Take notice of their people? I hate to tell you this but Bush is currently getting a 60% approval rating from US citizens for an Iraqi invasion.
Just a FYI, the US is up to 45 countries backing such an invasion. EVEN France is offering to give assistance if Saddam uses chemical weapons.
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
prophet tenebrae
by osprey on Wed Mar 19, 2003 9:16 pm
whothe hell is he and what is his claim to fame?
-
osprey
Where have all the liberals gone?
by The Return of Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:29 pm
Have you all ran away or have I convinced you to join the conservative movement and post conservative thoughts under a new name?
Andy Bayley
Antagonizer of the Anglos
Educator of the English
and last but not least
Enlightener of the Europeans
Andy Bayley
Antagonizer of the Anglos
Educator of the English
and last but not least
Enlightener of the Europeans
-
The Return of Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Al on Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:47 pm
Of course, one consequence of the US/UK abandoning of the UN route is that the invasion is against international law. Therefore their soldiers/airmen will be deemed "unlawful combatants" and, if captured, will have no protection under the Geneva conventions.
[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.
[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.
-
Al
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:28 am
[s]Al wrote on 23:47, 19th Mar 2003:
Of course, one consequence of the US/UK abandoning of the UN route is that the invasion is against international law. Therefore their soldiers/airmen will be deemed "unlawful combatants" and, if captured, will have no protection under the Geneva conventions.
[hr][i]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.
[/i]
that is to bad because if saddam had captured them as lawful combatents he would treat them according to the geneva convention wouldn't he? Didn't he in 91?
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
Of course, one consequence of the US/UK abandoning of the UN route is that the invasion is against international law. Therefore their soldiers/airmen will be deemed "unlawful combatants" and, if captured, will have no protection under the Geneva conventions.
[hr][i]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.
[/i]
that is to bad because if saddam had captured them as lawful combatents he would treat them according to the geneva convention wouldn't he? Didn't he in 91?
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Colin on Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:00 am
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 00:06, 20th Mar 2003:
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
-
Colin
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Wong on Thu Mar 20, 2003 8:51 am
[s]Unregisted User osprey wrote on 20:37, 19th Mar 2003:
who the hell is he and what is his claim to fame?
Have you just been dug up and placed in a Natural History museum, by any chance?
[hr]
And I see the lies and I hear the cries
And the marching of the people
As they go to war, Heaven knows what for
God, I think I've had enough now
who the hell is he and what is his claim to fame?
Have you just been dug up and placed in a Natural History museum, by any chance?
[hr]
And I see the lies and I hear the cries
And the marching of the people
As they go to war, Heaven knows what for
God, I think I've had enough now
No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves
-
Wong
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 8:28 pm
Re:
by Moral Equivilizers are morons on Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:10 am
[s]Colin wrote on 01:00, 20th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 00:06, 20th Mar 2003:[i]
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
[/i]
no but the million and a half that saddam has killed ontop of the women and children he's raped and tortured bothers me more. There is a cut off though if more people will die than we will save it's not worth it.
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 00:06, 20th Mar 2003:[i]
And prophet if civilian casualty rate goes above 100,000 I will condemn this war and write my president to pull out. But that won't happen because precautions will be taken to avoid collateral damage and i don't admit when im wrong.
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
[/i]
no but the million and a half that saddam has killed ontop of the women and children he's raped and tortured bothers me more. There is a cut off though if more people will die than we will save it's not worth it.
-
Moral Equivilizers are morons
you are mising the point
by concerned citizen on Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:11 am
[/i]
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
[/i]
it was you who quantified the number to begin with. i am satisified knowing that far fewer will die from an invasion than would die under the continued regime of Saddam. if only the world had shown the same resolve toward hitler that America and its allies are now showing toward Saddam- we could have avoided a lot of bloodshed.
But its fine to kill less than 100,000? 99,999 Dead Iraqi civilians wouldn't bother you?
[/i]
it was you who quantified the number to begin with. i am satisified knowing that far fewer will die from an invasion than would die under the continued regime of Saddam. if only the world had shown the same resolve toward hitler that America and its allies are now showing toward Saddam- we could have avoided a lot of bloodshed.
-
concerned citizen
Re:
by Buzzboy on Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:13 am
Right, own up which yank wanker said this. I cannot believe the arrogant pomposity of this statement:
"As far as funding terrorists we've funded freedom fighters, maybe some turned out bad but our intentions were always good. "
Good? In what way? Good for American interests and safety? Yes. Good for the political, social and economic growth of the countries involved bar the US? Certainly not.
The US has and will continue to act in a totally self-serving manner. The American administration isn't bothered about "policing the world to make it a better place for the citizens of the world" it is acting purely based on the benefit to itself in political and economic terms.
Stop pretending you're all so bloody altruistic it makes me fucking sick.
Honestly you wouldn't give a shit how many of your allies' (UK, Oz, etc.) soldiers die in this conflict. God knows you killed more UK soldiers in the last Gulf War than the Iraqis did.
"As far as funding terrorists we've funded freedom fighters, maybe some turned out bad but our intentions were always good. "
Good? In what way? Good for American interests and safety? Yes. Good for the political, social and economic growth of the countries involved bar the US? Certainly not.
The US has and will continue to act in a totally self-serving manner. The American administration isn't bothered about "policing the world to make it a better place for the citizens of the world" it is acting purely based on the benefit to itself in political and economic terms.
Stop pretending you're all so bloody altruistic it makes me fucking sick.
Honestly you wouldn't give a shit how many of your allies' (UK, Oz, etc.) soldiers die in this conflict. God knows you killed more UK soldiers in the last Gulf War than the Iraqis did.
-
Buzzboy
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:07 pm
[s]Unregisted User Buzzboy wrote on 08:57, 20th Mar 2003:
Right, own up which yank wanker said this. I cannot believe the arrogant pomposity of this statement:
"As far as funding terrorists we've funded freedom fighters, maybe some turned out bad but our intentions were always good. "
Good? In what way? Good for American interests and safety? Yes. Good for the political, social and economic growth of the countries involved bar the US? Certainly not.
The US has and will continue to act in a totally self-serving manner. The American administration isn't bothered about "policing the world to make it a better place for the citizens of the world" it is acting purely based on the benefit to itself in political and economic terms.
Stop pretending you're all so bloody altruistic it makes me fucking sick.
Honestly you wouldn't give a shit how many of your allies' (UK, Oz, etc.) soldiers die in this conflict. God knows you killed more UK soldiers in the last Gulf War than the Iraqis did.
I said that, we act in the best interest of the world. The fall of communism was in the interest of the world. At this moment I was awakened by the TV where kuwait sirens are sounding saying there may have been a biological attack in kuwait I'm praying we werent right about saddam, but Im affraid the realization of why we needed to attack is coming true.
And who the hell are you to tell me I wouldnt care about the death of allies. I care about all human lives, that was really an asshole statement to make. You have no idea how feel about our allies,and for the record im proud of them and glad to have them
Right, own up which yank wanker said this. I cannot believe the arrogant pomposity of this statement:
"As far as funding terrorists we've funded freedom fighters, maybe some turned out bad but our intentions were always good. "
Good? In what way? Good for American interests and safety? Yes. Good for the political, social and economic growth of the countries involved bar the US? Certainly not.
The US has and will continue to act in a totally self-serving manner. The American administration isn't bothered about "policing the world to make it a better place for the citizens of the world" it is acting purely based on the benefit to itself in political and economic terms.
Stop pretending you're all so bloody altruistic it makes me fucking sick.
Honestly you wouldn't give a shit how many of your allies' (UK, Oz, etc.) soldiers die in this conflict. God knows you killed more UK soldiers in the last Gulf War than the Iraqis did.
I said that, we act in the best interest of the world. The fall of communism was in the interest of the world. At this moment I was awakened by the TV where kuwait sirens are sounding saying there may have been a biological attack in kuwait I'm praying we werent right about saddam, but Im affraid the realization of why we needed to attack is coming true.
And who the hell are you to tell me I wouldnt care about the death of allies. I care about all human lives, that was really an asshole statement to make. You have no idea how feel about our allies,and for the record im proud of them and glad to have them
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Cain on Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:20 pm
How do you define a freedom fighter versus a terrorist? what differences are there? The IRA are freedom fighters for the liberation of Ireland from a British regime. Equally, they are terrorists who destry shopping centres on busy days.
arseburgers
arseburgers
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:33 pm
[s]Cain wrote on 13:20, 20th Mar 2003:
How do you define a freedom fighter versus a terrorist? what differences are there? The IRA are freedom fighters for the liberation of Ireland from a British regime. Equally, they are terrorists who destry shopping centres on busy days.
arseburgers
Basically a terrorist targets civilian targets to cause fear, i.e. palistineans.
A freedom fighter may use the same tactics but does not target civilians. Even if civilians get killed since they are fighting for freedom of the people of thier country they wouldnt try to target civilians.
The IRA was a group of terrorists.
How do you define a freedom fighter versus a terrorist? what differences are there? The IRA are freedom fighters for the liberation of Ireland from a British regime. Equally, they are terrorists who destry shopping centres on busy days.
arseburgers
Basically a terrorist targets civilian targets to cause fear, i.e. palistineans.
A freedom fighter may use the same tactics but does not target civilians. Even if civilians get killed since they are fighting for freedom of the people of thier country they wouldnt try to target civilians.
The IRA was a group of terrorists.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by immunodiffusion on Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:52 pm
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 14:59, 20th Mar 2003:
Basically a terrorist targets civilian targets to cause fear, i.e. palistineans.
A freedom fighter may use the same tactics but does not target civilians. Even if civilians get killed since they are fighting for freedom of the people of thier country they wouldnt try to target civilians.
The IRA and PLO they want "freedom" for their country, but kill civilians in the process. Therefore by your definition they are not terrorists, but "freedom fighters"
Bush and Blair kill civilians and cause fear, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their country, so, by your definition they are "terrorists".
In reality, I think the two definitions are clearly flawed. I do not believe there is any difference between the two terms. Anyone who uses terror and fear rather than diplomacy, whatever their aims, is, by definition, a terrorist.
Basically a terrorist targets civilian targets to cause fear, i.e. palistineans.
A freedom fighter may use the same tactics but does not target civilians. Even if civilians get killed since they are fighting for freedom of the people of thier country they wouldnt try to target civilians.
The IRA and PLO they want "freedom" for their country, but kill civilians in the process. Therefore by your definition they are not terrorists, but "freedom fighters"
Bush and Blair kill civilians and cause fear, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their country, so, by your definition they are "terrorists".
In reality, I think the two definitions are clearly flawed. I do not believe there is any difference between the two terms. Anyone who uses terror and fear rather than diplomacy, whatever their aims, is, by definition, a terrorist.
-
immunodiffusion
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
More "ignorant liberals" for Bailey
by Tom Plant on Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:46 am
Well, as an "ignorant liberal," I thought I'd better pick out a couple of choice quotes highlighting the other "ignorant liberals" who can, of course, not compare to the impenetrable fortress of Andrew Bailey's intellect:
1. "Nearly 600 Cambridge dons are calling on the government to avoid a war with Iraq.
"A petition, signed by 582 of the university's 4,200 academic staff, including Nobel prize winners and royal scientists, was delivered to Downing Street this week.
2. Oxford's ignorami also submitted a petition,
"The signatories include eight heads of colleges, five Regius professors, nine fellows of the Royal Society, 22 fellows of the British Academy and 72 university professors.
"In little more than two weeks, the petition was signed by some of Oxford's top academics, including 34 fellows of the Royal Society and the British Academy, four college heads and about 90 professors.
"The list includes two well-known honorary graduates of the university, the linguist Noam Chomsky and artist Brigit Riley, who sought to have their names added."
But at least we have the strong authority of our knowledgeable government to justify the war:
"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."
By launching our attacks yesterday, we have destroyed the credibility of the UN and broken the alliances set up after WW2. By utilizing Bush's 'preemptive strike' strategy, we have tipped the balance which kept us safe throughout the Cold War. We have also completely forfeited the trust of other rogue nations. For example:
"Go on, North Korea, disarm those nukes... We won't attack you, promise!"
Will anyone ever trust us again?
What a great precedent we've set, thanks to such forward thinking as Mr Bailey's. Shame those stupid Europeans wouldn't join in the fun, eh? Ah well, they must just be as ignorant as I am.
1. "Nearly 600 Cambridge dons are calling on the government to avoid a war with Iraq.
"A petition, signed by 582 of the university's 4,200 academic staff, including Nobel prize winners and royal scientists, was delivered to Downing Street this week.
2. Oxford's ignorami also submitted a petition,
"The signatories include eight heads of colleges, five Regius professors, nine fellows of the Royal Society, 22 fellows of the British Academy and 72 university professors.
"In little more than two weeks, the petition was signed by some of Oxford's top academics, including 34 fellows of the Royal Society and the British Academy, four college heads and about 90 professors.
"The list includes two well-known honorary graduates of the university, the linguist Noam Chomsky and artist Brigit Riley, who sought to have their names added."
But at least we have the strong authority of our knowledgeable government to justify the war:
"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."
By launching our attacks yesterday, we have destroyed the credibility of the UN and broken the alliances set up after WW2. By utilizing Bush's 'preemptive strike' strategy, we have tipped the balance which kept us safe throughout the Cold War. We have also completely forfeited the trust of other rogue nations. For example:
"Go on, North Korea, disarm those nukes... We won't attack you, promise!"
Will anyone ever trust us again?
What a great precedent we've set, thanks to such forward thinking as Mr Bailey's. Shame those stupid Europeans wouldn't join in the fun, eh? Ah well, they must just be as ignorant as I am.
-
Tom Plant
Arrogant by name, and arrogant by nature...
by Jeff Redfern on Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:55 am
Firstly - you and your 'friend' (who are probably one & the same, as you share the same sort of 'typos' & are both also grammatically incorrect) should actually learn (and/or remember) your history - 'the unexpurgated version, that is' - as you conveniently keep forgetting.
For your information though... outside of the closetted confines of what constitutes the borders of the USA - the most popular saying (in Iraq, and everywhere else when invasion by the US looms) is "Yanks Go Home!" Hardly the words of nations who need 'liberating', are they? Or are you too closed-minded to admit that even to yourself? Guess so. You believe every bit of propaganda & hyperbole spouted by the president & his 'aides'... can't you get the facts and actually THINK for yourself? This is a war based on the 'suspicions' of Bush... not FACT. If the UN were unable to find WMD, etc... ever occur to you that they're AREN'T any to be found? (Also... see on the news tonight that British & US troops are SECURING THE OIL WELLS in Iraq... I rest my case on that one).
Bush remains a Broken Arrow... let's see what the UN does to stop him, as he's the biggest threat to world peace - not Hussein. He's also the one at the moment who's ensuring that Americans are hated throughout the world... something that shouldn't be happening.
For your information though... outside of the closetted confines of what constitutes the borders of the USA - the most popular saying (in Iraq, and everywhere else when invasion by the US looms) is "Yanks Go Home!" Hardly the words of nations who need 'liberating', are they? Or are you too closed-minded to admit that even to yourself? Guess so. You believe every bit of propaganda & hyperbole spouted by the president & his 'aides'... can't you get the facts and actually THINK for yourself? This is a war based on the 'suspicions' of Bush... not FACT. If the UN were unable to find WMD, etc... ever occur to you that they're AREN'T any to be found? (Also... see on the news tonight that British & US troops are SECURING THE OIL WELLS in Iraq... I rest my case on that one).
Bush remains a Broken Arrow... let's see what the UN does to stop him, as he's the biggest threat to world peace - not Hussein. He's also the one at the moment who's ensuring that Americans are hated throughout the world... something that shouldn't be happening.
-
Jeff Redfern
Arse & Ass
by Jeff Redfern on Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:55 am
'Arse' & 'Ass' are two words meaning the same thing (dependent on which side of the globe you hail from). Pedantic.
Point is that kensson made a great point here, in that 'Collateral Damage' seems so much less than 'dead civilians'. And we are talking about innocent 'dead civilians' here... not nit-picking regarding whether you prefer to say 'ass' or 'arse.
Cut your global readers some slack here.
Point is that kensson made a great point here, in that 'Collateral Damage' seems so much less than 'dead civilians'. And we are talking about innocent 'dead civilians' here... not nit-picking regarding whether you prefer to say 'ass' or 'arse.
Cut your global readers some slack here.
-
Jeff Redfern
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests