[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive]

Andr�s

February 25th, 2003, 02:41 AM

You probably have already seen this message, but here it is anyway.

TO SAY NO by Eduardo Galeano

The president of the planet has announced his next crime in the name of God and democracy. This is how he slanders God. He also slanders democracy, which has managed to survive in the world despite the dictatorships that the
United States have been sowing everywhere for over a century.
Bush’s government, that more than a government seems a pipeline, needs to seize the second world reserve of oil, that lies under the soil of Iraq. Also, it needs to justify the enormous amount of money of its military expenses and needs to parade in the battlefield the state of the art models of his arms industry.
This is it. The rest is only excuses. And the excuses for the coming carnage offend the intelligence. The only country that has used nuclear arms against a civilian population, the country that burst the atomic bombs that annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, intends to convince us that Iraq is a danger for humanity. If president Bush loves humankind so much, and if he really wants to avert the most serious threat that humankind is facing, why doesn�t he bomb himself,
instead of planning a new extermination of innocent people?
Humankind is sick and tired of being used as an alibi by its murderers. It is also sick and tired of crying for its dead at the end of each war:
this time it wants to stop the war that is going to kill them.Now they have fabricated the evidence to provide the excuse they needed, and say that that it would be too costly to remove the troops.

MODERATOR EDIT: Changed the title from "Humankind is sick and tired of being used as an alibi by its murderers." to "Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation."

edit2: Matched subject to the topic drift.

[ April 16, 2003, 16:16: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

primitive

February 25th, 2003, 02:49 AM

I am with you on this Andr�s.

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Arkcon

February 25th, 2003, 03:44 AM

[ March 09, 2003, 02:16: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Thermodyne

February 25th, 2003, 04:23 AM

Sorry guys, I had made a promise to myself that I would try to stay out of this line of threads. But this is beyond my limits of restraint. Any FOOL can take historical facts and bend them to support unfounded statements. But when looked at in a more complete context, the quoted brain fart is just pure garbage. Especially the use of atomic weapons. Japan got just what it had coming. The two nuclear releases brought the war to an end, and saved lives on both sides. It should also be noted that we were not the only nation trying to build the weapons in 1945. One of the weapons we used benefited from the production capabilities of the Nazi�s. And it was the intent of their allies in Asia to use the material in the form of a dirty bomb on their own soil. Also while America has had many failures at nation building, we have also had the best results of any nation that has ever tried to rebuild the economies and governments of nations destroyed by war.

As for Iraq, they hold the key to their future. If they disarm, then there will not be war. If they continue to thumb their noses as they lie and cheat their way past the inspection process, then they will again experience the weight of American arms. Lets face it guys, this man gassed thousands of his own citizens. That in itself is reason enough to have him before the bench with his life on the line.

It is very easy for nations to look past their own short comings as they debate the actions of others. But if the world were left to the historical actions of these same nations, half would be under the colonial boot, and many of the rest would be under the boot of conquering armies. As for the voice of Argentina, I would think that the internal failures of Argentinean government would be sufficient to keep the need for published rhetoric occupied.

No nation has been as generous as America during times of need. And no nation has ever been so generous to its fallen foes as America. America is not perfect, but when compared to the rest of the world, we look pretty damn good.

[ February 25, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

DocShane

February 25th, 2003, 04:55 AM

I agree, Thermodyne. Guess we know who the Americans and non-Americans are in this post.

SamuraiProgrammer

February 25th, 2003, 06:01 AM

If we had wanted Iraq for the oil, we would have kept it Last time.

It is undisputable that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. He used chemical warfare against his OWN POPULATION.

It is undisputable that he has encouraged terrorist acts against this country.

He rose to power in Iraq by assasinating any member of the legislature that had opposed him. I have seen videos of the event. For hours he sat and called them out, one by one, and had them killed. Grown men were blubbering in their chairs because they knew they were probably on the list.

These are the facts.

Is there a definite link between Saddam Hussein & 9-11? We will never know for sure. For every report that says yes, there will be one that says no.

Has he publicly advocated such actions? Yes.

Should he pay for those statements? Yes.

Should the people of Iraq pay with him? The knee jerk reaction is NO. Upon further inspection, though, there might be a different answer. How responsible are they for the actions of their government?

If the entire population of Iraq got up from prayers one morning and said "No. You are Evil. You are wrong. We will not cooperate. We will not be party to your tyrrany. Step Down," and began a campaign of peaceful civil disobedience (ala Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King) what would happen?

If you determine that that is useless, they could find ways to leave. Considering the amount of contraband that is smuggled all over the world, I believe that people could get out if they really wanted to.

They have choices and are not exercising them.

If they populace of that country rose up in peaceful civil disobedience, how many civilians would die before it came to an end?

I don't know, but I suspect it is more than the number of civilians that died in the Gulf War. And, furthermore, I suspect it is more than the number of civilians that are likely to die if this war commences.

War is bad. War is ugly. War is evil.

What is happening at the behest of Saddam Hussein is (at the very least) as bad, ugly, and evil.

We must choose between evils. We can let this go on until he evaporates a city with nuclear fire. Or we can try to stop it now before it goes any further.

Unfortunately, those are our choices.

Talk has failed to work for 12 years.

The most peaceful periods in history have been named Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica. During these periods, those two empires exerted enough military dominance that no one was strong enough to fight back.

Rome had the Iron Pilum.

Britain had their navy.

Where we failed as a country was in failing to impose a Pax Americana when we had the bomb and no one else did. To be sure, we should allow cultures and societies to evolve and retain their individuality. But no where, in my opinon, does that imply that we must live in fear.

You are entitled to your opinion.

So am I.

One Last thing:

Yes, the United States of America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger. I am not particularly proud of that fact. But I would ask you to take a hard look at the following and THINK.

In the past, many have tried to conquer Europe. Rome (various leaders), Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napolean, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Adolph Hitler all made amazingly successful attempts. Since the release of nuclear weapons, no one has tried.

How many lives has that saved?

In World War II, 15 million soldiers died. Between 26 million and 34 million civilians died. How does that number compare to the tragic losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How many might Saddam Hussein kill if we keep letting him get away with things incrementally.

How many fewer would have died between 1939 and 1945 if Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland?

No one complained when we kept the peace in Europe and Eastern Asia in the 1940's. Apparently we have more work to do.

Pulling a thorn is usually painful. Amputating the leg because you were squeamish about the thorn is debilitating.

Which would you choose?

If you are citizen of the United States, call your congressman and voice your opinion. Vote for whomever represents your views.

If you are not a citizen of the United States, mind your own damn business.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 06:11 AM

And where did that bunk come from Andres?

Instar

February 25th, 2003, 06:16 AM

Oh god get out the flame boots...

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 06:26 AM

No nation has been as generous as America during times of need. And no nation has ever been so generous to its fallen foes as America. America is not perfect, but when compared to the rest of the world, we look pretty damn good.In fact, the US refused to agree to the treaty created by its European allies for Germany and its allies to sign after World War I. Wilson negotiated a separate treaty between the US and Germany because the other one was too harsh and would only serve propagate the hatred between the German people and their neighbors.

Puke

February 25th, 2003, 07:05 AM

Good to hear from you, Doc. And others.

Lets keep it cool though. People are entitled to their oppinions, and are allowed to dislike US forign policy. Often, they have alot of reasons to. Anyone who has read my B.S. knows that Im behind our war effort in Iraq, the Philipines, Columbia, and wherever else we have troops on the ground fighting. But lets keep cool heads.

Andr�s

February 25th, 2003, 07:24 AM

I apologize for forgetting to put an OT in the topic. Are you happy now?

Many have never forgiven the US of using the atomics. Large explosions are just more impressive than millons of soldiers killing millons of civilians.

I don't share that 100%. I guess that sooner or later atomics would have been used against a real target at least once.
Yes, the ended the war. It's hard to tell how many more or perhaps less would have died in a longer war. The world map would be different that's for sure.
But it was a great move that secured the US position as a dominat potence. And the've managed to keep that place by not letting anyone else to get near ever since.

Saddam is not the only dictator in the world, you know. Many have been placed or supported by the US, you know. And I'm sure he's probably not the one that made the worst atrocities, at least not until he was forced to a desperate situation anyway.
And how can you acuse someone of acting deseperately when you force him into a desperate situation in first place?

No one gave a f*** about poor arab peoples that have been at war with each other for centuries, until they discoverd oil and suddenly they were not so poor.

Iraq had disarmed themselves long ago.
Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs.
And any weapon found now will most likely be planted by american agents. That's just a pety excuse that never had anything to do to the war your government want.
Anyway saying they can't have weapons of mass destruction is just the US saying "I have the gun, you can't have a gun. I could's shot down anyone I want, but as I don't do it I'm good."

Humankind is sick and tired of being used as an alibi by its murderers.

It is very easy for nations to look past their own short comings as they debate the actions of others. But if the world were left to the historical actions of these same nations, half would be under the colonial boot, and many of the rest would be under the boot of conquering armies. As for the voice of Argentina, I would think that the internal failures of Argentinean government would be sufficient to keep the need for published rhetoric occupied.FYI Eduardo Galeano is not Argentinaen, he's Uruguayan. But I admit I heard that in an Argentinaen radio.
This text was part of a letter of invitation to participate in the demonstrations of February 15th, and now is being repeated in some media as part of an anti-war campaign.

But internal failures in Argentina are not independent from external influenced imposed by the dominant country.
You forget that the US is about to use conquering armies for its own intersts.
And someday we will decalre our independence from the US renewed versinon of the colonial boot.

No nation has been as generous as America during times of need. And no nation has ever been so generous to its fallen foes as America.It's easy to be generous when you manage to emerge victor and relatively unharmed from a war that devastaded all other world potences.

Help they've given to other countries while they are the reason they don't have the funds ti help themselves doesn't count.

America is not perfect, but when compared to the rest of the world, we look pretty damn good.I agree with this. That text I quoted is more anti-american than my feelings.

No country is perfect. No country has the right to call itself saviour of humankind.
No country is evil either. There are no demons on earth. Although you try to make your chosen enemy look like one.
The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound.

This war will only generate more violence.
Humankind will be no safer if a dictator, even if he is half as terrible as you say he is, is killed.
While there are nations that don't have a country of their own, and while foreign nations want to exploit other's resources and keep all profit for themselves, there will be people that will fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs. Figures that lead those movements will be called dictators any bad actions thet make will be exagerated as unspeakable atrocities, any good actions and intentions hidden.

MODERATOR EDIT: (Please try not to use the "F" word. Thank you.)

[ February 25, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 07:30 AM

The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors. Well... they will hesitate, but only because the US will most likely step in to the conflict to stop further use of the bombs. This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them.

There is 0 doubt that the US using the atomic bombs on Japan saved millions of lives. The Japanese had foguht very very resiliantly, most often to the Last man standing, on every minor little island that the US liberated from their occupation in the Pacific. Imagine how they would have fought to defend their home islands.

ZeroAdunn

February 25th, 2003, 08:42 AM

Actually Fyron, I have to say one thing there. Not to long ago the military was given the authorization to use controlled nuclear strikes (albiet from my understanding on a smaller scale then hiroshima and nagasaki) in the middle east. I don't think it will come to that, but saying they could is already going to far.

Finally, I seem to recall after world war I, while all of Europe was playing lets see how hard we can kick Germany in the balls, America was saying we all need to work together to rebuild. Of course Europe would rather kick germany in the balls make peace, and so came world war II.

And I have to agree, we had the middle east in our hands, why didn't we hold it if we were so focused on oil? And why are we suddenly so heavily investing in alternative feul if we will soon have so much oil? The first time was oil, I admit it, this time it is something else.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 08:53 AM

Finally, I seem to recall after world war I, while all of Europe was playing lets see how hard we can kick Germany in the balls, America was saying we all need to work together to rebuild. Of course Europe would rather kick germany in the balls make peace, and so came world war II.That is essentially what I said a few Posts back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QuarianRex

February 25th, 2003, 10:06 AM

This certainly is an interesting thread. And I have some thoughts on some of what has been said.

SamuraiProgrammer:

"Has he publicly advocated such actions? Yes.
Should he pay for those statements? Yes."

Are you serious? Do you really believe that a foriegn dictator saying that he hopes all americans get anthrax is a justification for war? So much for free speach.

"...they could find ways to leave. ...I believe that people could get out if they really wanted to. ...They have choices and are not exercising them."

Leaving ones home is usually not a viable option. Most people from the middle east (hell, even europe, asia, africa, etc.) have strong ties to the land of their birth. Ties that are deeper than social, economic, or even religious. This is something that people growing up in immigrant countries don't usually understand. Also, where would they go? People without a home usually aren't treated very well in the middle east, just look at the palestinians (and I'm not talking about their dealings with Isreal either).

It sounds almost as if you are trying to justify civilian deaths. Remember too that governments, even democracies, don't have a very good track record of listening to their populace. Did the multitude of hippies really cause viet nam to end any quicker than it otherwise would have? Probably not.

Imperator Fyron:

"The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors."

This is the popular preconception. People (especially americans) tend to think that the only thing keeping the world from tearing itself apart is the threat of the US retaliating with the big bad bomb. This is a delusion. If a nuke went off in downtown Calcutta the states would Not immediately launch ICBM's at pakistan. It is not fear of the US that prevents nuclear war, it is fear of nuclear war itself, an instinct for survival.

"This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them."

This is a foolish argument that goes against human nature. No one voluntarily allows another to maintain power over them. No matter how benign the wielder of that power may seem they do not have your best interests in mind, they have their own. That means that they cannot be fully trusted. When you see someone conspicuously waving around a baseball bat you always feel safer if you have one yourself.

Also realize that this potential war will not be a 'righteous' one. This will not be a defense against a possible world conqueror. If (when) it happens it will be barely justifiable and will most likely not be an extremely proud moment in history.

Remember how this all started? Osamma bin Ladden? Where is he now, is he caught? Who cares? He was a convenient excuse to renew a fifteen year old grudge match. And it seems as if the primary goal here is to pick a fight. And it just might succeed.

On a side note, I recently saw some research that was kind of interesting. It seems that wars tend to spring up every ten to fifteen years, correlating to shifts in the earths geo-magnetic field. It seems like the planet likes us getting a little rowdy every decade or so. It looks like we're due.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 10:08 AM

On a side note, I recently saw some research that was kind of interesting. It seems that wars tend to spring up every ten to fifteen years, correlating to shifts in the earths geo-magnetic field. It seems like the planet likes us getting a little rowdy every decade or so. It looks like we're due.That sounds like highly unsound science to me. Who did this research, and where did you hear of it?

Askan Nightbringer

February 25th, 2003, 10:12 AM

*puts on his flame proof suit*

Getting rid of the Saddam is probabaly a noble cause. Unfortunately the American government has really stuffed up diplomatically with what looks like crude attempt to bludgeon its way through what are fair questions with bizzare rhetoric and half truths.

With the amount of propaganda flying around at the moment its really hard to guess at what the truth is, and I assume in ten years time I'll get the answer.

But for the convenience of everyone here I'll just give a few points at some of the stuff that is really annoying me.

- Yes Saddam gassed some Kurds. Everyone knows it coz Rumsfield was in the country at the time. I think he said .... "" (nothing). In fact the whole world found it so revolting that the British had to go sell Saddam some new guidance missile systems and lathes for making artillery shells. But where could Saddam put all these new British toys coz all his warehouses were full with Russian missiles, French nuclear technology, US Anthrax cultures, German chemicals and 12 pairs of old size 7 Australian army boots?
In fact everybody cared so much about the Kurds that we let Saddams Republican Guard crush their rebellion post gulf war and we let Turkish jets into the no fly zone to bomb Kurdish camps (when the Turkish are bored with bombing Kurds in their own country I suppose).

- Yes Saddam runs a repressive regime. I remember all those public outcries when he was busy killing off communists in his government and getting rid of Islamic extremists.

- Yes Saddam invaded Kuwait. We knew he was going to because he told the US ambassador at the time. I beleive her words were something like "its not US policy to get involved arab - arab conflict". I believe after the gulf war she said something to the effect of "well we didn't think he was going to take the whole country"

- Yes Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out of his country. Well that's not quite true because Richard Butler (the idiot Australian who was given to the UN coz he stuffed up Australia's chance of getting elected to the security council) withdrew the inspectors on the advice of the US because the US and Britian were about to embark on a big bomb dropping spree. Other members of the Security Council complained that they were not advised of the descision to withdraw and they wanted him sacked. Saddam let other inspectors back in after the bombing but for some reason didn't want to co-operate as much and the whole thing fell apart.

- Yes Saddam is aggresive. But please don't compare him to Hitler, a guy who was in charge of a large industrialised nation that was probabaly the strongest military power at the time. Iraq can never achieve the dominance over its neighbours that Germany did in World War II. There's only a handful of countries who can do that now, and they all have vetoes on the Security Council.

So in short Saddam is a complete Frankestein. The powerful players of the world made him and the powerful players of the world are going to unmake him.

There is only one party of innocents in this whole thing and thats the Iraqi people. They will be the ones losing arms, legs, food, water, parents and children. Send thousands of blue helmets to stablise the country and let these people live!

Askan

primitive

February 25th, 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors. Well... they will hesitate, but only because the US will most likely step in to the conflict to stop further use of the bombs. This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them.
Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.

QuarianRex

February 25th, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That sounds like highly unsound science to me. Who did this research, and where did you hear of it?Not as unsound as you might think. It was mentioned in passing by one of my profs in a neuro-science class. We were looking at the effects of the geo-mag field on the brain (specifically with epileptics and such) and questions were raised about the extent to which the GMF could affect the mind and that was brought up as a possible macro-effect.

Also, note that it was a correlational study and so merely suggests a relationship, not cause and effect. The specifics are buried in a notebook somewhere.

VampiricDread

February 25th, 2003, 10:38 AM

Being from a different thread group, where I moderate with the help of other fans, I was appaled with the warning of what was going on here.

I have my views on this, but, come on, guys, this thread of yours is really for something different, I would imagine.

Don't spoil your environment with things you cannot control; don't disrupt friendships over something one should have a stand, but is way off the purpose of SEIV.

Cool off and calm down, please.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors. Well... they will hesitate, but only because the US will most likely step in to the conflict to stop further use of the bombs. This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them.
Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.<hr /></blockquote>Oh yeah, we are going to go nuke the rest of the world tomorrow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces.

[ February 25, 2003, 08:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ruatha

February 25th, 2003, 11:54 AM

Well, about the US and A-bombs.
Yes, the A-bombs in WWII save a LOT of lifes. About US not using thema gain.
In vietnam it was the president who stopped the use of them, the military was planning to use them.

In Sweden we see that Russia today isn't a threat to us, bot we have been neighbours with them a long time and so we don't disarm totally, one never knows what will happen tomorrow.
This also correlates to the US and the A-bombs, you don't know how the US policy will be in 10 years. Today I find it hard to belive that the US would be forced to use the A-bomb as they are clearly superior in conventional forces.

Samurai > About non US not should care about this. I belive the Iraqi are non US citizens, and they should care about this I belive. Also, we are a humanty as a whole. Atrocoties (Not the person) should be stopped whoever is doing them, even if it is the US.

Having said all that I'm starting to agree that the US and their allies should strike against the Iraqi.

dogscoff

February 25th, 2003, 12:10 PM

There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces.
Oh, and that's a far more comforting thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Seriously, I wouldn't put it past the likes of George Dubbya to use nukes, it's just a matter of whether he can get away with it and he is testing the limits of public and political tolerance now. If we let him he'll stretch further and further until he's planting mushrooms all over the damn world.

There is so much on this thread that I want to respond to that I hardly know where to start. Thankfully Askan summed up many of my beliefs in his post.

Yes, Saddam is a monster, but our governments only choose to recognise that fact when it suits them. To pretend this war is for humanitarian reasons is a delusion when the very countries advocating it are the ones who armed Saddam in the first place.

False and emotive pro-war propaganda (in particular I refer to that plagiarised thesis) and shifting justifications ("it's about stopping terrorism - oh, no one believes that. OK, it's about weapons of mass destruction - no, it's actually about 'liberating' the people of Iraq.") do nothing to convince me of our governments' humanitarian motives.

I agree, Thermodyne. Guess we know who the Americans and non-Americans are in this post.
Yes, it's quite easy, everybody's location is listed at the foot of their post.

why are we suddenly so heavily investing in alternative feul if we will soon have so much oil?
You're not. Since coming to power Bush has repeatedly crippled research and legislation for alternative fuels. I don't know the figures, but I'd be willing to bet that his high profile endorsement of alternatives the other week is nowhere near enough to repair the damage he has already done.

we had the middle east in our hands, why didn't we hold it if we were so focused on oil?
Because at that time the international community and the public would not have stood for such a blatant act of imperialism. Nowadays we have the the so-called "war on terror" to justify pretty much any action in the middle east (soon to be extended to the far East) as well as draconian legislation at home.

It seems that wars tend to spring up every ten to fifteen years, correlating to shifts in the earths geo-magnetic field.
This doesn't sound so far-fetched to me: It's a known and proven fact that the phases of the moon affect peoples' mental state (ask any psychiatric hospital employee about the working full moon shift if you don't believe me) so why not the Earth's magnetic field as well?

Oh, and finally:

If you are not a citizen of the United States, mind your own damn business.
Screw you! This is an international issue! When this war escalates anti-western hatred and terrorists start blowing up my home town, will it be my business then? When the Koreans start throwing nukes at my house because George Bush has announced that they are next on his hit-list, whose business will it be? When the UN is finally steamrolled into nothing and Georgy boy declares himself the undisputed gunslinging, nuke-juggling wild-west sheriff of the world (With Toady Tony Blair as his dutiful deputy) am I allowed to voice an opinion then?

tesco samoa

February 25th, 2003, 03:27 PM

There is more than one reason why the Us Dropped the two bombs in 1945. One would have been the cost of lives if Operation Olympic was to succeed. The second was that their were 120 russian divisions who just happened to completely wipe out 80 Japanise divisions in 2 months and claimed two islands. Third was the political aspect of the bombs to act a deterient against Russia. There are many more reasons ( some which we will never know about as it was extrememly complex )but I believe that the 2nd and 3rd points were the main reasons behind the bomb.

The Us is very very right wing. They tried it in the 70's but failed ( watergate, do you remember it, Its like it never happened ), but did the right wing go away. No they formed new alliances with Groups such as the Christan Fundamists etc... and are now on the path to control again ( hoping their is no nasty surprises, ) And with only 37 companies controling all of AMerican media I am sure their will not be any.

I have no fear that the Us will drop the bomb today. But in 10 years or 20 that question is not so easy to answer.

Now, to say that the current issue with Iraq is only about oil is only part of the picture. Tell me what happens if they do get the oil. They flood the markets with it. Other countries will turn their production back. The Oil arguement alone does not make any sence.

All Sudam has to do here is comply with the UN resolution 100% and then see where that issue takes his nation and the US.

Eduardo Galeano uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki but fails to mention Toyko, Berlin , Dresdan, Hamburg, nor Nanking.

My God he is defending a man who has killed over a million people. 900,000 Iranians 350, 000 of his own people in that one war. 40,000 in the Shia Rebellion 91-92 , 85,000 in Gulf War 1, 1,000,000 because of the Embargo, 300,000 Kurds.

Think about that.

( Well somehow I think I wrote a post that will piss everyone off.... SOrry... ANd Fryon if the US was involved in a convential war against the world.. They would lose. )

oleg

February 25th, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oh yeah, we are going to go nuke the rest of the world tomorrow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces.[/QB]Actually, G.W.Bush proclaimed recently that US will us nuclear weapons as a preventive strike.

No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media.

DavidG

February 25th, 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.Um you are scared because the Americans would attempt to stop two countries from nuking each other? I think it's a bit more scary that some countries (yours perhaps?) would do nothing.

Aloofi

February 25th, 2003, 04:13 PM

Well, my two cents:

First of all, I don't wanna hear anymore that BS that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, because its an insult to the intelligence. Everybody knows that the Iraqis hate the Kurds for some old reasons (or misreasons) and they applauded when Saddam droped the gas. No Iraqi see the kurds as their own. For the Iraqis the Kurds are terrorists as bad as Al Qaeda is for the Yanks.
Second, you are deluding yorself if you believe that the US will not use their nukes if the time for the need comes. That's just plain stupid. No nuclear power will ever be defeated on his own soil, or get his cities nuked, without nuking back. What I'm saying its that if a nuke goes off in an American city, all bets are off.
Third, there is already an state of war between Iraq and the US, you probably heard of fire interchange over the no fly zone on a weekly basis, if not daily. Iraq have been under a blockade for the Last 13 years, and they have to stop that somehow. If Iraq get their hands on a nuke I have no doubt on my mind they will use it against the US. So its foolish for the US not to take Saddam out.
You may argue that Saddam could disarm, but the problem with that is the fact that if you haven't found a nuke doesn't mean that there is none. I would never believe, and so will the US govt, that Saddam can't hide nukes in some hidden place 1000 meters underground. The risk of a nuke going off in an American city its a risk that no administration can take. And that's why there is going to be a war.
Do I support this war?
No, I don't.
I don't like Bush and company. I liked Clinton a lot better, but this Georgy guy is too involved in corporate business to trust him for half a second. I mean, this guy actualy put one of his employees as President of Afghanistan! Well, ok, ex-employee, ex co-worker of Condy Rice, and ex oil analist under Dick Cheney. Still is mighty suspicious.
Anyway, I think there is going to be a war, either this year or next, but war it will be.
And I do expect Iraqi attacks on American soil. Any half witted armchair general knows that you have to take war to the enemy territory or lose, and I don't see a reason to believe that Saddam will repeat the same stupid mistakes he did the Last time.
Rule number one of war: NEVER understimate the enemy. I know its hard not to, because of the easy victory Last time, but don't.

primitive

February 25th, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.Um you are scared because the Americans would attempt to stop two countries from nuking each other? I think it's a bit more scary that some countries (yours perhaps?) would do nothing.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, You misunderstand me.
I am scared if Americans believe they are more intelligent and have higher moral standards then the rest of the world. And if they believe it’s their “right” or “duty” to police the world.

India and Pakistan have managed to fight several “limited” wars, without (correct me if I am wrong here, because I know to little about this) escalating it into full force terror bombing of the other sides cities. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate that they are stupid enough to start nuking each other.

And my Country:
We will be there when it is necessary. We just don’t think it’s necessary yet.
What GBW is doing is not problem solving, it’s creating new problems.

Sinapus

February 25th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
False and emotive pro-war propaganda (in particular I refer to that plagiarised thesis) and shifting justifications ("it's about stopping terrorism - oh, no one believes that. OK, it's about weapons of mass destruction - no, it's actually about 'liberating' the people of Iraq.") do nothing to convince me of our governments' humanitarian motives.
While false and emotive anti-war propaganda is what, exactly?

dogscoff

February 25th, 2003, 06:36 PM

While false and emotive anti-war propaganda is what, exactly?
Specifically, this: "Intelligence" report turns out to be plagiarised graduate thesis. (http://www.google.com/search?q=Iraq+thesis+plagiarism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=xx-bork) The top result in the above search ( http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/uk020603.html ) seems to be a pretty good summary of the article in question.

If I was being unspecific, I would point to the general air of desperation coming from the Whitehouse & Downing St as they scrabble around for anti-Iraq sticks to hit the public with...

VampiricDread

February 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM

Huh! Is this an official thread for taking sides?
Who isn't for me is against me, and the like? Do any of you have a saying to start or stop the American/Iraqi crisis?

Can this thread be moved OUTSIDE SEIV, Shrapnel Admins and Moderators, please? Some place like a new area to bash everything you dislike about world politics?

Thanks, guys. Make my day.

dogscoff

February 25th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Actually Dread, we do tend to discuss all kinds of non-SE4 stuff on this forum. This is quite normal.

Furthermore, this is probably one of the few places you'll find where a discussion like this expressing both sides of the debate can be held without it degenerating into flames...

If you don't like this thread, I respectfully suggest you go read one of the ones not labelled [OT].

[ February 25, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

VampiricDread

February 25th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Point taken, Dogscoff. Should this mean that ALL Shrapnel community is to get here and voice their oppinions over this issue? I suggest that this HOT topic is placed somewhere else, that's all, but it's your playground, not mine.

Thanks.

geoschmo

February 25th, 2003, 07:40 PM

I am not going to lock this down just yet. As an OT thread you guys have a little latitude. I would ask that you try to remain civil. And I am going to edit the title to something a little less inflamatory. The current one is just asking for trouble.

Geoschmo

Richard

February 25th, 2003, 08:29 PM

I agree. As long as there is no name calling and everyone remains CIVIL I think there is no problem with having active discussion on stuff like this when it is clearly labeled off topic.

I would voice my opinion on the subject but I have other avenues to argue these issues http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Play nice kids.

(And yes I still read these forums from time to time).

rextorres

February 25th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Since no one has posted anything interesting elsewhere I'll muck rake here -

Polls are polls but. . .

a recent gallup poll found that

"those with postgraduate degrees were the most likely to oppose an invasion of Iraq.

Pew found support among college graduates was 13 points lower than among those without degrees. Backing among rural residents was 16 points higher than among city dwellers. White evangelical Christians were the strongest backers of all -- 85 percent in the Pew poll."

You guys can draw your own conclusions - but it seems that if you are educated and have some level of intellectual curiosity you are more likely to oppose a war.

[ February 25, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 09:16 PM

Public opinion polls are inherently biased by those asking them, and are never very accurate. Relying on them is a bad idea.

Krsqk

February 25th, 2003, 10:13 PM

Well, considering that most education is not how to think, but what to think (whether conservative or liberal colleges), it's not surprising that more post-grads would be anti-war. That's like being surprised that most college professors are anti-war--but I don't see the public at large rushing to put them in charge of things. Most people wouldn't give two figs about what "some professor" thinks, because they are perceived (often rightly) as being intellectual elitists who don't know enough common English to effectively communicate with the plumber.

Education != Intelligence
Education also != Correct view on any given issue

[ February 25, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Thermodyne

February 25th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oh yeah, we are going to go nuke the rest of the world tomorrow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces.Actually, G.W.Bush proclaimed recently that US will us nuclear weapons as a preventive strike.

No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I think that a link would be in order here. I don't remember him saying that. What I heard was a policy statement.

You might want to look up NATO's policy for responce to bio and chem attack. Also the WP had some very interesting rules about first use.

geoschmo

February 25th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Official American policy for decades during the cold war was that we would use nuclear weapons first if neccesary to stop a Soviet convetional invasion of our allies in Europe. This is not a change in policy with the current administration.

Geoschmo

Atrocities

February 25th, 2003, 10:37 PM

JMHO

Saddam wants the nuke. Why? What would happen if he got it? Would he hold the middle east hostage and threaten to set off a nuke in the oil fields if we or anyone retalated against him for nuking Israil? You better believe he would.

What Saddam wants, he gets. He will continue to seek the bomb until he has it. That is unless he himself is stopped.

Whether we take him on now, or after New York and Washington DC are craters the results will be the same, with one noteable exception, if we take him on now, and remove him from power, then perhaps, we just might save billions, yes billions, of lives. My vote is bite the bullet and take him on now. Then North Korea. They are a threat, but they are not yet terrorist bent on destroying their neighbor(s).

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 10:41 PM

I did a Google search for "Bush use of nuclear weapons". This is the most authorative link I found:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.contingency/

Bush officials downplay story on nuke plans

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush administration and military officials said Sunday the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event it or its allies are attacked, but said that option does not represent a change in policy.

----

I didn't see any that advocated a first strike. All the links seem to be plans to use nukes in response to an attack on us or our allies.

[ February 25, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: raynor ]

rextorres

February 25th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -

The war on Saddam is just a red herring because W needs something so that people don't think about his failed economic policies and his failure on the war on terrorism.

[ February 25, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Andr�s

February 25th, 2003, 11:15 PM

I had just heard that comment I quote on the radio and wanted to know the opinion of my "American friends" around here.
Maybe I should have edited out the mention of atomic bombs, I don't think this has anything to do with the Iraq conflict.

I agree with you Dogscoff, this is one of the few places where I can see both opposite opinions confronted and compare them.
I don't think we'll ever convince each other in this issue, but that will not change the respect I hold for other members of the SEIV community, and hope they feel the same way towards myself.
I don't think this disrupt any friendships as VampiricDread feared.

The reason I posted it here and wouldn't want this thread to be moved is that I never visit any of the other forums in shrapnel. My bookmarks point directly to the SEIV section.

It's scary to see how most Americans, who always have claimed to support free thought and speech, have been convinced by their propaganda and supporting this war at any cost.

I don't think he is half as bad as you describe but no one is defending Hussein.
Even if Americans turned him into a monster, the fact that he's a monster remains and something needs to be done about this monster.
I just think that war will make more problems that it will solve.
If they just wanted Saddam killed they a few infiltrated agents could have done it. They could support an internal revolution from the Iraqi people and maybe even place their own puppet government in power.
But they need to make an example out of Iraq so no one else dares to defy US authority, and also need an to place troops permanently there.

The international community is not standing for such a blatant act of imperialism now either.
The only ones that have been convinced by all this "war on terror" propaganda are Americans themselves and a few pro-Americans in their closest allies.

As a matter of fact all this discussion is pointless. Even if we could make some Americans see how wrong this war is.
The decision is already done, the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9-11.
American government, or whoever is actually in charge seems to excel in manipulating masses.
First leaving themselves open to a terrorist attack, that may have been worse than what they expected. Then skillfully manipulating the people's emotions to extract the worst part of their hatred and xenophobia and direct it towards their previously chosen enemy.

So after Iraqis hate you after you've been provoking them after more than a decade. What did you expect?

I do mind my own business when the discussion is about internal USA affairs. (although I found that your discussions and complains about politician are not so different from the complains we have about own)
But here the US pretends to have higher moral standards and that it's their duty to save the rest of the world from its own barbarism.
While they are actually doing it for their own reasons. OK it's not only the oil, there's also the need to justify their military expenses, and of course unite their own people and distract them from the problems in their own country.
You have no right to accuse those who do not support you of being cowards o traitors.

You will never convince me that this war will be for the good of humankind.

geoschmo

February 25th, 2003, 11:30 PM

War is always a failure, but some times it's inevitable.

You are most likely 100% correct when you say that war will probably cause more problems then it solves. But I support going to war if diplomacy fails in the end because I believe that the problems caused by the war will be preferable to the problems that will be caused by continuing to tolerate and appease the current Iraqi administration.

Geoschmo

primitive

February 25th, 2003, 11:41 PM

This quote is from a victim of the Holocaust and is printed on one of the walls in the Holocaust Museum. The quote reads something like:

- When they came for the socialists I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
- When they came for the homosexuals I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual.
- When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
- When they came for me there was no one left to speak out.

I have said what I wanted to say in this thread. I will not post here again.

Going to the Cantina for a drink, anyone care to join. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Phoenix-D

February 25th, 2003, 11:45 PM

"It's scary to see how most Americans, who always have claimed to support free thought and speech, have been convinced by their propaganda and supporting this war at any cost."

Free speech includes the freedom to hold views you find wrong or offensive, you know.

"I don't think he is half as bad as you describe but no one is defending Hussein.
Even if Americans turned him into a monster, the fact that he's a monster remains and something needs to be done about this monster.
I just think that war will make more problems that it will solve.
If they just wanted Saddam killed they a few infiltrated agents could have done it. They could support an internal revolution from the Iraqi people and maybe even place their own puppet government in power.
But they need to make an example out of Iraq so no one else dares to defy US authority, and also need an to place troops permanently there."

Wacking the leader of a head of state, without consulting any of our allies? That'd send a pretty strong message, and I guarentee there would be much yelling and screaming over even thinking about it.

"The international community is not standing for such a blatant act of imperialism now either.
The only ones that have been convinced by all this "war on terror" propaganda are Americans themselves and a few pro-Americans in their closest allies."

You're spouting about as much proof as the propagana. Please defend this: before Bush started talking war, I heard:
"Take away the sanctions, they are useless"
"Take out the inspectors, Iraq has disarmed"

Now I hear:
"The sanctions are working fine."
"Give the inspectors a chance"
"Iraq has disarmed"
"Iraq will use chem/bio weapons if we attack"

Many of these come from the same Groups, and interestingly, I've seen those Last two in the SAME ARGUMENT. Hello?

"As a matter of fact all this discussion is pointless. Even if we could make some Americans see how wrong this war is.
The decision is already done, the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9-11.
American government, or whoever is actually in charge seems to excel in manipulating masses.
First leaving themselves open to a terrorist attack, that may have been worse than what they expected. Then skillfully manipulating the people's emotions to extract the worst part of their hatred and xenophobia and direct it towards their previously chosen enemy."

Who is spouting propagnda now? Lets see here..latest opinion poll (not hugely reliable, but it's what I've got) support for war declines to 36%. You say the international community doesn't want war; it was that SAME community that got Bush Sr. to stop before taking out Saddam Hussein in the first place. If we were so hell-bent on doing this..explain why it didn't happen then.

"So after Iraqis hate you after you've been provoking them after more than a decade. What did you expect?"

Provoking them. You have got to be ~$%~ me. The dictator in question ignores the treaty which got him the cease-fire, and is punished for it- by the UN, not just the US. And we're responsible for this. Hmm.

"I do mind my own business when the discussion is about internal USA affairs. (although I found that your discussions and complains about politician are not so different from the complains we have about own)
But here the US pretends to have higher moral standards and that it's their duty to save the rest of the world from its own barbarism.
While they are actually doing it for their own reasons. OK it's not only the oil, there's also the need to justify their military expenses, and of course unite their own people and distract them from the problems in their own country.
You have no right to accuse those who do not support you of being cowards o traitors"

I'll ask this, intead of berating you like I want to.

If it is about oil, and everything you mentioned, why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabi, which is only marginally friendly to the US and has more oil.

Phoenix-D

SamuraiProgrammer

February 26th, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
If you are not a citizen of the United States, mind your own damn business.
Screw you! This is an international issue! When this war escalates anti-western hatred and terrorists start blowing up my home town, will it be my business then? When the Koreans start throwing nukes at my house because George Bush has announced that they are next on his hit-list, whose business will it be? When the UN is finally steamrolled into nothing and Georgy boy declares himself the undisputed gunslinging, nuke-juggling wild-west sheriff of the world (With Toady Tony Blair as his dutiful deputy) am I allowed to voice an opinion then?<hr /></blockquote>Certainly, you are allowed to voice an opinion. I apologize sincerely for stating my remark in such a way as to imply that you had no right to speak or have an opinion.

My remark was to indicate whose opinions I would give credence to when reevaluating my position. You have pointed out a flaw in my logic and I thank you for that.

Please remember that the written word is usually harsher than the spoken word. Much can be softened by intonation and body language.

I would like to clarify my statement as follows:

Anyone can have an opinion and are welcome to voice it.

I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals.

[ February 25, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

DavidG

February 26th, 2003, 01:31 AM

OK so let's say the US her allies back off and leave Iraq alone. I'd be interested in hearing from the peace activists when is the right time for war?

Is it when Iraq develops long range missles that can hit Israel? or maybe Europe? Is it when he fires a few at Israel? Or perhaps when he expands program to give cash to the families of sucide bombers in Israel to include bombers in your country? Is it when he finaly gets nukes? Or perhaps when he dies and his even more barbaric son takes over?

I also find it interesting how certain countries who oppose a war seem to be considered all high and noble. Like France who is one of Iraqs major trading partners and whos oil companies have, I heard, signed multi billion dollar contracts to deveolp Iraqs oil fields. Or Russia who is owed approximately 8 billion dollars by Iraq for past weapon sales. Or China another of Iraqs trading partners etc etc.

Mephisto

February 26th, 2003, 01:35 AM

I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals.In this case, listen to us Europeans. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Every nation here has been attacked unprovoked one time or the other by a foreign nation. Ask France, Belgium, Netherlands, England, Poland, Ex-Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia, Slovakia, Norway, Denmark and the many other nations we Germans attacked under a dictator just 50 years ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DavidG

February 26th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -
Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.

rextorres

February 26th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -
Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.<hr /></blockquote>Umm . . . actually the Pakistani military (which actually runs the country) is very supportive of the Taliban and filled with extremists. What country do you think has been sponsoring terrorism in India? Where do you think the Taliban and Osama have been hiding? In factThere is less if anything linking Sadaam with terrorism than Pakistan with terrorism. Fortunately (for Pakistan) there is no oil there. My point with mentioning Pakistan is that this coming war is nothing about fighting terrorism.

[ February 26, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: rextorres ]

DavidG

February 26th, 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:

Umm . . . actually the Pakistani military (which actually runs the country) is very supportive of the Taliban and filled with extremists. What country do you think has been sponsoring terrorism in India? Where do you think the Taliban and Osama have been hiding? In factThere is less if anything linking Sadaam with terrorism than Pakistan with terrorism. Fortunately (for Pakistan) there is no oil there. My point with mentioning Pakistan is that this coming war is nothing about fighting terrorism.Yea but isn't the Government actually pro American? I'm no expert on Pakistan but my understanding is that the government (yes being the top military boys) was trying to weed out the extremists. Certainly Osama my be in Pakistan but do doubt it is in a rural area that the government has little control off. Maybe I was wrong but I got the impression from your post that you were saying anti americal extremists were in charge of Pakistanis nuclear forces. And they clearly do not or they would have used them (at least under my definition of "anti-american extremist")

Karibu

February 26th, 2003, 02:46 AM

* taking his popcorn, lemonade and starting to watch *

DavidG

February 26th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Slightly off topic in an off topic thread but hey any terrorists out there? Come to Canada. You can blow up a plane and kill 329 people and only get 5 years in jail.

How sick and disturbing is that!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Instar

February 26th, 2003, 02:54 AM

A couple problems Ive seen:
About the US military being capable to take on the entire world, yes it is a bit of a stretch, but consider, the US Navy and Airforce are completely unmatched. A single battle group consisting of a carrier and support vessels usually has more attack aircraft than most nations. The US has 12 full battle Groups, of which usually 2-3 are in major overhaul, around 6 are in port, and about 3 to 4 are at sea. If serious effort was put into putting all out to sea, I bet a max of like 6 could be reached feasibly. Britain's carrier fleet, although impressive in its own fashion, pales in comparison. The British carriers are much smaller, and operate only V/STOL aircraft. No other Navy comes close (the Russian surface Navy is generally a joke, their carriers are the same idea as the British, I believe; similarly, I don't think the French carrier is seaworthy yet). The US Submarine fleets are the same, for the most part. The Ohio class is generally undetectable, and the Los Angelas class is a very potent boat. The Sea Wolf class (as I recall it being named) is only limited to about 3 or 4 boats I think, so its numbers are almost inconsequential.
So the US Navy probably could destroy most all other Navies and stop a lot of the world's shipping.
Problems with this is that the US lacks sufficient ground forces to invade and garrison large regions of the world. China has insanely huge masses of infantry, but they are for the most part undertrained and underequipped, but that may be changing. The problem for the US would not be taking the ground, but keeping it. As it is, US Armor and Armored Cavalry are for the most part unstoppable juggernauts, if used correctly. Armor though, cannot be effectively tasked to garrison regions.
As to nuclear weapons policy:
In the bad old days of the USSR breathing down Europe's back, the US (and NATO) were of the position that the Soviets had so many tanks and other armored vehicles as to be impossible to stop, as NATO tanks were vastly outnumbered (the US could not feasibly deploy enough tanks to Germany to counter such a threat). To counter this, the policy was developed that NATO would employ tactical nuclear weapons (not strategic nuclear weapons) to destroy the Soviet blitz. (A great deal of emphasis for NATO in preventing USSR from invading all of Europe involved the Fulda Gap, I believe, and the Fulda Gap is one of the most popular scenarios in tank sims, like ATF or BCT, I think) This kept the USSR from attacking.
By the way, nuclear weapons can be subdivided in a couple different ways -- tactical and strategic. Tactical weapons are supposedly for use on a battlefield, and generally range from 100 kilotons to just less than a megaton in yield. Strategic nuclear weapons are used to obliterate cities, and range from 1 megaton to 10 or more megatons. (However, I think that the US doesn't employ many weapons that are close to 10 megatons.)
One Last thing: The US probably has plans for delivering nukes onto EVERY country in the world, even allies. Its paranoia, but dont take it personally.

Shyrka

February 26th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Andr�s is right. US government can send a sniper or a CIA commando to murder Sadam, like the one that Kissinger sent to murder Salvador Allende http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif , and put a puppet leader. This war is not necessary.

Spanish government is supporting the war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Krsqk

February 26th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Okay, sure, except for killing his two sons, too, and then his immediate chain of command. Oh, yeah, then there's the standing orders he's supposed to have given to his commanders, to be followed whether or not he's killed.

The point is, there's a command structure which goes deeper than just Saddam. It's small, sure--it's a dictatorship--but it's large enough to make it impossible to take out everyone at once. The minute Saddam's gone, his son will take over--and from all accounts, he's worse than his father is.

[Edit-switching "too" for "two" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ]

[ February 26, 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Instar

February 26th, 2003, 06:55 AM

However, it is against US law to assassinate foreign heads of state. Whether or not this policy is followed and if Saddam is actually a recognized head of state is debatable.

Askan Nightbringer

February 26th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Shyrka:
Andr�s is right. US government can send a sniper or a CIA commando to murder Sadam, like the one that Kissinger sent to murder Salvador Allende http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif , and put a puppet leader. This war is not necessary.

Spanish government is supporting the war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Well the Spanish government is supporting the war but the people aren't. The rally turn outs in Madrid and Barcelona were awesome.
Sydney got over 250,000 which was pretty cool, the biggest rally of any kind in Australia. Pity our elected leader is a chump and the opposition leader has not the wit or testicular fortitude to capitilise.

Askan

Wizarc

February 26th, 2003, 10:26 AM

...assassinate...shhh

Shyrka

February 26th, 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Well the Spanish government is supporting the war but the people aren't.Of course not. Our leader has commited a political suicide.

I voted him Last elections http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif May peace lovers forgive me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

oleg

February 26th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Instar:
.... Britain's carrier fleet, although impressive in its own fashion, pales in comparison. The British carriers are much smaller, and operate only V/STOL aircraft. No other Navy comes close (the Russian surface Navy is generally a joke, their carriers are the same idea as the British, I believe; similarly, I don't think the French carrier is seaworthy yet)... FYI, Charles de Gaulle - the nuclear powered carrier - participated Last month in combined exercises with Harry S Truman group in Mediterranean. As to US taking over the world, I am glad that Russia still have a capability to completely annihilate US. With this warmonger in White House any peace and freedom loving country must have a potent military force ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

February 26th, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.Now you start talking some sense! Isn't it exactly what will happen next month ?<hr /></blockquote>Our friends in France and Germany would never stand for that. Their reasons for opposing this war have very much to do with their desire to keep getting that oil. You start talking about taking out the oil fields and they may end up going to war after all....with us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Geoschmo

Krsqk

February 26th, 2003, 03:22 PM

Our friends in France and GermanyFriends??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

They're all screaming "No war for oil!"

What they really mean is "No war!" for oil.

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Instar:

A couple problems Ive seen:
About the US military being capable to take on the entire world, yes it is a bit of a stretch, but consider, the US Navy and Airforce are completely unmatched.Nah, it just take one nuke in an American city and its game over for the US Hegemony. The American economy is based on the consumer confidence, and if that confidence its lost you'll see a recesion worst than the one in 30's. Every Hegemon through out history have had its greatest weakness on his very greatest strengh, like the British and their colonial empire, or Rome and their professional Heavy Infantry Legions.
You see, the Arabs know this, and that's why I understand the Americans going to war with Iraq, though I don't actively support them.
There is a lot of intelligence going around that Saddam already have a couple stolen Russian nukes, and that its something that any American administration can't accept.
Bad thing for America that this corporate cowboy became president. I'm pretty confident that Al Gore would have fought Al Qaeda to the end instead of trying to get Irak and its oil.

Mephisto

February 26th, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Our friends in France and GermanyFriends??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

They're all screaming "No war for oil!"

What they really mean is "No war!" for oil.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, our Bundeskanzler screams "No war, re-elect me!".

Edit: "our", not "your"...

[ February 26, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

Instar

February 26th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Thanks Oleg for the update on the Charles de Gualle -- I read a while back that the French suspected sabotage because of the massive delays and mishaps, anything come of that? EDIT: I just read that the CdG carries and operates 40 aircraft, making it about only 1/2 of a US carrier. It is a step up from British carriers (which are S/VTOL only), but that is really no match for a US battlegroup. Seeing that the French made their own carrier aircraft (other than the kickin E-2C), I think that they will have a few kinks to work out. When they get all of their Rafale M's into service, they should be pretty well off. The Etendard is too old.
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.

[ February 26, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: Instar ]

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Instar:
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.Don't think so. They have re-invented a new kind of warfare, in which a faceless terrorist organization do the attack. If Al Qaeda nuke a city who would you nuke back? Who will support you?
And even if you did, the damage its already done. I don't even wanna think how a post nuked US will be. I can easily see Democracy and individual freedoms being buried under 6 feet of military concrete. Or worst.

rextorres

February 26th, 2003, 07:12 PM

If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

Sinapus

February 26th, 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)

dogscoff

February 26th, 2003, 07:24 PM

OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)

In response to this:

I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals.
I would say this:
First, there were all kinds of nationalities in the WTC, including plenty of fellow Brits.

Second, the US has been all too keen to make the 9/11 attacks an international threat when it suits them. To suddenly shut out the rest of the world because it happened on US soil is pretty poor, imho.

Third, we have been putting up with terrorist attacks for a long long time. Ever heard of the IRA? France and Spain have their Basque seperatists... terrorism isn't new you know, and US doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not.
I'm not defending Saddam Hussein, and I'm not sure anyone else is. Even if you take out the pro-war lies and propaganda about him, that still leaves plenty of proof that he is unfit to be in charge of a country. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that I do think him a monster.

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

Oh, and South Korea is not a threat. Sure, they have a huge army, but who doesn't these days? (Apart from Iraq, I mean) It was only when they heard that George had them on the hit list that all that stuff with the nuclear power stations started happening. With all this talk defending nuclear deterrents in this thread, can you really blame them for building nukes?

tesco samoa

February 26th, 2003, 07:27 PM

The UN is a joke. When you have a ruling class member from Lybia running the Human Rights commision you gotta shake your head. And the UN is very, very anti-sematic. The Un puts the League of Nations to shame. But unfortantly it is the best thing we have for world police.

rextorres

February 26th, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)<hr /></blockquote>The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.

Your the perfect example of the gallup poll's number mentioned in a previous post. Of those who want war.

Instar

February 26th, 2003, 08:31 PM

Well, we found out that Al-Qaida were in Afghanistan, and we waged war on them and the Taliban. This is where it gets to be a grey area. If they nuked us, but they are a pathetic pushover in conventional warfare (like the taliban), do we have the right to nuke them back? Similarly, if Saddam uses Chem or Bio weapons in war, do we have justification to level Baghdad and put in a parking lot? In my opinion, it is yes on both counts. Firstly, once ANYONE escalates to the nuclear level, retaliation is all but guaranteed. If NYC was hit with a nuke instead of two planes, perhaps there would not be much of Afghanistan left, other than radioactive cinders. Again, with the chemical or biological weapons used in combat, we would be justified in using nukes in retaliation, because any WMB counts, even if the WMB used does little or no damage (US forces are very well prepared to fight in a WMB environment, and such an attack would be well nigh useless). During the Gulf War, the threat of massive US retaliation kept Saddam from using chemical weapons.
As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11.

[ February 26, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Instar ]

Thermodyne

February 26th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Instar:
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.Don't think so. They have re-invented a new kind of warfare, in which a faceless terrorist organization do the attack. If Al Qaeda nuke a city who would you nuke back? Who will support you?
And even if you did, the damage its already done. I don't even wanna think how a post nuked US will be. I can easily see Democracy and individual freedoms being buried under 6 feet of military concrete. Or worst.<hr /></blockquote>It would be quiet easy to track the device to the source. All fissionable materials carry a signature that can be linked to their source of manufacture. So based on byproduct yield, we would know the source in less than a day. At that point, it would just be a case of tracking it to the end user. If any large city was to be nuked by terrorists, then the gloves will come off in the war on terrorism.

Thermodyne

February 26th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Instar:
Thanks Oleg for the update on the Charles de Gualle -- I read a while back that the French suspected sabotage because of the massive delays and mishaps, anything come of that? EDIT: I just read that the CdG carries and operates 40 aircraft, making it about only 1/2 of a US carrier. It is a step up from British carriers (which are S/VTOL only), but that is really no match for a US battlegroup. Seeing that the French made their own carrier aircraft (other than the kickin E-2C), I think that they will have a few kinks to work out. When they get all of their Rafale M's into service, they should be pretty well off. The Etendard is too old.
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.In an American Carrier Battle Group, the air wings are moving from a defensive role into strike rolls. Even the F-14 has been fitted to operate in an air to ground role. Some carriers have no F-14 wings. The battle group is defended by the Aegis system. One Ticonderoga class cruiser is capable of eliminating the entire air forces of most countries. It is the Aegis system that allows the American Navy to project itself into areas normally dominated by land based aircraft. This electronics system when teamed with the Standard II surface to air missile makes the American carriers a viable strike force, and allows them to operate almost anywhere in the world. Also, these Groups are always accompanied by at least one Los Angles class attack sub. The French have built a small carrier, and feel that this is an indication that they are still a super power. But the fact is that it probably would not be able to live very long were it to be operated within range of land based aircraft. Also, I doubt that the French have the ability to protect it from submarines that would surely be sent against it.

While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations. The French will also come to this conclusion. A carrier force that can not operate as a blue water navy is of little use, and will be a very expensive symbol of national pride.

Does anyone have a link to the makeup of the French carrier air wing? With only 40 aircraft, they would be rather limited in what they could do. I would think that they would need 2 airborne radars, at least 2 COD�s. And 4 rotary wings would be the minimum needed for ASW duties. That leaves 32 of which teeth to tanker would be 3 to 1 at best. So they would be able to put up a strike force of about 10 aircraft with a CAP of four fighters. That would leave 2 fighters over the carrier and 4 on deck alert, with 6 tankers and 4 in the hanger for repairs. If the tankers are DP and the fighters have a strike capability, then they might put 20 aircraft on target if the mechanical crews are really on the ball. In the real world, I think it would be more like 10 to 15.

rextorres

February 26th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

I'll ask this, intead of berating you like I want to.

If it is about oil, and everything you mentioned, why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabi, which is only marginally friendly to the US and has more oil.

Phoenix-DI am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it.

All you guys sound so Naive I just read today that we will keep a couple of HUNDRED thousand troops in Iraq for at least two YEARS if not more.

All you gamers out there think about - I know (if I were playing a war game and some of those games are based on reality) I would want a huge protection force on top of MY most precious commodity. Fortunately for us Iraq gives us an excuse to just move them there.

DavidG

February 26th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.
The key word here is 'bankrupted' If certain nations pushing peace have thier way and they get their hands on Iraqi oil then Iraq will quickly no longer be bankrupt. Now what?

[ February 26, 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The UN is a joke. When you have a ruling class member from Lybia running the Human Rights commision you gotta shake your head. And the UN is very, very anti-sematic. The Un puts the League of Nations to shame. But unfortantly it is the best thing we have for world police.You got that right. The UN have become a hotbed of anti-semitism. They do nothing more than encorage terrorist attack on Israel. And the European Union just need a little push and will be inventing an excuse to invade Israel. Talk about double standards. They support a dictatorship in Irak and fight a democracy in Israel.
I don't like Bush's corporative gang, but I would support them for the only motive of opousing those bastards in Europe.

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Instar:

As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11."Faceless terrorist group" means that they claim to be independent. Or do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden is the one pulling the strings in Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition.
Who they are?
Ask your CEO, I mean, President, why he haven't make public their names and attack them instead of bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, a country where he knows perfectly well Al Qaeda was present just to atract the American rage after 9/11 from the real enemies.
But I guess oil is more valuable than truth.

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
It would be quiet easy to track the device to the source. All fissionable materials carry a signature that can be linked to their source of manufacture. So based on byproduct yield, we would know the source in less than a day. At that point, it would just be a case of tracking it to the end user. If any large city was to be nuked by terrorists, then the gloves will come off in the war on terrorism.Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user.

Sinapus

February 26th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)<hr /></blockquote>The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.
<hr /></blockquote>So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing

Hunkpapa

February 26th, 2003, 10:43 PM

I am jumping into this discussion and I do not know how much of this has been covered in other Posts or similar topics....this is just my opinion...

1. It was mentioned other countries have also been on the recieving end of terrorism...then do something about it, one of the countries (France) choses to veto any actions by the US to thwart terrorism. Hell even Egypt was attacked by muslim terrorists looking to assassinate the president, they are not even safe from their own people.

2. I agree that Iraq is not the nucleus of 9/11, but they are hiding weapons of mass destructoin that they were suppose to destroy that alone should be reson to move in.

3. Along with 2, Suadi Arabi is where most of the 9/11 terrorists called home (although some officially are outcasts), we should be putting the screws to them also and any other nation that harbors terrorists. But we cannot take on the entire middle east at one time, it is impractical both strategically and finacially.

4. Isreal has been dealing with this crap for decades, and if let loose they could whip up on all the countries around them, internatioanl pressure is the only thing stopping it. Who is stopping the attacks on Isreal?

5. Saddam is a scape goat for the time being, and maybe GWB is just finishing what daddy started. Saddam actually is very liberal by Islamic standards, he recognizes other religions and there are other churches in his country that are allowed to operate unmolested...he does have issues in other areas such as his dealings with teh Kurds, hiding weapons, etc.

6. Almost every war has some kind of fianicial aspect...Korea was rubber, did the US care that the commies where taking over no...the US wanted the rubber for it's industry, Kuwait was oil...today it is oil, tommorow who knows.

7. The UN is ineffective, they cannot enforce diddly crap. Do I want the the US policing the world? no. Do I want the US to ensure my safety? yes, and so does the majority of the nations that are lacking any military of their own.

8. Everyone seems to like bashing the US for wanting to defend itself now and in the future, calling us Imperialistic...maybe we are alittle imperialistic...we financially aid at least half of the world, they are essentially our colonies if we are funding them. Where would half these countries be with out our aid...I say let them find out.

In closing I feel terrorism and any country supporting it should be eradicated.

rextorres

February 26th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)<hr /></blockquote>The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.
<hr /></blockquote>So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing<hr /></blockquote>If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?

No one has made a case how things will be better after the war. My perception is that the world will be more dangerous for American with all these pissed off muslims floating around.

[ February 26, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: rextorres ]

CEO TROLL

February 26th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Fry them All!!!!

Nuke-em until they glow.

Nuke-em back to the stone age.

They want to use bio-weapons?
Well, we can play that game. Just release the impotance and sterility viruses. Then charge for temporary relief.

Mephisto

February 27th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
And the European Union just need a little push and will be inventing an excuse to invade Israel. Talk about double standards. They support a dictatorship in Iraq and fight a democracy in Israel.Excuse me? The EU invading any country? Do we talk about the same world here?

Excuse me, people, but some of you are really frightening me. Some of you talk about waging a nuclear war or a war by the US against the rest of the globe as if it wouldn't be the end to the world as we know it. Any use of nuclear weapons will bring the world to the brink of all out nuclear war.

Sic transit Gloria mundi�

geoschmo

February 27th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
No one has made a case how things will be better after the war.That case is impossible to make. War never makes things better. War brings death and destruction. War is in and of itself a failure. But the question that must be asked and answered is whether the reuslt of the war is better or worse than the result of continued appeasment.

Geoschmo

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "

- John Stuart Mill, English philosopher

DavidG

February 27th, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?
Sounds like a fairly simple question to me. They are waiting for their friends to convince the US to back down and pull their troops back. Then get the UN to drop all sanctions cause they're real swell guys now. They will then make a few gazillion dollars selling their oil while they build up their army. Once convinced of their own superiority they will check the map and see which country is next in line to be invaded.

Saddam is surely smart enough to know that if he had used WMD's in the Last 12 years the political climate of the region would have meant instant action by the US and her allies.

[ February 26, 2003, 22:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

geoschmo

February 27th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.
This is an interesting way of describing Sadaam. Iraq today is not any more bankrupted then Germany was after WWI and we all know how well appeasement worked then.

Geoschmo

Phoenix-D

February 27th, 2003, 01:36 AM

"I am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it."

Suggest you read the post I was replying to. It very clearly said that Bush allowed 9/11 so he would later have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Phoenix-D

Sinapus

February 27th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sinapus:
So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressingIf Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?
<hr /></blockquote>I said WMD program, which means manufacturing, R&D, in addition to actual stockpiles. As to why they haven't used what they do have, who knows.

No one has made a case how things will be better after the war.
Judging from your little attempt at "muck raking" that isn't be much of a surprise.

My perception is that the world will be more dangerous for American with all these pissed off muslims floating around.Like they were supposed to do when we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan? "The Arab Street", and such?

Thermodyne

February 27th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Peace lovers my ***! Where is this peace that you are talking about? What little peace there is in the world has been partly paid for with american blood. And if you think that there is peace in the middle east, then you are a fool.

Last night Saddam said that he would die before he gave up power, so be it! This guy is evil. He is right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Who amoung you is willing to vouch for him? Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not. There is a large comunity of exiled Iraqi [sp] people here, and while they disagree on a lot of things, the one thing that they agree on is this; no one in Iraq can even speek against Saddam and avoid jail or death. He is not the chosen leader of Iraq, his people fear him. His own kin fear him.

It should also be noted that America does not use much oil from Iraq. Of late there has been a lot comming in because of disruptions in our regular supplies, but we can do without it. Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.

oleg

February 27th, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.Now you start talking some sense! Isn't it exactly what will happen next month ?

SamuraiProgrammer

February 27th, 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB]OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)
No need to apologize, friend. (I hope I can call you that.) I was sincere when I said you had found a flaw in my thoughts.

My main source of frustration is directed at people who are happy to take our financial aid (there are precious few countries in the world that do not receive it in some fashion) but are unwilling to accept that maybe we know something about how things ought to be done.

If they don't want us exposing the world to our ideology of civil freedom or if they do not approve of our ideology, they should refuse to accept any aid we provide. Anything else is hypocritical.

The question as to whether Saddam is responsible for 9/11 is certainly slippery. I would say, that the world community's inability to make him 'play nice' has emboldened the likes of Osama Bin Laden to accomplish the tragic events of 9/11. If anyone disagrees with that, fine. I, however, believe it.

The security of the US (as well as the rest of 'Western Civilization') may well depend on our ability to make an example out of the 'thugs' of the world. Iraq, the PLO, and N. Korea are probably the top three candidates.

I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts.

If the people funding Osama Bin Laden were afraid we would kick their sorry butts, his funding would dry up. Not completely, but at least partially.

This entire excercise is not so much about actually kicking butt, but rather making sure the enemy believes we will. (Incidentally, that is the core of the doctrine that makes nuclear weapons useful as deterrent.)

This time, I am afraid, we will have to actually do it to prove we have the resolve.

Instar

February 27th, 2003, 06:20 AM

"Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition."
That has yet to be proven in any intel circles. By faceless I thought you meant invisible or something.

"Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user."
Well, the signature of the fissionable material is identifiable, and altering it may or may not be feasible. You can't flat out say that its wrong without stronger evidence. I am no nuclear engineer, but I don't see how your argument holds up.

"I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts."
The way I read history as is that it was more of an Anti-Carter move by the revolutionaries. Carter did try a military solution which failed. I doubt the instant Reagan was in power he would be able to change the fact that US forces couldn't rescue those people.

[ February 27, 2003, 04:22: Message edited by: Instar ]

Andr�s

February 27th, 2003, 07:15 AM

Samurai, so you're saying I'm the one who should mind my own damn business.
That financial aid is payback of the money you're taking from us.

And of course that your ideology of civil freedom is ok, (BTW that's not something exclusive of the US as you're implying) but your ideology of maintaining your illusion of safety by fear is not.

Of course US government has the right and the duty to ensure its people safety.
They should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks, and in bringing those responsible to justice, not bombing innocents.
But again, the US is not the police of the world.
Fear of a US retaliation is not what maintains "peace" in the world.

The fact that the US is passing through an economic golden era does not mean they are morally superior to others.

I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage), the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.
That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.

Imperialism means your colonies fund you, not the other way!

This is not even a question if your feeling of safety is worth the weight of lives of millions of lives in your consciousness.
Even if everything is this war goes nicely, you manage to kill Saddam, innocent Iraquis casualties are as little as possible, and you help install a new government.
What then?
Will the world be a safer place? Will the US be any safer? Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

Oh and I've noticed my ranking has dropped, all I have to say about that is that I couldn't care less.

SamuraiProgrammer

February 27th, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Samurai, so you're saying I'm the one who should mind my own damn business.What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.

I personally feel that we are less likely to have such an attack if we dethrone Saddam Hussein that if we don't.

That financial aid is payback of the money you're taking from us.
Taking from you? How? I am not aware of my country stealing from you.

If you don't like the terms of trade, then by all means trade with someone else. We like the free world economic model.

And of course that your ideology of civil freedom is ok, (BTW that's not something exclusive of the US as you're implying)
I wasn't aware I implied exclusivity. I certainly didn't mean to. I did mean to imply leadership.

but your ideology of maintaining your illusion of safety by fear is not.
You are entitled to your opinion. Whether we like it or not (I don't BTW), might makes right by virtue of the mighty being the only ones left after the defacatory material hits the oscillatory object.

Of course US government has the right and the duty to ensure its people safety.
Unfortunately, much of the world seems to think that is not so.

They should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks, and in bringing those responsible to justice, not bombing innocents.
But again, the US is not the police of the world.
Ask the conquered and then liberated portions of Europe and Asia about WWI, WWII, and the Korean Conflict. At the time, they might have disagreed.

Someone has to do it. If we didn't, I suspect another set of people would likely be complaining that with all of our resources, we should do something.

Fear of a US retaliation is not what maintains "peace" in the world.
Fear of US or Soviet retailiation kept the peace in Europe for about 40 years. As soon as the Berlin Wall came down (signifying the beginning of the end of cold war tensions) the same old factions that had been fighting for hundreds of years started all over again. A prime example of this would be what used to be known as Yugoslavia. Oh, by the way, put down the war crime victims of that time period in your list to ask about who is the police force.

The fact that the US is passing through an economic golden era does not mean they are morally superior to others.
No, I would say any moral superiority (if we have it) comes from the willingness to spend our resources in improving the standard of living of people around the world who hate us. I defy you to find another culture in history that did this much for this many without occupying first.

I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage),

A little collateral damage? My response would get me Banned from this newsgroup. I encourage anyone who is offended by this statement to voice that offense.

the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.
Please note that the corporate structure of this country is what fuels the economy that provides the foreign aid. More on this in a moment.

That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.
Actually, I think you are on to something here. The foreign aid encourages people around the world to appreciate the USA and, to some extent, our values. THIS is what really bothers some of these people. They know that if the concept of educating the masses ever gets to their turf, they will likely lose their power base. THAT is why the leadership hates us.

This is not even a question if your feeling of safety is worth the weight of lives of millions of lives in your consciousness.
I sincerely do not believe that millions of lives are at stake at this time. If we let this go on, someday it could come to that. If we end it now, nowhere near that many people are likely to be affected.

Think of this a pulling a thorn. We have already waited 12 years too long and it is now infected. If wait much longer, we may lose the limb.

I say pull it now while we still can (if it is not already too late).

Even if everything is this war goes nicely, you manage to kill Saddam, innocent Iraquis casualties are as little as possible, and you help install a new government.
What then?
Will the world be a safer place?
It will be for the Kurds. Oh by the way, add them to your list about who is the police. Ask them how many would have died in the Last 12 years had it not been for the forces we have kept in the area. They were the targets of chemical warfare before. Maybe you will accept their opinion.

Will the US be any safer? Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

I honestly think so. Bullies never seem to attack the strong, only the weak. I think that the weakness shown by our government in the 8 years prior to 9/11 is part of the problem.

Our government uncovered evidence showing there had been a failed assasination attempt on the president by the IRAQI GOVERNMENT. Not some rogue band of terrorists --- THE GOVERNMENT.

Our response was one missile. One.

Weak.

And as for your rating.. I have not voted your rank down. You earned your rating for activities pertinent to Space Empires. I think your shipsets are exceptionally fine. You have great talent in that area.

I disagree with your politics. I think you have said some things for effect that you really don't mean (like collateral damage). I hope that I can give you food for thought that might sway your opinion. (As you are trying to sway mine.)

I have no idea how old you are, but I suspect that in 10 or 20 years, you will feel much different than you do today. Unfortunately, idealism is usually a casualty of experience. (It is not as bad as it sounds... Realism is more reliable.)

If I have said anything that angers you, I apologize. It is not my intent.

Sincerely

[ February 27, 2003, 06:21: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

SamuraiProgrammer

February 27th, 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Instar:

The way I read history as is that it was more of an Anti-Carter move by the revolutionaries. Carter did try a military solution which failed. I doubt the instant Reagan was in power he would be able to change the fact that US forces couldn't rescue those people.If I have misunderstood your statement, I apologize.

With all respect, I didn't read it. I lived it. I was a young adult at the time.

I felt that Reagan won a landslide victory in part because the public was tired of how Carter's foreign policy was making us a laughing stock.

I feel the truth is closer to 'the Iranians were not sure just how far Reagan would go.'

Carter's military solution was an attempt to rescue the hostages. At no time did we deploy a force to punish the government for allowing it to happen. I always heard (from military sources that may or may not be reliable) that the failure of the rescue mission can be pinned sqarely on Carter. I was told that he personally insisted that no one but the rescue team know what their mission was until the left the carrier. Because of this the flight crew did not know to install sand filters on the engine intakes. When the choppers got over the desert, the engines ate themselves.

For the record, I supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. I think he has been the best ex-president we have ever had.

I still disagree with his foreign policy.

Sincerely

dogscoff

February 27th, 2003, 11:01 AM

Without getting too deep into the subject, I'd just like to point out the situation in Israel is a LOT more complex than "Isreal=good, palestinians=evil" as implied by some recent Posts.

primitive

February 27th, 2003, 11:22 AM

Urban myths:
US foreign aid financing the 3rd world, is one of the premium urban myths of our times.
While the actual value in USD is great, large parts of it can hardly be described as aid. Also per capita value is less then for most other rich/western countries.
Here you can get a breakdown:

http://www.peacehost.net/mdpc/USAIDvsPoverty.html

I know many of you will claim this link is biased, and you are probably right. But it is still much closer to the truth than what some of you obviously believe.

(Guess my cred is gone forever now, since I promised not to post in this thread again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

geoschmo

February 27th, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
I felt that Reagan won a landslide victory in part because the public was tired of how Carter's foreign policy was making us a laughing stock.
Let's not kid ourselves. US Presidents are not elected for foreign policy, they are elected on economic issues. The vast majority of Americans don't give a whit about anything but their pocket books. Reagan wasn't elected because of foreign policy failures of Carter. Reagan had no foreign policy experience before he was elected. And foreign policy was a very small part of his '80 election platform. It was more of an issue in his '84 reelection campaign against Mondale, but only because he made it so. It still had little impact on the voters. In '80 he was elected because of the unemployment and rampant inflation of the late 70's that, rightly or wrongly, was blamed on Carter. He was reelected in '84 for the same reason Clinton was reelected in '96, he didn't screw it up too badly.

The only US president in the Last 50 years with any foreign policy going in was Bush Sr. (Yeah I know he's not really Sr, but it's easier to say then George Herbert Walker Bush. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) Maybe JFK if you count living in England as the son of an Ambasador as foreign policy experience.

The truth that most americans don't realize is that the President has very little positive or negative impact on the economy. It's affected by policy changes to some extent, but those changes take years to have any measurable effect. And usually even then the effect they have is negligble. It's like throwing rocks in a stream. They might cause some ripples on the surface, but they aren't going to change the course all that much.

Geoschmo

Aloofi

February 27th, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:

Oh and I've noticed my ranking has dropped, all I have to say about that is that I couldn't care less.Don't worry about that, mine dropped too in this thread.
I guess some people don't like my anti-Bush anti-Saddam anti-Europe anti-corporations Pro-Israel political stance.

I guess some people are rating based in anything but SE4.

primitive

February 27th, 2003, 04:13 PM

Thermodyne:
Here is a page I think very few people will dismiss as leftist propaganda.
Scroll down to Economic aid (Military aid is taken out).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html

$ 6.9 Billion, That’s a whooping 25 bucks per capita.

I know private American organizations do a great job.

World Bank:
Donations to the World Bank can hardly be considered Aid. I think Andr�s will have a few chosen word to say on this. The World Bank together with some local politicians will have to take most/all of the blame for the wrecking of the Argentinean economy.
And, Norway and EU and the other OECD contries are equal partners with USA in the World Bank, so this is not USA bashing.

Thermodyne

February 27th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Thermodyne:
Here is a page I think very few people will dismiss as leftist propaganda.
Scroll down to Economic aid (Military aid is taken out).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html

$ 6.9 Billion, That’s a whooping 25 bucks per capita.

I know private American organizations do a great job.

World Bank:
Donations to the World Bank can hardly be considered Aid. I think Andr�s will have a few chosen word to say on this. The World Bank together with some local politicians will have to take most/all of the blame for the wrecking of the Argentinean economy.
And, Norway and EU and the other OECD contries are equal partners with USA in the World Bank, so this is not USA bashing.Yep the fact book is a good source. Only problem I have with it is that it tends to be badly out of date and at one time had a reputation of skewing the data so as to fit current policy. 25 bucks per capita is not that bad a number. And the figures are based on a year where we bound to a deficit reduction budget. Take a look at the recipient�s pages; it is interesting to see just who gets how much. I wonder how much of it get siphoned off into the pockets of the politicians?

As for Argentina, they barrowed the money, so they have the responsibility to take care of the debt. Corruption and stupid politicians are no excuse. If they were willing to make significant economic reforms, then I doubt they would have to make any payments in the near term. The loans were intended for economic development, not urban renewal and personal enrichment. This is a problem that will have to be dealt with by the people of Argentena. It is also not a problem that they suffer from alone. Here in the US, many states also seem to have the same problem.

[ February 27, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Mephisto

February 27th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.That you can never achieve. Not in an civil society were we all value our freedom to mind our own business without government interference in everything. To make sure that it will never happen you have to at least install a totalitarian government. You might walk the streets safe again without fear of being a crime victim in such a state but when they ring your doorbell to get you, you might wonder if it was worth it. Mind you, my grandma and grandpa have lived through this. Never again.
If you "just" want to reduce the likeliness of such an act of terrorism, that's a good thing to do. But will you reach it that aim in the end by invading Iraq?
I don't think so. When the US attacks Iraq, the ranks of the terrorists will once again grow with dissatisfied and hateful people willing to bLast themselves into orbit if they can take just one US citizen with them.
What about the Kurds in northern Iraq? The already are independent from Baghdad because of US military air support and have formed an autonomic northern Kurdish Iraq. Now the Kurds fear that in the wake of the US troops the Turks will come in and never leave again. They are even ready to fight the Turks! For them it's not a blessing when the US invades but maybe the end to their very young government and freedom.
Iraq exile opposition is on the barricades because the Bush administration will install a military government over Iraq to form it into an democratic state - without the Iraqi people the US prepared and supported for this event since the Last gulf war.
But if you really must go to Iraq, please, make it right, don�t leave premature! If you really want to establish a solid democracy in Iraq you have to de-baath it and stay there until some democratic culture has been established. Are you willing to stay that long? Are you willing to stay there when most of the population hate your guts? Bush has already announced that he won't stay long in Iraq (2 years IIRC). Make that 20 years to make it right. In an hostile environment. Where no one, not the people in Iraq nor the neighbours like you. With Northern Korea knocking on the nuclear door. And Osama still on the run.
I hope for the best but fear for the worst�

Askan Nightbringer

February 28th, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
Bullies never seem to attack the strong, only the weak. Ahhh...now I get it. That's why we're going to war with Iraq. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Askan

dogscoff

February 28th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Wow, interesting figures Primitive. You have lost no cred with me...

Wanderer

February 28th, 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage), the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.Erm, are you saying the Pentagon isn't a military or governmental centre?

Where was the fourth plane headed? The White House? We'll probably never know for sure.

Does working for Cantor Fitzgerald make you lose your status as a civilian and make you a valid target? I think not.

Of course, the same applies to all the Iraqi civilians. The difference is that they won't be being targetted deliberately, assuming that the plan of action this time round is to avoid targetting all those baby milk factories that Baghdad seems to be stuffed with.

Actually, winning hearts and minds will be much easier if the infrastructure is kept intact and civilian deaths are kept to a minimum - but will the military planners accept the increased risk to the invading troops? (Iraqi soldiers will be able to defend better if their power stations, bridges, roads etc. are all intact)

That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.Saudi Sheikh: "Damn infidel Westerners buying my oil for ever more ludicrous prices. I'll have to buy my wives another 200 cars. Someone phone BMW."

Saudi Sheikh's impoverished kitchen boy: "Yes, damn those decadent infidels for ravaging our country"*

It's too easy to blame foreign companies. Not that they're spotless, a force for good or anything like that (I seem to have reason to curse Micro$oft every day - if only Word wasn't so awkward to use at times).

Imperialism means your colonies fund you, not the other way!Erm, hang on a minute. The British ploughed a lot of money into their colonies on the basis that they'd be able to buy more British goods. I think the Americans do much the same, except they have very few actual colonies (do McDonald's restaurants count as American soil? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Even if everything is this war goes nicely... Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?No. There will almost certainly be more.

If the next actions after Iraq are to get North Korea to stop f***ing about (dunno what the official diplomatic term is) and to make serious attempts to get a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, things may change for the better. But it will take some time.

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.Hmmmm. Not sure how to respond to that.

I'm glad that the US is awake to the fact that firing the odd cruise missile at Iraq isn't a decent long-term solution, but it's a pity that it took such a horrific event to do it. It's also a pity the PR war has been almost completely lost (the Axis of Evil speech, threatening Iraq before going to the UN, having George Bush as president).

Personally, I think whoever has the biggest stick should wave it rather than sit back and do nothing. Of course, it was much easier when Victoria was on the throne, our stick wasn much larger and the enemy carried nothing more dangerous than sharpened fruit...

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations.Actually, the British government has just confirmed who's going to build our next carriers (mostly the French it seems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). They're going to substantially larger than the current V/STOL class, but not as large as the American carriers. I think they're also going to operate aircraft designed jointly by the US and UK, although I might have got my wires crossed.

And yes, it was the worst possible timing to scrap the large carriers a few years before we had to fight in the kind of conflict they were perfect for.

<hr>
* not a very good joke, sorry. For a better one, watch the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' scene from Monty Python's Life Of Brian.

Thermodyne

February 28th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Urban myths:
US foreign aid financing the 3rd world, is one of the premium urban myths of our times.
While the actual value in USD is great, large parts of it can hardly be described as aid. Also per capita value is less then for most other rich/western countries.
Here you can get a breakdown:

http://www.peacehost.net/mdpc/USAIDvsPoverty.html

I know many of you will claim this link is biased, and you are probably right. But it is still much closer to the truth than what some of you obviously believe.

(Guess my cred is gone forever now, since I promised not to post in this thread again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )Which parts of it are not aid? If you are a country like Israel and have several countries that would like to see you dead, isn�t military aid just as valuable as humanitarian aid? Also the numbers reflect the budgeted amounts; a lot of America�s humanitarian aid is not budgeted, being delivered as needed to meet circumstances. And a lot of economic aid is distributed through the World Bank; I didn�t see any figures for contributions and guarantees for that. Also the payments to the UN are missing as are the numbers for the donations from the private sector. Statistics can be use to make a case for either side, and should only be used for comparison purposes. I doubt the authors would have been able to make their case if they had used the complete numbers and also listed the top 20 countries besides the US. America has great wealth, but this does no entitle the rest of the world to a share of it. We work hard here to generate it, harder that a lot of you know. And in times like these, the money could be put to good use here at home. All but one European nation never repaid money owed to the US from WWII. We forgave these debts. We also did not share in the reparations after WWI. When it comes to charity, I think the US does its share.

Also since it was on the seven o�clock news Last night, I guess it is Ok to say that the air war started 8 weeks ago. We have been aggressively taking down Iraq�s air defense systems in the south at the rate of 100 sorties a week. And the rules of engagement are scheduled to change from FWFO to FOW this weekend. In the Last 10 days over 300 sorties were flown.

[ February 27, 2003, 12:52: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

SamuraiProgrammer

February 28th, 2003, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
World Bank:
Donations to the World Bank can hardly be considered Aid. I think Andr�s will have a few chosen word to say on this. The World Bank together with some local politicians will have to take most/all of the blame for the wrecking of the Argentinean economy.
And, Norway and EU and the other OECD contries are equal partners with USA in the World Bank, so this is not USA bashing.I beg to differ on this point. Granted, the Argentine government borrowed more money than they could make payments on, but whose fault is that? The bankers?

It looks to me as if the real problem is that the world bank didn't blush and forgive some or all of the debt when Argentina said "I won't make my payments."

Don't kid yourself. I know more about Argentine politics than you might think. I work in agricultural marketing and my company's actions are affected every day by the import and export totals of many countries (of which Argentina is one.) We watched these developments closely. It was reminiscent of a bad game of JUNTA (remember that one?)

I would point out that, at least in part, the collapse of Argentina's currency involved a change in goverment policy that prevented the sellers of grain (a MAJOR export item) from getting fair value for their commodities once the currency exchange rate started to slide. The exporters were put into a position that made it their best interest to NOT sell their grain. This caused a chain reaction that destroyed any hope of generating enough money to make the payments to to world bank.

Thermodyne

February 28th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Wanderer:
Actually, the British government has just confirmed who's going to build our next carriers (mostly the French it seems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). They're going to substantially larger than the current V/STOL class, but not as large as the American carriers. I think they're also going to operate aircraft designed jointly by the US and UK, although I might have got my wires crossed.

And yes, it was the worst possible timing to scrap the large carriers a few years before we had to fight in the kind of conflict they were perfect for.

<hr>
* not a very good joke, sorry. For a better one, watch the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' scene from Monty Python's Life Of Brian.[/QB]Last I heard that program was dead. The ships were part of a NATO deal that had been put on hold. NATO's need no longer existed. Last I heard the strike fighter was stone dead, our navy is about to roll out a new strike fighter on its own. If England wanted to do a deal like was done on the Phantom, I have no doubt that we would. France might be another story. And when we begin to over run the French SAM�s that we have been bombing in Iraq, I think relations will cool even more. Can�t wait to hear the French explain how all the reloads got to Iraq. The carriers were originally intended to be blue water units, then they were scaled back for use in the smaller waters around Europe. I hadn�t heard anything about them in quite a while, what with defense spending being cut way back in the west. With the cooling of relations between America and some of Europe, I would think that England would begin to plan on deploying a fleet carrier of her own. The current situation indicates that the European powers feel strong enough to go their own way again. I think we all know what that leads too. History would tell us that an English Carrier would be a ship to be respected. Well trained and well fought. French carriers will come with bull�s eyes on them I guess, that�s how their fleets were fought in the Last big war. Sorry to be giving France the Jones Job, but they really rub me the wrong way. During the cold war, they weren�t full NATO participants. They reserved the right to control their troops independently of NATO. I guess they wanted to make sure that could repeat the Last war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Now they want to act like they are the corner stone of the alliance. What a joke! No wonder Germany hated them so much! I recall when Europe had a little problem in their back yard. We were not really interested in going there, but we supported NATO and fulfilled our obligations. I bet we won�t have our people sitting on that powder keg much longer.

As for Korea, that is a UN problem. The south�s economy is strong enough to more than match the north�s military might. Their will to defend themselves is another thing. Both sides deserve to have the UN get right on this. Perhaps the UN will scare them into disarming with a barrage of harsh wishy washy words. Personally, I would give the south several short range nukes of their own. Then I would see if the north wanted to talk about unification and disarmament. They could make peace or kill each other off, either way it works for me. I�m tired of what it has cost to defend that sorry little piece of rock and dirt. I guess it�s a good thing that I�m not in charge around here? Probably been playing too much SE, it makes you casual about glassing planets and such. At least in SE4 it is a little harder to nuke whole systems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 28, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Andr�s

February 28th, 2003, 06:52 AM

Yes Samurai you're correct that the fixed currency exchange rate, known as "convertibility" started to slide and prevented our exports to sell at a competitive price.

(I was going to attempt to explain the historical situations that lead to that situation, and why it was prolonged more than necessary but it would take too long, and I'm not as good in history as I'd like)
What you fail to mention that the IMF and WB encouraged that economic policy, and that imperialistic companies took advantage of that to sell us goods we didn�t have access to before at prices that appeared cheap to us, while they lent money to the government to sustain that fictional economy.
Making your employee have a debt with you with a debt that he will never be able to pay is one of the modern shapes of slavery.

tesco samoa

February 28th, 2003, 06:57 AM

Hey aleast the guy with the most votes won the election in Iraq http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ...

Now that is a Troll...

Good debate going on...

I am alittle disappointed in Powell Lately. I thought that cat had his head screwed on correctly... Or did he really learn something to make him change so quickly. Time will tell..

Lets hope they do not use another Gulf of Tonkin or Iraq is built up to invade Saudi Lies...

dogscoff

February 28th, 2003, 01:12 PM

I am alittle disappointed in Powell Lately
I will never be able to take that guy seriously until he learns to say his own name correctly. C-O-L-I-N spells "Colin", with the "Col" pronounced to rhyme with the "hol" in "holiday".

Everyone seems to have some wierd idea that it's pronounced "Coal-in". Which is stupid.

Wardad

February 28th, 2003, 08:36 PM

LAST POST!!!
I WIN THE DEBATE!!!

Aloofi

February 28th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Check out this article I got in an email:

Confronting Iraq February 11, 2003

Before we started seriously mobilizing to confront Saddam, I wrote several articles on dealing with Saddam.

In brief, I recommended giving Saddam 10 days notice to stand down all of his weapons and draw back whatever "sleeper cells" he had placed in or knew about in America. The threat was specific. If he did not do this in 10 days, a section of Bagdad and several military bases would be obliterated with neutron weapons.

The reasons which prompted this position were and are vital - as follows:

First, we know that Saddam had and, no doubt, yet has the following Chemical and Biological Agents: Summary: Since 1991 Gulf War, despite what was destroyed by the previous UN inspection teams, Saddam reconfigured 30 facilities. He has Mustard Gas/Blister Agent; CS Tear Gas; Nerve Gases including Tabun (GA) and Sarin (GB); VX Nerve Agents of which UNSCOM was unable to verify quantities destroyed BUT, 200-250 tons of VX Nerve Gases were unaccounted for. In its new declaration to the UN of this year, Iraq declared an addition 350 and 500 gauge and 100/250 gauge aerial bombs filled with CS. He also has Agent 15 - an incapacitant gas, similar to agent BZ produced by the U.S. (1)

Iraq has declared that it weaponized for chemical weapons purposes the following munitions: RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades and 82mm and 120mm mortar shells exclusively for CS; 130mm and 155mm artillery shells for mustard agent; 250- and 500-gauge aerial bombs for mustard, Tabun, Sarin and CS; 122mm rockets, R-400 and DB-2 aerial bombs for Sarin and mixtures of GB/GF; and Al Hussein missile warheads for Sarin. Of these, Iraq acquired the capability to produce all of the aerial bomb types listed and the Al Hussein missile warheads and chemical containers for 122mm rockets.

Iraq's chemical warfare program was of enormous scope both in terms of scale and breadth. With respect to the issue of chemical warfare agent production, and based on Iraq's chemical FFCD of June 1996, the following material balance of chemical warfare agents and their precursors procured abroad and produced by Iraq in the period from 1981 to 1990 was presented by UNSCOM October 1997: [S/1997/774]:

Type of material Quantity (tons) Remarks
Precursor chemicals produced and procured More than 20,000 Some 4,000 tons of declared precursors are not verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from suppliers.
Chemical warfare agents produced 3,850 Whether several hundred tons of additional chemical warfare agents were produced cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of precursors (mentioned in 1 above).
Chemical warfare agents consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 2,870 No documents or information on the consumption of CW has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the
material balance is impossible. Chemical warfare agents destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 690 Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
Chemical warfare agents discarded during production, or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 290 Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 130 tons of chemical warfare agents declared to have been discarded or destroyed.

In the area of chemical warfare munitions, based on Iraq's FFCD of June 1996, a material balance of munitions either procured abroad and produced by Iraq, for CW purposes, in the period from 1981 to 1990 was presented by UNSCOM in October 1997 [S/1997/774]:

Type of munitions Quantity Remarks
Empty munitions produced and procured 247,263 Some 107,500 empty casings have not been verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from the suppliers.
Munitions filled with chemical warfare agents or components 152,119 Whether several thousand additional munitions were filled with chemical warfare agents cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of procured munitions (mentioned in 1 above).
Filled munitions consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 101,080 No documents or information on the consumption of chemical munitions has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the material balance is impossible.
Filled and empty munitions destroyed unilaterally by Iraq 29,172 Unilateral destruction of 15,620 munitions is not verifiable owing to the destruction methods used by Iraq (melting and demolition).
Filled and empty munitions destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 38,537 Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
Filled and empty munitions discarded by Iraq or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 78,264 Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 16,038 discarded chemical munitions.

Note. The margin of error in the accounting presented by Iraq is in the neighborhood of 200 munitions. (2)

In most cases there either are no antidotes or cures. Even with such cures and antidotes, the victim may not fully recover, assuming that they are treated quickly. If Saddam launches a saturation attack, there may be too many victims to receive timely treatment (called �casualty surge�).

Saddam has threatened all invaders, including American soldiers both going into Iraq and those stationed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be fired upon. (Note! They will be fired upon with area-wide weapons which mean exactly as it sounds - across a broad area. This translates into using many of the substances mentioned in the U.N. table of toxic chemicals.)

In addition, Saddam has openly threatened to use these substances on population centers in Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, �et al�.

In terms of casualties, we are minimally talking of hundreds of thousands into the millions. If such substances as Small Pox, Plague, Hemorrhagic Fevers among other Biological materials hit a populated area, it can additionally spread across the globe in a short time.

It was this picture I envisioned when I recommended a stand-off strike with neutron weapons to force Saddam to either stand down his Weapons of Mass Death or have his generals simply assassinate him out of self-preservation of their lives and families.

Starting a conventional war with numerous air-strikes would only allow him time to give the orders to fire his mix of WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There is no reason to give him this opportunity to unleash death on such a massive scale that even countries far away would experience outbreaks of Plague or other incurable diseases.

I realize that Liberals who cannot imagine the elimination of whole civilizations, will bleat, mewl and howl at the deaths of so many innocent Iraqis. Regrettably, in my estimation, there is simply no choice. It is either him or us. To allow Saddam to grow more tonnage of VX or Botulinum Toxins or to acquire Nuclear weapons (possibly from North Korea or Pakistan when, not if either of those governments are taken over by radical Islamists) - any or all of this cannot be tolerated.

There is no wiggle room, except in the minds of foolish diplomatic bureaucrats who babble nonsense even as Armageddon rolls over them. Should we be interested in the opinions of simplistic pastors, liberal marchers and the Peace Now crowds - all of whom have become unwitting pallbearers for the burial of western civilization.

After the 10 day notice and the subsequent obliteration of part of Bagdad, another notice would be given with a 12 hour deadline or all of Iraq, along with Saddam�s Mass Death weaponry would be reduced to ashes.

Shortly after that demonstration, a similar notice would be issued to Iran, Syria and North Korea.

The civilized world can no longer tolerate rogue nations ruled by dictators or religiously-driven would-be conquerors to co-exist on this planet with the supposedly sane rest of us. Nor can our cities be held hostage to sleeper agents who have been given materials that can decimate one of our cities.

What I am proposing is pre-emption in its most deadly form. If we do not wish to see those we love struck down by the substances we in the so-called civilized world, developed and allowed to be transferred to primitive nations, we must stop them immediately.

We made the mistake of being their suppliers and now we must cure the mistake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chemical Weapons Programs in FAS: Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. "UNSCOM & IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS" http://www.fas.org/nuke/guid/iraq/cw/unscom.htm

Askan Nightbringer

February 28th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

I am alittle disappointed in Powell Lately. I thought that cat had his head screwed on correctly... Or did he really learn something to make him change so quickly. Time will tell..

Well have you seen his holiday snaps recently? No wonder he's edgy, the guy can't walk down the street without wondering if its a Terrorist Fire Hydrant he just past or if it was just a standard Fire Hydrant.

[ February 28, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ]

SamuraiProgrammer

March 1st, 2003, 03:56 AM

Andres, I ask that you take all I say in the spirit of friendship. It is how I offer it. If I offend you, it is unintentional and I hope knowing that keeps you from being offended. Also note that when I say 'you' I often mean the people of your country. Don't take it personally.

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Yes Samurai you're correct that the fixed currency exchange rate, known as "convertibility" started to slide and prevented our exports to sell at a competitive price.
Well, actually, the sliding made your exports more competitive on the world market. The problem was that the government tried to set things up so that they (and not the owners of the commodities) kept the difference between the new exchange rate and the old exchange rate.

At least that is how it looks from here. The end result is that many of the agricultural producers are planning on sitting on their crop rather than selling it because it will not lose value like the currency will if inflation continues.

The unwillingness to sell creates a bigger problem because now your country has a trade deficit and cannot come up with enough foreign currency to pay the IMF.

(I was going to attempt to explain the historical situations that lead to that situation, and why it was prolonged more than necessary but it would take too long, and I'm not as good in history as I'd like)

Your instincts are correct, in my opinion.

This is where things get fuzzy. I believe that ultimately a trade surplus is good and a trade deficit will *always* lead to this problem if allowed to go on. Some economists will disagree with me, but I will stand by that opinion.

The problem is you have to count interest payments to the IMF as part of the equation.

What you fail to mention that the IMF and WB encouraged that economic policy, and that imperialistic companies took advantage of that to sell us goods we didn�t have access to before at prices that appeared cheap to us, while they lent money to the government to sustain that fictional economy.
I did not mention it directly, but I do not intend to shy away from it. You are exactly correct in how these things can work. The world loaned you money to buy the things you wanted and before too long there was more debt than could be serviced. I don't disagree that that is what happened.

The problem is to assign the blame. Everyone involved (The IMF, your government, and the people who voted them into office) shares some of the blame. The IMF will say, "You asked for the money and we were kind enought to loan it to you." Your government will say, "We needed to have the money to bring our economy up to world standards." Your populous seems to be saying, "We expected someone else to tell us this would be bad for us."

To the part about 'imperialist companies', I have only this to say: I don't think anyone figuratively held a gun to you heads and said buy this or we will punish you.

It is true that the industrialized world wants a larger market for its goods. It is true that the IMF loans money to allow those markets to grow. Someone must show restraint and not borrow more than can be paid back. Unfortunately governments are notorious for letting the next poor sap who gets elected hold the bag. In my opinion, this is why there is a problem.

Making your employee have a debt with you with a debt that he will never be able to pay is one of the modern shapes of slavery.First, remember that the IMF is not your employer. While there may be some similarities, it is not strictly correct.

Yes, there are situations like this that can be just as unethical as slavery. If we were selling you life's necessities at too large a price and a high rate of interest, this would be evil. But was it life's necessities that the money was borrowed for?

We face exactly these problems in the United States. For example, a landowning farmer borrows money to raise his standard of living. This is a perpetual thing because he is living beyond his means. Each year, the bank is happy to lend him more and more money because (a) he asks for it and (b) he has enough colatteral in the value of his owned land to cover the debt. He does not realize there is a problem because there is always money in the bank account.

Then the bad things start to happen. The economy goes soft, land values go down substantially, and prices for the produce are depressed. The farmer has a very unprofitable year. It is then time to renew the loan. The farmer's equity is not enough to cover any more debt, he is unable to pay all of his payments because of the poor crop year, and he has not enough cash to put in a crop without a loan.

Now he is bankrupt.

He will cry and moan about how the bank did him dirty, but who is to blame?

Is it possible that your government has been selling your future to make themselves look good for the next election? Who is really to fault.

I know you are having problems and I know they are troublesome and I hope that they can be resolved. But unless the real reasons for the problems become obvious, they will only repeat themselves.

If you can find a copy, you should read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" It deals with world monetary policy and how it came about. You might find that all of us are 'slaves' to a very few. In fact, many individuals in this country are in the same boat as your government. If the world economy continues to soften, you will see evidence of it here as well.

Peace

[ March 01, 2003, 01:58: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

Krsqk

March 1st, 2003, 07:21 AM

Thought I'd share this. It doesn't reflect anyone's point of view (at least that I know of), but might be good for a chuckle or two. Or maybe just for getting everyone united to come lynch me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Good evening. My name is Hans Blix. This evening, at the request of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, we are beginning a series of debates between Mr. Hussein and U.S. President George W. Bush.
I will serve as moderator. Let me begin by thanking the nonpartisan League of Women Voters for sponsoring tonight's event.
Mr. Hussein won an earlier coin flip and will go first.
(Applause and cheering)
Blix: I must ask the French delegation to refrain from further outbursts.
Saddam: We have been accused of hiding weapons of mass destruction. This is a lie. In fact, we have just recovered this document that proves we are telling the truth. (Saddam holds the paper up to the camera.)
"Anthrax -- all gone!
"VX nerve gas -- all gone!
"Fissionable material -- all gone!"
Voice from audience: Good enough for me!
Blix: Please, Mr. Chirac.
Bush: Nobody believes the dictator of Iraq. He is in noncompliance and you know it, Hans.
Blix: It depends on what the definition of compliance is. Iraq has been more compliant in matters of noncompliance, particularly as pertains to a commitment to either comply or not comply.
Bush: What?
Blix: When this inspection gig is over, I want to be chairman of the Fed.
Bush: We don't talk like that in Texas. In Texas, we say, "Bombs away!" That's the only strategery for dealing with thugs.
Saddam: Great Satan!
Bush: Evildoer!
Saddam: Crusader Conqueror!
Bush: Terrorist!
Blix: Please, please, gentlemen.
(Saddam's cell phone rings)
Saddam: I am happy to say our diligent search crews have found two more 155 R-400 bombs filled with mystery fluid in the home of an Iraqi scientist. What more compliance do you want?
From audience: Good enough for me!
Bush: Can we talk to this Iraqi scientist?
Saddam: Too late. Already dead.
Bush: The Evildoer kills and tortures his own people.
Saddam: Baby Bush!
Bush: Butcher of Baghdad!
Blix: Please, gentlemen!
Bush: This dictator is in cahoots with al-Qaeda. If you look closely at these satellite images, you see Saddam Hussein with that tall fella whom we know to be Osama bin Laden.
Shout from the audience: "Way to go, mate!
Blix: Mr. Blair!
Saddam: American lies! That's Dan Rather. He's interviewing one of my body doubles.
Bush: Enough stalling. Surrender your weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam: OK, OK. You win. I brought our Last one with me this evening. This is all we have left, and I am turning it over to U.N. inspectors.
(He produces small vial.)
From audience: Good enough for me!
Blix: What is it?
Saddam: Smallpox. Oops!
(Drops vial and it shatters on ground. Panic ensues in auditorium as people stampede to exits. Bush and Saddam don't move.)
Bush: Got my shot Last month.
Saddam: Me too.
Bush: Axis of Evil!
Saddam: Anglo imperialist!*ducks for cover*

Thermodyne

March 1st, 2003, 04:54 PM

I like that, very funny. The UN is on the verge of becoming a debating society, so perhaps we could see something like this.

Seriously, the war has already started. America has air superiority in the south and north, and is in the process of making it uncontested. Baghdad is pulling its front line troops into two very compact kill zones. Well they call them defensive perimeters. The US could occupy the southern part of the country now, and the northern part within a few weeks. This would probably lead to the discovery of the WMD�s that no one can find. They would be turned over as they were in mid flight. But then the world would be forced to join in a chorus of �Evil Iraq�, and the US would follow its doctrine and respond with a WMD of its own. After the war, you would be able to buy a little piece of glass for a buck. The inscription would read �A souvenir from Saddam�s home town�

Wanderer

March 1st, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Dogscoff:
I will never be able to take that guy [Colin Powell] seriously until he learns to say his own name correctly.I agree, although if my name was Colin I'd want to change it!

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Seriously, the war has already started. America has air superiority in the south and north, and is in the process of making it uncontested.This has been going on since the Gulf War ended - planes have been policing the no-fly zones by (for example) demolishing any radar station that has the temerity to lock onto them for years. Last year RAF Tornados dropped bombs on some complex, and the next day the UK tabloid press gave the impression troops would be in Baghdad within a week.

Last I heard that program was dead. The ships were part of a NATO deal that had been put on hold. NATO's need no longer existed. Last I heard the strike fighter was stone dead, our navy is about to roll out a new strike fighter on its own.Well the old carriers are going to need replacing - they'll be 30 years old by the time the new ones are ready. I think the intention is not to disappear up our arses counting our pennies.

2001 - carrier construction confirmed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402679.stm)

2003 - contracts awarded to UK and French companies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2706727.stm)

Looks like the Royal Navy is going to buy American aircraft (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=621)

As for the French, we get the feeling they'd fully support NATO if they were the chief member. In Britain, France has very poor PR - it always looks as if the EU is intended to benefit France at the expense of others (not that there isn't some truth in that). In particular, the plans for an EU Defence Force have brought criticism that France essentially wants an alternative to NATO - one they can have a great deal more influence over. I guess some of you will have received the email that lists all of France's not so glorius military reverses.

Of course, not liking the French is virtually a national sport in Britain... I'd love to know how many people chose to bLast the Eiffel Tower (ahead of Big Ben, the Brandenburg Gate and the White House) first at the end of the NOD campaign in the first Command & Conquer game. I know I did http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Perrin

March 1st, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Thought I'd share this. It doesn't reflect anyone's point of view (at least that I know of), but might be good for a chuckle or two. Or maybe just for getting everyone united to come lynch me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I thought that I would do likewise. Although this is more pro American/British. So here it is:

Peace in Middle-Earth in Our Time
MINAS TIRITH (Gondor News Network) - Thousands of peace activists took to the streets of Minas Tirith and other cities of Middle Earth today to protest what they termed a rush to war with Mordor.

"We need more time for diplomacy," said a key member of the Middle-Earth Security Council, Saruman the White. "I am not convinced by the evidence presented by my esteemed colleague, Gandalf the Grey, or that the Dark Lord Sauron presents an imminent danger to the peoples of the West."

Many of the people protesting war in Mordor agreed with Saruman's remarks. "Sauron says he's destroyed his Rings of Mass Destruction (RMD) and that's good enough for me," said one fellow carrying a sign that said "Elrond is a Balrog." Another demonstrator urged, "Give the RMD inspectors more time. There's no reason to rush to any judgment just because Mount Doom is belching lava, the Dark Tower is rebuilt, and Osgiliath has been decimated." A third protester piped up, "I haven't heard a single bit of convincing evidence connecting the Nazgul with Sauron. I think they destroyed Osgiliath on their own initiative without any support from Sauron. Besides, it's understandable they're angry with Gondor. We haven't done nearly as much for the Orcs and Goblins and Easterlings as the Nazgul and Sauron have. It's understandable they throw their support to them. It's our own fault, really."

As the protesters continued their march through the city, they chanted, "No blood for Mount Doom," voicing a common sentiment that the leaders of the Western peoples are really seeking to get their hands on the powerful Mount Doom, where the One Ring of Power was allegedly forged.

Gandalf the Grey was unavailable for comment. A spokesman said he was in an undisclosed underground location, which sources have revealed is codenamed "Moria."

Krsqk

March 2nd, 2003, 12:04 AM

lol That's great! My favorite line is "Elrond is a Balrog"--sounds like my car's getting a new bumper sticker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

jimbob

March 2nd, 2003, 02:13 AM

Of course, not liking the French is virtually a national sport in Britain... Hey! Don't be so hard on the french, they've been indespensible to the world - they brought us champagne, bagettes and of course those lovable mimes! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif What would we be without them?!

Edit: is it just me, or do mimes all look like they've just made a prison break?

Wanderer

March 2nd, 2003, 02:58 AM

I've just signed an international treaty banning the production and use of mimes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<hr>Joke amnesty. Hand over your mime-field jokes here!

tesco samoa

March 7th, 2003, 02:31 AM

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4616550,00.html

hmmm.... The N.A. Media does not seem to be picking this story up ...

Ack

March 7th, 2003, 03:11 AM

I recently read an article that stated that spying in the UN is common. The article stated that everyone does it and it is almost expected. So that the US is spying is no big suprise.

The author did state that the biggest issue of concern is how this story is pissing off traditional US allies. He stated that this is a sign of how incredibly poor US-International relations are when such a minor thing incites naked outrage in Australia (for example).

Thermodyne

March 7th, 2003, 03:36 AM

There is probably a good reason that the wire services aren�t running it. Confirmation would be the one that comes to mind. I would have serious doubts that a message of this sort came from within the NSA in a form that could be opened and read by just anyone. I would also be surprised to learn that the NSA was not already listening to every electronic transmission that is directed to or originates from the UN. Cell phones are easy, as is IP data. Encryption is probably just a nuisance for them.

All of this is a mute point anyway. 700 air strikes yesterday and an undisclosed increase today. If 700 aircraft drop bombs on and fire rockets into your country, I think it is safe to say that you are at war. Also, if you can�t manage to shoot any down in that target rich environment, then you had better put your bomb proof undies on. You are about to have some real bad days.

Ack

March 7th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Try the Last paragraph of this article, but you are correct in that there has been no confirmation.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079570/

Here is an opinion piece about current US diplomacy.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/

I found this one to be interesting, though it is on a very liberal news site. This is a resignation letter from the US Ambassador in Athens to Secretary Powell. Again, no confirmation of the source.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/28/resignation/index_np.html

Here is the original article to which I refered. You'll have to register to read the entire article. I found it to be an interesting opinion.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/04/spy/index_np.html

Askan Nightbringer

March 7th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4616550,00.html

hmmm.... The N.A. Media does not seem to be picking this story up ...I saw a snippet about it on a late night tv news program. Also Martin Bright was interviewed by a Sydey radio station.
Its just another argument for the reasons of moving the UN out of New York and into somewhere more neutral and insignificant, one of the "non-aligned" block countries.

Originally posted by Ack:
The author did state that the biggest issue of concern is how this story is pissing off traditional US allies. He stated that this is a sign of how incredibly poor US-International relations are when such a minor thing incites naked outrage in Australia (for example).
It only takes George W's head now to incite naked outrage in Australia. He's alienated a big majority of the population here.

Askan

Amonra

March 7th, 2003, 06:45 AM

I personally knew that War with Iraq was on the very near horizon after 9-11. With the continual failure of the US to track down Osama Bin Laden and display him like a war trophy, War with Iraq and the goal of displaying Saddam Hussien would be become the next best option. This isn�t just a cynical view, but a reality of the American psyche. The great need to go looking for blame everywhere other than in oneself. You ask the average American why 9-11 happened and you�ll get the boiler plate response: �It�s because they hate our freedom and wealth, and because they are crazies and fanatics.� It�s never because,�oh �our government is doing stuff around the world to piss people off and some are going to react with overzealous fervor�

Let�s look at the entire picture of what got us here to this crossroads of war and peace. American backed Saddam�s rise to power to counter the situation arising in Iran. The fundamentalists were gaining too much steam and America, along with all the gulf states and many European allies wanted to prevent a rising tide of Islam governments in region with the world most important resource. They also didn�t want the movement to unite against Israel and force a confrontation which would require direct American and European support. So, Saddam came to power, and we supported his firming of his power to eventually confront the Iranian Revolution. Iraq, until the gulf war, was the most liberal and westernized middle-eastern state, with a very solid middle class.

So, the Iran-Iraq war didn�t go so hot, and they eventually saw the futility of a war over a worthless swath of land, and then brokered a peace deal. Well, that�s all good and well, but Iraq had fought a very costly war and had nothing to show for it and a huge debt load. These same gulf countries had all cheered Iraq�s move against Iran, but now looked the other way when the credit man came a knocking! Little Kuwait had been a HUGE countributor to Iraq, but had also loan some money, and Saddam didn�t wanna pay, plus�and this is where it gets good�Georgie Bush, part one, was really chummy with the Monarchy. Kuwait keeps doing it�s own thing outta OPEC�s limits to hook-up Georgie in providing Ma and Pa Clayton with cheap gas.

So, Saddam loses his mind and attacks Kuwait, We panic and rally the world to kick him out. Now, don�t get me wrong, I don�t think Saddam is crazy in the least bit, he simply over-estimated his military�s capabilities to resist us and We under-estimated our capabilities, so he decided to stay and fight, and we obliged to kick his @$$. We also did him a very nice favor by killing off the dead-weight of the bulky army from the Iran-iraq war, which he could just send home. We eliminated tons of worthless and antiqued war pieces, but somehow, the Republican Guards division when nearly unscathed in the bombing. There are tons of reports about the now degraded capabilities of the Iraqi military machine, eventhough he�s been selling billions of oil illegally and spending that money somewhere?!?!?

Now the other little piece of the puzzle is AmeriKKKA�s most wanted in the form of Osama. Now this guy is a piece of worth, as we help created this wonderful tool to keep the Soviets off their guard in the Stan�s�you know Afhganistan, Pakistan, Ubeikistan�Jollystan, Mollystan,�Pollystan. Then after the war was over in Afghanistan, we discarded them provided an ample breeding ground and source by occupying the Persian Gulf�to protect those poor Arabs from Evil Saddam. Bombing Iraq every week and watching our penis get larger and full ourselves. BANG! 9-11, and the perennial $hit hit$ the fan again when the second piece of the puzzle smokes us and our penis starts to droop! Secretly, we know the world is laughing at us, the mighty us..eerrrrr US. So we go over and kick the living crap outta some Afghans, but ooohhh my Osama and Mullah Omar break camp and most of theirs boys run undercover to plot the next attack. Well, the American public is a fickle lot and with zero progress in getting Al Queda stomped�we turn to Iraq. Number 2 please, number 2 is next in line please.

BUT we are now in a massive oooh ****! The rest of the world is sick of our ****, and are now simply pimping us to get their cooperation. Turkey flat out refused unless the money was right�even after the massive hoopla with the French and Germans. Now that�s a laugh. I won�t even go into the laughable comments about how the French owes us big time from WWII�hmmm I guess we figured that we had already paid them for basically footing the bill for our War of Independence (for some anyway!!!) and for little things like the symbol of freedom worldwide in the little old harbor in NYC called�.THE STATUE OF LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could go on and on about how silly the case is against Iraq, and support how it�s all about Oil, but I�ve got better things to do. Most American�s are simply too ignorant for me to argue intelligently about world issues, and they are all so proud of their ignorance. Well, go into Iraq without the UN�s permission (an illegal act) and kick out Saddam (probably won�t get him) and we�ll set up a puppet government to let us get a great oil deal and to also provide even more worldwide support for Al Qeada from borderline Moslems. The government will be paper thin of course and we�ll have to remain there for about 45 years, as we are in South Korea.

I love America, but I�m not too blind to see the truth�this war is nothing more than a thin veil for an Oil grab for a Oil-hungry administration. It�s got little to do with human rights or WMD (what a catchy phrase.) All these simpletons trying to compare the current situation to Germany in 1930 are spewing form fitting rhetoric. They here it on some ignorance news show like Bill O�reilly and do a little research to get do a few facts from the internet, and then post it to display there great knowledge of �cut-n-paste.� America is sliding down that slippery slope of overbearing imperialist. Just remember all those poor Africans the Europeans were saving when they enslaved them, or the similar pattern displayed by Rome in her declining years when she would launch massive military campaigns to spread the glory of the Roman Empire�hence Gladiator the movie. This was is going to come back to haunt in our lifetimes�just wait and see.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I'm cool as a fan...with my gat in hand!

JLS

March 7th, 2003, 03:45 PM

This isn�t just a cynical viewYea, ok...

What you just did, is also another that makes America Great�. You stated your opinion with out FEAR of physical retribution or death.

Actually, I wonder more how some of the middle east leaders; worries and prepare in regards to the natural sale and depletion there oil reserves.

We eliminated tons of worthless and antiqued war pieces, but somehow, the Republican Guards division when nearly unscathed in the bombing. There are tons of reports about the now degraded capabilities of the Iraqi military machine
Is this supposed to strike fear in the American minds? I think not...
Actually this is staring to sound like Anti American Propaganda. I have been seeing more and more (allmost Exact words) of this all over the net, in the Last few days?!?!?!

By the way, off topic, how do you like SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Edit:
Amonra, from NY

[ March 07, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

March 7th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Does any one have a source to Quote Kuwaiti oil sales and who the purchasers where in the Last 10 years?
EDIT: Kuwaiti exports to US (updated 2000): only 14% of Kuwaiti total exports. This includes Kuwaiti oil, refining and fertilizer products.

I know we liberated that Country too, and we did not set up Jeb Bush as its Leader�.

I believe, but not actually being there, that the Kuwaiti people are Jubilant towards us and view us as a faithful ally and not there new ruling despot? I may be wrong tough, not actually being there to see for my self.

This is a complicated issue for sure, I do not believe we are after (your/There) oil; but I do believe the American citizens will not tolerate the pillaging of a another nations resource of any kind by a victor or not� Actually late world history has proven that Americans want to give and rebuild after a war, (even if it is not clear wether we won or was even in that past event or not. We helped the best we could).

I do know one thing, terrorism has been around for centuries, one of the best ways is to stop it, in my mind, is to stop the funding and transfer of arms. Appeasement or quick fixes has not worked in our history, Europe, Africa, South America, Israel, have had terrorism and death for most of Last century�.

9-11 has brought this to home, and yes I want my country to do something about it, quick, decisive and as merciful as possible. I do agree with appeasement as anyone would with a child� Some national leaders make threats at me and my family; threats that have substance, threats that would destroy my family as with the families in 9-11, I prey my Country protects us from these threats; as I would, with a Brigand in my home with a knife to my Daughters throat.

[ March 07, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

Amonra

March 7th, 2003, 05:42 PM

By the way, off topic, how do you like SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I like SEIV very much...I've played for nearly a year now, and I think it's the best 4X game I've ever played.

As to the OT-on topic topic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I'm just a bleeding heart liberal, with a prior military background, who has acutally been stationed in the Persian Gulf...acutally set foot down there and not just read about it.

Askan Nightbringer

March 7th, 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Actually this is staring to sound like Anti American Propaganda. I have been seeing more and more (allmost Exact words) of this all over the net, in the Last few days?!?!?!

What exactly does Anti-American mean? Its an all too often heard phrase to dismiss the arguements of the anti-current US administration camp.

I think George W is a dick.
Does that make me anti-american?

I hate that my government supports the US without question.
Does that make me anti-american?

I hate the the so called opposition parties support the US without question.
Does that make me anti-american?

I think the coming Iraq war is based on a load of toss.
Does that make me anti-american?

I don't like the US system of extreme Capitalism for the poor coupled with Corporate Socialism.
Does that make me anti-american?

How do I become not anti-american? Do I have to kiss the US flag before I go to bed? Do I have to pay to watch America take a dump? Do I have to grovel before the absolute greatness of the Stars and Stripes? What the hell does Anti-American mean?

I do know one thing, terrorism has been around for centuries, one of the best ways is to stop it, in my mind, is to stop the funding and transfer of arms. Appeasement or quick fixes has not worked in our history, Europe, Africa, South America, Israel, have had terrorism and death for most of Last century�.
Well another way of stopping terrorism is to stop PARTICIPATING in it. Don't train the next generation of terrorists just because they happen to be anti islamic fundamentalists at the time.

Askan
Anti-American because he thinks that Sex in the City is not the defintive authority on life in the 2000s.

Wardad

March 7th, 2003, 07:08 PM

OT a litte.. Just some email I recieved about the French situation.

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein?
Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret.
He is French, people."
--Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq.
After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
---Jay Leno

"The Last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
--- Regis Philbin

While speaking to the Hoover Institution today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question:
"Could you tell us why to date at least the Administration doesn't favor direct talks with the North Korean government?
After all, we're talking with the French."
The Secretary smiled and replied:
"I'm not going there!"

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
--Norman Schwartzkopf

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
---Rush Limbaugh,

An old saying:
Raise your right hand if you like the French....
Raise both hands if you are French.

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.
France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
---Mark Twain

"I just love the French. They taste like chicken!"
---- Hannibal Lecter

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson

-------------------------
Just kidding

JLS

March 7th, 2003, 07:53 PM

Don�t get me wrong Australia and this is not a good reason for you to join a US or any coalition. We can go this Iraq thing alone, if necessary.

If you were to poll the majority of Australians back in 1942 if they wanted the Americans to be at war as there ally even though we may have the US system Attributes that you say, what would do you think the vast majority of Australians would vote?

What if President Roosevelt and the American People did not react with war after we were attacked by Japan our Carrier Group would have never been in the Coral sea where Hundreds of American lives were lost preventing the Japanese Capture of Port Moresby.
There by helping to secure the safety of Australian Families from Japanese planes that would of been in range on your home land, if they succeeded�

~~~
With allot of us Americans it may just come down to just this, safety for our families.
~~~

Yes, Askan Nightbringer, sadly I have seen a lot of Anti-American Propaganda on the Net Recently .

EDIT:
Actually by Omitting the word � Propaganda � from the sentence, Askan Nightbringer you were able to imply I called Amonra anti-American; when in fact, I did not.

Hence: half truths, disinformation (This is Propaganda) and thank you for the illustration http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

�God of kings � King of gods"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thesaurus (ENGLISH)

propaganda (n)
misinformation , party line, disinformation , half truths , cant, indoctrination, load of toss

publicity, advertising, marketing, literature, information, hoopla, puffery, hype, buildup, Bumf

[ March 07, 2003, 18:59: Message edited by: JLS ]

tesco samoa

March 7th, 2003, 11:10 PM

MR. JLS.

Back in 1942 Australians were at war. Sept 1939 ! Please do not compare the American gov'ts current polices with Iraq with WW2. They are not the same.

Our Friend in Australia is questioning these policies that the current American Gov't is persuing.

Do you agree 100 % with these policies.

Say 10% of the Population of Iraq is 'Evil-doers' and the rest is not.

Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.

Do you think that the lofty goals that the American Gov't has stated for Iraq will be met or do you think it will be just like Vietnam.

On the subject of Oil sales... Control of those fields controls Europe and Central Asia. That is important.

1990 was the right thing to do. They should have finished the job then. M. Thatcher stated it was the worst mistake of her political career not ending that war and letting the Iraq army slaughter all opposition to the Iraq Gov't

You keep tossing 9-11 in there. None of the terrorists were from Iraq. None of the A-Q they have captured or are after are from Iraq. There is no proof that Iraq was involved with those actions. Why isn't your country questioning the relationship between the current crop of people in charge and the A-Q.

A quote from you

Some national leaders make threats at me and my family; threats that have substance, threats that would destroy my family as with the families in 9-11, I prey my Country protects us from these threats; as I would, with a Brigand in my home with a knife to my Daughters throat.

Is not your Govn't and Britains Govn't doing the same thing?

I believe it is to be American to question.

My intent here is not to slander you. Your opinions are valid, as is Askan's.

Fyron

March 7th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.Casualties of legally declared war are not murder victims in any sense.

JLS

March 8th, 2003, 12:17 AM

MR. JLS.

Back in 1942 Australians were at war. Sept 1939 ! Please do not compare the American gov'ts current polices with Iraq with WW2. They are not the same.
~EDIT:
"Back in 1942 Australians were at war. Sept 1939 !"
... And??? (This makes little sence) Please re-read my Post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Our Friend in Australia is questioning these policies that the current American Gov't is persuing.

Do you agree 100 % with these policies.
~No

Say 10% of the Population of Iraq is 'Evil-doers' and the rest is not.
~True

Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.
~murdered, interesting choice of a word.
Actually I think its Iraqi leaders decision whether he wants war, Full Compliance with UN, or Abdication.

Do you think that the lofty goals that the American Gov't has stated for Iraq will be met or do you think it will be just like Vietnam.
~No, Absolutely not: I do not think it will be like Vietnam.
How is that you can compare the American gov'ts current polices with Iraq with Vietnam war? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On the subject of Oil sales... Control of those fields controls Europe and Central Asia. That is important.
~OK, are you saying America is in Control of those fields?

1990 was the right thing to do. They should have finished the job then. M. Thatcher stated it was the worst mistake of her political career not ending that war and letting the Iraq army slaughter all opposition to the Iraq Gov't
~I disagree with M. Thatcher, it was a good decision then.
Unfortunately Iraq, would not comply with UN doctrines.

You keep tossing 9-11 in there. None of the terrorists were from Iraq. None of the A-Q they have captured or are after are from Iraq. There is no proof that Iraq was involved with those actions. Why isn't your country questioning the relationship between the current crop of people in charge and the A-Q.
~Iraq has ties to A-Q and other extreme Terrorist Groups.

-----
A quote from you

EDIT: "9-11 has brought this to home, and yes I want my country to do something about it, quick, decisive and as merciful as possible. I do agree with appeasement as anyone would with a child�"

Continued

Some national leaders make threats at me and my family; threats that have substance, threats that would destroy my family as with the families in 9-11, I prey my Country protects us from these threats; as I would, with a Brigand in my home with a knife to my Daughters throat.

Is not your Govn't and Britains Govn't doing the same thing?
~No.

I believe it is to be American to question.
~Very true !!!! As well as my beleave And the believe of all free societies.

My intent here is not to slander you. Your opinions are valid, as is Askan's
Yes, I agree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And none considered, thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 07, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: JLS ]

dogscoff

March 8th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Casualties of legally declared war are not murder victims in any sense.
I'm sure the casualties of legally declared will be very happy to hear that they weren't murdered, Fyron.

Fyron

March 8th, 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Casualties of legally declared war are not murder victims in any sense.
I'm sure the casualties of legally declared will be very happy to hear that they weren't murdered, Fyron.<hr /></blockquote>Yep, they will. The term Murder has some strong connotations that do not apply in circumstances of legally declared wars. I assume that Tesco knows this, and that is why he chose to use the word Murdered instead of Killed, but it still does not apply.

Thermodyne

March 8th, 2003, 03:37 AM

It will not be murder, it will be war. If they fight, then they die by the thousands. If they surrender, they will be well treated, this they already know from past experience. I would suspect that a conscript Iraqi solder is better off as a POW, they have few rights in their Army.

Lets face it guys, if the US decides to finish this, we will do it regardless of what Europe says. And irregardless of what we decide to do, they have lost their Middle Eastern cash cow. No more markets for manufactured goods (and we are not talking about TV�s and fridges) and no more lucrative oil exploration/delivery contracts. And after this all settles down, they can continue to flap their jaws about the embargo violations that they have been profiting from. You can bet that this is the high water mark for them, when Saddam is gone, several countries will have a lot of explaining to do.

Many Posts ago, someone entered the forum with a post containing a revised history of American involvement in the region. Let correct a few things. After the Last big war, the area was in the British area of influence and they adjusted the borders as was their right. Nations/States that supported the Nazi�s were not treated as well as allies were. And Israel was created in an area that fully supported Germany. So the US had very little to do with how the region is laid out today.

America supported Israel and Iran during the 50�s 60�s 70�s, and this was originally to counter Soviet influence and have a presence in the region. In the 70�s, the political situation in Iran caused us to look for new allies in the region. When war broke out between Iraq and Iran, it was in America�s best interest to see Iran get a bloody nose, and it was in the best interest of Israel to see Iraq preoccupied with the Iranians. Se we began to support Iraq. It should be noted that Iraq fought the war with its Soviet supplied weapons with a few high tech French pieces tossed in for good measure, as they controlled it all from their German built facilities. At no time did we have what would be called good relations with Iraq. And we have never been more that a minor arms source for them. The Soviets, French and Germans take care of Iraq�s weapons needs.

IMHO, it is good that America will go it almost alone this time. We will finish it once and for all, and we will not have to worry about the interests of a bunch of allies that actually contribute almost nothing to the war. And when this war is over, we can help pay the bill by closing down our operations across Europe. With all of the talk coming from the UN, I think the French and Germans can take care of Europe. Well at least until they decide to take care of each other, again! Perhaps England and the US will be smart enough to sit that one out.

[ March 08, 2003, 01:43: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

JLS

March 8th, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Amonra:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
By the way, off topic, how do you like SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I like SEIV very much...I've played for nearly a year now, and I think it's the best 4X game I've ever played.

As to the OT-on topic topic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I'm just a bleeding heart liberal, with a prior military background, who has acutally been stationed in the Persian Gulf...acutally set foot down there and not just read about it.<hr /></blockquote>Amonra,

I want to thank you for getting me excited and acting on my Impulse to post in this thread, it really did feel good saying what I wanted to say�

I also want to thank you for serving in the (US?) military, I realize this can be a thank less duty.

With this said, I hope you all well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

�God of kings � King of gods"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 08, 2003, 03:27: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

March 8th, 2003, 07:00 PM

Say America attacks and 200,000 are murdered, is that worth it.If the leader of my country quarters a large group of troops in my residential neighborhood, (as Iraq is currently doing) I will not be a victim. If my government hides biological or chemical weapons in my basement so UN inspectors may not find them (as Iraq is suspected of doing) I will not be a victim.

I will dust off my grandfathers rifle and keep it by my bedside to defend against the infidel. I will not be a victim. I will give the old pistol to my 13 year old son to hide in his clothes and kill the invader, I will not be a victim. I will support my husband in resistence and sabbatoge of the invader. I will not be a victim.

My family are all americans we have not had to live with fear of invasion, however I can assure you none of us will ever be 'murder' victims of a declared war against our country. We will fight to defend our home and beliefs.

How could I think any Iraqi family would be any different? They have lived with fear of invasion from many different countries for decades. How could they believe those soldiers are living in residential areas just for a change of scenery?

If there are families unwilling to fight for Iraq, why do they not move to an area where there will not be soldiers? Or protest the quartering of them in residential communities? Because the government does not allow it? Hmmmm "Give me liberty or give me death", Patrick Henry---"Live free or Die", New Hampshire state motot.

There are many willing to die for freedom. I would not be a victim.

Ruatha

March 8th, 2003, 07:11 PM

I would rather not die.

Freedom or death is easy to say.
I don't know what choice I'd make but propably I'd rather tolerate living in a dictatorship than be dead.

I'm fortunate to live in a democratic country and be able to defend that freedom with arms if so be, many in this world aren't that lucky.

In a country that is heavily controlled rioting on your own is sure death.

Just joking about Saddam might get you 10 years of prison.

Fyron

March 8th, 2003, 10:21 PM

I don't know what choice I'd make but propably I'd rather tolerate living in a dictatorship than be dead.The prevalence of this attitude is one of the biggest problems in the world today. I forget which of the authors of the Federalist Papers said it, but, "A man* that is willing to give up an ounce of his freedom for a measure of security deserves no freedom at all." (most likely not the actual quote, but the point is there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

* Translate to person in today's overly-politcal correct world- in English, man is often used as a generic term that is independant of gender, but there are people that do not realize this.

[ March 08, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

March 8th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Benjamin Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ruatha

March 8th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Ruatha: "Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action."

Fyron

March 8th, 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Ruatha: "Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action."Of course words are easy to say. Words are how everything has to be communicated. What is the point of that part? It is like stating "english is a language".

I for one am not willing to give up my freedoms for temporary security.

[ March 08, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

jimbob

March 8th, 2003, 11:01 PM

Let me start by saying 1) I'm in a really cranky mood today, so if you ain't wearing flame proof undies, don't read any further and 2) I support the war on Iraq, but feel deeply for the plight of the average person in Iraq who will feel more pain before they feel any relief.

If there are families unwilling to fight for Iraq, why do they not move to an area where there will not be soldiers? A nice sentiment but please, an ounce of reality for just a second. In Iraq one does not simply pack all their belongings, their family pet and 2.5 children into the SUV and the rented U-haul, drive 25 km (16.3 mi) to a new suburb and unload their crap into a new condo and call it a weekend. The average Joe or Joe-ette in Bagdad has many children, nearly no income and very significant family ties. There are no condos available for rent, there is no rapid/easy transportation to look for a new place, etc etc. I'd be surprised if you are even allowed to move in such a highly regulated society! If you do move, you'd better be damned sure that the neighbourhood you move to is Sunni, if you're Sunni, or Kurdish if you're a Kurd. And when the soldiers come, they're there till they want to leave!

Or protest the quartering of them in residential communities? Because the government does not allow it? Yah, but remember king George MCCVIII (or who ever it was at the time of the American Revolution) was actually a pretty nice guy compared to Sadam. Oh, I know, nobody in Boston liked him 'cause he forced them to drink substandard tea at marked up prices, but at least the colonist could have an audience with him. Good ol' Ben and the boys went away empty handed, but at least they left with their hands still attached!! Sadam is known as the butcher of Bagdad, he has gassed entire populations, he was the one who sat outside of the Iraqi parlement and called the sitting members out one-by-one for public execution when he overthrew the previous regeme.

Now I don't know about you, but when I've got a wife who can be raped, several teenage daughters, and some boys old enough to be conscripted, I might not be so vocal about my displeasure with the king. Give me liberty or give me death is fine, unless the tyrant would rather murder your family before your eyes and then, just for a twist, let you live to dream of the terror every night for the rest of your life.

Hmmmm "Give me liberty or give me death", Patrick Henry---"Live free or Die", New Hampshire state moto. Must be nice living in New Hampshire.

[ March 08, 2003, 21:02: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Thermodyne

March 9th, 2003, 04:51 PM

At Last, a reliable predictor of the chance of war in Iraq http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078517/

Ruatha

March 9th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Fyron>
What I mean is that if you belive you would have acted diferently than the multitude (billion+) of people living in totalitarian states if you where in their position you are most propably wrong.
Statistically most of the people in these conditions goes with the flow, very few rebel openly, or even in secret.

There needs to be a uniting factor for people to take the risc of plunging themself and their families into certain danger.
Take the Soviet union for example. The Glasnost started the way and when the counter-glasnost coup happened it was the signal for the people to rise. Even then it took time for most people to dare to take action..

What "words are cheap" mean is that it's pretty easy to sit in a secure position i n ademocratic state and complain that people in other situation doessn't risk their lifes instead of living under opression.

I'm not sure what I would do. I hope I would fight against the totalitarian rule but statisticly I would most propably accept the situationa s it is and stay alive.

[ March 09, 2003, 18:43: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

tesco samoa

March 9th, 2003, 09:44 PM

QBrigid Pehaps you should go ask that question to the people who are very very lucky to live in highland park Detroit Say the Woodward and Davison area. Or some of the fine mid town locations of Baltimore. Or perhaps even Flint Mich.

They have had to deal with large Groups of troops in their residential neighbourhoods, they have had to deal with a lack of freedom. For them it is not easy to move. Or those areas would not exist. And yes their is a war there it is the so called War on Drugs.

Survival is what keeps a person going. The faint hope that all is not lost. So they go on.

So when Democracy is restored to Iraq do you think that a Shia Muslim will be voted into power ? Or perhaps another Dictator who says Yes when spoken to by the occupation Army ?

I am sorry but I do not think that this is worth the life of one single brave American soldier.

QBrigid

March 10th, 2003, 02:56 AM

Please do not misunderstand, the point I was trying to make, was that should civilians be killed during an announced war, they may not be victims, but civilian combatants. I certainly would protect my home and country.

As for the ability to throw off the oppression of Saddam, it is possible that enough people do not wish another government. When the Poles wanted freedom, many gave their lives and security to achieve it. The students in Tienamen Square knew what they were facing when they protested the government.

Quoted from Tesco Samoa
QBrigid Pehaps you should go ask that question to the people who are very very lucky to live in highland park Detroit Say the Woodward and Davison area. Or some of the fine mid town locations of Baltimore. Or perhaps even Flint Mich.

They have had to deal with large Groups of troops in their residential neighbourhoods, they have had to deal with a lack of freedom. For them it is not easy to move. Or those areas would not exist. And yes their is a war there it is the so called War on Drugs.TS are you implying that all of the people living there have no choice? That a government has required that they remain there, working at a job that is chosen for them. I am not sure I understand you analogy.

Aloofi

March 10th, 2003, 04:03 PM

I wonder if any Iraqi truely belive in Saddam's ideology....
I mean, what if many Iraqis, though certainly not all, actualy believe that Saddam Hussein is the good guy?
I'm asking this because in all societies there have to be a certain percentage of the population that actively support their goverment for that goverment to exist. Repression alone would not make it work. You need people to repress other people.

dogscoff

March 10th, 2003, 04:13 PM

In response to Aloofi's comments:

Yes, Saddam does try very hard to portray himself to his people as a noble, heroic and righteous ruler who cares for his country. I don't know how many of them (if any) actually believe him.

For a look into the mind of an iraqi citzen, take a look at this site. (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/) I think the URL was originally posted here by someone else. As far as I know it's genuine.

It's a blog by an iraqi, being written day to day right now. The guy is educated and observant, and seems to be under no illusions about the nature of Saddam. All the same, he doesn't seem to regard George Bush as his liberator. It's an interesting read, anyway. Take a look.

Aloofi

March 10th, 2003, 04:42 PM

By the way, what happened to 86 suitcase nukes that were stolen from Russia by the Russian Mafia years ago?
Have anybody heard how many have been recovered?
They were kind of small, 2Kg of Plutoniu, if i recall correctly, not enough to blow up an entire city, but could take out something like 4 blocks, definitevely a terrorizing weapon.

jimbob

March 10th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Aloofi: Are you sure that isn't just an "urban legend"? It seems somewhat unlikely/unverified to me, that's a lot of nukes to go missing without world-wide media hysteria.

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 11:13 PM

Ruatha:
So you would rather be a statistic than a person?

Krsqk

March 11th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I wonder if any Iraqi truely belive in Saddam's ideology....
I mean, what if many Iraqis, though certainly not all, actualy believe that Saddam Hussein is the good guy?
I'm asking this because in all societies there have to be a certain percentage of the population that actively support their goverment for that goverment to exist. Repression alone would not make it work. You need people to repress other people.That all depends on what you mean by "believe in" his ideology.

I'm 100% sure they believe it gives them money and power. What more do you need to believe in (at least, from their perspective)?

[ March 10, 2003, 23:48: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Phoenix-D

March 11th, 2003, 03:07 AM

I kind of doubt the "suitcase nukes", if they exist, would destroy 4 city blocks.

Fat Man, the plutonium bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, had 6 kilograms of plutonium. It essentially wiped out the city (21 kiloton bLast)

If you can get critical mass from 2kg, I think the boom would be at least in the kiloton range.

Phoenix-D

Thermodyne

March 11th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Found these over at Seti's forum:

Fun With The French

Donald Rumsfeld: "Going to war without the French is like going
deer hunting without your accordion."

David Letterman: "France wants more evidence [of Iraqi violations].
The Last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through
France with a German flag."

Dennis Miller: "The only way the French are going in is if we tell
them we found truffles in Iraq."

Jay Leno: "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't
help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us
get the Germans out of France!"

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.: "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to
defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried."

Blunt again: "Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle
that was being advertised on eBay the other day -- the description
was:
'Never shot. Dropped once.'"

French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war
always means failure."

John Xereas: "Do you know it only took Germany three days to
conquer France in World War II? And that's because it was raining,"

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was applauded at the
Security Council after he spoke out against U.S. war plans Friday.
They've taken their own precautions against al-Qa'ida. To prepare for
terrorist attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white
flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses around the house.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert is so angry at France for opposing White
House policy on Iraq that he's proposed requiring orange warning
labels on every bottle of imported French wine. Let's guess. The
warning label will read, Just Two Glasses Could Make Dictators with
Mustaches Appear Less Threatening Than They Really Are. ---Argus
Hamilton

Dennis Miller: What do you expect from a culture and a nation that
exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World
and Big Mac's than the Nazis?

An old saying:
Raise your right hand if you like the French....
Raise both hands if you are French.

Q: Why are there so many tree-lined boulevards in France?
A: Germans like to march in the shade.

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona: "You know, the French remind
me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still
trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

Conan O'Brien: "You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam
Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a
beret. He is French, people."

Jay Leno: "Some members of Congress are so upset with this thing
with France that they want to impose trade sanctions against French
products. They want to ban French products like Evian. And you
thought Hollywood celebrities were against the war before....!"

Q: What did the mayor of Paris say to the German Army as they
entered the city in WWII?
A: "Table for 100,000 m'sieur?"

Jay Leno: "France and Germany still say they are still our allies.
You know, the same way Bill and Hillary are husband and wife."

Askan Nightbringer

March 11th, 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Found these over at Seti's forum:

Fun With The French

I think this has been posted before. And stop bagging the French. All they have done is state the position that 80% of the people in the world back.
*Askan takes a minute to rip the Union Jack out of his country's flag and replaces it with the Tricolour*

Fun With The Americans
"War is how Americans learn geography" - Mangled from somewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Askan

Askan Nightbringer

March 11th, 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
As for the ability to throw off the oppression of Saddam, it is possible that enough people do not wish another government. When the Poles wanted freedom, many gave their lives and security to achieve it. The students in Tienamen Square knew what they were facing when they protested the government.
Well in the end of the Gulf War the people did rebel against Saddam. Two things happened
1) The Basra massacre. Saddam's most potent enemy, the conscript soldiers of ethnic miniorities sent to Kuwait, were completely annhilated by Norman as they fled back to Basra.
2) The Republican Guard was allowed to squash any uprisings without fear of suffering the same fate as the conscripted army.

Nobody cared of the fate of the Iraqi people at that time. The aim of the Gulf War was not to otherthrow Saddam. That justification for an attack on Iraq came up somewhere between he's developing Weapons of Mass Destruction and I've got lots of bombs, might as well use em.

Askan

Thermodyne

March 11th, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Found these over at Seti's forum:

Fun With The French

I think this has been posted before. And stop bagging the French. All they have done is state the position that 80% of the people in the world back.
*Askan takes a minute to rip the Union Jack out of his country's flag and replaces it with the Tricolour*

Fun With The Americans
"War is how Americans learn geography" - Mangled from somewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Askan<hr /></blockquote>The French will continue to be the target of my scorn irregardless of objections from down under. The French have worked very hard to earn their place of irrelevancy in the world. Their cowardliness is exceeded only by their ability to over rate themselves. Personally, I suspect that the WWII era German salute originated from telling the Frogs to talk to the hand.

On a more serious note, we should all remember that France has been no friend to the third world. They still maintain a colonial empire, and are often a supplier of arms for regional conflicts. I have no doubt that we will find evidence of French handy work when we disarm Iraq.

Thermodyne

March 11th, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QBrigid:
As for the ability to throw off the oppression of Saddam, it is possible that enough people do not wish another government. When the Poles wanted freedom, many gave their lives and security to achieve it. The students in Tienamen Square knew what they were facing when they protested the government.
Well in the end of the Gulf War the people did rebel against Saddam. Two things happened
1) The Basra massacre. Saddam's most potent enemy, the conscript soldiers of ethnic miniorities sent to Kuwait, were completely annhilated by Norman as they fled back to Basra.
2) The Republican Guard was allowed to squash any uprisings without fear of suffering the same fate as the conscripted army.

Nobody cared of the fate of the Iraqi people at that time. The aim of the Gulf War was not to otherthrow Saddam. That justification for an attack on Iraq came up somewhere between he's developing Weapons of Mass Destruction and I've got lots of bombs, might as well use em.

Askan<hr /></blockquote>Especially the Australians. The way your country treated refugees and immigrants from Iraq after the Last war was not all that kind. Interring them on an island while their fate was determined (should I say predetermined) by the courts. So it is pretty sure that Australia didn�t care much about their fate, at least not enough to offer them a place to live in freedom.

Also, you stated a figure of 80% against the war. Time to put up or shut up, where dod you get your numbers, The Iraqi FREE press?

Ruatha

March 11th, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ruatha:
So you would rather be a statistic than a person?No, but realistic.

Mephisto

March 11th, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Also, you stated a figure of 80% against the war. Time to put up or shut up, where dod you get your numbers, The Iraqi FREE press?Read the international press, watch the demos in the world against the war, watch how many countries vote against an Iraq war in the UN. It is guessed that roughly 70 % to 80 % of the world population is against an Iraq war. Of course it is hard to poll in countries like China and I would guess that many people around the world have much more pressing problems on their hands then a war against the Iraq so they are indifferent to it. However, to sum it up, one could savely say that quite a majority is against an US war against the Iraq if not backed by another UN resolution.. But as it seems, the US won't get one.

Aloofi

March 11th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I kind of doubt the "suitcase nukes", if they exist, would destroy 4 city blocks.

Fat Man, the plutonium bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, had 6 kilograms of plutonium. It essentially wiped out the city (21 kiloton bLast)

If you can get critical mass from 2kg, I think the boom would be at least in the kiloton range.

Phoenix-DWell, if not 4 maybe 6, but it doesn't make Manhatan an oversized football camp. It have been estimated that concrete buildings are capable of stoping the bLast wave from these mini-nukes. Also, it might be less than 2kg, though I think I remember it was 2kg. I'll do a search on this to see if I find this info Online. I got this info originally from a military magazine.

Oh, and the nukes dropped in Japan didn't destroy the whole city in either case. I'll have to get some numbers before saying what percentage survived from each city.

jimbob

March 11th, 2003, 10:22 PM

Askan:
Stop bagging the FrenchI say, the more we bag the French the better! Hehehehe They've ceased to be militarily relevent to the world stage (as has Canada, Australia, etc) but still demand that they be respected as a military power (unlike Canada and Australia). Notice that almost no one is making fun of the Germans? The Russians? It's because the French are ... mimes... that won't shut up!

Askan:
War is how Americans learn geographyOooo, that's a good one!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I agree whole heartedly that we can all do well to make more fun of the US. That said, have you heard the one about the farmer from Saskatchewan who...

Thermodyne:
I have no doubt that we will find evidence of French handy work when disarming Iraq Oh, I have very little doubt of this. Yes, the US did sell lots of stuff to Sadam, and yes, many nations have unclean hands when it comes to Iraq, but France (to distinguish the people from the Government to be fair) has been the largest supplier to Sadam since before gunpowder was invented. Personally, I think that France wants "peace" because Sadam is one of their best customers, and possibly to hide their complicity in Sadam's regime. Russia would also like peace, because Sadams' Iraq owes them billions and billions of dollars - a new republic will probably ignore the debt, though I'm unsure of the international rules here. The long and the short, nobody (including the US) has clean hands here... so calling the US a hypocrite is, well, kinda hypocritical.

Take home message: Tibet is the only country on earth that does not have dirty hands regarding Iraq. The UN should sponsor a Tibetan invasion force 1 million Shirpa's strong to put Sadam right.

Mephisto:
One could safely say that quite a majority is against an US war against... Iraq, if not backed by another UN resolutionYah, and the majority of the world did such a good job in holding back the atrocities in Rawanda, Yugoslovia, Haiti, etc. etc. etc. The majority of the world is spineless, and evidently believes that George Dubbya having a red neck is more a sin than Sadam's outrages against the people of Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, and very possibly Isreal and the USA.

In summary:
George Bush = Hypocrite + Inbred
Sadam = Murderer + Instigator

I dare say I'll stand up to say which one is bad, and which is worse.

Ruatha

March 11th, 2003, 10:57 PM

I belive the Tibetians would like to invade Tibet first, considering the situation there!

Aloofi

March 11th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Hey, what's up with those rumors of no war until next year?
Is it another disinformation or the Yanks are really planning to have all those pretty little tiny tanks in the Saudi noses until next year? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

March 12th, 2003, 12:59 AM

Hi all.

I have a few replies to make in this thread... But I will not be able to for a few days. Things are really really busy in life right now. And I do not want to post something that I do not mean or is hard to understand ( due to tesco speak ) , or will offend people.

Keep the debate going.

And Keep the name calling out. Especially when it comes to countries and cultures.

Unless their Dutch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Askan Nightbringer

March 12th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Especially the Australians. The way your country treated refugees and immigrants from Iraq after the Last war was not all that kind. Interring them on an island while their fate was determined (should I say predetermined) by the courts. So it is pretty sure that Australia didn�t care much about their fate, at least not enough to offer them a place to live in freedom.
Refugees and immigrants after the Last war? You mean refugees everyday. On one hand the Australian government says Saddam leads a brutal and repressive regime, on the other we send Iraqi refugees home because their case for asylum was not good enough. I am so disgusted with it that I get sick in the stomach. I march, I protest, I write to the papers, I email political parties and I scorn anyone who accepts this inhumane treatment of refugees.
Just because I'm Australian doesn't mean I have to support my governement when it is clearly wrong.

Also, you stated a figure of 80% against the war. Time to put up or shut up, where dod you get your numbers, The Iraqi FREE press?Well I pulled those numbers out of the air, just as a rough guestimate. My sources are usually the Sydney Morning Herald, the UK Guardian, the Jakarta Post and I even occasionally watch that stupid NBC Today show that screens here at about 1am. But Mephisto is correct, the evidence is eveywhere, most notably the UN Security Council at the moment.

On a more serious note, we should all remember that France has been no friend to the third world. They still maintain a colonial empire, and are often a supplier of arms for regional conflicts. I have no doubt that we will find evidence of French handy work when we disarm Iraq.
Well all the permanent members of the Security Council are very guilty when its comes to arming bastards. Its hard to forget that Powell's picture of a "Terrorist Poison and Chemical Factory" was a British built one and that Saddam got various cultures of bacteria, including anthrax, from the US in the 80s. Basically what was given to the Iraqis in the 80s is now used as a justification for war by the same people who gave him the nasty toys in the first place.

All this hypocrisy is driving me mad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Askan

Aloofi

March 12th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Will it be war or not?
I don't believe all i hear. A lot of desinformation goes around when war is in the horizon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

"TEL AVIV � The U.S. military has been ordered to launch a war against Iraq on March 18, an Israeli official said in a televised report.

Israeli government monitor, Michael Gurdus, reported on late Tuesday that the order was relayed by U.S. Central Command to all American forces in the Persian Gulf. Gurdus told Israel's Channel 2 television that he heard the order being relayed to U.S. fighter-jet pilots and others over U.S. military radio communications he intercepted.

Gurdus is regarded as the leading communications monitor in the Middle East and works for Israel radio and television. He has broken numerous stories because of his ability to intercept and understand foreign-language civilian and radio broadcasts and communications. He said the U.S. military, in its radio communications, refers to Iraq as "bad cows" and "kabab", Middle East Newsline reported.
On Monday, Israel's media reported that the United States had demanded that senior Israeli officials stop issuing predictions of when the war would erupt. Israeli defense officials have concluded that the United States plans to strike Iraq after March 17, the deadline set for Iraq to answer questions regarding its missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.

Israeli defense officials have concluded that the United States plans to strike Iraq after March 17, the deadline set for Iraq to answer questions regarding its missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.

Pentagon sources dismissed the Israeli report. But they said the U.S. military in Kuwait has already been placed on high alert, and that the preparations for war will intensify over the weekend.

U.S. officials have reported an increase in air missions in Iraq and said President George Bush does not plan to wait weeks until any confrontation with Baghdad. They said the United States has more than 225,000 soldiers in the Iraqi theater of operations and has focused operations on southern Iraq.

"In order to keep the pressure on the Iraqi regime to disarm we have stepped up Southern Watch operations," Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday. "We are now flying several hundred sorties a day, with 200 or 300 over the southern no-fly zone."

The U.S. bombing missions included targets in western Iraq near the Jordanian border. Meyers said F-15E fighter-jets dropped munitions against an air defense radar in an airfield in the H-3 region, used in 1991 to launch medium-range missiles against Israel.

The U.S. military has also ordered accelerated testing and production of new weapons for the war in Iraq. On Tuesday, the Pentagon said it tested a 21,000-bomb that contains 18,000 pounds of high explosives and meant to destroy Iraqi bunkers. The Pentagon has also signed new contracts for the accelerated production and delivery of the Patriot PAC-3 missile defense system. A PAC-3 battery has been deployed in Kuwait and U.S. Central Command hopes to station additional facilities in areas of the Persian Gulf and Middle East. "

geoschmo

March 12th, 2003, 10:00 PM

Michael Gurdus past ability at prediction notwithstanding, this report is highly suspect. The US military command doesn't announce specific orders of battle to it's fighter pilots over open channels a full week in advance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Geoschmo

[ March 12, 2003, 20:00: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Aloofi

March 12th, 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Michael Gurdus past ability at prediction notwithstanding, this report is highly suspect. The US military command doesn't announce specific orders of battle to it's fighter pilots over open channels a full week in advance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

GeoschmoIn some circles, Gurdus have been known for a long time to be "friendly" with the Mossad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I don't think he would say anything that "The Shadow" doesn't want him to say... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Suicide Junkie

March 12th, 2003, 10:52 PM

The U.S. military has also ordered accelerated testing and production of new weapons for the war in Iraq. On Tuesday, the Pentagon said it tested a 21,000-bomb that contains 18,000 pounds of high explosives and meant to destroy Iraqi bunkers. The Pentagon has also signed new contracts for the accelerated production and delivery of the Patriot PAC-3 missile defense system. A PAC-3 battery has been deployed in Kuwait and U.S. Central Command hopes to station additional facilities in areas of the Persian Gulf and Middle East. "Maybe its not over oil, or terrorism, or anything like that.

Maybe the military just needs to do some empirical testing of the new weapons on the market? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 12, 2003, 21:01: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Aloofi

March 12th, 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Maybe its not over oil, or terrorism, or anything like that.

Maybe the military just needs to do some empirical testing of the new weapons on the market?Come on, this war is because Saddam REALLY have nukes, and the US can't probe it, but have to take him out.
The only choice i see is between going to war this year or going next year, but there is going to be a war, and time is on Saddam Hussein's side.

Suicide Junkie

March 12th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Sorry, I should have had a smiley in that post, and a quote to show my intended level of seriousness.

raynor

March 12th, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
Ruatha: "Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action."Of course words are easy to say. Words are how everything has to be communicated. What is the point of that part? It is like stating "english is a language".

I for one am not willing to give up my freedoms for temporary security.<hr /></blockquote>Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action.

Yeah, yeah. Someone has already said them. But when they are that good, they bear repeating.

If you don't understand what they mean, look around your local community for some WWII veterans. They can probably explain them to you a lot better than I can.

[ March 12, 2003, 21:58: Message edited by: raynor ]

Ruatha

March 13th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
Ruatha: "Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action."Of course words are easy to say. Words are how everything has to be communicated. What is the point of that part? It is like stating "english is a language".

I for one am not willing to give up my freedoms for temporary security.<hr /></blockquote>Words are cheap, also easy when one doesn't have to prove them by action.

Yeah, yeah. Someone has already said them. But when they are that good, they bear repeating.

If you don't understand what they mean, look around your local community for some WWII veterans. They can probably explain them to you a lot better than I can.<hr /></blockquote>Well. The most WW2 vet's I'll find will be in Germany.
Should I go ask them what it means??

(Ofcourse I can ask the Finns, they REALLY know about it!!!!!, you ask them ! They were attacked by both the Russians and the Germans and fought to protect their homes and families.)

What I really mean and what so many seems to fail to understand is something I will try to be really pedagogic about here:

It's so easy sitting in your comfy chair sayin "Fight for your freedom Iraquis, afgans tibetians etc etc"
It's much harder when you are actually living in that situation, riscing your life, your family and friends lifes for a cause that will most propably fail.
So saying that YOU should fight if you where living there is hypocrisy of the worst kind!
It's much easier to fight if you're in a army with your buddies backing you up and a well functioning structure behind you.
Yes, alot of people fight in wars and I'm pretty convinced I would too. But to for a moment belive that you are a better person than the millions living under oppression who doesnt dare to do anything about it is demeaning to those people.

I do not know what I would do in that situation but most likely I am as most people and would try to stay alive, meaning I wouldn't take my grandpas rifle and try to kill of the entire Iraqi army.

Those who says that those who doesn't fight for their freedom doesn't deserve it are propagatinng for anarchy.
Most people living in a democracy are by their definition not worthy of that.
I for one wish to live in a society where everyone are treated equally, disregarding their will to fight and die.
I will go to war to defend those who doesn't wish to fight. This does not mean that I would start a futile guerilla war if I where living in an altogether different situation, as in a well controlled totalitarian state.

I don't know if there is any other way I can get this message across to you. But I would like to again say; Do not for one second belive that you are braver than most of the chinese (as an example) people who live under oppression. You just have a better situation and are able to voice your belifs even if they are way wrong.

(This above has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion if there should be a war in Iraq or not!)
In the previous liberation of Kuwait I sent in my application to my army to go along, but they thought it was more important that I finished my med school instead of serving there as infantry guarding our field hospital.
Now my goverment firmly opposes any attack upon another nation without the approval of the UN, I back them in this decision. For arguments see much of what others have stated in this thread. If need be I can send some more arguments aswell. The main point being that we decide this together in the UN. As to what I belive the UN should decide I have already stated that I'm beginning to think that perpahs a war might eventually be necessary, but there is as of now no need to rush it.

[ March 13, 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Aloofi

March 13th, 2003, 10:07 PM

The problem with those opressed chinesse is that many of them are perfectly happy, believe in communism and don't feel oppressed at all.
I've never understood why is so hard to believe that people can be happy under a dictactorship.

Let me ask you, if you were communist wouldn't you be happy under a communist regime and would you despised the market economy system that puts you in the hands of foreign corporations?

Many many Pashtun were perfectly happy under the Taliban, because the Taliban represented their beliefs and way of live, plus the Taliban brought peace and order to Afghanistan after 22 years of brutal Soviet ocupation and civil war.

The way I see it, democracy is only good to let Muslim Fundamentalist blow themselves up massacring innocent civilians, democracy is incapable of striking back with the full force of their military wiping out the terrorist supporters without worriying if they were civilians or not. As long as there is a terrorist supporter there will be terrorists. That's the way it is, and we can't change it.

I would take a dictatorship that represents my interests any day over democracy.

.

raynor

March 13th, 2003, 11:20 PM

It seems like there are many countries where every able bodied person is required to serve some amount of time in the armed services. This is not the case in the United States. I wonder how that would affect most USA-ian's perspective if that happened in the States.

Did anyone read Heinlein's Starship Troopers or see the movie? In that fictional story, you couldn't vote unless you served a stint in the military. I wonder how that would work out if it was implemented in the US?

Sinapus

March 13th, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
It seems like there are many countries where every able bodied person is required to serve some amount of time in the armed services. This is not the case in the United States. I wonder how that would affect most USA-ian's perspective if that happened in the States.
You mean like during the Vietnam war?

Did anyone read Heinlein's Starship Troopers or see the movie? In that fictional story, you couldn't vote unless you served a stint in the military. I wonder how that would work out if it was implemented in the US?Nitpick: it was federal service, and not limited to the military. Go reread the book, and ignore the movie since it was made by someone with an axe to grind against Heinlein.

geoschmo

March 14th, 2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I would take a dictatorship that represents my interests any day over democracy.
Of course you would. How do you think dictators get and keep power? Not by themselves of course. It's on the strength of a loyal, self-interested group of supporters like yourself that are rewarded with wealth, power and position for their service and obedience to the dictator. And If the dictator did not represent your own personal interests you would accept that as well? I suppose you would have to. Living in a dictatorship you would not have any other choice. That's kind of the point.

Geoschmo

CEO TROLL

March 14th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Maybe IRAQ is just to difficult a target for us wimps. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Maybe we should invade FRANCE instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Crazy_Dog

March 14th, 2003, 02:29 AM

For some interesting info about the position of the US gov.......

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html

Mephisto

March 14th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by CEO TROLL:
Maybe IRAQ is just to difficult a target for us wimps. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Maybe we should invade FRANCE instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Ah, no trolling here, Wardad. No cookies today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
For some interesting info about the position of the US gov.......

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.htmlIt�s a bit thin, perhaps the Branch Davidians had a plan too, or perhaps Ruby Ridge was really a renegade think tank. Seriously guys, we war game everyone, and we do papers on almost everything that you can imagine. I would have expected a quote from one of the respectable think tanks that ring the beltway here.

Clinton had no desire to remove Saddam, he was too busy emulating him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CEO TROLL:
Maybe IRAQ is just to difficult a target for us wimps. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Maybe we should invade FRANCE instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Ah, no trolling here, Wardad. No cookies today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Hey that�s not trolling, it�s human nature.

Anyone know why France has so many tree lined boulevards?

Ruatha

March 14th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Askan Nightbringer

March 14th, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
For some interesting info about the position of the US gov.......

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.htmlIt�s a bit thin, perhaps the Branch Davidians had a plan too, or perhaps Ruby Ridge was really a renegade think tank. Seriously guys, we war game everyone, and we do papers on almost everything that you can imagine. I would have expected a quote from one of the respectable think tanks that ring the beltway here.

Clinton had no desire to remove Saddam, he was too busy emulating him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>I think the point of the article was the the current crop of US administrators are the ones who came up with this. Like Wolfy, Rummy and others. So if Wolfy wrote a paper telling of his plans for US world dominiation and then got power and his ideas came to fruition is it just a coincidence?

And as people are still giving the French a hard time I'm going to continue with my Fun with Americans series of mangled quotes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If the Americans are happy with George W then Clinton was unnecessarily brilliant - Mangled from somewhere yet again.

Askan
(Who does not want to get in a Democrats vs Republican argument because he can't really tell the difference between biege and off white)

raynor

March 14th, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
...(Who does not want to get in a Democrats vs Republican argument because he can't really tell the difference between biege and off white)In the U.S., we'll go on and on about the VAST differences between Republicans and Democrats. But, as you know, they are pretty much the same compared to the different political parties in France. I think someone said their Communist party has as much chance of winning an election as their Fascist party, etc.

Has anyone else heard that France has a standing policy with terrorists? France won't extradite if the terrorists agree not to blow up stuff in their country.

France and Russia have extremely lucrative oil deals with Iraq, right? But, while it is PC to say that the U.S. only wants to invade Iraq for their oil, it's not PC to say that France and Russia DON'T want us to invade Iraq... because of the oil. Instead, it is simply a matter of the French wanting to throw their weight around.

Someone else suggested that the reason why France and Germany don't want a war with Iraq is because they are pretty much safe from terrorism now that everyone is focusing on the States. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
No, please enlighten me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Answer: Because the German Army enjoys marching in the shade.

New questions: Of Iraqi imports, what portion come from France?

What is the amount of difference between the amount of French goods sold to Jordan, and the amount shipped to Jordan?

What four items should each French household have incase of a terror attack?

Observations:

As seen on a popular auction; �For sale, French infantry rifle, never fired and only dropped once.�

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

And as people are still giving the French a hard time I'm going to continue with my Fun with Americans series of mangled quotes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If the Americans are happy with George W then Clinton was unnecessarily brilliant - Mangled from somewhere yet again.

Askan
(Who does not want to get in a Democrats vs Republican argument because he can't really tell the difference between biege and off white)[/QB]Cool, now we razz the guys from down under, but only in fun.

Where is the Australian governments seat of power? The place where people speak and Aussies jump?

Personally I think we should call them Ralians, it�s a better fit with the forum.

Hunkpapa

March 14th, 2003, 08:13 PM

Is it about the oil....partially

But I have a good solution to this so called oil crisis...and the arab control of it.

WPEC Wheat Producing Economic Countries

You want to keep bumping up the price of oil and cut of a vital resource to us...how does $50 a bushel of grain sound to you?

I guess that would be wrong because we are starving your people...same can be said when an economy and lifestyle dependant on oil is charged exburant prices for that oil. What does all that farm equipment run on...sunshine...yeah right.

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 10:42 PM

The US Airforce began to limit separations of some trained personnel. This is just one more indication that we are in fact going to have a shooting war.

By Staff Sgt.A.J.Bosker
Air Force Print News
03/14/03 - WASHINGTON -- The assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs has authorized the use of Stop-Loss to retain specific skills needed to meet national security objectives. Effective May 2, 43 officer and 56 enlisted specialties will be affected by Stop-Loss.
"We do not take this action lightly," said Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche. "Stop-Loss is designed to preserve critical skills essential to supporting the global war on terrorism, while ensuring we're prepared to meet other contingencies."
"We've implemented Stop-Loss to ensure we have the necessary skilled personnel to conduct operations," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper. "We'll use it only as long as necessary to accomplish our mission."
Stop-Loss is being implemented across the active duty, Air Force Ready Reserve and Air National Guard for the affected career fields in the ranks of airman through colonel, according to Maj. Teresa L. Forest, chief of Air Force retirements and separation policy at the Pentagon.
Both the secretary and chief of staff are acutely aware that the Air Force is an all-volunteer force and that this action, while essential to meeting the service's worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service.
"We take Stop-Loss seriously and are working hard to ensure the lives of our airmen, their families and their civilian employers are not disrupted any longer than is necessary to meet our national commitments," Jumper said.
Therefore, a waiver process will be implemented for those people with unique circumstances.
"We are doing our best to minimize this disruption," Roche said. "And we will look at unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis and do all we can to offer appropriate relief."
"We understand the individual sacrifices that our airmen and their families will be making," Jumper said. "We appreciate their unwavering support and dedication to our nation."

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Very well done piece from Canada, covers a lot of ground and quotes actual sources that people have heard of before. Well worth the read.

The Toronto Star March 9, 2003
Oil war: 23 years in the making
Analysts see attack this week or next
'We're just waiting on the president'
By Linda Diebel
WASHINGTON�Any day now, there will be bombs falling on Baghdad.
Conventional bombs like nothing the world has ever seen.
"The bombs will still be ringing in their ears when the 'Third Mech' shows up,'' says U.S. military analyst John Pike, of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and whatever's left of his so-called elite Republican Guard after the first days of aerial pulverization.
"The Third Mech will be driving down the main drag in Baghdad.''
Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, describes an assault on Saddam's regime that begins with "shock-and-awe'' aerial bombardment, and quickly moves into crush mode with the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) rolling up from the Kuwaiti desert and U.S. Marines storming the port city of Basra.
"Chances are 90 per cent it will go pretty quickly, and 10 per cent it will turn into one big holy mess,'' predicts Pike.
But, before turning to the combat debut of bombs that weigh about 9,000 kilos and can take out an entire battalion, consider why the United States is going to war.
Consider who drew up U.S. goals and objectives in the Persian Gulf, when, and why.
Consider oil.
This particular operation � Pentagon working title: "OpPlan 10-03-Victor" � has been on the drawing board for a year, according to defence officials. The immediate goal is disarming Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. It's expected to begin soon, this week or next. Hard to hold back more than 300,000 U.S. and British troops, in place and pumped to go.
But the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security � "the vital interests of the United States'' � to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention.
This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot.
This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, "when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.''
The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves.
"The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today.
"If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare.
Washington is betting, Klare believes, that "controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.''
These ideas aren't new.
For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House.
"You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,'' says George Friedman, chair of the intelligence organization, Stratfor.
Originally, this was the "Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state.
"I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,'' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness.
"I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,'' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. "They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis.''
Akins adds: "These people with their imperial ideas see themselves as part of the Great American Empire."
The players have moved steadily through the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush and Bush himself.
They include: Vice-president Richard Cheney, a former oilman, like Bush, and defence secretary during his father's Persian Gulf War in 1991; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, once Reagan's personal emissary to the Middle East when Saddam was a U.S. friend and staunch ally; Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who began publicly calling for war against Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks; and Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness'' for his political stick-handling.
They are joined by think-tankers, from fellows at the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Bush recently chose a CSIS forum, rather than the White House, to deliver a major prime-time speech to the American people to make the case for war. The CSIS board includes, among other heavy-hitters, Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger.
Bush often mentions Iraqi oil, a jarring focus for a president on the brink of war.
"We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage from a dying regime and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people,'' he said in Last week's radio address.
Colin Robinson, an analyst with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, says: "The United States can stand well-accused of trying to dominate the whole region for its oil. But conspiracy theories are usually too complicated for everybody to carry them off."
Friedman says the 1991 war left unfinished business, the "status quo'' of Saddam in power. Not so this time, he says, in a war which, as U.N. diplomats dither, has already begun.
In recent weeks, British and U.S. warplanes strayed outside "no-fly'' zones to bomb Iraqi surface-to-air missiles. Robinson describes these zones, set up by the U.S. and Britain after Desert Storm as "barely legal'' in terms of international law.
As well, U.N. officials report violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. soldiers.
But the real devastation should begin within days.
"We've got everything we need. We're just waiting on the word, the decision from the president," Maj.-Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told the Washington Post Last week from Kuwait.
First comes aerial bombardment, an extraordinary 1,500 bombs every 24 hours during the time it takes heavy mechanized divisions to move up from Kuwait to Baghdad.
Big heavy bombers, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, buttressed by screaming navy and air force jets will pound Iraqi sites, picked by aerial drones and U.S. and British Special Forces already in Iraq.
Defence contractors are eager to test out new gadgetry. One new bomb is the 9,000-kilo MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst).
"Well, it's very efficient,'' says Friedman. "Let's say you've got a large concentration of Republican Guard units, instead of having to do repeated bombing sorties, you can take out a battalion (500 to 600 troops) with one bomb.''
Friedman's sources in theatre tell him there are "terrific fights between defence department officials and field commanders who are raring to go now.''
He says time is the enemy of troops in the field. Sandstorms at the end of March, for example, could play havoc with laser targeting systems.
Without the anticipated "northern front'' through Turkey, there are plans for C-130s to ferry troops to northern Iraq, as well as missions for U.S. Marines and Special Forces to secure oil sites throughout Iraq.
"The U.S. military cannot be defeated on the conventional battlefield,'' says military analyst Pike.
But what about the variables?
How much of a threat is Saddam? What about chemical and biological weapons?
"We gonna find out,'' says Pike.
Meanwhile, Iraqi exiles, opposed to Saddam, have been meeting with U.S. and British oil executives, promising access and leases in return for political power.
And, the U.S., as Friedman points out, on the brink of world hegemony, is going to find out who its friends are.
"I do so enjoy Canadians (against the war) getting so obsessed with human rights, and then pay no attention to places like Venezuela,'' says Friedman, who thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is next on Bush's military agenda.
"I read the Canadian press and I wonder what planet your country is on.
"We have allies, and we are going to see who they are,'' he concludes. "If France, if Canada, can't support us in opposition to Saddam Hussein, you can't say you are our allies. Canada consistently says it's an ally of the United States of America ... we'll see, won't we?''

Copyright � 2003, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

rextorres

March 14th, 2003, 11:45 PM

Seven years or so ago, there was a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.

Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

It's obviously all about the oil.

Also those of you who say that the war just causes oil prices to go up seem to forget that Texas is a major oil producer and when oil prices went down is was really bad for the oil producing states.

[ March 14, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

March 14th, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Seven years or so ago, there was a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.

Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

It's obviously all about the oil.

Also those of you who say that the war just causes oil prices to go up seem to forget that Texas is a major oil producer and when oil prices went down is was really bad for the oil producing states.Link please, or quote with a byline.

raynor

March 15th, 2003, 05:32 AM

Everyone knows that the real reason for the Iraq war is so that the US can claim Iraq as a colony. This will allow the United States to fulfill its lifelong ambition of becoming a member of OPEC.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 15th, 2003, 05:52 AM

Listen to this. (http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3)

primitive

March 15th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Thermodyne

- Do you actually think that it is your "niceness" and "weakness" thats makes you a target for terrorism ?

- Do you seriously belive bombing Bagdad will make fewer terrorist ?

- Do you think less funding for terrorists would be available ?

- Do you belive there is no other places available for training terrorists ?

Going to war may restore some American pride, but it wont stop terrorism.

The only solution to terrorism is to start respecting (other) people, and find a solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem other than genocide.

Primitive: "Peace nick" and proud.

DavidG

March 15th, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by primitive:

- Do you seriously belive bombing Bagdad will make fewer terrorist ?

- Do you think less funding for terrorists would be available ?

- Do you belive there is no other places available for training terrorists ?
Yes, Yes, and No. The Last question seems to imply that just because there are multiple training areas for terrorists and they can't all be removed tomorrow that we should just throw up our hands and give up.

I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted?

Edit And I assume by your first quesion that you meant an invasion of Iraq not just lobbing a few bombs at Bagdad.

[ March 15, 2003, 13:42: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 03:46 PM

�Do you actually think that it is your "niceness" and "weakness" thats makes you a target for terrorism ?�

Who said anything about niceness and weakness? We are talking about changing the policies of the regions governments.

�Do you seriously belive bombing Bagdad will make fewer terrorist ?�

Get your head out of the sand, this is not Humanities 101. We are not just going to bomb Baghdad.

� Do you think less funding for terrorists would be available ?�

We have already made progress on that front. And we continue to restrict the access to cash every day.

� Do you believe there is no other places available for training terrorists?�

The risks involved with providing hospitality to terrorists will soon become almost intolerable. So yes, there are other places, but Club Arabia is loosing many of its safe houses.

� Primitive: "Peace nick" and proud.�

Agree 100%. Typical peacenik speak. Lots of word and no solutions. Slogans instead of actions. Perhaps you guys need to go to Iraq and have a march, right in front of the Palace. Whoops, guess that won�t work, only the Bath party can march there. Given the freedom to do so, I wonder how many Iraqis would be marching against Saddam.

[ March 15, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

geoschmo

March 15th, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
The only solution to terrorism is to start respecting (other) people, and find a solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem other than genocide.
Comments like this only legitimize the actions of the terrorists and those that manipulate them and encourage these heinous actions. There is no justifiable reason for strapping yourself to dynamite and blowing up a bus. And there is no justifiable reason for hijacking an airplane and flying it into an office building. The 3000+ people in the WTC were not responsible for the Isreal/Palestine problem, they were just going to work. A decent portion of them probably would have supported the Palestinian side of the argument if someone had asked them, instead of just murdering them in cold blood.

Geoschmo

Ruatha

March 15th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Ok, this what I'm, about to state has no bearing as to if there should be an attack on Iraq or not. For my view on that look down a couple of Posts.

The only way to completely eredicate terrorism is to remove its' growing ground.
The foundation of terrorism is unequality and unjustness.
Real or perceived.

Take as an example, the Israel - Palestina conflict.
If the palestinians where able to leave the refugees camps and have a good life with freedom of education and good chances of getting decent jobs, alot of the terrorism there would disappear.
This is not an extreme point of view, it's a point of view that is shared by many high ranking Israeli officers.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/11/19/mitzna011119

People tend to turn to terrorism when they are desperate or when they have a psychic disorder making them incapable of empathy.
So to eradicate terrorism we need to eradicate poverty. It's a grand goal but not impossible.
I don't say that I have the solution to all problems but I belive that this is the path we must start to thread if we do want a future in peace, where peple don't get desperate enough to strap explosives on themself and go out and blow people up.

Israel-palestina had a period of peace when things where going in the right direction, unfortunatly that has stopped with the assasination of Rabin.

As to the Iraqi conflict things aren't black and white but rather shades of grey. I do belive that we might be forced to use military power there but there is no rush.
Let the UN decide.
The Iraqi doesn't have nuclears. They have biologic and chemical weapons but their delivery systems are inadequate. Their current weapons aren't more effective than explosives in killing civilians and against a well equipped military they are almost useless.
If the inspections are allowed to continue we MIGHT avoid war.
The springing point is to allow the UN to continue their inspections and discussion. Then we can decide this together.
The situation in Iraq is as in many countries in the world bad for many of the inhabitants. That is no reason to rush into things. Things are bad in Iran, Tibet and some other places as well, eventually we might have to use the armed forces to fix things.
The current situation is difficult as the US can't afford to keep their forces idle their for much longer and Bush has the election next year to consider.
A war might be the best thing, I don't know, I can't be certain of that before it has actually happened, no one can. (:

How to abolish poverty and unjustice in the arab world where a few people are extremely rich and some have almost nothing?
I'm not sure, but a war against Iraq might be the way to go, if it is possible to make a democracy there afterwards a lot might be won.

[ March 15, 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

primitive

March 15th, 2003, 04:31 PM

DavidG:
Then we have different opinions. I have no problems with that.

Just to make it clear: I have no love for Saddam. The world would be a much better place without him.

My problem is with the coupling of terrorism exclusively to Saddam/Iraq. Only a fraction of the terrorists, the funding and training facillities stems from Iraq.

Both a full invasion and just lobbing bombs over Bagdad will be used by muslim fundamentalists from all over the world as an excuse to launch new attacks agains the US.

Any solution to terrorism, warlike or peacefull, will have to be focused over a much larger area than just Iraq.

Termodyne:
I am speechless.

Geo:
I did not intend for that response. Of course there is no justifiable reason for terrorism.

Ruatha
Good post

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Ruatha, your arguments are sound, but the scope is far too limited. The problems in Israel are far more complex. Every time the diplomats are beginning to make headway, it is derailed by the religious factions that hold much of the power base there. Without separation of church and state, there will be no peace in the region.

As to the poverty aspect, you need to study the culture. Kingdoms and such are not for the benefit of all of the people. Even in Iraq, which is not a monarchy, some are intended to be above others. The tribal structures of the region need to be put out the door with Last month�s garbage, they both stink. I think a good dose of universal civil rights would cure a lot of what is wrong in the region.

As to the timing of the war, well let�s just say that tactical considerations are coming into play now. Every day we wait, more Americans will die. What is occurring at the UN has nothing to do with war and the future of Saddam. It is economics pure and simple. When the government of Iraq changes, they will probably stop paying market +% for French goods, they will also probably want to restructure their debt with Moscow. It looks good when the world argues about halting the New American domination of the world, but it is just talk. When the coup took place in Moscow, the world became a Pax Americana. We are at least a decade ahead of every military force in the world, and still maintain a blue water navy to project our influence with. I doubt that any country in the world is willing to spend the trillions that it would take to catch up. Everyone should consider what the situation would be today if the other side had won the cold war. Then they should study history for a few years and see where appeasement and delay have taken the world in the past. Also they should study the French involvement in the region. Remember, it was France who could have prevented Khomeini from ever taking power in Iran. How many millions would that have spared?

geoschmo

March 15th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Primitive, I don't think any reasonable person is saying that Sadaam is the only person fronting terrorism. But a jounrey of a thousand miles starts with one step. We dealt with the Taliban, no we are dealing with Sadaam.

9/11 taught the US one thing mainly. The rules have changed. Now the US is demonstrating to those that participate in and support terrorism that changing the rules applies to them as well. Hopefully any that remain will see what has happend in Afganistan and is going to happen in Iraq and realize that the days of getting what you want by these means are over.

Just as the advent of nuclear weapons has made the thought of global war between nation states unthinkable, the proliferation of these weapons and the invention and proliferation of other types of WMD such as chemical, and bioligical has made acts of terrorism to costly to contemplate or tolerate. We can't simply click our teeth at the problem any longer.

But the US can't simply go about blugeoning terrorist Groups till the end of time either. Along with eliminating the threats to our security, we must find a way to help others resolve their disputes without resorting to blowing up office buildings and buses to get our attention. This means we have to put Isreals feet to the fire as well. They have to some up with a long term solution to the issues causing so many people pain. On that were can agree 100% Primitive.

Bush and Blair have taken some constructive steps towards that goal as well. Few people notice or give them credit for it. But that jounrney will take time as well. This problem wasn't made overnight, it won't be fixed overnight either.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 05:38 PM

Primitive, don�t be speechless. This is a debate, nothing else. I am an aggressive debater and tend to use documentation as a weapon. It is not that I don�t respect your views; it is a case of finding weakness with your presentation of them. Debate is an excellent way to examine the workings of the world, but it must not be confused with other less polite forms of discussion. I have had heated debates with several of the people here, but I still consider them my friends, and think that they still respect me.

Ruatha

March 15th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Thermodyne:
I belive you are making it to easy on yourself if you belive that France and Russia opposes the war purely out of economical reasons.
That is just as bad as beliving that the US want's to invade purely by economic reasons as some seems to think.

I think that Blairs speech when he stated that he couldn't with good consciense do nothing about the situation was a good speech.
But I do firmly belive that both France, Russia and the other nations who opposes the war do so in the belief that it is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. And I do belive that the US, UK and Spain promotes their cause for the same reasons.

Who are right? As stated I don't know but I belive that only a war may prove who was right or wrong. A bad solution at best but perhaps the only one, so there is no need to rush into it.

(Edit added:)
(Quote:Every day we wait more Americans die)
How?
Every day more of the Iraqi weapons are destroyed, making an eventual war easier on the attackers.
I don't see americans dying every day by Iraqi attacks.
I've not seen any evidance that Saddam has connections to terrorists, sure he appluads every terrorist action against the US and propably has connections to terrorists, but that doesn't say tha the Iraquis themself are plotting terrorist attacks. They are propably helping in funding and equipping terrorists, but if the war starts tomorrow or in 6 months it will propably not make any significant difference in stopping many terrorist attacks.
It's not the Iraqui republican guards that are blowing up planes, it's civilians that are mostly unknown until they've perpetrated their act.
The situation in Iraq has been the same for many years, a few months more will propably not make much difference.

[ March 15, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

primitive

March 15th, 2003, 06:07 PM

Geo:
It seems like we don't dissagre in the goal, just the means to get there. You make good points there for your views. However, not good enough to change my mind regarding going to war on Iraq right now. But I have not ruled out that there might be a time in the (near) future when war would be necessary.

Thermodyne
It might be some wisdom in your wievs, but the obnoxious way you present them makes it impossible for me to find any. I can have a debate anytime with anyone willing to follow some simple rules of conduct.

tesco samoa

March 15th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Thermo... you hit the nail with a hammer there. Very good point.

No one is going to fight USA in the conventional way. Perhaps a united Europe with a good 50 years of infrastructure growth.
War is evolving again. New Doctrines are being written. And a new type of fighting is starting to take place. It will be interesting to see how the Conventional forces adapt to it. One must think that history will repeat when it comes to the evolution of the battlefield.

On another topic.

I believe in the long term goal of bringing stability to the region of the middle east.
But the USA government has a history of doing the mopping up and humanitarian side 'half assed' or ignoring it all together. This issue has been a thorn and an issue raised by many respected veterns of the US Armed forces. ( And i do not mean any disrepect to veterns, nor current active members of the armed forces )
Born in Northern Ireland and raised in Canada I think I have a unique persective on Terrorism/Freedom Fighter , I see alot of similarites between USA today and England 100 years ago. I do not want to see Canada get tied down to another empire, where when one is at war we are at war. But these issues are being debated here. You could take a newspaper from 100 years ago and read the editorals and you would be shocked at how similar they are to todays editorals.

I am shocked at how the american media and gov't has treated their long standing allied country the French. This will take decades to fix. Which is too bad as relationships between nations at that level should not be tossed away so quickly. Makes you shake your head.

Well this ramble has to end as I do not think i made a single point or added to the debate..... just felt like typing i guess. Good day to everyone.

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Of course it is not for purely economic reasons. Well in Russia it might be, they are in a very bad way there. I can only hope that the world continues to finance their transition. But France also has concerns about influence. And a Colonial Empire with ambitions along those lines is always a difficult think to accept. As I have already posted, many people see an American victory in the gulf as a keystone event that will direct the course of world policy for decades to come. I think the writer suggested that it would be for the next century. I think that this is a stretch, very little survives that long. But as an American, I do think that the time has come to act. Oil has been used as a weapon against us repeatedly for most of my adult life. If we have the ability to bring an end to this leverage, then so be it.

As a side note, the region likes to speak of the outlaw nation of Israel. If Israel has no standing as a nation state, should we give the area back to the original owners? The Last government with legal title to the land? Well folks, that would totally screw the Palestinians, they have never had anything more than a mandate from the British Empire. The Last rulers were the Ottomans, the area was taken from them after the first experiment the Europeans had with modern warfare.

I for one have no particular love for Israel, but in a region of despotism and untruth, they are a beacon of light. They have withstood everything the Islamic world has thrown at them and punished the Arabs in the process. I do respect Israel for being able to preserver under imposable odds. I respect them for being a damn spunky little country. Where would appeasement and delay have gotten them in the past? Personally I see no solution for the Jews. One side or the other is going to have to make war so terrible that even the Islamic terror Groups will sue for peace. Only then will both sides be willing to make the needed compromises.

Ruatha

March 15th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
One side or the other is going to have to make war so terrible that even the Islamic terror Groups will sue for peace. Only then will both sides be willing to make the needed compromises.That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.
I do respect Israel for what they have accomplished and in some parts I understand what they are doing to the Palestinians but in some parts it is incomprehensible. If you look on their history in WW2 I can understand that they think, never again, but they sould also remember how it was to be on the receiving end.
(The palestinians are no saints either, they are fighting an assymetric war, not apologized but understandable.)

As to Pax Americana, just becourse you are the strongest kid on the schoolyard it does not give you the right to be a bully.
To quote the respected autority , the movie spiderman :
"With great powers come great responsiblity" (I think it was something like that)

Currently the US are ruining alot of their credibilty abroad, threatening Turkey, France, Germany, Russia and others if they won't agree with the US point of view.

Yes, I wopuldn't have liked to see the former east block winning the cold war, but to replace the cold war with bloody war is no success.

Now we have a chance of moulding the world we would like for the future, currently the US are mangling their opinions over everyone that opposes their views, it will take along time reparing.
And the bad relationships will effect the US, the US is not an isolated isle, it is dependant upon the rest of the world wether they like it or not.

I belive that many in the US are suspicious of the UN, as they can't controll it.
That part of the UN is the good part. The UN will always have a credibilty tha the US can't get.
Just becourse on nation can't control it.
Therefore I belive we must work together in the UN.
It's a slow process but so are all democratic processes, that doesn't mean it's a bad way, it gives you time to reflect upon what you are about to embark upon.

(Edit: On another issue; Thermodyne; Check your e-mail)

[ March 15, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 06:51 PM

Tesco, I would have to say that the relationship with France has never been all that good. Sure we presented a united front to the Soviets, but the French were not full participants in NATO. At the end of the Second European experiment with modern warfare, France was handed back to the French and they went about trying to reacquire their colonial holdings. This put them at odds with America. And relations have been cool at best since then. While we were Allies, France has often opposed American activities that were not to France�s direct benefit. I have no problem with this; they are a self governing nation. But a look at their history will show that more than a few of the world�s problems since 1945 involved French diplomatic policy. Very few were solved by French intervention. They have not demonstrated the needed resolve in many years. They did not have the resolve to fight a tactical withdrawal against the Germans; instead they left several hundred thousand British troops holding the bag. Then they did not have the resolve to take their fleet to sea and scuttle it. Preferring to believe that they would be able to prevent the Germans from commandeering it. What would they do, just tell Hitler that he could not have it? Let�s not even talk about what they did in SE Asia, and the about turn they made after asking their Allies for help. And I think the Algerians would have a few points to make also.

But in the end it comes down to this. The French are self serving and benefit from appeasement. So if we do not appease them, then what influence do they have? I have always wondered why France had a permanent seat on the Security Council. There are many Nations that are more deserving. Actually, why are any of the seats permanent, should the dead wood be trimmed away now and again? The UN has not changed with the times; it has become a paper factory that rivals the US government. I fear that it has also had its day, much like the French. If France had come forward and stated that they were opposed to the war because of the economic damage it will do to France, then I think America would have had a lot of respect for their objection. But to say that they are concerned for the Iraqi people. Give me a break. Since when has France given a damn for anyone but themselves?

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Guys, I think we should put together a game around this, complete with a diplomatic organ like the UN. The purpose would not be to win in the shortest period of time, but instead it would be for the diplomacy. It would be a long slow game, so only those who are truly interested should join. Personally, I think we would all have many heated debates along the way, and in the end, have enjoyed it very much.

geoschmo

March 15th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.I don't know about this. There aren't too many people in Germany, Japan and Italy crying for revenge over the way WW2 ended. Backing off and leaving the people that cause these problems in power is exactly the kind of halfway thinking that ended wars for centuries, and caused the persistant cycle of violence. If WWI had ended the way WW2 ended, one might have been enough.

Geoschmo

[ March 15, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Ruatha

March 15th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.I don't know about this. There aren't too many people in Germany, Japan and Italy crying for revenge over the way WW2 ended. Backing off and leaving the people that cause these problems in power is exactly the kind of halfway thinking that ended wars for centuries, and caused the persistant cycle of violence. If WWI had ended the way WW2 ended, one might have been enough.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Yes, That is the difference.
The second WW wasn't bad enough to stop future wars.
WW1 ended with a bad deal for the loosers who had to follow several conditions.

WW2 ended with a good deal for the loosers, they got aid and support from the winners. They didn't need to cry out for revenge!

I do not belive it was the horrors of WW2 that inhibited WW3, it was the good post-war behaviour that did it.

btw, the cold war might have been involved in avoiding ww3 too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Some wars must be fought. That doessn't mean that in many cases there are other solutions!

[ March 15, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 09:28 PM

I am sick and tired of everyone linking 9/11 with Iraq. W and his gang have been wanting to take out Iraq since 1998!! Read the letter below.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

9/11 was simply an excuse!!

Saddam's weapons of mass destraction are also a bogus excuse - witness that some of the main "evidence" was actually fabricated (so well in fact that it was almost not discovered - hmmm) If the evidence is so strong why did they have to make things up!!?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

When W was campaigning to be president he was adamantly against nation building - now all of a sudden he wants to go in and save the Iraqi people. That's is another a bogus excuse. Where was he two years ago!?

You guys complain about peaceniks - but the protests against intervention in Afghanistan were small at best. It's only since this reckless war that people have come out on the street.

All you people that support the would probably jump off of a bridge if W. wanted you to.

The two main reason for this war are:

Distraction from W's failed presidency - the war talk didn't start until October of Last year right before the election. The GOP needs to finish this war in time for the next election cycle - that's why they are so hot to invade now.

Money - It's no coincidence that a huge rebuilding contract was awarded to a company that Cheney is associated with.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495.DTL

Oil companies stand to make a lot of money when they can resell Iraqi oil if they can dictate the terms to a pliable Iraqi government.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Wanderer

March 15th, 2003, 09:46 PM

I thought this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2847905.stm) is a pretty good response to some of the "it's all about oil" arguments.

Its basic premise is that whilst Iraq has huge oil reserves, she doesn't have the production capacity to have the effects some people are talking about.

There is one rather large assumption made half-way through, though. See if you can spot it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Wanderer:
I thought this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2847905.stm) is a pretty good response to some of the "it's all about oil" arguments.

Its basic premise is that whilst Iraq has huge oil reserves, she doesn't have the production capacity to have the effects some people are talking about.

There is one rather large assumption made half-way through, though. See if you can spot it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The guy you quoted is an arch conservative who supports the war. There are differing opinions. Here is a quick article contradicting your source and it is not an editorial which yours is.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?cp1=1

The fact is Cheney and his gang are already figuring out how to get profit. See my post below.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Gryphin

March 15th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Folks,
We can debate this till the bombs stop falling and not change one aspect of the outcome.
Perhaps we should be coming up with ideas on what we might do in the aftermath.
A bit fatalistic an cynical of me but also a bit practical.
I hope I'm wrong.

Side note: One of the most signifigant aspects of this debate is that it concerns the lives of those who will "defend untill death your right" to do so.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Wag the Dog - war talk starts right before an election

Fabricated Evidence - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Graft to friends -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495 .DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495.DTL)

War plans since 98 - So 9/11 has nothing to do with it. (three of the people who signed the letter are in W's white house)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Change of heart about nation building - W. campaigned against what he's doing

Loss of good will - the whole world is against the u.s. now

What's to debate? I think all of you that support the war should take a hard look.

[ March 15, 2003, 20:41: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Wizarc

March 15th, 2003, 10:29 PM

Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?

DavidG

March 15th, 2003, 10:30 PM

One question that never seems to get answered is this: If you are opposed to war what do you propose as an alternative?

While it may be debatable that Iraq has WMD's it is pretty clear they would very much like to have them and will continue to work to get them.

I believe it is also public Iraqi policy to support terrorism (as in them offering cash to the families of paLastinian suicide bombers)

So what do you do? Everyone knows war is bad. It's a no brainer. But would Iraq be better off in say 10 years with a quick war or with leaving Saddam in power?

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.

geoschmo

March 15th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Rex, I think you need to take a chill, and stop being so argumentative. Many intellectually curious, intelligent, educated people have looked at the situation and have come to the opposite conclusion then you. Belittling and insulting those that disagree with you earns you nothing but disrespect in return.

You casually discard any opinion in opposition to yours. You write off any opposing evidence as conservative warmongering propoganda. And you accept as fact the most fanciful imaginings and of anyone that crawls out with an axe to grind against the current US administration.

Your bias is evident. You are convincing noone of anythign except your own irationality.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.<hr /></blockquote>Link please.

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
One question that never seems to get answered is this: If you are opposed to war what do you propose as an alternative?

While it may be debatable that Iraq has WMD's it is pretty clear they would very much like to have them and will continue to work to get them.

I believe it is also public Iraqi policy to support terrorism (as in them offering cash to the families of paLastinian suicide bombers)

So what do you do? Everyone knows war is bad. It's a no brainer. But would Iraq be better off in say 10 years with a quick war or with leaving Saddam in power?We won in Iraq - the inspectors are in there - there is no way that Saddam will get away with anything while they are there (contrary to popular myth). W. should work to fry bigger fish instead of alienating the whole world.

What concerns me is that W isn't focusing on real problems. Korea and Iran come to mind. By attacking Iraq it just reinforces these two countries' perceptions that they better build the bomb before it too late.

If you really care about the palistinian issue then maybe you should push for a peace plan - that is the real seed of terrorism.

This war is politically and financially motivated plain and simple.

Besides who said I was against war? I think taking out the Taliban was a good thing.

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Rex, I think you need to take a chill, and stop being so argumentative. Many intellectually curious, intelligent, educated people have looked at the situation and have come to the opposite conclusion then you. Belittling and insulting those that disagree with you earns you nothing but disrespect in return.

You casually discard any opinion in opposition to yours. You write off any opposing evidence as conservative warmongering propoganda. And you accept as fact the most fanciful imaginings and of anyone that crawls out with an axe to grind against the current US administration.

Your bias is evident. You are convincing noone of anythign except your own irationality.

GeoschmoSo what have I made up?

Wizarc

March 15th, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.<hr /></blockquote>This is interesting. I have heard other answers. I am just one person here on this island. There are many ways to get news; t.v., internet, newspaper, etc. and I take it all in with a grain of salt. I vote, pick who I believe is the best for my ideas and complain when I can. But, I have to believe the US Govt is doing what it believes it needs to do to protect its people from outside aggression. I wish I could know everything the Govt knows so I could say yes or no to them, but I am sure they dont even know I exist.

Wizarc, signing off, skating by the US Govt.

Wizarc

March 15th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Maybe we will get lucky and 'God' will come down and ask everyone to be nice especially to the place where his son was born.

Wizarc

March 15th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Democracy?

Wizarc

March 15th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Why?

rextorres

March 15th, 2003, 10:56 PM

geoschmo

March 15th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
We won in Iraq - the inspectors are in there - there is no way that Saddam will get away with anything while they are there (contrary to popular myth). W. should work to fry bigger fish instead of alienating the whole world.
You are the one believing in myths if you think inspectors can find anything Sadaam does not want them to find. They are only useful as long as the Iraqi government is beign sincere. And they can only even do that if there is some concrete threat of retaliation against non-compliance.

What concerns me is that W isn't focusing on real problems. Korea and Iran come to mind. By attacking Iraq it just reinforces these two countries perceptions that they better build the bomb before it too late.

Iraq is by no means the only problem, but the threat from Iraq is real, despite your belief to the contrary. If you can't fix everything at once you serve no purpose by doing nothing at all.

If you really care about the palistinian issue then maybe you should push for a peace plan - that is the real seed of terrorism.

That is just making excuses as you acuse others of doing. But I agree the Palestinian issue needs to be addressed and a long term solution needs to be found. That is being done, or being attempted anyway. There is only so much you can do when two Groups hate each other so vehemantly.

This war is politically and financially motivated plain and simple.

There is no such thing as an apolitical war Rex.

Besides who said I was against war? I think taking out the Taliban was a good thing.Why do we have to wait for something to happen again like 9/11 before we take action? We knew the Taliban and Al-Quada was a threat, and we did nothing. I think we can all agree that was a mistake? Why do we need to make that one again?

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 11:04 PM

Had to dig way back to find this, been looking for hours. The Clinton administration was very concerned about the situation in Iraq, but IMHO not willing to risk intervention. American displeasure has been evident since the end of the gulf war. It was only the Clinton white house that was not concerned. I�m sure you all remember how it was back then, we would hear Monica�s name on the 6pm news, and awake to a new volley of cruise missiles fired at Iraq. Well here is how State felt about the situation in 99/2K
U.S. Department of State 99/00 (http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2000/iraq99.htm#warcrimes)

[ March 15, 2003, 21:06: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Fyron

March 15th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted?I am still waiting to see an answer to that question. It has of course been avoided thus far, because no one can answer it. I could be wrong though, so please, prove me wrong with a good, solid answer to this question, not by spouting off more propaganda.

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.<hr /></blockquote>Link please.<hr /></blockquote>You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp<hr /></blockquote>You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from.

Thermodyne

March 15th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted?I am still waiting to see an answer to that question. It has of course been avoided thus far, because no one can answer it. I could be wrong though, so please, prove me wrong with a good, solid answer to this question, not by spouting off more propaganda.<hr /></blockquote>They won�t touch that with a stick my friend. The scary part is that she was probably one of the bright young leaders of the movement. She had been coached on how to turn a question. I guess that no one warned her that it only works in controlled situations.

[ March 15, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

DavidG

March 16th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
We won in Iraq - the inspectors are in there - there is no way that Saddam will get away with anything while they are there (contrary to popular myth)Actually they have already got away with things. The very fact that they are now destroying weapons that were Banned proves this.

And what do you propose to do when the inspectors are kicked out again?

DavidG

March 16th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.aspI'm not really sure how you think this has any effect on the current situation. Are you saying that any regime that at some point in history obtained weapons from the US should be left alone to do what they want with them?

tesco samoa

March 16th, 2003, 12:48 AM

what was the question?

The shake hand ??

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 12:49 AM

Take a minute to listen to this mp3: http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.<hr /></blockquote>Link please.<hr /></blockquote>You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp<hr /></blockquote>You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from.<hr /></blockquote>http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html

How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true.

The only reason this is mentioned is because some people are blaming France and Germany for the this when we helped arm Saddam in the first plance

No one's addressed the fabricated evidence that Powell presented at the U.N.
And why the pentagon is giving contracts to Cheney's buddies.
Or why we are all of a sudden in the business of nation building.
etc.

Also: I'll listen to this mysterious clip later today - when I have access.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]