[s]Unregisted User wrote on 14:33, 14th Sep 2002:
i am very, VERY pissed off
A perfectly natural condition, for an aggrieved loser; get used to it.
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
Re:
by Al on Sun Sep 15, 2002 11:13 am
"As an ex grad..." (unregistered user)
What exactly is an ex grad? I can see how a person might be an ex-student and of course a person might be a graduate. But how can you be an ex-graduate? Unless, of course, you're dead.
What exactly is an ex grad? I can see how a person might be an ex-student and of course a person might be a graduate. But how can you be an ex-graduate? Unless, of course, you're dead.
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Help me understand your distorted point of view
by Guest on Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:18 pm
Sadam is a tyrant; he clearly demonstrates this with his oppressive behavior towards his own people, his refusal to come to a peaceful resolution, and his aggressive behavior towards his neighboring countries. I’m sick of people justifying Sadam, his actions and state how the US/UK are contradicting themselves. It seems that some of you are in denial about Sadam's past. I suggest you do some research on him.
How about this, why don’t we all write really nasty letters to Sadam and hope we hurt his feelings. Then we can justify him for gassing thousands of his own people, invading 3 of his surrounding countries, and allow him to build these weapons of mass destruction so he can conveniently place them in your back yard. I’m sure you won’t care, when you start losing family members to anthrax or better yet your entire family because a nuclear device went off. Maybe then you would justify a forceful solution for the removal for Sadam’s regime.
Can any of you honestly say they think that Sadam would not hesitate using weapons of mass destruction unprovoked after reading the article and seeing how he treats his own people?
http://www.iraqcp.org/Democrat/0703wom.htm
Now throw in his 3 invasions and his ties to terrorist groups. Oh yeah, you have a real humanitarian.
How about this, why don’t we all write really nasty letters to Sadam and hope we hurt his feelings. Then we can justify him for gassing thousands of his own people, invading 3 of his surrounding countries, and allow him to build these weapons of mass destruction so he can conveniently place them in your back yard. I’m sure you won’t care, when you start losing family members to anthrax or better yet your entire family because a nuclear device went off. Maybe then you would justify a forceful solution for the removal for Sadam’s regime.
Can any of you honestly say they think that Sadam would not hesitate using weapons of mass destruction unprovoked after reading the article and seeing how he treats his own people?
http://www.iraqcp.org/Democrat/0703wom.htm
Now throw in his 3 invasions and his ties to terrorist groups. Oh yeah, you have a real humanitarian.
-
Guest
Re:
by kensson on Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:28 pm
Hello, Unregistered User Anonymous,
> You need to stop reading your conspiracy theory websites. Have they done it? NO, Will the American public tolerate such an act? Absolutely not. So again I say, they talked about considering nuclear strikes. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.
If you think the Herald, a Glasgow-based national newspaper, is a conspiracy theory website, you've clearly only read the sports sections. Would the American public tolerate such an act? Of course they would. The Nuclear Posture Hoojimaflip is a strategy document, and I'd have to presume that strategy documents were generally documents on which strategy was based. Maybe you don't believe they'd have the witlessness to drop nuclear weapons, but I do.
> Actually I would say he did. We haven?t heard a word from him in over a decade.
Really? Maybe you haven't been listening hard enough.
> I?m not excusing anything, Saudi Arabia isn?t an aggressive nation, and they didn?t invade Kuwait, Iran, or Israel. It doesn?t gas its own people and isn?t under sanctions that forces its people to suffer.
Now, let's see... have Saudi nationals done anything slightly naughty in the last year or so?
Saudi Arabia has one of the most horrendous human rights records in the world. In one incident, fifteen schoolgirls burnt to death after firemen refused to let them out of the building improperly dressed.
I'd also ask you politely not to get me started on the oh-so-effective sanctions issue.
> I never disagreed with you; I simply added that current event in to inform you that they are still looking for taliban and Al-Qa'eda members. I feel no need to dispute this matter any further.
Sorry, I thought you'd contradicted me. Apologies for my misunderstanding.
> This goes back to the point you made on the US?s intentions to start slinging nuclear weapons at everyone. They thought about using it, but did they actually do it?.. Obviously not.
Speaking of dropping nuclear bombs on people, how many nations actually have?
> So you agree that Saddam is a ?tyrant?, you support the people of Iraq enforcing a regime change, who are not capable or too scared to do so, but you don?t support Bush?s effort, which is fully capable of making this happen. Isn?t there some level hypocrisy in that?
What if the people of, say, Iraq decided that George W. Bush was a tyrant, citing his human rights record and rigged election victory? Would they be justified in trying to enforce a regime change in the USA?
I say no, because the USA is a nation and its nationals - alone - have the right to decide who governs, even if that system and that government are abused.
Name one instance, one, in which an American invasion has led to the establishment of a stable democracy.
>> I disagree wholeheartedly with another war which will lead to thousands of civilian casualties and will, in my opinion, only increase antagonism towards the West.
> So your saying lets turn our heads and pretend that Sadam won?t continue to oppress his people, build weapons of mass destruction and pray that he won?t give those weapons to terrorists or use them himself to kill ?thousands of civilians?. I want to live in your world where everything is perfect, how do I get there?
I'm saying the solution to the problem is not to bomb the shit out of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant, but he's also a very canny man - he wants to cling to power; he knows that the USA would use the feeblest of excuses to invade; only an idiot would antagonise the USA into another justifiable (to me) invasion.
However, if he feels he is in a no-win situation, do you think he's going to wait for the US to find his weapons before using them?
>>(In a previous post, you argued that the correct cycle of things was 'bad man does bad thing, good guys bomb bad man to teach lesson, bad guys learn lesson and stop but stay in power.' Clearly this doesn't work.)
>Are you looking at the right posts?
I suppose if could have been another Unregistered User Anonymous, there's a lot of you about.
> I implied that the Sadam regime must go and fully support the safest and most effective way of doing so. Unfortunately Sadams selfish mentality is leaving no other way but by force.
Safest for whom?
> However, when you take a look at the current facts and history of Sadam it brings me to no other conclusion that his reign of power must end.
I say that if we start trying to overthrow unjust regimes by force, then it will lead to a huge war not only in Iraq, and to a massive increase in anti-US feeling and terrorism. I suspect this is the third time you've made that point and I've replied with this, so perhaps we should stop wasting the good people of the Sinner's time and agree to differ?
> Arab nations starting to back the UN action plan.
I note that's an N not an S.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
> You need to stop reading your conspiracy theory websites. Have they done it? NO, Will the American public tolerate such an act? Absolutely not. So again I say, they talked about considering nuclear strikes. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.
If you think the Herald, a Glasgow-based national newspaper, is a conspiracy theory website, you've clearly only read the sports sections. Would the American public tolerate such an act? Of course they would. The Nuclear Posture Hoojimaflip is a strategy document, and I'd have to presume that strategy documents were generally documents on which strategy was based. Maybe you don't believe they'd have the witlessness to drop nuclear weapons, but I do.
> Actually I would say he did. We haven?t heard a word from him in over a decade.
Really? Maybe you haven't been listening hard enough.
> I?m not excusing anything, Saudi Arabia isn?t an aggressive nation, and they didn?t invade Kuwait, Iran, or Israel. It doesn?t gas its own people and isn?t under sanctions that forces its people to suffer.
Now, let's see... have Saudi nationals done anything slightly naughty in the last year or so?
Saudi Arabia has one of the most horrendous human rights records in the world. In one incident, fifteen schoolgirls burnt to death after firemen refused to let them out of the building improperly dressed.
I'd also ask you politely not to get me started on the oh-so-effective sanctions issue.
> I never disagreed with you; I simply added that current event in to inform you that they are still looking for taliban and Al-Qa'eda members. I feel no need to dispute this matter any further.
Sorry, I thought you'd contradicted me. Apologies for my misunderstanding.
> This goes back to the point you made on the US?s intentions to start slinging nuclear weapons at everyone. They thought about using it, but did they actually do it?.. Obviously not.
Speaking of dropping nuclear bombs on people, how many nations actually have?
> So you agree that Saddam is a ?tyrant?, you support the people of Iraq enforcing a regime change, who are not capable or too scared to do so, but you don?t support Bush?s effort, which is fully capable of making this happen. Isn?t there some level hypocrisy in that?
What if the people of, say, Iraq decided that George W. Bush was a tyrant, citing his human rights record and rigged election victory? Would they be justified in trying to enforce a regime change in the USA?
I say no, because the USA is a nation and its nationals - alone - have the right to decide who governs, even if that system and that government are abused.
Name one instance, one, in which an American invasion has led to the establishment of a stable democracy.
>> I disagree wholeheartedly with another war which will lead to thousands of civilian casualties and will, in my opinion, only increase antagonism towards the West.
> So your saying lets turn our heads and pretend that Sadam won?t continue to oppress his people, build weapons of mass destruction and pray that he won?t give those weapons to terrorists or use them himself to kill ?thousands of civilians?. I want to live in your world where everything is perfect, how do I get there?
I'm saying the solution to the problem is not to bomb the shit out of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant, but he's also a very canny man - he wants to cling to power; he knows that the USA would use the feeblest of excuses to invade; only an idiot would antagonise the USA into another justifiable (to me) invasion.
However, if he feels he is in a no-win situation, do you think he's going to wait for the US to find his weapons before using them?
>>(In a previous post, you argued that the correct cycle of things was 'bad man does bad thing, good guys bomb bad man to teach lesson, bad guys learn lesson and stop but stay in power.' Clearly this doesn't work.)
>Are you looking at the right posts?
I suppose if could have been another Unregistered User Anonymous, there's a lot of you about.
> I implied that the Sadam regime must go and fully support the safest and most effective way of doing so. Unfortunately Sadams selfish mentality is leaving no other way but by force.
Safest for whom?
> However, when you take a look at the current facts and history of Sadam it brings me to no other conclusion that his reign of power must end.
I say that if we start trying to overthrow unjust regimes by force, then it will lead to a huge war not only in Iraq, and to a massive increase in anti-US feeling and terrorism. I suspect this is the third time you've made that point and I've replied with this, so perhaps we should stop wasting the good people of the Sinner's time and agree to differ?
> Arab nations starting to back the UN action plan.
I note that's an N not an S.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Sadam must go
by Guest on Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:08 pm
Kennson,
-“Would the American public tolerate such an act? Of course they would”
Are you an American? Or have you ever lived in America? You obviously aren’t and have not.
-“The Nuclear Posture Hoojimaflip is a strategy document, and I'd have to presume that strategy documents were generally documents on which strategy was based.”
One strategy document among hundreds even thousands I’m sure. I don’t know if you are losing your sight but here is my response copied over one more time. They talked about considering nuclear strikes, they talked about many things. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.
-”Now, let's see... have Saudi nationals done anything slightly naughty in the last year or so?
Saudi Arabia has one of the most horrendous human rights records in the world. In one incident, fifteen schoolgirls burnt to death after firemen refused to let them out of the building improperly dressed. “
Again, you seem to be missing my point. We could go through every single country and find some kind of human rights incidents. And once again I find myself repeating: Did Saudi Arabia invade Kuwait, Iran, or Israel? I’m not downplaying 12 innocent children dying, but you would have to agree that 5000 men, women and children getting gassed by their own leader a slightly larger catastrophe. Oh, then there was a tiny incident where hundred thousands of Kurds just disappeared? That was Iraq not Saudi Arabia may I remind you.
-“I'd also ask you politely not to get me started on the oh-so-effective sanctions issue.”
Of course you wouldn’t want to get started, because that fuels my point that he is a selfish dictator that won’t step down for the benefit of his own people.
-“Speaking of dropping nuclear bombs on people, how many nations actually have?”
Please stop diluting the main topic by going off on tangents. This question hardly defends Sadam’s regime, the atrocities it has committed, and his motivation for producing weapons of mass destruction, which I will point out do not only encompass Nuclear arms.
-”What if the people of, say, Iraq decided that George W. Bush was a tyrant, citing his human rights record and rigged election victory? Would they be justified in trying to enforce a regime change in the USA?
I say no, because the USA is a nation and its nationals - alone - have the right to decide who governs, even if that system and that government are abused.”
What if, what if, what if? What if the world was a perfect place? Its not, lets stick to reality. Can we please get away from your agenda of pointing out Bush’s human rights incidents? None of them come close to Saddam’s. You have no evidence that the elections were fixed. Numerous independent recounts of the election have been made, with Bush winning as the final outcome. Because of Saddam’s violent past, his motivation to build these weapons of mass destruction, and his unwillingness to allow inspectors back in. Points to only one conclusion, he will produce them and use them on anyone he sees fit. That includes your innocent butt that sits at home and writes letters to him telling him how evil he is.
I see your point about letting its own people make the decision; it’s another when it’s not possible for them to do so. Was it the innocent Germans responsibility to step in and overthrow Hitler? Was it the innocent Yugoslavian’s job to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic? Did they want oust these Dictators from power? Yes, could they? No. I suppose we should have left those two countries alone too.
-”I'm saying the solution to the problem is not to bomb the shit out of the Iraqi people.”
Hello???? This isn’t a war against the Iraqi people; maybe this is the seed of your misunderstanding. It is an effort to remove Saddam’s regime. During the golf war, the UN dropped leaflets letting the Iraqi people know they needed to leave certain areas to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible.
-“However, if he feels he is in a no-win situation, do you think he's going to wait for the US to find his weapons before using them?”
My point EXACTLY!!! So shouldn’t we go in and destroy these laboratories and plants before they are completed and he has the chance to use them?
-“Safest for whom?”
The rest of the world including you.
-“I say that if we start trying to overthrow unjust regimes by force, then it will lead to a huge war not only in Iraq, and to a massive increase in anti-US feeling and terrorism. I suspect this is the third time you've made that point and I've replied with this, so perhaps we should stop wasting the good people of the Sinner's time and agree to differ?”
Sure I agree, You believe that we should allow a tyrant dictator to stay in power, and allow him kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, invade other countries for personal gain, attempt to build weapons of mass destruction to use on innocent people or allow terrorist groups to use on innocent people. I value human life including my own and have a life worth living for, you obviously don’t.
-“ Arab nations starting to back the UN action plan.
I note that's an N not an S.”
So it’s ok for the UN to do it but not the US?
-“My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change”
I guess Tony Blair should go then too since they are best friends and seem to have the same opinion on the matter.
-“Would the American public tolerate such an act? Of course they would”
Are you an American? Or have you ever lived in America? You obviously aren’t and have not.
-“The Nuclear Posture Hoojimaflip is a strategy document, and I'd have to presume that strategy documents were generally documents on which strategy was based.”
One strategy document among hundreds even thousands I’m sure. I don’t know if you are losing your sight but here is my response copied over one more time. They talked about considering nuclear strikes, they talked about many things. Will they end up doing it, most likely not.
-”Now, let's see... have Saudi nationals done anything slightly naughty in the last year or so?
Saudi Arabia has one of the most horrendous human rights records in the world. In one incident, fifteen schoolgirls burnt to death after firemen refused to let them out of the building improperly dressed. “
Again, you seem to be missing my point. We could go through every single country and find some kind of human rights incidents. And once again I find myself repeating: Did Saudi Arabia invade Kuwait, Iran, or Israel? I’m not downplaying 12 innocent children dying, but you would have to agree that 5000 men, women and children getting gassed by their own leader a slightly larger catastrophe. Oh, then there was a tiny incident where hundred thousands of Kurds just disappeared? That was Iraq not Saudi Arabia may I remind you.
-“I'd also ask you politely not to get me started on the oh-so-effective sanctions issue.”
Of course you wouldn’t want to get started, because that fuels my point that he is a selfish dictator that won’t step down for the benefit of his own people.
-“Speaking of dropping nuclear bombs on people, how many nations actually have?”
Please stop diluting the main topic by going off on tangents. This question hardly defends Sadam’s regime, the atrocities it has committed, and his motivation for producing weapons of mass destruction, which I will point out do not only encompass Nuclear arms.
-”What if the people of, say, Iraq decided that George W. Bush was a tyrant, citing his human rights record and rigged election victory? Would they be justified in trying to enforce a regime change in the USA?
I say no, because the USA is a nation and its nationals - alone - have the right to decide who governs, even if that system and that government are abused.”
What if, what if, what if? What if the world was a perfect place? Its not, lets stick to reality. Can we please get away from your agenda of pointing out Bush’s human rights incidents? None of them come close to Saddam’s. You have no evidence that the elections were fixed. Numerous independent recounts of the election have been made, with Bush winning as the final outcome. Because of Saddam’s violent past, his motivation to build these weapons of mass destruction, and his unwillingness to allow inspectors back in. Points to only one conclusion, he will produce them and use them on anyone he sees fit. That includes your innocent butt that sits at home and writes letters to him telling him how evil he is.
I see your point about letting its own people make the decision; it’s another when it’s not possible for them to do so. Was it the innocent Germans responsibility to step in and overthrow Hitler? Was it the innocent Yugoslavian’s job to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic? Did they want oust these Dictators from power? Yes, could they? No. I suppose we should have left those two countries alone too.
-”I'm saying the solution to the problem is not to bomb the shit out of the Iraqi people.”
Hello???? This isn’t a war against the Iraqi people; maybe this is the seed of your misunderstanding. It is an effort to remove Saddam’s regime. During the golf war, the UN dropped leaflets letting the Iraqi people know they needed to leave certain areas to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible.
-“However, if he feels he is in a no-win situation, do you think he's going to wait for the US to find his weapons before using them?”
My point EXACTLY!!! So shouldn’t we go in and destroy these laboratories and plants before they are completed and he has the chance to use them?
-“Safest for whom?”
The rest of the world including you.
-“I say that if we start trying to overthrow unjust regimes by force, then it will lead to a huge war not only in Iraq, and to a massive increase in anti-US feeling and terrorism. I suspect this is the third time you've made that point and I've replied with this, so perhaps we should stop wasting the good people of the Sinner's time and agree to differ?”
Sure I agree, You believe that we should allow a tyrant dictator to stay in power, and allow him kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, invade other countries for personal gain, attempt to build weapons of mass destruction to use on innocent people or allow terrorist groups to use on innocent people. I value human life including my own and have a life worth living for, you obviously don’t.
-“ Arab nations starting to back the UN action plan.
I note that's an N not an S.”
So it’s ok for the UN to do it but not the US?
-“My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change”
I guess Tony Blair should go then too since they are best friends and seem to have the same opinion on the matter.
-
Guest
Re:
by Al on Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:38 am
"Are you an American? Or have you ever lived in America? You obviously aren’t and have not."
What? Are Americans the only ones allowed to have an opinion? You profess to have a great deal of insight into and knowledge of the Iraqi regime. How? Are you an Iraqi? Or have you ever lived in Iraq?
"They talked about considering nuclear strikes, they talked about many things. Will they end up doing it, most likely not."
George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.
"...that fuels my point that he is a selfish dictator that won’t step down for the benefit of his own people."
If he did step down, he would be the first selfish dictator in the history of selfish dictators to voluntarily give up power.
"You have no evidence that the elections were fixed. Numerous independent recounts of the election have been made, with Bush winning as the final outcome."
How about the evidence of the electoral audit that found overwhelmingly that Gore had gained more votes? Or does that not count in your world? In what other "democracy" would a candidate's brother, and a leading member of his party be allowed to have any role in an election?
"Because of Saddam’s violent past, his motivation to build these weapons of mass destruction, and his unwillingness to allow inspectors back in. Points to only one conclusion, he will produce them and use them on anyone he sees fit."
Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat.
"Hello???? This isn’t a war against the Iraqi people; maybe this is the seed of your misunderstanding. It is an effort to remove Saddam’s regime. During the golf(sic) war, the UN dropped leaflets letting the Iraqi people know they needed to leave certain areas to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible."
And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?
"I don’t know if you are losing your sight...I have a life worth living for, you obviously don’t."
Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.
What? Are Americans the only ones allowed to have an opinion? You profess to have a great deal of insight into and knowledge of the Iraqi regime. How? Are you an Iraqi? Or have you ever lived in Iraq?
"They talked about considering nuclear strikes, they talked about many things. Will they end up doing it, most likely not."
George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.
"...that fuels my point that he is a selfish dictator that won’t step down for the benefit of his own people."
If he did step down, he would be the first selfish dictator in the history of selfish dictators to voluntarily give up power.
"You have no evidence that the elections were fixed. Numerous independent recounts of the election have been made, with Bush winning as the final outcome."
How about the evidence of the electoral audit that found overwhelmingly that Gore had gained more votes? Or does that not count in your world? In what other "democracy" would a candidate's brother, and a leading member of his party be allowed to have any role in an election?
"Because of Saddam’s violent past, his motivation to build these weapons of mass destruction, and his unwillingness to allow inspectors back in. Points to only one conclusion, he will produce them and use them on anyone he sees fit."
Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat.
"Hello???? This isn’t a war against the Iraqi people; maybe this is the seed of your misunderstanding. It is an effort to remove Saddam’s regime. During the golf(sic) war, the UN dropped leaflets letting the Iraqi people know they needed to leave certain areas to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible."
And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?
"I don’t know if you are losing your sight...I have a life worth living for, you obviously don’t."
Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Al, will you be making some kind of point in the future?
by Guest on Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:55 pm
Al,
-“What? Are Americans the only ones allowed to have an opinion? You profess to have a great deal of insight into and knowledge of the Iraqi regime. How? Are you an Iraqi? Or have you ever lived in Iraq?”
If you’re going to comment on something please read the post properly. Kennson made a general statement saying that the American public would back up the use of nuclear weapons. I questioned the basis of his comment. How does he know what the American public wants or thinks if he’s not an American or ever lived in America? Furthermore, I never stated I was an American.
-“George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.”
This is all you can come up with? Why even post it?
-“If he did step down, he would be the first selfish dictator in the history of selfish dictators to voluntarily give up power.”
Is this your justification to leave him in power?
-“How about the evidence of the electoral audit that found overwhelmingly that Gore had gained more votes? Or does that not count in your world? In what other "democracy" would a candidate's brother, and a leading member of his party be allowed to have any role in an election?”
Where is your proof, no links? I can make up things too.
-“Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat. “
What another great rebuttal Al. Great justification to let Sadam stay in power.
-“And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?”
Not even worth commenting on
-“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”
Why don’t you try making “a credible argument” yourself before you begin criticizing others.
-“What? Are Americans the only ones allowed to have an opinion? You profess to have a great deal of insight into and knowledge of the Iraqi regime. How? Are you an Iraqi? Or have you ever lived in Iraq?”
If you’re going to comment on something please read the post properly. Kennson made a general statement saying that the American public would back up the use of nuclear weapons. I questioned the basis of his comment. How does he know what the American public wants or thinks if he’s not an American or ever lived in America? Furthermore, I never stated I was an American.
-“George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.”
This is all you can come up with? Why even post it?
-“If he did step down, he would be the first selfish dictator in the history of selfish dictators to voluntarily give up power.”
Is this your justification to leave him in power?
-“How about the evidence of the electoral audit that found overwhelmingly that Gore had gained more votes? Or does that not count in your world? In what other "democracy" would a candidate's brother, and a leading member of his party be allowed to have any role in an election?”
Where is your proof, no links? I can make up things too.
-“Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat. “
What another great rebuttal Al. Great justification to let Sadam stay in power.
-“And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?”
Not even worth commenting on
-“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”
Why don’t you try making “a credible argument” yourself before you begin criticizing others.
-
Guest
Re:
by Al on Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:48 pm
As far as I can see neither Kensson nor myself have ever suggested that we wish Saddam Hussein to remain in power. I agree that he is a murderous tyrant and the world would be better off without him. However, it is not the job of the USA to decide which regimes are allowed to stay in power and which are not. In this case it is a matter soley for the Iraqi people. Furthermore, there is a rank smell of hypocrisy about the actions of the US. Why are flagrant breaches of human rights ignored and condoned in some countries, but seized upon in others? Why is no there no pressure put on Israel - a country that has been in breach of UN directives far longer than Iraq? Why no talk of regime change here? Why now is the US so tough on terrorism and the supporters of terrorism? There was, I notice, a strange lack of caring when NORAID and similar organisations were raising money to fund terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. There is an unbelievable hypocrisy about the US that runs to the very heart of the administration.
"-“George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.”
This is all you can come up with? Why even post it?"
I posted it because it's true.
"I can make up things too."
That is self evident.
"-“Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat. “
What another great rebuttal Al."
Thanks very much.
"-“And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?”
Not even worth commenting on"
By writing "not even worth commenting on", you are commenting on it, you berk!
"Why don’t you try making “a credible argument” yourself before you begin criticizing others."
I notice you don't deny being abusive. But I don't suppose you could. I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. I suggest you try taking your own advice.
"-“George Bush is a cretin. I wouldn't put anything past him.”
This is all you can come up with? Why even post it?"
I posted it because it's true.
"I can make up things too."
That is self evident.
"-“Iraq is a sovereign state. Its government is perfectly justified in refusing to allow people in to their country if they believe those people represent a danger or a threat. “
What another great rebuttal Al."
Thanks very much.
"-“And how were they supposed to leave certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Do you think he would have just let people wander around the country?”
Not even worth commenting on"
By writing "not even worth commenting on", you are commenting on it, you berk!
"Why don’t you try making “a credible argument” yourself before you begin criticizing others."
I notice you don't deny being abusive. But I don't suppose you could. I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. I suggest you try taking your own advice.
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Guest on Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:53 pm
Al,
-“As far as I can see neither Kensson nor myself have ever suggested that we wish Saddam Hussein to remain in power. I agree that he is a murderous tyrant and the world would be better off without him.”
You say this, but then you don’t support the effort to remove his regime from power, how humorous. Don’t include Kennson in your comments. He at least makes some intellectual comments that he can back up with facts. You only make assumptions that you back up with utter crap. I’m still waiting on that link about this so-called election scandal…
-“It is not the job of the USA to decide which regimes are allowed to stay in power and which are not.”
Oh, so it’s the UK’s responsibility then? Lets not forget Tony Blair has shared the same view as the US.
-“In this case it is a matter soley for the Iraqi people.”
Oh yes, the people that are too afraid to say or do anything because the fear they may be killed for voicing their own opinions. Are you going to tell that to the hundred thousand Kurds that tried that and suddenly disappeared? AGAIN, Why didn’t the innocent German civilians overthrow Hitler, or the innocent Yugoslavian civilians overthrow Milosevic. Should we have stayed out of those too?
-“Why are flagrant breaches of human rights ignored and condoned in some countries, but seized upon in others?”
I’m so sorry Al; I didn’t realize the title on this thread was Human rights. Last I checked it was the war with Iraq. Hello!!!, The reason from removing his regime is not about human rights. Its about a diabolical dictatorship that is obsessed with building weapons of mass destruction and since shows no concern for his own peoples lives will certainly show none for the people of other nations. He has attacked four other nations, including Saudi Arabia in the past 20 years. You can honestly tell me that you don’t think he would use these weapons for personal gain or not hesitate to give them to terrorist groups?
-“I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. “
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.” Who said this? Ah it was you… isn’t that Ironic.
-“As far as I can see neither Kensson nor myself have ever suggested that we wish Saddam Hussein to remain in power. I agree that he is a murderous tyrant and the world would be better off without him.”
You say this, but then you don’t support the effort to remove his regime from power, how humorous. Don’t include Kennson in your comments. He at least makes some intellectual comments that he can back up with facts. You only make assumptions that you back up with utter crap. I’m still waiting on that link about this so-called election scandal…
-“It is not the job of the USA to decide which regimes are allowed to stay in power and which are not.”
Oh, so it’s the UK’s responsibility then? Lets not forget Tony Blair has shared the same view as the US.
-“In this case it is a matter soley for the Iraqi people.”
Oh yes, the people that are too afraid to say or do anything because the fear they may be killed for voicing their own opinions. Are you going to tell that to the hundred thousand Kurds that tried that and suddenly disappeared? AGAIN, Why didn’t the innocent German civilians overthrow Hitler, or the innocent Yugoslavian civilians overthrow Milosevic. Should we have stayed out of those too?
-“Why are flagrant breaches of human rights ignored and condoned in some countries, but seized upon in others?”
I’m so sorry Al; I didn’t realize the title on this thread was Human rights. Last I checked it was the war with Iraq. Hello!!!, The reason from removing his regime is not about human rights. Its about a diabolical dictatorship that is obsessed with building weapons of mass destruction and since shows no concern for his own peoples lives will certainly show none for the people of other nations. He has attacked four other nations, including Saudi Arabia in the past 20 years. You can honestly tell me that you don’t think he would use these weapons for personal gain or not hesitate to give them to terrorist groups?
-“I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. “
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.” Who said this? Ah it was you… isn’t that Ironic.
-
Guest
Re:
by Al on Tue Sep 17, 2002 8:28 pm
"I’m still waiting on that link about this so-called election scandal…"
Why are you obsessed with links? But since you want facts, here you go-
2000 US election results
Gore/Lieberman (Democrat) 51,003,238 votes for = 48.38% of the popular vote
Bush/Cheney (Republican) 50,459,624 votes for = 47.87% of the popular vote
Nader/LaDuke (Green) 2,882,985 votes for = 2.74% of the popular vote
Buchanan/Foster (Reform) 449,120 votes for = 0.43% of the popular vote
Brown/Olivier (Libertarian) 384,440 votes for = 0.36% of the popular vote
Others 232,922 votes for = 0.22% of the popular vote
Isn't it usual, in a democracy, for the winner to be the person or team who get the most votes?
"Oh, so it’s the UK’s responsibility then? Lets not forget Tony Blair has shared the same view as the US."
No it is not the UK's responsibility either. Perhaps Tony Blair does have the same view as the US government. That does not mean the shared view is the correct one. Tony Blair is a lapdog who would go along with anything the US said in the hope of being tossed a few bones.
"Are you going to tell that to the hundred thousand Kurds that tried that and suddenly disappeared?"
Are these the same Kurds that were promised US assistance if they rose up against Saddam? Was any assistance forthcoming? Why should any internal opposition to Saddam believe anything would be different this time?
"Its about a diabolical dictatorship that is obsessed with building weapons of mass destruction.."
As Iraq has not let weapons inspectors in, any statement about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction can only be based on assumption. I, for one, would not like to see the entire Middle East plunged into war for the sake of an assumption.
"He has attacked four other nations, including Saudi Arabia in the past 20 years."
When? When did Iraq attack Saudi Arabia? I can remember the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait and the missile attacks on Israel, but exactly when did Saddam attack Saudi Arabia?
"-“I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. “
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.” Who said this? Ah it was you… isn’t that Ironic"
No. It might be hypocritical, but it's not ironic. I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the meaning of "irony".
Why are you obsessed with links? But since you want facts, here you go-
2000 US election results
Gore/Lieberman (Democrat) 51,003,238 votes for = 48.38% of the popular vote
Bush/Cheney (Republican) 50,459,624 votes for = 47.87% of the popular vote
Nader/LaDuke (Green) 2,882,985 votes for = 2.74% of the popular vote
Buchanan/Foster (Reform) 449,120 votes for = 0.43% of the popular vote
Brown/Olivier (Libertarian) 384,440 votes for = 0.36% of the popular vote
Others 232,922 votes for = 0.22% of the popular vote
Isn't it usual, in a democracy, for the winner to be the person or team who get the most votes?
"Oh, so it’s the UK’s responsibility then? Lets not forget Tony Blair has shared the same view as the US."
No it is not the UK's responsibility either. Perhaps Tony Blair does have the same view as the US government. That does not mean the shared view is the correct one. Tony Blair is a lapdog who would go along with anything the US said in the hope of being tossed a few bones.
"Are you going to tell that to the hundred thousand Kurds that tried that and suddenly disappeared?"
Are these the same Kurds that were promised US assistance if they rose up against Saddam? Was any assistance forthcoming? Why should any internal opposition to Saddam believe anything would be different this time?
"Its about a diabolical dictatorship that is obsessed with building weapons of mass destruction.."
As Iraq has not let weapons inspectors in, any statement about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction can only be based on assumption. I, for one, would not like to see the entire Middle East plunged into war for the sake of an assumption.
"He has attacked four other nations, including Saudi Arabia in the past 20 years."
When? When did Iraq attack Saudi Arabia? I can remember the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait and the missile attacks on Israel, but exactly when did Saddam attack Saudi Arabia?
"-“I have made several credible arguments but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to read them. Or you could be both too arrogant and too stupid. “
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument.” Who said this? Ah it was you… isn’t that Ironic"
No. It might be hypocritical, but it's not ironic. I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the meaning of "irony".
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
poor, poor Al, he hasn't a clue
by Guest on Wed Sep 18, 2002 2:54 am
-“Why are you obsessed with links? But since you want facts, here you go-
2000 US election results
Gore/Lieberman (Democrat) 51,003,238 votes for = 48.38% of the popular vote
Bush/Cheney (Republican) 50,459,624 votes for = 47.87% of the popular vote
Nader/LaDuke (Green) 2,882,985 votes for = 2.74% of the popular vote
Buchanan/Foster (Reform) 449,120 votes for = 0.43% of the popular vote
Brown/Olivier (Libertarian) 384,440 votes for = 0.36% of the popular vote
Others 232,922 votes for = 0.22% of the popular vote
Isn't it usual, in a democracy, for the winner to be the person or team who get the most votes?”
I have no obsession with links; I just want facts to back up your foolish comments. You ranted on about this so-called electoral audit that Gore won, well where is it? Do you now realize your showing me the popular votes not electoral. Do you know the difference? Your doing a great job showing your incompetence, keep up the good work. The presidency is not decided by the popular vote but by electoral votes, with each state given at least three electoral votes and additional votes based on its population. Winning a state, even by the smallest of margins, generally entitles a candidate to all of that state's electoral votes.
-“Are these the same Kurds that were promised US assistance if they rose up against Saddam? Was any assistance forthcoming? Why should any internal opposition to Saddam believe anything would be different this time?”
But wait Al, According to you, -“In this case it is a matter solely for the Iraqi people.” That's what happens when it is left soley to the Iraqi people!
-“No. It might be hypocritical, but it's not ironic. I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the meaning of "irony"
I was being nice and held back from calling you a hypocrite, I guess I shouldn't have. So your right, you proved your point, you’re an ignorant hypocrite. Lots of luck in life! You’ll need it.
2000 US election results
Gore/Lieberman (Democrat) 51,003,238 votes for = 48.38% of the popular vote
Bush/Cheney (Republican) 50,459,624 votes for = 47.87% of the popular vote
Nader/LaDuke (Green) 2,882,985 votes for = 2.74% of the popular vote
Buchanan/Foster (Reform) 449,120 votes for = 0.43% of the popular vote
Brown/Olivier (Libertarian) 384,440 votes for = 0.36% of the popular vote
Others 232,922 votes for = 0.22% of the popular vote
Isn't it usual, in a democracy, for the winner to be the person or team who get the most votes?”
I have no obsession with links; I just want facts to back up your foolish comments. You ranted on about this so-called electoral audit that Gore won, well where is it? Do you now realize your showing me the popular votes not electoral. Do you know the difference? Your doing a great job showing your incompetence, keep up the good work. The presidency is not decided by the popular vote but by electoral votes, with each state given at least three electoral votes and additional votes based on its population. Winning a state, even by the smallest of margins, generally entitles a candidate to all of that state's electoral votes.
-“Are these the same Kurds that were promised US assistance if they rose up against Saddam? Was any assistance forthcoming? Why should any internal opposition to Saddam believe anything would be different this time?”
But wait Al, According to you, -“In this case it is a matter solely for the Iraqi people.” That's what happens when it is left soley to the Iraqi people!
-“No. It might be hypocritical, but it's not ironic. I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the meaning of "irony"
I was being nice and held back from calling you a hypocrite, I guess I shouldn't have. So your right, you proved your point, you’re an ignorant hypocrite. Lots of luck in life! You’ll need it.
-
Guest
Re:
by Al on Wed Sep 18, 2002 9:19 am
"I just want facts to back up your foolish comments"
I have given you the facts. And you are the only one making foolish comments.
"You ranted on about this so-called electoral audit that Gore won, well where is it?"
I mentioned it once. You have mentioned it many times. And you accuse me of ranting about it? Hypocrite.
"Do you now realize your showing me the popular votes not electoral?"
No, I do not now realise that. I had always intended to show the popular vote. If you know your Latin you will realise that "popular" is derived from the word for "people". Strange that in the "world's leading democracy" the votes as cast by the people play second fiddle to those of an archaic institution.
"The presidency is not decided by the popular vote but by electoral votes, with each state given at least three electoral votes and additional votes based on its population. Winning a state, even by the smallest of margins, generally entitles a candidate to all of that state's electoral votes."
But the problem is that there is no constitutional requirement for electoral college members to vote the way that the popular vote required them to. In about half of the states, there is not even a state law to make electoral college members accountable for the way they vote. Even when there is a state law in place, they often just require EC members to vote for a candidate. Not necessarily the candidate that best matches the results of the popular vote. As the popular votes have to be counted anyway to determine which party gets the electoral college vote, why not just scrap the EC and use the popular vote to determine the result?
"But wait Al, According to you, -“In this case it is a matter solely for the Iraqi people.” That's what happens when it is left soley to the Iraqi people!"
What I said was quite simple. I would have thought it was simple enough even for you to understand it. I said that any decision on any regime change in Iraq was solely the responsibility of the Iraqi people. Nowhere did I say that the West could not assist them in their aims. Unfortunately, due to typical US blundering, Saddam was able to isolate and destroy much of the Iraqi internal opposition. Consequently, it is much less likely that any Iraqi dissident will be courageous enough to try and engineer Saddam's downfall. A bombing campaign by the US will not get rid of him. The US and allies would have to be prepared for a long and difficult ground war. Using the usual formula (3 attackers for every 1 defender), they would need to put at least 150,000 men on the ground. How long would US resolve last in the face of mounting body bags?
"You’re an ignorant hypocrite."
A hypocrite I may be. All people are hypocritical at some time or another. Ignorant I am not.
I have given you the facts. And you are the only one making foolish comments.
"You ranted on about this so-called electoral audit that Gore won, well where is it?"
I mentioned it once. You have mentioned it many times. And you accuse me of ranting about it? Hypocrite.
"Do you now realize your showing me the popular votes not electoral?"
No, I do not now realise that. I had always intended to show the popular vote. If you know your Latin you will realise that "popular" is derived from the word for "people". Strange that in the "world's leading democracy" the votes as cast by the people play second fiddle to those of an archaic institution.
"The presidency is not decided by the popular vote but by electoral votes, with each state given at least three electoral votes and additional votes based on its population. Winning a state, even by the smallest of margins, generally entitles a candidate to all of that state's electoral votes."
But the problem is that there is no constitutional requirement for electoral college members to vote the way that the popular vote required them to. In about half of the states, there is not even a state law to make electoral college members accountable for the way they vote. Even when there is a state law in place, they often just require EC members to vote for a candidate. Not necessarily the candidate that best matches the results of the popular vote. As the popular votes have to be counted anyway to determine which party gets the electoral college vote, why not just scrap the EC and use the popular vote to determine the result?
"But wait Al, According to you, -“In this case it is a matter solely for the Iraqi people.” That's what happens when it is left soley to the Iraqi people!"
What I said was quite simple. I would have thought it was simple enough even for you to understand it. I said that any decision on any regime change in Iraq was solely the responsibility of the Iraqi people. Nowhere did I say that the West could not assist them in their aims. Unfortunately, due to typical US blundering, Saddam was able to isolate and destroy much of the Iraqi internal opposition. Consequently, it is much less likely that any Iraqi dissident will be courageous enough to try and engineer Saddam's downfall. A bombing campaign by the US will not get rid of him. The US and allies would have to be prepared for a long and difficult ground war. Using the usual formula (3 attackers for every 1 defender), they would need to put at least 150,000 men on the ground. How long would US resolve last in the face of mounting body bags?
"You’re an ignorant hypocrite."
A hypocrite I may be. All people are hypocritical at some time or another. Ignorant I am not.
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by kensson on Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:39 am
Although I have now retired from this thread, I should say that Al (who is arguing the same side of the case as I was) is quite within his rights to mention me and I resent him being told to leave me out of it.
I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but most of his debate is well-informed even if his personal insults are ill-advised.
I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but most of his debate is well-informed even if his personal insults are ill-advised.
-
kensson
Re:
by kensson on Thu Sep 19, 2002 11:40 am
For the record, I'd also like to add that although I'm not American, I have lived in the USA; my girlfriend is a US citizen; many of my closest friends & colleagues come from the States.
None of these people support a war on Iraq. All of them believe Bush would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, and that the rallying cry of 'Nuke Saddam' (two Ds, by the way) would get much of the US populace on his side.
Kensson out
None of these people support a war on Iraq. All of them believe Bush would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, and that the rallying cry of 'Nuke Saddam' (two Ds, by the way) would get much of the US populace on his side.
Kensson out
-
kensson
By the way
by USNavy_Seal on Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:08 pm
"In what way do our Armed Forces 'suck'? And if our armed forces suck I dread to think what every other countrys armed forces do- (suck harder/longer?!!) as ours is widely known and shown to be the best in the world (alongside the Americans and the Israeli's (yes really)) both in technology and in training. "
I hope your not talking about the Iraqi Army. If you are that's the funniest thing Ive heard all day.
HAHAHAHA As good as the American Army??? The American Army soundly pummeled the Iraqi army in a matter of a couple months. I remember droves of Iraqis surrendering to us. And if you think the American military was tough back then,,,you should see us now.... Just ask the Taliban.
Speaking of,, I find it funny that people think the American Military kills so many civilians. We are probably the only military in the world that GOES OUT OF OUR WAY to not hurt innocent people. Granted mistakes occur but think about this. If it had been Russia that had went into Afghanistan I guarantee you there would have been tons of civilian casualties....Instead we use smart bombs that cost American tax payers Millions of dollars..(which im not complaining about we should do everything to avoid innocent people dying), Im just bringing up the point thats all.
I hope your not talking about the Iraqi Army. If you are that's the funniest thing Ive heard all day.
HAHAHAHA As good as the American Army??? The American Army soundly pummeled the Iraqi army in a matter of a couple months. I remember droves of Iraqis surrendering to us. And if you think the American military was tough back then,,,you should see us now.... Just ask the Taliban.
Speaking of,, I find it funny that people think the American Military kills so many civilians. We are probably the only military in the world that GOES OUT OF OUR WAY to not hurt innocent people. Granted mistakes occur but think about this. If it had been Russia that had went into Afghanistan I guarantee you there would have been tons of civilian casualties....Instead we use smart bombs that cost American tax payers Millions of dollars..(which im not complaining about we should do everything to avoid innocent people dying), Im just bringing up the point thats all.
-
USNavy_Seal
Re:
by The_Farwall on Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:56 am
[s]Unregisted User USNavy_Seal wrote on 21:59, 30th Sep 2002:
We are probably the only military in the world that GOES OUT OF OUR WAY to not hurt innocent people. Granted mistakes occur...
What complete and utter rubbish. I somehow doubt that UN peacekeeping forces (made up of forces from several countries such as UK, France etc...) ever go into battle with no care for the innocent populace they may be fighting around. In fact, they quite often go into situations with the express purpose of defending, protecting and evacuating innocent people. I'd be very suprised if they had the callous attitude towards the lives of those they are fighting to save that you are implying everyone except US forces have.
If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, why are there so many more incidents of US forces cocking up reported in the world press that of other countrie's armies? If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, they wouldn't bomb 'suspected' terrorist targets, they would only bomb confirmed ones, in case their suspicions where incorrect and the target was full of innocent people. In fact, if the US really did GO OUT OF IT'S WAY not to hurt innocent people, it wouldn't even bomb confirmed targets 'cause they may contain innocent people as well as terrorists.
And further more, if the US really did go out of it's way no to hurt innocent people, war with Iraq (or anyone else for that matter) would never even be considered. If Saddam Hussain is the evil dicator that we all think he is then it's quite likely that at least some of the Iraqis that would be fighting against an invading force would only be doing so through fear of being punished for not doing so. To me, these people would be innocent victims of Saddam's regime but I somehow doubt the US military would not be doing the best to kill them like everyone else.
[hr]
"It's a sunrise and a sunset
from a cradle to a casket,
there is no way to escape."
- Bright Eyes "Sunrise, sunset"
We are probably the only military in the world that GOES OUT OF OUR WAY to not hurt innocent people. Granted mistakes occur...
What complete and utter rubbish. I somehow doubt that UN peacekeeping forces (made up of forces from several countries such as UK, France etc...) ever go into battle with no care for the innocent populace they may be fighting around. In fact, they quite often go into situations with the express purpose of defending, protecting and evacuating innocent people. I'd be very suprised if they had the callous attitude towards the lives of those they are fighting to save that you are implying everyone except US forces have.
If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, why are there so many more incidents of US forces cocking up reported in the world press that of other countrie's armies? If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, they wouldn't bomb 'suspected' terrorist targets, they would only bomb confirmed ones, in case their suspicions where incorrect and the target was full of innocent people. In fact, if the US really did GO OUT OF IT'S WAY not to hurt innocent people, it wouldn't even bomb confirmed targets 'cause they may contain innocent people as well as terrorists.
And further more, if the US really did go out of it's way no to hurt innocent people, war with Iraq (or anyone else for that matter) would never even be considered. If Saddam Hussain is the evil dicator that we all think he is then it's quite likely that at least some of the Iraqis that would be fighting against an invading force would only be doing so through fear of being punished for not doing so. To me, these people would be innocent victims of Saddam's regime but I somehow doubt the US military would not be doing the best to kill them like everyone else.
[hr]
"It's a sunrise and a sunset
from a cradle to a casket,
there is no way to escape."
- Bright Eyes "Sunrise, sunset"
[s]Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.[/s]
-
The_Farwall
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Guest on Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:09 pm
What complete and utter rubbish. I somehow doubt that UN peacekeeping forces (made up of forces from several countries such as UK, France etc...) ever go into battle with no care for the innocent populace they may be fighting around. In fact, they quite often go into situations with the express purpose of defending, protecting and evacuating innocent people. I'd be very suprised if they had the callous attitude towards the lives of those they are fighting to save that you are implying everyone except US forces have.[/i>]
No one else in the world puts as much money and development into weapons that minimize civilian casualties. As far as U.N. peacekeeping goes,,YOUR LOOKING AT IT. As a U.S. Navy Seal I can tell you that we do 5 times more then any other country in the U.N. to enact its resolutions. We are the UN.
[i]If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, why are there so many more incidents of US forces cocking up reported in the world press that of other countrie's armies? If US forces "GOES OUT OF" their "WAY" to not hurt innocent people, they wouldn't bomb 'suspected' terrorist targets, they would only bomb confirmed ones, in case their suspicions where incorrect and the target was full of innocent people. In fact, if the US really did GO OUT OF IT'S WAY not to hurt innocent people, it wouldn't even bomb confirmed targets 'cause they may contain innocent people as well as terrorists.
First off, we are at war. Civilian casulaties and accidents will happen. Just be glad we are the most technologicly advanced military in the world because if we were not, we would still be blanket bombing Afganistan with B-52s WWII style. Instead of casulaties being around 100 you could count them in the 1000s'.
If snapper head Bin Ladin didnt attack us in the first place none of this would happened. I know for a fact (as I have been there) that the people in Kabul are so much happier now. They can actually listen to music and go to school again.
And further more, if the US really did go out of it's way no to hurt innocent people, war with Iraq (or anyone else for that matter) would never even be considered. If Saddam Hussain is the evil dicator that we all think he is then it's quite likely that at least some of the Iraqis that would be fighting against an invading force would only be doing so through fear of being punished for not doing so. To me, these people would be innocent victims of Saddam's regime but I somehow doubt the US military would not be doing the best to kill them like everyone else.
Hey guess what,, they have the option to surrender. They certainly did so during the gulf war. If you are carring arms and shooting at American soldiers I am gonig to take you out.
I find it funny that your soldiers are fighting out of fear of reprisal from Saddam. Why would they want to protect him. Truth is they dont, and if we invade it wouldnt take too long to turn them against him.
I have been to some other Iraqi message boards, and this one seems to be the most vocal against America taking Saddam out. Most other message boards hope we do get rid of him.
-
Guest
British Army
by Guest on Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:09 pm
[s]Al wrote on 23:25, 30th Sep 2002:
I think they were referring to the British army. And not the Iraqi army.
[hr][i]All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.
[/i]
Then they have no clue what they are talking about. The British army is probably the second strongest in the world. They British SAS were the originators of Special OPS, and tought US Rangers, Delta, and SEALS everything we know.
I think they were referring to the British army. And not the Iraqi army.
[hr][i]All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.
[/i]
Then they have no clue what they are talking about. The British army is probably the second strongest in the world. They British SAS were the originators of Special OPS, and tought US Rangers, Delta, and SEALS everything we know.
-
Guest
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 46 guests