Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

A war against Iraq?

(Page 11 of 18)
> > > >
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
And of course overpopulation will have no impact on the world.

Nor does the 2nd largest populated country have any military ambitions of its own. Certainly India isn't spending 2.5% of GDP on its military, oh wait it is.

And of course India would never engaged in nuclear posturing or nationalism taking the region to the brink of nuclear war?

Oh wait, but women's rights are respected in India aren't they? No infanticide or random murders of young women or anything like that.

Hey, how are the muslims in India doing these days?
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Derogatory does not necessarily mean racist. Racist can be derogatory term but derogatory can be anything like what Iraqi's have said about the US and UK. I hope the difference is clear.

On the lying issue... wait and watch else we can only continue arguing. After the dust settles what will be the next move will spell out clearly for the whole world to see and know.

Some Medina regiment is giving Tough Resistence To Troops. Use of Chemical Weapons has been aniticipated By US administration. Hope nothing of "Vietnam Serene Gas" type occurs.

On Pakis.... Ummm well heard many British Commentators making that very often Live On Air.

Offensive it may sound but it is not. Depends upon the perspetive within which it is viewed.

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
On the lying issue... wait and watch else we can only continue arguing. After the dust settles what will be the next move will spell out clearly for the whole world to see and know.

You made an accusation. You said Blair lied. If you can't backup your accusation, don't make it.

Quote:
On Pakis.... Ummm well heard many British Commentators making that very often Live On Air.

I'd be very surprised. If you call someone a Paki you are generally being racist and so it is greatly avoided.

Quote:
Offensive it may sound but it is not. Depends upon the perspetive within which it is viewed.

Or the country in which you live.

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 25, 2003, 4:53 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hey, how are the muslims in India doing these days?


Much better than they are in Pakistan or Indonesia.

>>

And of course India would never engaged in nuclear posturing or nationalism taking the region to the brink of nuclear war?

>>

No Not at all. There is a difference between Bombing heroshima and then Postulating a Theory like this.

>>

Oh wait, but women's rights are respected in India aren't they? No infanticide or random murders of young women or anything like that.
>>

Yeah they are respected much more than in western world where it is just more often than not wham bam thankyou mam. Marry/Divorce/remarry/Redivorce .... change wives as frequently as bed sheets etc etc.

>>

Nor does the 2nd largest populated country have any military ambitions of its own. Certainly India isn't spending 2.5% of GDP on its military, oh wait it is.
>>

It is this % game which caused Reeboks etc to fail here. Try attacking India for real and then you would know how much is being spent on defense. We do not publicly show off the toys on TV.....Military Ambitions are known to B(ush) & Co and thats why they go about unleashing those sanctions. Haha....
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Don't throw cow patties when you're standing in the outhouse.

..and at least the women live through divorce.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 25, 2003, 5:03 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Some Iraqis may believe that their smuggled oil revenue benefited them, because they see more weapons purchased to protect themselves and their country. The Russians would not give away those new weapons free of charge. It is all in the eyes of the beholder. Outsiders may think Iraqis did not benefit from the oil sales, the Iraqis (may be brainwashed by Iraqi propaganda) may truely believe that they as citizen of Iraq benefited from the oil sales.

Kuwaitis should be compensated for their loss. What did the American or British lose this time? Americans should not be compensated if they did not lose anything. Yet "Cheny's old company has been awarded the lucritive contract to put out the 7 oil well fires" (CNN reports). Who is paying for this? CNN also reported that " American tax payers should not be ask to pay for it (reconstruction of Iraq) alone, Iraqis oil assets will also be used to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq".

You would have a reason to use Iraqi oil assets to rebuild Iraq IF Iraqis consider Americans as liberators instead of intruders. What if those popular uprisings in Basra are acctually armed civilians who hates Americans? If considered as invaders, Americans who insist using Iraqi oil assets to rebuild Iraq would be treated as robbers.

Middle Eaterns may like/listen to American Music and watch Rambow, but they all claim they hate Americans. Iraqis were told that Americans made their lives misarable. How would they welcome Americans? Are there really any popular uprisings in Basra (the city formally designated as military target) ? Americans/ British will become war criminals by any international standard if they were to level this 1.2 million people city.

One of these days, we will have to find out how much are the contracts totals. And find out just how much money is worth killing 50,000 to 500,000 people for.
 
Re: [oilrights] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Some Iraqis may believe that their smuggled oil revenue benefited them, because they see more weapons purchased to protect themselves and their country.


Weapons purchased to protect Saddam's regime are not purchased to protect Iraqis. Revenue from smuggled oil went to the personal enrichment of Saddam Hussein and his supporters.

As to contracts, who would you have put out the oil fires? There are only a small handful of companies that put out oil field fires around the globe, two of the most famous are Boots & Coots, and Red Adair. All are American.

We've seen countries liberated from tyranny before. I suggest that when Iraqis realize they are truly free from Saddam, when fear is replaced by hope, that they will make their own choices.

...and don't count the dead until they are dead. Some of the living might just object.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hello ArmyAirForces,

Strange : No one is posting Iraqi soldier wounded / dead. Not Iraq , Not CNN , Not US Military.

It is like Iraq and US and CNN do not wish to show [ high ] numbers of Iraqi dead ?

Another thought :

Chemical weapons were used in WW1 , and people running that war soon found out that

even though they were in control of when to deploy chemicals, Mother Nature caught them.

Chemical weapons are just clouds of vapour or similiar, and have been blown back.

Hitler met mustard gas as a private in the army. He did not tend to use this gas again. [?]

Final thought :

The British Army has the Gurkha soldiers.

Why are not the Gurkha soldiers involved ?

I would think twice if I was opposed by Gurkha's vs Para's or Marines.

Thanks

cornball
 
Re: [cornball] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Strange : No one is posting Iraqi soldier wounded / dead. Not Iraq , Not CNN , Not US Military.

It is like Iraq and US and CNN do not wish to show [ high ] numbers of Iraqi dead ?


I've seen reports of numbers here and there. CNN's lead bullet under their "Najaf battle might be biggest so far" title talks about 150 to 200 killed.

Iraqi death totals are not particularly important to Saddam's regime. They've never talked about numbers from the Iran-Iraq war or the first gulf war. All we could do would be to estimate...and you won't find the Pentagon doing that.

The handful of deaths that might actually matter to the regime, are ones they'll never report while the regime still exists (still no proof that Saddam or his evil progeny are alive).

Indeed the largest death numbers would come if the Iraqis use those chemical weapons they don't have. They'd be doing so within very close proximity of Baghdad and the civilian impact could be enormous. Hopefully no Iraqi general would be party to the death of so many fellow Iraqis...but that's not stopped them before. At least they won't use them during this storm.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Yes we have little reports of Iraqi soldiers dead here and there but we also have a coalition dead and injured total.

I feel if the Iraqui people see 10 Americans dead and xx? Iraqi dead on the same date and time

they may realise that they are getting clobbered , rather than winning as Saddam says.

Or it may be just more media fluff.

And like I asked

Where are the Gurkha's ?

cornball
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
The image speeches for itself.

USA army is kiling inocent people for oil!

Last edited by:

Iraq Boy: Mar 25, 2003, 6:45 PM
 
Re: [cornball] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Yes we have little reports of Iraqi soldiers dead here and there but we also have a coalition dead and injured total.

I feel if the Iraqui people see 10 Americans dead and xx? Iraqi dead on the same date and time they may realise that they are getting clobbered , rather than winning as Saddam says.


That would be nice, but we don't really have a way of tallying Iraqi dead. As a matter of policy, resulting out of Vietnam, the Pentagon does not do enemy body count games.

You can bet the Iraqi state run media will never publicize their losses as that runs contrary to the regime's propaganda.

Plus I don't think Saddam can do more than encourage them from beyond the grave - through video tape. I may be wrong, but that last tape convinced me he is not going to be making any new tapes, only appearing on old ones.

After a little searching, I found that the Gurkhas are active in Iraq. Some are attached to 1 Royal Irish Regiment around the Ramallah oil fields. You'd have to find some good UK MOD resources to find out more.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 25, 2003, 6:52 PM
 
Re: [Iraq Boy] A war against Iraq? In reply to
And Saddam kills them for pleasure. Don't you have a protest you need to attend somewhere?
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Thanks I did not know the Gurkhas were even considered in Tony Blairs deployment.

They have a reputation that even the Republician Guard can not miss.

People who have met them are changed in their thoughts about soldiers.

They are interesting while peaceful and very powerful when in combat.

I would not like to ever meet them as an opposite with 10 to 1 numbers in my advantage.

thanks

cornball
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Well defiance of UN Charter 39/40/41.

Campaign to behead a state head taken unilaterally when Veto feared by France, China, Russia. And i believe the campaign is headed against the head of state of a UN member nation...So any nation which does not subscribe to US theory is either Al-Qaida or some other Phantom Menace (many would emerge post war scenario)

Isn't this enough to back any accusation (you may call it), though It is a Fact.....

If sanctity of UN being soiled is not of any consequence then I do not think any amount of views exchamge can convince anyone. Look what Kurds of Turkey themselves are feeling and expressing......"It's Either Fight For Oil Or Against Muslims"... and believe me this is neither from Western Media or From Al Jazeera....I go by what Our reporters are reporting "Live On TV" It was also reported that an American Journalist had left for Jordan but had to come back to rashidiya hotel just because entry/exit barred...The Basara rebellions (projected as uprising against SH) are not being trusted by Allied forces as they fear "Fiyadins" Surendering And joining The Allied Forces" to unleash dangers subsequently.

Arab League -Kuwait have asked for urgent security council meeting to stop this war.

So that's why I said Wait N watch.

On the offensive issue:

Yes probably the Country Could Matter. What is happening on Iraq is justified in the eyes of Aggressor(s) but Offensive to the rest of the world. So true....
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
http://readthetruth.com/fleshtrade.htmYou only get what u ask for.

Well while still on the offtrack issue look what Western Media Has to say about:

(1): Child Prostitution: "American ignorance only feeds into the network," said Sandra Hunnicutt, the founder of Captive Daughters, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit group. "Runaway children are still entrapped in these networks because America does not think there is a problem."

A Portland, Ore., agency estimates that 7 percent of the youth population there has been involved with the sex trade industry, up from 5 percent in 1998-9.

In Phoenix, outreach workers estimate the child prostitution population there at 15,000. "It's a huge industry," said Janyse Ashley, program coordinator for the nonprofit group DIGNITY.

In New York City, one outreach program estimates that 5,000 youth and children are prostituted in the city, while police estimate there are only 15. Other advocates say the number might be as high as 1,000.

But Americans usually don't have much sympathy for children in the sex trades, some say. Once young people get involved with prostitution, they are most often treated as juvenile delinquents.

Americans are probably afraid to know who solicits child prostitutes, Barnitz said. Knowing could expose an ugly secret that Americans feel more comfortable ignoring.

Source : ABC News....

(2): Infanticide/ MTP:

Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 1988, 3.6 million were unintended and therefore subject to dangerous consequences. 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies resulted in abortion. In Britain, more than 160,000 legal abortions, or terminations of pregnancy, were carried out each year during this same period of time.

Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States. In 1983, over six hundred children were reported killed by their parents, and from 1982-1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides were children under the age of one year of age.

Copyright 1998, Dr. Larry S. Milner. All rights reserved.

(3)Divorce Rates: Statistically stated: 1991, 0.47%, 1992, 0.48%, 1993, 0.46%, 1994, 0.46%, 1995, 0.46%, 1995, 0.43%, 1997, 0.43%, 1998, 0.42%, 1999, 0.41%, 2000, 0.41%, 2001, 0.40%

Yes there are divorces all around the world. It's external manifestation of sub conscious frustrations. So on the issues which you had initiated, i have just presented enough facts (as per the media reports that you may intend to believe) only to emphasise the fact that one should be under impression that these happenings are restricted to India (at least that's what your post intended).

Well there are many such matters. We do not throw our parents out into old homes. And yes we do not believe in stealing/modifying and then patenting in our name.....that's horrendous.

I won't be surprised to find Tampagne (a patented Version Of Champagne) some day now that Chirac is not willing to bow down to pressures of supporting aggression.

I am yet to Find Indian Equivalent Of This With Brochures Circulated:



Smile

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 25, 2003, 8:21 PM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
India, sources various (indianchild.com, world factbook, Human Rights Watch):

Infant mortality rate: 61.47 deaths/1,000 live births (2002 est.)

According to a recent report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing from India' s population as a result of systematic gender discrimination in India. In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males. In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population.

According to a 1994 report in Asian Age there are at least 70,000 women sex workers in Delhi, Madras, Calcutta, Bangalore and Hyderbad. 30% of these women are under 20 years of age. 40% are 20-30 years of age, and approximately 15% of them became prostitutes as children under the age of 12. The majority of these women are Dalits or from castes which are recognised as backward under the Indian Constitution. In India, many innocent victims are forced into prostitution by their husbands or relatives. Some are tricked or enticed into prostitution.

What is causing alarm both in governmental and NGO circles is the escalation in trafficking of young girls in the last decade. NGOs like STOP and MAITI in Nepal report that most trafficking in India (both trans-border and in-country) is for prostitution. And 60 per cent of those trafficked into prostitution are adolescent girls in the age group of 12 to 16 years. Still more alarming is the fact that the average age of trafficked girls, which was 14 to 16 years in the 1980s, came down to between 10 and 14 years in the 1990s. These figures are corroborated by a study done by the Department of Women and Children in 13 sensitive districts of Uttar Pradesh. It reveals that all sex workers who formed a part of this survey had entered the profession as young girls.

Statistics from 2000 showed that on average a woman is raped every hour in India.

...two human rights organizations, Asia Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), charge that Indian security forces in Kashmir have deliberately executed hundreds of detainees in custody as part of a "catch and kill" policy to crush the insurgency by armed militant groups.

CUSTODIAL KILLINGS: Among the worst of these violations have been the summary executions of hundreds of detainees in the custody of the security forces in Kashmir. Such killings are carried out as a matter of policy. Nineteen cases are documented in detail in the report. In one case, Border Security Force (BSF) troops detained a young man, Masroof Sultan, tortured him with electric shock, and then took him to a field where they shot him four times and left him for dead. In another case documented in the report, four young men were all shot dead after being taken into custody on April 9, 1993, despite the fact that the Deputy Commissioner told relatives the young men were in custody but would be released.

REPRISAL ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS: Indian army soldiers and federal paramilitary troops of the BSF and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have also engaged in frequent reprisal attacks against civilians, opening fire in crowded markets and residential areas, and burning down entire neighborhoods. Security legislation has increased the likelihood of such abuses by authorizing the security forces to shoot to kill and to destroy civilian property. Under these laws, the security forces are protected from prosecution for human rights violations. The report documents many such incidents, including the burning of Lal Chowk, Srinagar, on April 10, 1993, during which BSF troops set fire to buildings and shot civilians trying to flee the flames.

TORTURE
: Most detainees taken into custody by the security forces in Kashmir are tortured. Torture is practiced to coerce detainees to reveal information about suspected militants or to confess to militant activity. It is also used to punish detainees who are believed to support or sympathize with the militants and to create a climate of political repression. Methods of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, suspension by the feet or hands, stretching the legs apart, burning with heated objects, and crushing the muscles with a heavy wooden roller.

RAPE: Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and- search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population by assaulting residents and burning their homes.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 25, 2003, 8:22 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Umm surprising you still counted on UN....

Did I ever discounted on your earlier post as that being non existent. I think you made this reply in a haste. I had mentioned that such things are NOT JUST RESTRICTED TO INDIA.

As for Human Rights...Well the irony is that these Human Rights Organizations keep mum when the terrorists are killing Kasmiri Pandits. It has happened today. Don't tell me these Organizations are only meant to fight against the establishments and not document anything against Terrorists. Or perhaps their blood turns cold. When the Law enforcement agencies start craking on them the Human Rights Activists start raising a hue and cry. Isn't it ironical. This Human Right Issue about Custodial Deaths and all that I think you would have been able to understand better if you followed the Terrorism Sponsored in Kashmir by Pakistan....Reprisal Attack on Civilians ... I think you would find it easier to digest the fact that they are terrorists amongst the civilians. Something Which US has been saying all along to defend its killing of civilians...in Iraq bombing....

My stress has been on the fact that such irregularities (if you may want to accept) are an inherent part of all socieities so it was a misdirected information campaign of yours when you started the topic of Quote Unquote"

"Oh Wait... INDIA....." So its not just India.... its everywhere.....some accept it some behave the Ostrich's way....

While on Drugs issue i think comfortably Pakistan and Afghanistan has been excluded from the discussion. That's where your media showed POPpy cultivation during Afghan War....And it is that Drug Money which has been funding the Terrorists in Kashmir....
Quote:
...two human rights organizations, Asia Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), charge that Indian security forces in Kashmir have deliberately executed hundreds of detainees in custody as part of a "catch and kill" policy to crush the insurgency by armed militant groups.

So surprising you call them insurgents just like Pakistanis..... Had that policy been adopted I don't think that Indian Airlines Flight would have been hijacked to Kandhar and that Terrorist had to be released....Hope the point is clear....

Smile

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 25, 2003, 8:42 PM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I have no personal problem with India, or Indians. What I cannot abide is those from countries with their own significant internal problems attacking the US from some supposed position of moral superiority.

We can disagree on the war, perhaps civilly. That would be a welcome departure from the normal rantings of the so called anti-war movement. I say 'so called' because it is really just so much anti-Americanism dressed up in the flavor of the moment.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 25, 2003, 8:50 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Well Now it seems to be heading towards a cordial conclusion.

It should be accepted that Democracy (of which US Projects as lone saviour and Mentor) can only survive if the actions of the "Boss Of The Day" is open for critical analysis by the "Oppositions" that's how the basic structure of Democracy is.....The One In Power And The One Not In Power..... Its Labor and The Tory, Democrats vs Republicans, BJP vs Congress etc etc....and on forums there are subscribers to three opinions -- For --Against -- And Can't Say types ( an equivalent of Independents Politically).

If it's a situation like "Just Listen to me and Digest It" then it is a great divergence from Democracy and gets closer to Dictatorship.

So it is worth noting that all those who oppose war (Even UN Did) are not US Enemey (That's How G(Bush) Projects which does not suit the stature of a Head Of A State). They can't behave like "You Give Me That Toy Or I'll Break Your's". It's always good to take cognizance of such facts or else you know what had been the long term consequence of Gandhi (one who fought the Britishers Weapon Less) being thrown out of "First Class Compartment" (Under The Excuse Reserved For Whites) in South Africa ages back.....Today Mr Nelson Mandela (Unfortunately The So called Biased Human Rights Organzations kept silent for major part while he spent larger part of his life behind forcefull custody) is popularly known as African Gandhi.

I had mentioned somewhere in this thread that I do not carry any grudge against persons/ human beings but yes I do carry grudge against "Attitude" It has always been the Attitude which has spelt disaster for Human Race in general.

BTW: Give it a thought..... War has always been due to recession....take any war... peep into the world economy at that time and you would find it to be true. So Wars were, are and will be fought only on grounds of "Business Interest"..... Liberating Human Beings is just an eye wash....

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
If you addressed the issue with any sense of logic, you might actually be persuasive.

Instead your rantings, silly name games, and theory of conspiracy diminish any valid argument you might have been able to make.


If you wish to continue this, attempt to make 1 salient point instead of 20 diluted ones and use no childish names.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 25, 2003, 9:31 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It's no point carrying endlessly.

The Point Is A Democratic Nation Dictatorially Decides Unilaterally To Discard UN and head Towards Beheading The Head Of A UN Member State just because it perceived some "Phantom Threat" That's the point.

If UN can be demeaned and that's acceptible then nothing more can be discussed. You may call it ranting or the child in you may classify it Childish (Read A book By Dr Thomas Harris....then you would be able to classify childish more appropriately) But the matter of fact remains....which as always with any unilateral aggression....the repurcussions are felt with passage of time. And biggest thing is that it's always that intoxication of "Apparent Power" that has lead to debacle of greatest of empires...

You expect that I should gleefully accept your point of view then possibly you would be disillusioned as my Head Of State only Offers Job and Not engage in B'Jobs with secretaries so there can never be any point of convergence between our views of opinion.

I am regretfull of the fact that "My Sense Of Logic" cannot be as illogical as you would want to be.....

If you want to carry on I would prefer to take it offline now...

Frown

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 25, 2003, 10:33 PM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Dictatorially. Factually incorrect.

Unilaterally. Factually incorrect.

Discard the UN. The UN was made impotent when the French crippled 1441. 1441 without consequences is a hollow document. The UN unable to enforce its will over 12 years = hollow, ineffective, a ghost of the League of Nations.

The UN had its chance to lead on the Iraqi issue and it failed.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I think i wrote it in plain english. We cannot agree. You would be disillusioned. You know it's just the difference in attitude. An Agressor can never be in same line of thinking as Peace Loving Nations Where heads Of State do not engage in sessions of B'Jobs with female secretaries/ office bearers coz they respect the values of society and not assert machoism under overdose of viagra.

UN for Iraq Oil for Food is OK. UN byepassed for attacks is OK. "Use and Throw" policy which has lead to birth of OBL and SH and maybe many to follow is OK. Keep bombing. Keep bombing till Muslims really give another big jolt/ wake up call to US.
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
You expect that I should gleefully accept your point of view then possibly you would be disillusioned as my Head Of State only Offers Job and Not engage in B'Jobs with secretaries so there can never be any point of convergence between our views of opinion.

I am regretfull of the fact that "My Sense Of Logic" cannot be as illogical as you would want to be.....


Makes absolutely no sense. It is in fact nonsense.
> > > >