View Full Version : OT: War?
daffodil
17-03-2003, 15:10
I'm not normally one to "soil" the Wireplay Stuff forum with off-topic nonsense but:
Recieved by email from our central security office:
Just to let you know that Thames Valley Police contacted us to imform us that a news bulleting will be anunced within the next hour declaring war. An anti war demonstration will take place in the city centre at about 13:30 hours.
I thought it would be a declaration of an ultimatum to Saddan Hussein to leave Iraq by midnight and if he didn't it would be war. I think its too early to declare war without giving Saddam one final final final chance to leave
[COMIX]VaMpIrE
17-03-2003, 16:01
still not announced ?
daffodil
17-03-2003, 16:42
Apparently not... looks like we've declared war on Iraq before the rest of you.
That Patten guy moves fast...
hehe
it was always going to be war from day one anyway....you don't send so many troops to the gulf and they say; "right boys, it was just a drill, there isn't any war...time to go home"
despite there being so many anti-war protests and so many nations against it (crucially france, germany, russia and china - i.e. the rest of the big 5 in the security council and the world's 3rd largest economy) the US and UK were always going to go to war...
and i have just repeated the same point twice?? why? because i r stupid. ;(
Close Khaz, it was pretty much a "do what we say or we'll invade" situation. They didn't do what 'we' said so we're invading. Simple as.
are you insulting me? :P
but yes, i dont know whether a ground level invasion is going to happen but at the very least i expect a recon force and major air strike bombing to happen. the west has been very sketchy over ground forces ever since vietnam...and even more so after what happened to the US troops in mogadishu...
Mister666
17-03-2003, 17:28
WAR!
.
.
HUH!
.
.
YEAH!
.
.
WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'!
As a wise person has already said, and I have adopted as my current motto;
Buckflair! Buckfush!
hehe
/me fluffles 666
i still have issues about this war but i'm the last person to get into political issues as after a point the discussion/arguement becomes cyclical but there was always going to be war and there's nothing we can do about it...oh well. :|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38968000/rm/_38968155_troops13_andersson_vi.ram
I see Robin Cook quit. When the tough gets going the woosey Labour party run away. "argh, war, I'm foreign secretary. What I actaully have to start doing some work? Sod this for a laugh".
It wasn't always going to be war. The US/UK forces were always going to go into Iraq, but it wasn't and still isn't a foregone conclusion that it will be with bombs and bullets flying.
Originally posted by Nor
It wasn't always going to be war. The US/UK forces were always going to go into Iraq, but it wasn't and still isn't a foregone conclusion that it will be with bombs and bullets flying.
For the moment Georgie W Bush got into power it was always going to be war - surprised it took this long but guess timings about right for a second term in office.
Iraq today, couple of months and we'll be back here again - only this time heading for nuclear conflict when he decides North Korea need disarming of its weapons of mass destruction, that and gotta keep the war footing up for any hope of his re election...]
Gotta love the irony of a country using weapons of mass destution to rid another country of weapons of mass destruction - but then thats the issue aint it (ha).
We are not using WMD to disarm Iraq. Also, Bush didn't really care about Iraq when he came to power, he made many speeches about how Iraq was contained and there were no threat to the US or their neighbours. He changed after 9/11.
Its a proven fact that going to war reduces your chances of re-election as election votes are usually based on home policy and thats often neglected when carrying out military action abroad. His father lost the election after the Gulf War for precisely those reasons.
With regard to North Korea. They are in violation of UN resolutions by restarting their nuclear program. Its a pity anti american sentiment has penetrated this debate on Iraq, the UN and global security.
gregster
18-03-2003, 09:10
im for the war because sadam has had so many chances to disarm its amazing !!!!
i just wish he had done what he was asked so we didnt have to go to war but i would rather war than in 3 4 or 5 years time having the warning of an incoming nuke!!!!
nuff said
I think Saddam should be removed from power, but I don't think we should go to war illegally.
The security council have voted, war is not supported, yet we are going behind the backs of the rest of the world and going to war anyway.
I'm disgusted.
[COMIX]VaMpIrE
18-03-2003, 11:48
its hardly behind the back's of the world they could'nt have been more open tbh
gregster
18-03-2003, 15:19
we have been very open about it and tbh i think its the rite thing to do if we wait to long. IMHO we will see nukes heading out of bagdad
just a small point iraq dont actually have any nuclear warheads.
heres a little thing that might help people to see whats right from wrong
http://www.communityforpeace.net/iraq_quiz.htm
tbh i think USA are jus being the big world bully boys, yeah there saying the aboutt he war against terrorism, which i agree with, but there has been no evidence to suggest that iraq had anything to do with sept 11th.
one thing that sticks out...
Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000
24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on
Iraq in 2002/3?
A: 10,000
25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?
A: Over 50%
Innocent people.
Originally posted by Dash
I think Saddam should be removed from power, but I don't think we should go to war illegally.
The security council have voted, war is not supported, yet we are going behind the backs of the rest of the world and going to war anyway.
I'm disgusted.
Em, the security council have not voted. The legality of the war is questioned, its a simple case of those anti war saying its illegal though simply because there has not been an 18th resolution actually saying, we are going to war.
There have been 17 resolutions so far over 12 years. Many of which (the important ones) are chapter 7 resolutions, chapter 7 resolutions carry the use of force. Unlike chapter 6 resolutions, like Israel is in definance of, which are only guidelines.
Resolutions 678 and 687, which were two of the early ones, theaten all neccessary means, if the resolutions are not complied with. Jumping ahead 12 years to November 2002, resolutions 1441 declared Iraq in material breach of resolutions 678 and 687 (and a few others iirc) and gave Iraq one final (another final) chance to comply immediately and unconditionally. The declaration Iraq made on November 30th (iirc) has been found to be false, for example the al samoud 2 missiles weren't in it, neither were the unmaned drones. It was clear from that alone Iraq was not complying.
On that basis, and the basis of further reports by UNMOVIC it was deemed by those who sponsored the 1441 resolution that Iraq had no intention of complying and never has done. I don't think anyone could argue Iraq is complying with the UN.
The choice was simple to let Iraq continue to defy UN chapter 7 resolutions indefinately or take a stand. Unfortunately some nations, who signed up to 1441, refused to accept that a deadline should be placed upon Iraq to comply, and we should simply give them more time to decide whether they should comply. France said they would veto any resolution regardless of its content which tried to put a deadline on Iraq to comply within, or to give them tests to pass to measure their compliance. Regardless of what this deadline was or what these tests were France would veto. In the face of that decision by France to scupper any resolution to create a deadline the UK, US and Spain decided to withdraw the resolution and take their own steps to enforce 1441, 678 and 687.
We often talk about the UN as an actual tangable peacekeeping body. Its not really, all the UN security council is, is the manifestation of 15 countries opinions. The US is often vilified for acting in its own oil interests for going to war in Iraq. If you take this point you must also realise that France has the largest stake in Iraqi oil at the moment and in a post Saddam era their $6billion ELF oil contract would be null and void. You must also realise that a post war reduction in oil prices would affect Russias economy terribly and perhaps it may even reach the depths of the 1995 meltdown in their economy.
The UN is 15 countries acting mainly in their own selfish interests. Its not the bastien of morality that people like to think. This war is the right thing to do, regardless of how imbecilic Bush is. The UN did not support Kosovo and the conflict to help oust Milosovic. His geonicide would have continued if it wasn't for the UK going against the UN in that instance. I only hope this conflict is quick and with as little loss to innocents as possible.
Although for those quoting how many will die in any conflict. Ask yourself how many are dying just now because of inaction.
The Iraqi's want freedom from Sadaam, that is one fact that cannot be disputed. The ends justify the means in this war.
I am 110% behind Blair, his stance and efforts in diplomacy in the last 6 months has earned my respect and future votes.
People quoting stats is pretty irrelevant imho, figures can lie and liars can figure as they say. This war will be over in weeks, maybe even days. The decades of fear and death for the Iraqi's are coming to an end at long last.
Pop Culture Monkey
18-03-2003, 21:22
Originally posted by Ronaldo
This war will be over in weeks, maybe even days. They said that of the first one.
You can't argue that Saddam Hussein isn't a bad man. That much isn't in dispute. But the fact is, that's not why we're going to war.
We told the Iraqi people ten years ago that if they rose up against Saddam, we'd help them fight him. They rose up and we didn't do a damned thing and all those who revolted got killed. We are NOT the good guys on this one - There aren't any good guys. We've betrayed the Iraqi people once and if this war doesn't go as Bush and Blair are hoping, we'll do it again.
We'll go to Iraq, blow the piss out of a few hundred thousand innocent people and ultimately replace Saddam with our own paper dictator who'll do our bidding until he gets pissed off with taking orders. That EXACT SCENARIO has happened more than once with dictators 'we' have sponsored. That's the thing about dictators - They're just not trustworthy. By 'we', of course I mean 'we, USA and Great Britain', not 'we, the people' because God knows the smarts amongst us can see that this is wrong.
By doing this, America are proving Osama Bin Laden right. They are corrupt, they are unjust and they do meddle in affairs not concerning them.
You can't shoot a man if he doesn't pull a gun on you first, and you sure as **** can't murder hundreds of thousands of people on the offchance they MIGHT have some big guns that they MIGHT use against you or your allies one day many years from now.
Why do people assume that hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die? They are looking for a quick war this time, ground troops deployed almost immediatley.
What is the reason that the US, UK, Spain, Austrailia etc are going to war then (apparentley the French may sign up too if Sadaam uses WMD)? It's not oil, Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world but only account for 3% of world production. They have p*ss poor infrastructure that would take 10 years plus to sort.
The above isn't my thoughts on the matter. It's .this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2847905.stm) mans views. It all seems pretty sensible to me though.
10 years ago it was a different UK government and a different US administration. What happenend during those times isn't par for the course this time round. It would be political suicide if they did.
With all the reservations that people have (even though it's a fairly even split between for and against in the UK now), any dodgy doings after the conflict will magnified greatly. We live in a very changing world and striking before being struck may well be the best policy.
I don't think anybody disputes war is the only way to go if Iraq doesn't comply. And from Iraq's history this is almost certain.
The thing I object to is the fact we asked for a 2nd resolution and when we didn't get it, still go to war. If we were going to stick with 1441 and go to war then fine. But we didn't, we asked for another resolution which fell through.
Even if you ignore France veto'ing everything war still doesn't have the majority vote by the security council.
War is one thing. A pre-emptive war without the support of the security council in the name of world peace... that's another.
[I appologise for errors, or stuff, I'm a little... influenced].
gregster
19-03-2003, 09:42
heres one for you when iraq attacked Q8 (cant spell it :P)
and we attacked back who did he attack ? a free nation who had done nothing to him
when it looked like he was losing who did he attacked israel
mmm why should we get the backing of the UN ?
we have proof this man will do what ever he wants
the long string of him messing the free world about not
complieing to un reserlutions then at the last minute throwing us a bone
in five years or less he could have nuke caperbility and then what ?
to late to attack him cause he could just nuke us and with hes previous record of cemical attacks propably would
the lets talk theory does not work with men like this
we have seen men like this in the past and we will see them again
lets show them what happens when they break the rules of
our world and kill inosents just to stay in power !!!!!!!!!!!!
in conclusion
sadam is nothing but a terrorist and should be treated as such
Pop Culture Monkey
19-03-2003, 12:10
In conclusion:
You know absolutely nothing of the complexities of international politics, nor do you know anything of the history that both Britain and the USA have of sponsoring dictators who commit crimes against their people.
If we remove Saddam, it won't be to install a democracy, it'll be to install our own dictator.
Let's lay this fact down and see if you 'get it': The United States have committed more crimes against their people and the peoples of other nations that Saddam has ever committed against the people of Iraq.
I find it amusing how it's the least informed amongst us who insist that war is necessary, whilst the academics and generally the smarter people of our populace suggest time and again that to go to war would be madness.
I say again: You can't shoot a man if he doesn't pull a gun on you first, and you sure as hell can't murder hundreds of thousands of people on the offchance they MIGHT have some big guns that they MIGHT use against you or your allies one day many years from now.
An unsanctioned, pre-emptive war will cause strife within the UN for years - This will come back to bite us in the ass again and again.
[C5]ACiD
19-03-2003, 13:15
I agree with pcm completely.
If we followed those convictions we'd never have intervened in Kosovo and we'd have let Milosovic continue his policy of ethnic cleansing forever.
Its easy to oppose this 'war' as anti american sentiment is within us all. Sentiment which is concentrated because they are led by an imbecilic leader such as GW. Its much harder I think to recognise whats going on in Iraq is something that has to be dealt with.
Yes the US has a terrible record of sponsoring dictators around the globe. The UK has a terrible record when it comes to exploiting nations and leaving them in a total mess when we pull out, Iraq the prime example. What I think is short sighted is to completely ignore the rational that it is possible to make decisions that differ from ones previously. Of course we have to look back into history but its folly to simply judge nations today for what they did during a cold war.
I find it amusing how it's the least informed amongst us who insist that war is necessary, whilst the academics and generally the smarter people of our populace suggest time and again that to go to war would be madness.
Well I don't know if you were trying to be comical or whether you actually believe this. To claim the intelectual high ground after spouting rubbish such as this weakens your argument that anyone who is for action is stupid and you are 'smarts'
We'll go to Iraq, blow the gosh out of a few hundred thousand innocent people
The United States have committed more crimes against their people .... than Saddam has against the people of Iraq
Maybe you can back these statements up with your higher intellegence than us pro action folk. Maybe you could also answer the points I made in this post and show how I'm wrong.
There have been 17 resolutions so far over 12 years. Many of which (the important ones) are chapter 7 resolutions, chapter 7 resolutions carry the use of force. Unlike chapter 6 resolutions, like Israel is in definance of, which are only guidelines.
Resolutions 678 and 687, which were two of the early ones, theaten all neccessary means, if the resolutions are not complied with. Jumping ahead 12 years to November 2002, resolutions 1441 declared Iraq in material breach of resolutions 678 and 687 (and a few others iirc) and gave Iraq one final (another final) chance to comply immediately and unconditionally. The declaration Iraq made on November 30th (iirc) has been found to be false, for example the al samoud 2 missiles weren't in it, neither were the unmaned drones. It was clear from that alone Iraq was not complying.
On that basis, and the basis of further reports by UNMOVIC it was deemed by those who sponsored the 1441 resolution that Iraq had no intention of complying and never has done. I don't think anyone could argue Iraq is complying with the UN.
The choice was simple to let Iraq continue to defy UN chapter 7 resolutions indefinately or take a stand. Unfortunately some nations, who signed up to 1441, refused to accept that a deadline should be placed upon Iraq to comply, and we should simply give them more time to decide whether they should comply. France said they would veto any resolution regardless of its content which tried to put a deadline on Iraq to comply within, or to give them tests to pass to measure their compliance. Regardless of what this deadline was or what these tests were France would veto. In the face of that decision by France to scupper any resolution to create a deadline the UK, US and Spain decided to withdraw the resolution and take their own steps to enforce 1441, 678 and 687.
We often talk about the UN as an actual tangable peacekeeping body. Its not really, all the UN security council is, is the manifestation of 15 countries opinions. The US is often vilified for acting in its own oil interests for going to war in Iraq. If you take this point you must also realise that France has the largest stake in Iraqi oil at the moment and in a post Saddam era their $6billion ELF oil contract would be null and void. You must also realise that a post war reduction in oil prices would affect Russias economy terribly and perhaps it may even reach the depths of the 1995 meltdown in their economy.
The UN is 15 countries acting mainly in their own selfish interests. Its not the bastien of morality that people like to think. This war is the right thing to do, regardless of how imbecilic Bush is. The UN did not support Kosovo and the conflict to help oust Milosovic. His geonicide would have continued if it wasn't for the UK going against the UN in that instance. I only hope this conflict is quick and with as little loss to innocents as possible.
Although for those quoting how many will die in any conflict. Ask yourself how many are dying just now because of inaction.
I can't believe I'm posting this but Nor, Ronaldo, don't waste your breath (fingers?). There's no point arguing with clueless, arrogant spacks who believe that everything they say is the truth, regardless of how retarded they look.
:laugh:
i say vote razz in for prime minster :E
ooof....
pcm? is it that hard to have a discussion without you getting others riled up that much? ;) shockingly, acid seems to have agreed with you! :O
having said that.....pcm does have a point....the US and the UK have been tinkering with the middle east for years and now it is quite rightly biting them in the bum. palestine and israel, the taleban, iraq, saudi arabia, the constant battles with the OPEC cartel...they have been tinkering with these areas for decades now and do not seem to understand that always tinkering so much is going to result in a your plans backfiring at some point.
although your "smart people" arguement was ridiculously arrogant pcm...it doesen't hurt to be a bit less heavy handed you know. you sound just like the US and UK do at times when you take that kinda approach in your arguements/discussions. :P
Pop Culture Monkey
19-03-2003, 20:24
Originally posted by Razz
There's no point arguing with clueless, arrogant spacks who believe that everything they say is the truth, regardless of how retarded they look. Yes, damn those clueless arrogant spacks and their idiotic dedication to peace.
LET'S KILL THEM TOO!
I've had enough of this and I've said my piece, nobody gets converted by these arguments, after all.
I'll see you at the rallies.
[COMIX]VaMpIrE
19-03-2003, 20:33
Originally posted by Pop Culture Monkey
I find it amusing how it's the least informed amongst us who insist that war is necessary, whilst the academics and generally the smarter people of our populace suggest time and again that to go to war would be madness.
how can you possibly know how informed i am ?
or anyone elce ?
lol Razz
PCM, don't waste your time with the other spacks...I mean academics at make love not war rallies. Go join the human shield, I am sure your enormous head would deflect some bombs away from nice Sadaam.
Come on our boys, got the pringles in for tonight - tv should be great.
Pop Culture Monkey
19-03-2003, 21:31
Originally posted by Ronaldo
PCM, don't waste your time with the other spacks...I mean academics at make love not war rallies. Go join the human shield, I am sure your enormous head would deflect some bombs away from nice Sadaam. See? If that's the kind of nonsense logic that the pro-war people are spouting then your side of the argument has some serious problems with credibility.
And it's 'Saddam'.
Once again, I'd like to reiterate that the fact that Saddam is a 'bad man' isn't in dispute. But if you think that that's why we're going out there, then you're a naive fool. Further to that, if you think that by replacing Saddam with our own regime, the people of Iraq will be better off, you can think again.
America has long sponsored criminals, including many far worse than Saddam Hussein.
I pulled this from another forum, this guy puts it well:
Ah America. Condemning terrorist acts left right and centre after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Dresden Firebombing, Vietnam, South Korea, The annihilation of Its own Indigenous population, the sponsorship of criminal, terrorist regimes to deny the development of popularly elected left-wing governments (eg the sponsorship of Pinochet over the democratically elected Allende in Chile) and the Indiscriminate bombings of Civilians in Iraq (50 000+ at last count).
And lets not forget that america pours aid into its "good friends" the Israelis. American M-16s kill Palestinian childeren and George Dubbyah scratces his head and condemns Palestinian terrorism. Yeah ****ing right.
I say again: We're not the good guys on this one.
Why are we out there then? Because of oil? Woah there Mulder, best strap the tinfoil hat down nice and tight before the black helicopters blow it off.
Sanctions and war only have an adverse effect on the oil prices in the long term so why would we be going to war with them? Funny how the most vocal nation against military action, France, is one of Iraq's biggest oil customers and even has/had an advisor in Saddam's government. Russia has just invested a huge chunk of money for development of Iraq's (along with a few other arab nation's) oil fields, so why aren't they invading too? The oil arguement is a complete crock of s**t.
Did it not occur to you that no matter how much it wants to, the US or the UK cannot just send a bunch of supermeganinja 100% special forces operatives into Iraq to take out Saddam (it's counted as a war crime according to the Geneva convention), so the only way to do the job is to send a few thousand troops to knock on his door. Had the coalition forces had their way the first time around then we probably wouldn't be going to war now, but as usual the vocal minority had their way and nothing was really resolved.
I'm just glad that the likes of Bush & Blair, while far from perfect, have at last realised that the UN is nothing more than a debating circle and holds no political weight when dealing with matters of global concern.
And if you're wondering where the evidence of Saddam's WMD programme is - you're never going to see it (unless smoking wreckage on CNN counts). Do you really think that they're going to give vital intelligence information away to the general public? If there had been a list shown on TV detailing the exact locations of Iraq's WMD facilities what do you think Saddam would do, think "oh well, busted" and dismantle them? Of course he wouldn't. The scale of the intelligence operation needed to pinpoint every one (and I don't think they've found every one) of Saddam's weapons facilities is immense. You're talking about a complete inventory of every military, industrial and residential building in Iraq, vetting of personnel, close proximity observation (ie. putting people's lives at risk) and a dozen other things. S**t like that just doesn't materialise overnight, and they're certainly not going to blow the whole thing because some spineless Mirror reader wants "proof".
Personally I just hope they finish the f**kers off this time.
The Americans may be a bunch of gung-ho plebs, but they're good to have on your side when the s**t hits the fan.
Did I say it was the reason? I said the ends justify the means, were you pro Taliban too? I suppose the reason the US attacked them was for cheap opium?
You think because you can quote all the "bad" things the US has done over the years, this means we can't ever try and sort out the likes of Saddam? The biggest part, if not all of the things you mention didn't have anything to do with Geroge W Bush.
Going by your logic we should chuck the Germans off the security council, they are all Nazis after all. The only consistent thing here is that Saddam runs his country with an Iron Fist and he has killed many more people in Iraq than I care to think.
Now if you or any of the anti war people, think Saddam will disarm through weapons inspections, cooperate fully as well as coming clean on unaccounted WMD and chemical agents, well lets just say I am not the one being a naive fool.
Remove the threat of military action and he will go back to his old ways. Four months on from 1441 and the UN inspectors have been doing more detective work than actual inspecting, Iraq giving as little away as possible.
Small gestures in order to try and keep public feeling anti war. I would bet my life on it Saddam was rolling about laughing at the big anti war demos. Millions of people worldwide totally sucked in by his little games.
The fact is, nobody knows for sure what will happen post war with a new Iraq. The only thing that is certain is the Iraqi people will for once have a real chance of freedom, something they would never have under Saddam and in the future under the rule of his son.
I will never change your mind on this matter and you with me likewise. To come out with utter tripe like
"I find it amusing how it's the least informed amongst us who insist that war is necessary, whilst the academics and generally the smarter people of our populace suggest time and again that to go to war would be madness."
No wonder people take issue with your point of view, have you stopped to think that it's University Educated people that are taking us into a war?
Pop Culture Monkey
19-03-2003, 23:14
Originally posted by Ronaldo
Did I say it was the reason? I said the ends justify the means, were you pro Taliban too? I suppose the reason the US attacked them was for cheap opium? No, but it's interesting to note that when the United States installed their interim leader of Afghanistan, they chose a former oil company president. Also interesting was that the company that he used to run (Unocal) had spent five years trying to get a pipeline installed in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Most interesting of all is that three months after the United States took over, Unocal got their pipeline.
Funny, that.
You can keep your tinfoil hat, phatboy. I have plenty of reasons of my own to doubt America's motives.
And may I remind you all one final time: Being anti war does not make you pro-Hussein.
Originally posted by Pop Culture Monkey
And may I remind you all one final time: Being anti war does not make you pro-Hussein.
That's right!
Being anti-war means you're correct no matter what sort of garbage flows out of your mouth!
Pop Culture Monkey
19-03-2003, 23:28
OMFG I CAN FLAEM YUO BAD TO!!1
gregster
20-03-2003, 00:10
talk can go so far like b4 ww2 then you have to fight for whats right
this is my last post on the matter as the morons against war have no brains so i will save my fingers !!!!
[C5]ACiD
20-03-2003, 01:49
If you must draw comparisons with world war 2, in my opinion the americans make a far closer match to the nazis than iraq at the moment. Lets not forget who invades countries with little reason, brought back concentration camps into the so-called "civilised" western world, and are currently using chemical weapons to attack iraq, breaking all kinds of treaties.
Oh, and the USA killed the UN as well. That'll likely go down in history.
Yes the UN was great, amazing progress under the existing 17 resolutions......
gregster
20-03-2003, 10:38
omg what drugs are u on ? usa have not used chemical weapons to attack iraq
as for usa worse than nazis my god you are so bad with history
to even dream that the usa is like nazis just amazes me i suggest you go back and read your history books
concentration camps mmm do u even know what one is i suggest you ask a jew or 2
if anything iraq is the closer link to nazis but tbh even sadam has not gone that far YET but i belive he could
who ever thinks that sadam would lay down all his weapons of mass distruction is ether blinkered i`ll informed or plain stupid
and out of intrest why are u not including britain as being like naxis like the usa as we have been involved in most of the attacks the usa has been in over the last 20ish years
out of intrest why are u not including britain as being like naxis like the usa as we have been involved in most of the attacks the usa has been in over the last 20ish years
Plus we really started Concentration Camps off in the Boer war, let us not forget that
Relevance++
Oh no! By that token we must be Nazis then. Just like the Americans who refined the art of Concentration Camps when they were fighting the Mexicans! Or the Russians when they detained 28,000 Chechens in the 1990s. Or even the French in the 1930s when they were holding the militia who fled Spain.
Man, the entire world must be made up of Nazis. Not that it has any relevance to whether we should be invading Iraq.
Originally posted by Steam
Plus we really started Concentration Camps off in the Boer war, let us not forget that
Thats true, and its where it got its name, as it described its function, namely to concentrate a group of the population in one area. The difference between what the British did and what the Nazi's did though is pretty important. The British were essentially ill prepared to look after these people properly, with not enough medical supplies or food to keep them well. This resulted in malnutrition and disease and led to thousands dying. Reports estimate upto 50,000 women and children died. The intention of the British concentration camps were not to kill these people, but their lack of organisation, thought and perhaps concern for their health and safety did kill them.
If we look at the Nazi concentration camps, their sole reason was to eliminate the jewish peoblem, people there were intentionally gassed, shot and slaughtered. Millions upon millions were intentionally murdered.
So when we compare what the British did in the Boer war, although terrible, we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about the similarity with the Nazi's in WW2.
Who needs historical accuracy when you've got peace on your side?!
[C5]ACiD
20-03-2003, 16:33
omg what drugs are u on ? usa have not used chemical weapons to attack iraq
Go read up. Theyre employing gases (CS and the one the russians accidently killed those hostages with are 2 I know of). Only non-lethal so-called knockout gases, but in badly ventilated areas theyre lethal, and theyre going to be using them for bunkers. Use of said gases was banned because the americans used them in vietnam and then shot the people who couldnt defend themselves.
as for usa worse than nazis my god you are so bad with history
I never said theyre worse than the nazis, learn to read. I simply said theyve more similarities to the nazis than the iraqis have at this point.
concentration camps mmm do u even know what one is i suggest you ask a jew or 2
A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. X-ray, delta. Do you even know what one is would seem to be the question.
Hey, at least theyre improving. I hear the new expansions to delta will have running water and a hole in the floor for a crapper.
and out of intrest why are u not including britain as being like naxis like the usa as we have been involved in most of the attacks the usa has been in over the last 20ish years
Britain arent breaking chemical weapon pacts (the first major split between the two forces). Britain tends to pay more attention to international law. Britain held the usa back and at least tried the UN path.
We're not the good guys, but we're not as bad as the US. Plus britain wont gain anything from the iraqi war, so I give blair a little more credit over his reasons for it, even if I do strongly disagree with them.
oh, and I've also read the usa are considering tapping iraqi oil during the war to pay for it, although this plan might not go ahead as the arab nations dont seem too happy about it due to the usa's suspect motivations in the first place.
gregster
20-03-2003, 16:45
lol so cs ia a cemical weapon of mass destruction ok :P
[C5]ACiD
20-03-2003, 17:11
A) I never said mass destruction. (you like to make stuff up dont you)
B) The weapons the USA are using and planning to use are chemical weapons and are illegal in warfare under the chemical weapons convention.
President Bill Clinton pledged to Congress that the United States will not be restricted in the use of riot control agents in two circumstances: conflicts to which the United States is not a party but is playing a peacekeeping role, or locations where U.S. troops are stationed with the approval of the host State.
I was just saying we sorted of started concentration camps as a fact, dont read anything else in to it please :) .
Looks like Iraqs burning the Oil any way
[C5]ACiD
20-03-2003, 18:35
2 much to burn. Take a long long time to burn iraqs oil.
I realise we sort of started them, but thats the past. I'm talking about the present. Does the fact we had them and even the germans had them make it alright for america to have them now.
If your talking to me, where did i say that?
I asked you not to read in to what i said, it was merely an observation.
gregster
21-03-2003, 01:04
you were saying that usa ia as bad as iraq for using cemical weapons but iraq uses anthrax etc which is in a differant league to cs
as anthrax is a bio cemical weapon and cs is not as such a weapon as it is not installed in to rockets
Pop Culture Monkey
21-03-2003, 01:17
Originally posted by gregster
you were saying that usa ia as bad as iraq for using cemical weapons but iraq uses anthrax etc which is in a differant league to cs To clairfy: Iraq hasn't used any Anthrax, nor can we prove that they even have any in their posession.
Originally posted by Pop Culture Monkey
To clairfy: Iraq hasn't used any Anthrax, nor can we prove that they even have any in their posession.
And you know this how, exactly?
Originally posted by Pop Culture Monkey
To clairfy: Iraq hasn't used any Anthrax, nor can we prove that they even have any in their posession.
No they've just used nerve and mustard gas. Again, its not about proving Iraq has these weapons, its about Iraq proving they don't in accordance with the 1991 ceasefire agreement they signed.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.