful weapons arsenal? Should we wait until there is a confirmed threat of a nuclear attack to move? Lets be honest even if he builds a nuclear bomb it will most likely be atomic rather than Thermonuclear, so that oks then?
There are always mistakes made when bombing and fighting a war, collateral damage IE civilians will always die, but arent they dying in Iraq from malnutrition etc anyway? So maybe a few 1000 deaths may be for the greater good?
Lets take Russia that lost 20 Million people in WWII SHould they have just give in and surrended to the Germans and lived under German occupation? Or were they right to fight and lose so many lives?
War is part of life on this planet, it has been forever. Death of 'innocent' people has always been a side effect of conflict and always will be.
Friendly fire has been part of every campaign in recent years, Vietnam, Falklands etc etc etc. and though certain events, such as the American A10 hitting the British Warrior and killing 9 troops was preventable, with a Coalition with seperate (to some extent) C&C centres it will happen.
Should they go and remove Saddam, damn right. Why cos he is a sabre rattler that will eventually attack Isreal, the consequences of which will be horrific, for both the Isreali people and the Iraqi people. Biological and Chemical versus THermonuclear and Neutron bombs. NICEEE.
Anyway might make good viewing over xmas huh.
Should the world sit back and watch Saddam try and build a more powerful weapons arsenal? Should we wait until there is a confirmed threat of a nuclear attack to move? Lets be honest even if he builds a nuclear bomb it will most likely be atomic rather than Thermonuclear, so that oks then?
There are always mistakes made when bombing and fighting a war, collateral damage IE civilians will always die, but arent they dying in Iraq from malnutrition etc anyway? So maybe a few 1000 deaths may be for the greater good?
Lets take Russia that lost 20 Million people in WWII SHould they have just give in and surrended to the Germans and lived under German occupation? Or were they right to fight and lose so many lives?
War is part of life on this planet, it has been forever. Death of 'innocent' people has always been a side effect of conflict and always will be.
Friendly fire has been part of every campaign in recent years, Vietnam, Falklands etc etc etc. and though certain events, such as the American A10 hitting the British Warrior and killing 9 troops was preventable, with a Coalition with seperate (to some extent) C&C centres it will happen.
Should they go and remove Saddam, damn right. Why cos he is a sabre rattler that will eventually attack Isreal, the consequences of which will be horrific, for both the Isreali people and the Iraqi people. Biological and Chemical versus THermonuclear and Neutron bombs. NICEEE.
Anyway might make good viewing over xmas huh.
who searches that ll find something
many countries promised to support the "war" against terrorism yeah but attacking the iraq?
if the US and any allies of the US go in without the UN they break international law and should be punished!
but of course this wont happen because the US can veto anything
many countries promised to support the "war" against terrorism yeah but attacking the iraq?
if the US and any allies of the US go in without the UN they break international law and should be punished!
but of course this wont happen because the US can veto anything
Lets give em democracy wether they want it or not.
As for Bush being sneaky?thats daft saything that.U need intelect to b sneaky.
"We dont need proof, the burden of proof is on Saddam"GW.Bush jr-
Just having weapons of mass distruction isnt a valid reason.Sure hes used em in the past, but u can judge future crimes which hasnt happend on past crimes.Think ppl!!
As for Bush being sneaky?thats daft saything that.U need intelect to b sneaky.
"We dont need proof, the burden of proof is on Saddam"GW.Bush jr-
Just having weapons of mass distruction isnt a valid reason.Sure hes used em in the past, but u can judge future crimes which hasnt happend on past crimes.Think ppl!!
The 34 people who died at a wedding was from an airstrike. Pilots attacked the site where people were firing rifles into the air, they had been instructed to return fire when fired at. Unknown to them it was in celebration for the wedding that had just taken place. Mistakes happen.
The point is Iraq is breaking UN sanctions. As i see it atm America & Britain (&maybe others) will only go ahead with the attack with UN support or if the UN fail to act properly. If the UN fail to act then quite frankly it may as well be disolved as if Iraq is allowed to ignore the UN everyone will.
There u go ago.
Hes invaded & wrecked Kuwait, attacked Israel with ballistic missiles, gassed Kurds in the north & effectively starved Shi's in the south...but thats `no big deal' to u is it Gen. Ur so anti-America that ur blinded to anything else.
As for `future crimes', hes commiting them RIGHT NOW by actually manufacturing mass destruction weapons which contravenes international law in the form of UN resolutions so u can drop ur `hes not doing anything!' line. Think Gen!!
The "first" gulf war was only ended on the understanding that he wouldn't contue with his development of weapons of mass destruction. He's clearly breached those terms and I think that makes the US justified in it's action.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the UN security council has (obviously not publicly) given the US it's backing to threaten to go in unilaterally just to see what the reaction will be from Iraq. I think cards are being played extremely close to the chest at the moment and that shortly before anything does happen a lot more evidence and justification will emerge AND the UN will offer all the support it can.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the UN security council has (obviously not publicly) given the US it's backing to threaten to go in unilaterally just to see what the reaction will be from Iraq. I think cards are being played extremely close to the chest at the moment and that shortly before anything does happen a lot more evidence and justification will emerge AND the UN will offer all the support it can.
Sure hes breaking that UN resolution.But was it placed there for the right reasons?I go back to what ive said before about there being loadsa other bastards who operate freely without intervention.If ur going to ignore some bastards u cant pick 1 another 1 just because he threatens the status quo on the oil market.
Personaly i think the world would be a better place without Saddam, but u have to play it stricktly by the pricipals or u cant pass moral judgement on others or u end up looking like a hypocrit.
Personaly i think the world would be a better place without Saddam, but u have to play it stricktly by the pricipals or u cant pass moral judgement on others or u end up looking like a hypocrit.
Firstly morals r easy to preach when u are a developed, powerful country. Secondly wars fought on morals aren't very successful (Somalia, Vietnam).
To wage war against 'evil' you have to fight nice: To do this while trying to overthrow a leader who has a big following in his country(like Saddam has) is madness. We'd have to kill tens of thousands of innocent ppl, and who would stand and support that?
To wage war against 'evil' you have to fight nice: To do this while trying to overthrow a leader who has a big following in his country(like Saddam has) is madness. We'd have to kill tens of thousands of innocent ppl, and who would stand and support that?
Draze would it seems.
Draze: go read something instead of just spouting what uve heard on tv.If i thought u were out to do anything other than take the piss i might answer u.As it is your ignorance shines to much for me to take anything u say serious.So if i dont play into your future pisstaking plz assume anything u want.
Draze: go read something instead of just spouting what uve heard on tv.If i thought u were out to do anything other than take the piss i might answer u.As it is your ignorance shines to much for me to take anything u say serious.So if i dont play into your future pisstaking plz assume anything u want.
So AGAIN u cant answer a simple enough question. If dodging the issue was an Olympic sport I reckon u could represent Norway.
Dont come in this forum posting sweeping generalisations if u cant back them up. Yet again may I remind u of the forum rules:-
e. Use FACT: or OPINION: to clearly define what you are posting. If you are posting anything which you deam as a fact it should be backed up with evidence obtained from other websites. If you do not provide evidence or further independant reading for anything you declare as a fact you are undermining the authenticity of your statement.
So i'll ask u again...
Name them. If there are `loads' as u claim u shouldnt have any trouble eh.
1 final point Gen, if u really cant handle any1 scrutinizing what u post then maybe, just maybe u shouldnt come here
True indeed...but lets be honest, the current problem with Iraq is not about morals but about regional and possibly World security, or so they tell us
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
.But does he have a big following? We cant really tell can we. Sure he holds the country in an iron grip but i doubt if thats through popularity.
Ur absolutely right about fighting `nice' though. Iraq can shower Israel with crude Scud missiles but the west has to provide exstensive evidence of the result of every strike. In this `modern' World, the west has to fight on 2 fronts... the immediate enemy plus its own media.
Well say this were to happen. At whos door would the blame lie? The West for actually doing it or Saddam for endangering the lives of his ppl by operating the country the way he does in the first place? A very contentious point.
I dont know if war against Iraq is right or wrong tbh. I personally think its about oil and therefore shouldnt happen...but if he does indeed pose the military threat that Blair & Bush are campaigning so strongly about then i do think he should be stopped cos we simply cant run the risk of leaving him to his own devices due to his past record.
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/THEMES/PRISONERS+OF+CONSCIENCE?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=1
Thats the amnesty site, in adition to the link above theres tons of info other places on that site if u have a serious interst in the truth.
As for the reasons behind political events over the last 50 years i cant seriously be arsed to list em all since it takes to long.I dont post here to proove or fight for my point of view since i really cant be arsed what ppl think.I do how ever post incase ppl have never heard of it and have like me a consience and a investegative mind to pick up on this and find out more on their own..
Vietnam wasnt about morals or doing the right thing, it was about Capitalism vs Comunism ie (power(then)) economic world domination.
Same thing with the gulfwar and a whole series of dictators in both africa andsouth america.
(this being the short version)
Thats the amnesty site, in adition to the link above theres tons of info other places on that site if u have a serious interst in the truth.
As for the reasons behind political events over the last 50 years i cant seriously be arsed to list em all since it takes to long.I dont post here to proove or fight for my point of view since i really cant be arsed what ppl think.I do how ever post incase ppl have never heard of it and have like me a consience and a investegative mind to pick up on this and find out more on their own..
Vietnam wasnt about morals or doing the right thing, it was about Capitalism vs Comunism ie (power(then)) economic world domination.
Same thing with the gulfwar and a whole series of dictators in both africa andsouth america.
(this being the short version)