War With Iraq

[Guest]

Notice on all the news reports today, that the very few basic 'bombs' that Iraq sent over in retaliation to the heavy bombing of the superpowers, were NOT laced with 'chemical weapons'? (Iraq will be fighting with catapults next... but oh... lookie here... 'chemical catapults'!) Strike a light...!

[Guest]

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.
[/i]

Actually, you are grossly mireading what the previous poster stated. The IRA and PLO specifically target civilians. That's what makes them terrorists. Al Qaeda does the same. The US and UK are specifically targeting a a facist government and its leaders, not the people they oppress. While some civilians may unfortunatelya nd sadly get caught in the cross fire, they are hardly tha intended targets, whereas civilians are most definitely the intended targets of the PLO and Al Qaeda.
Big difference.

[Give War a Chance]

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:

I dont think i called you ignorant but you may be because my name is spelled Bayley. Im glad you realized im smart though.

1. "Nearly 600 Cambridge dons are calling on the government to avoid a war with Iraq.

So what.

You go on for a while nothing really of merrit.

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:

Tothe contrary we enforce the UN charter they will not uphold. The UN is a joke it protects evil dictators it has to be seriously changed to be effective.

Go on, North Korea, disarm those nukes... We won't attack you, promise!

We will be attacking them next, we cant trust them they backed out of a deal.

Now I just want to add Im surprise to see any of you loons posting after what we've found out today.

In the middle of the night (morning for you) Iraq fired a couple of missles towards the troops and possibly kuwait city. Two were confirmed Al Samoud missles ( I can understand that because they admited to having them) the interesting part is they also fired a scud missle, dun dun dun.

You ask "Mr. Bayley Scott Ridder says they destroyed all of the scud missles didn't he?"

Yes he was wrong (probably paid off by the Iraqis, as he currently under investigation for bribary as well as sex crimes).

Then you might say "But those poor Iraqi citizens they are going to hate us now because of what we've done to them."

To contrary several Iraqis have surrendered to allied forces and while doing so hugged the troops and making bowing motions to them. AS well as the cities they've gone through so far, the reporters have said that the soldiers have been greeted with cheers.


In short I dont care what the academics think. They may have been more places than me and studied more issues but it doesnt mean they are morally right. A lot of time the liberal elite get caught up in the rule of law as opposed to whats right. I.E. The left debating over assassinating Saddam. Whats right is right and anything that saves the most lives in the long run is right.

[moral equivlizer]

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"

Wrong they may want freedom but at least with the PLO I'm not as familiar with the IRA, but the PLO for sure targets civilians.

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".

They do not target civilians. That is the difference. If you target civilians to cause terror you are a terrorists. Personally I dont think attacking the pentagon was an act of terror while the WTC was. Civilian targets are different than military targets.

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.


True but your making a big leap to imply that bush and blair are using terror. The extent The Army has gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties could in no way shape or form be considered terrorism.

Recap Targeting civilians = terrorism
Targeting military institutions and civilians die = military action

[Ignorant Liberal]

I posted these links on another website I figured it was so much ownage you brits needed to see it to, enjoy.

Heres some links about how bad saddam is.
This one Saddam shreds people like paper litterally http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html
Heres saddam torturing children http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/from_o ... 058253.stm
Heres one from that right wing group human rights watch(thats sarcasm)http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php
Heres a letter from Iraqi exiles. http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html

Dont care about Iraqis you say well heres saddam supporting terrorism
Heres terrorist info from a defector http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... odada.html
another link from the guardian no less http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0 ... 39,00.html

For biological weapons this says it all and then some
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User moral equivlizer wrote on 03:40, 21st Mar 2003:
They do not target civilians.

And yet they still hit them, go us!

your(sic) making a big leap to imply that bush and blair are using terror.

Yes, it's called 'Shock and awe' when the Americans do it, remember?
[hr][s]This is the bed that I have made,
this is the grave where I will lay,
these are the hands where I will
bury my face.[/s]

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 22:06, 20th Mar 2003:
While some civilians may unfortunatelya nd sadly get caught in the cross fire, they are hardly tha intended targets, whereas civilians are most definitely the intended targets of the PLO and Al Qaeda.
Big difference.

How is this a big difference? Either way, civilians get killed.

And Bush and Blair are definitely using terror to push Iraq into surrender. That's what war is. Do you think bombing them is a diplomatic solution?

There is no difference between war and terrorism. Maybe you think war is a justified form of action to take, but in that case you cannot criticise terrorists for doing the same. Both ways people get killed. Both ways you are forcing people into submission from fear rather than using reasoned arguments.

[Al]

No one is questioning the evil of Saddam, but to rely on the testimony of Iraqi exiles (who, by definition, are opposed to him) and hearsay seems a bit strange.

Incidentally, I see the US forces have raised the US flag in Umm Qasr. Smacks more of conquest than liberation to me.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[appauled by stupidity]

[s]Unregisted User Jeff Redfern wrote on 18:23, 20th Mar 2003:
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.




Sir you are dumbest of all liberals. In saudi Arabia they chant Yanks go home in Iraq they say go home and take us with you. They love the united states. Immigrants dont ride on crowded shitty boats or on tires to go to kabul, baghdad, or Bejing they go to New York City. They want what we have. You posted a lot of stupid stuff In a different post I posted a lot of good links you should read them.

[Sometimes its just to easy]

And yet they still hit them, go us! we save a lot of lives to.

Yes, it's called 'Shock and awe' when the Americans do it, remember?
Has that happened yet? I think that was a brilliant move my Rumsfeild to scare Iraqis into surrendering.

[flooding the board with conservatism]

[s]Al wrote on 09:49, 21st Mar 2003:
No one is questioning the evil of Saddam, but to rely on the testimony of Iraqi exiles (who, by definition, are opposed to him) and hearsay seems a bit strange.

Incidentally, I see the US forces have raised the US flag in Umm Qasr. Smacks more of conquest than liberation to me.


I found it interesting, these are the peoples who family members are still in Iraq, they would have a stake in it either way. But Do you need more links or will you agree that saddaam sponsers terror and has WMDs.

I also that the people of Umm Qsar looked pretty happy.

[Celebrating the death of Diplomacy]

How is this a big difference? Either way, civilians get killed.

Its the difference of shooting a innocent person on purpose and a cop missing a criminal and killing and innocent person. The person still dies its still sad but he had good intent.

And Bush and Blair are definitely using terror to push Iraq into surrender. That's what war is. Do you think bombing them is a diplomatic solution?

No france killed diplomacy. I suppose you could say they are using terror to get them to surrender but they have gone out of thier way to avoid civilian casualties. I doubt some plo guy would do that.

There is no difference between war and terrorism. Maybe you think war is a justified form of action to take, but in that case you cannot criticise terrorists for doing the same. Both ways people get killed. Both ways you are forcing people into submission from fear rather than using reasoned arguments.


I think the problem is you and your ilk donot have moral clarity. Killing and torturing children is wrong, killing to remove the person doing it is right.


I have a question for you loons how will diplomacy bring the end of Saddams regime?

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User Celebrating the death of Diplomacy wrote on 14:12, 21st Mar 2003:No france killed diplomacy.

France used diplomacy to try and prevent this travesty of a war! The fact that the US and UK ignored them was the death blow.
[hr][s]This is the bed that I have made,
this is the grave where I will lay,
these are the hands where I will
bury my face.[/s]

[Wishes Blair would become an American]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 19:01, 20th Mar 2003:
Notice on all the news reports today, that the very few basic 'bombs' that Iraq sent over in retaliation to the heavy bombing of the superpowers, were NOT laced with 'chemical weapons'? (Iraq will be fighting with catapults next... but oh... lookie here... 'chemical catapults'!) Strike a light...!

They scuds though which they don't have btw read this
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030321-87375993.htm

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User Celebrating the death of Diplomacy wrote on 14:12, 21st Mar 2003:

No france killed diplomacy.

In what way did France kill diplomacy? France said they would veto any resolution which would lead to war. They were trying to prevent war, and promote diplomatic measures in Iraq. It was Britain and the US that killed diplomacy, by threatening, and using, force against Iraq.

[Shocken Awesome]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 18:15, 21st Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User Celebrating the death of Diplomacy wrote on 14:12, 21st Mar 2003:[i]

No france killed diplomacy.

In what way did France kill diplomacy? France said they would veto any resolution which would lead to war. They were trying to prevent war, and promote diplomatic measures in Iraq. It was Britain and the US that killed diplomacy, by threatening, and using, force against Iraq.
[/i]

Before going to the UN for a war somethign that has only happened three times in the history of the UN Powell was promised by the French before voting for the 17th resolution that they would not block the 18th resolution. They then blocked the 18th breaking the deal they made, i doubt we go back to the UN in the near future.


What you people fail to understand that war is a terrible thing but it is not the worst thing. let me give you a quote by John Stuart Mill, a brit no less.

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

[Jack Gibson]

time for little truth:

[s]Unregisted User Jeff Redfern wrote on 18:23, 20th Mar 2003:
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!"

Nope- actually the people in Iraq are greeting their liberators with hugs and kisses and cheers. It's pretty cool- check it out.

can't you get the facts and actually THINK for yourself?

you mean the way you obviously haven't?

This is a war based on the 'suspicions' of Bush... not FACT.

How do you know what American intelligence knows? You don't. So this statement is simply your own suspicions, and therefore inconsequential.

If the UN were unable to find WMD, etc... ever occur to you that they're AREN'T any to be found?

Maybe- but again, you don't know what intelligence knows, and Iraq is the size of California- and the inspectors themselves said that it woul dbe impossible to find any MD without the cooperation of Saddam- which he obviously was not giving. 12 years of his shit is long enough.

(Also... see on the news tonight that British & US troops are SECURING THE OIL WELLS in Iraq... I rest my case on that one).

Well- DUH! Of course they're securing the oil fields because Saddam is trying to set fire to al of them which would nt only detsroy valuable resources that belong to the Iraqi people, but also cause major environmental damage. It wouldbe a crime NOT to secure them.

Bush remains a Broken Arrow... let's see what the UN does to stop him,

The UN can't do anything- America is a sovreign democratic nation. The UN, on the other hand, is an organization that includes countries run by dictators that brutally oppress their people.

as he's the biggest threat to world peace - not Hussein.
Ridiculous, and simply shows how ignorant you are. If you truly believe that, then go live under Saddam for awhile and se how you feel.

He's also the one at the moment who's ensuring that Americans are hated throughout the world... something that shouldn't be happening.


I agree it shouldn't be happeneing, but it is not because of Bush. clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and noone claimed he was the one "responsible" for people hating America. The ones to blame for inciting America's hatred are their so -called "allies" like France that support tyrants like Saddam instead of their democratic allies like America.

[Cain]

Get Your War on has been updated! Visit

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war22.html

for thought provoking analysis like

"Once this war is over those Iraqis better be the fucking freest people on earth. they better be fucking freer than me. they better be so fucking free they can fucking fly

AND the Dow has jumped up! Great response to the "shock and awe" tactics. Not even the deaths in combat of two marines can take the shine off of a great day for freedom.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81775,00.html

[Mother of all posts]

[s]Cain wrote on 22:39, 21st Mar 2003:
Get Your War on has been updated! Visit

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war22.html

for thought provoking analysis like

"Once this war is over those Iraqis better be the fucking freest people on earth. they better be fucking [i]freer than me. they better be so fucking free they can fucking fly

AND the Dow has jumped up! Great response to the "shock and awe" tactics. Not even the deaths in combat of two marines can take the shine off of a great day for freedom.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81775,00.html
[/i]

Whats your point, do you want the stock market to do bad or something? I'd imagine some of you dont like capitalism to much. This has been a good day for the country, don't get me wrong it is sad that 6 us citizens died as well as the 8 britans, and all the civilians who died but It has to be done.

out of curiousity did bbc show the iraqis cheering as the soldiers went through the towns?

[God Bless America]

Today despite all the grim news coalition soldiers found a secret chemical weapons factory. Where are you liberals who were quoting scott ridder saying Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.