Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

A war against Iraq?

(Page 13 of 18)
> > > >
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
You are a fraud. You have no true interest in peace, only childish word games and some delight in expressing your anti-American viewpoint.

Blather all you want. You expose the weakness of your argument by doing so.

Good riddance.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
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.
There must be Russian companies that could provide these services because of the vast number of oil wells that they have developed in Russia. If not the Russians, how about the Canadians who did not sell weapons to Iraq or nor has any troops inside Iraq. Safety Boss, Inc fought fires in Kuwait, and is one of the oldest oil well control companies in the world. Why not send these Canadians instead of Cheny's former employer (who is the largest American Oil Well construction and maintenance company)? Someone did not choose the two most famous American oil well control companies, or Russian companies, or Canadian company but Cheny's old company. Unless the Americans Stop or the Iraqis surrender within the next thirty days, the human death toll will be over 50,000. The American/British forces already claims 4,000 Iraqis POW, there should be at least this many have died (or two to three times more) for these 4,000 to give up fighting and surrender. These POW are caught in the ground war that only have lasted few days. This war if last 6 weeks as Bush now predict (based on his request of 70bn funds). The human death will amount to over 50,000. This does not count the dead Iraqis soilders and civllians from the bombing runs. Bliar has changed his tactics in Basra, the Brits may have started using human shield or started attacking residential buildings. He first cut off water and electricity to Basra, then promise to delivery food if people in Basra lay down their weapon. He then designated Basra as Military Target (possibly because the Brits lost few dozen men to the Guarrilas (Armed Civilians)). Then he asked United Nations to get actively involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. One of the CNN guests (retired General) said Brits used combination of tactics at Basra Yesterday, some of which may not be legal. The Iraqi TV also reported 500 wounted and 200 housing destroyed at Basra. This new tactic would contribute large numbers to the human death toll. As I am writing, U.S. military and/or CNN has changed the names for the armed civilians from irregular army to guarrila to now para military personell. And said U.S. underestimated the para military forces. This also provides more evidence to me that a large number of civilians have 1, considered U.S. as invaders 2, have in their homes shot at the Americans or Brits At the end of this war, I hope we all have changed our opinions a little or at least become a little wiser in looking at world events and life. Please everyone stop the name calling and attack on each other. We would be no different from the people we are criticizing. YOU AND I DO NOT HAVE THE PRESSURE THAT BUSH AND BLAIR HAS. They must satisfy their campaine contributors and to much smaller degree their citizens. I hate to be in their shoes for the next few weeks.
 
Re: [oilrights] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
There must be Russian companies that could provide these services because of the vast number of oil wells that they have developed in Russia. If not the Russians, how about the Canadians


The Russians back Saddam's regime. The Canadians are not participants in the coalition. I doubt a non-coalition country would allow a private company to operate in Iraq. Nor should anyone expect the coalition, which is controlling a war zone, to allow a non-coalition based company in.

Perhaps if there was a NGO that did such work, but to my knowledge one does not exist?

As to death counts. You cannot make such estimations based on guesswork. Many Iraqis will die, those who do not capitulate will die. That is war.

So to will many die at the hand of fellow Iraqis. In Basra the Baath party troops turned their mortars on their own citizens. We have heard reports of Fedayeen dressed in US style uniforms, attempting to accept the surrender of other Iraqi units in this guise and then shooting them. Iraqi units using the pretext of surrender to stage counter attacks.

Iraq's regime has long used human hostages around their sensitive sites. They have also positioned military equipment next to mosques, ancient antiquity, and amongst civilian populations. Some of their units operate in civilian attire and drive civilian vehicles.

They know our soldiers will do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. So they will conduct combat operations from this shield while the world media reports how horrific and inhumane the coalition militaries are.


- p.s. To claim this is a war due to pressure from campaign contributors is not really worthy of discussion.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Mar 26, 2003, 9:17 AM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
You are a fraud.
That's American Stupidity at it's best.....forget
I am definitely taking it offline as it wouldn't be surprising that next level of "Civilised" behaviour by you would be to get abusive.....

Nothing more can be expected from a nation which distributes the WMD to Iraq and shamelessly accuses Iraq of possessing it.

A country which cheated Turkey of promises of $$ has a spokesman which calls others fraud.....

I am definitely not interested in your American Slang Lingo.....
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Perhaps lets not get too personal yeah?
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
That's exactly what has been expressed frequently but American Juvenile Adventurism fails to understand this under the Hangover Of Apparent Supremacy or External Criminal Manifestations of Paranoid behaviour......America thinks whole world is going to attack America so attack others by Forging Documents. if that's the precedent then Iran should attack Israel, China should Attack US and the whole world should perish subscribing to Misplaced American Theory Of Liberating Human Race.... Absolute Bull Crap (excuse me for last two words).

While on the issue to war the ratings are now dropping ... started with 71% ......52% and now down to 35%??? Whats the latest figure Paul

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hmm I think you need to get past this grudge with America if you want to provide an non subjective account of your thoughts on war. Currently your comments are bordering on racism in my opinion.

Quote:
While on the issue to war the ratings are now dropping

Perhaps in India...in the UK and US they are increasing.
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Currently your comments are bordering on racism in my opinion.

Is it? If non submission to direct attacks / American Theory of Peace (which if followed in totality would require every nation to strike any nation which is a "perceived" threat) are equated with Racism, then I am sorry i just can't change that.

As i always maintain, who started this Personal Castigation.... And one can't expect me to accept it gladly.

Smile
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Nuclear enemies conduct rival missile tests

NEW DELHI, March 26 (AFP) - 13:09 GMT - Nuclear enemies India and Pakistan Wednesday defiantly conducted missile tests at the height of the US-led war in Iraq, amid rising tensions in South Asia over the weekend massacre of 24 Hindus in disputed Kashmir.

India fired its surface-to-surface Prithvi missile, which can carry a one-tonne nuclear warhead a distance of 150 kilometres (93 miles), at 11:30 am (0600 GMT) from a range in eastern Orissa state.

Pakistan, too, fired a short-range missile but it was not known if the test followed or preceded the launch of India's 8.5-metre (28-foot) Prithvi, which has a minimum range of 40 kilometres (25 miles).

Indian military sources insisted the Pakistani missile launch was a tit-for-tat test-flight.


You want peace? Protest the 'peaceful' activities of your own country.
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Is it? If non submission to direct attacks / American Theory of Peace (which if followed in totality would require every nation to strike any nation which is a "perceived" threat) are equated with Racism, then I am sorry i just can't change that.

My observation was based on several posts you've made relating to Americans and ArmyAirForces specifically.

Making mild personal remarks such as saying your judgement is clouded and you are talking nonsense is worlds apart from racist remarks such as your generalization about Americans being stupid.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
You want peace? Protest the 'peaceful' activities of your own country.

AFP where and which presss is this?

After all you can raise these hues and cries once these are tested on "Human Targets"...Yes we are pursuing our very own armament policy peaceful. It's not clear what you want. If you expect to handover all these to America.... No Way!!!. We Can pursue but we would not "Use First" though the precedent of heroshima and nagasaki exists. Pakistanis threaten to use it anytime though...probablty taking lead from American Doctrine of Peace.

How many civilians did this Kill? Zero!!!

And why does it bother Americans? We are independent nation. No statements are made when Israeli's pursue their armanent policy. ....Why.....probaly because Jews dominate the "Corporate America" The whole world listened to what Mr Sharon had to say during Afghan crisis when there was a hint of pacifying mid east by hinting a solution for PLO You donate those F-16's and expect us to watch ....Thats height of expectation
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Making mild personal remarks such as saying your judgement is clouded and you are talking nonsense is worlds apart from racist remarks such as your generalization about Americans being stupid

the classification of "personal remarks" is a new development.

read the cause and effect relationship post.... I could not offer my other cheek to ArmyAirForces and yes i regret on my inability to offer that other cheek....ArmyAirForces took the lead with that objectionable accusation ... "you are fraud". And on the generalization issue well ArmyAirForces started this Country Level statement....and yet again i repeat i regret i cannot offer that other cheek....

I must catch some sleep now. It's 1 am here.....

Bye

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 26, 2003, 11:38 AM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
ArmyAirForces took the lead with that objectionable accusation ... "you are fraud".

Well I could prove you wrong by pointing you towards a post you made way before ArmyAirForces post, when you said he had no common sense, but I won't bother. My stomach is yelling for food.
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
We Can pursue...


You cannot claim to be for peace and non-violence when you endorse your own country's militaristic agenda, nuclear weapons program, and violent nationalism. A true advocate of peace and non-violence rejects all such things.

Instead you are simply against this war because of who the protagonists are.

Continue your ad hominem polemics against the US/UK leadership, they only reveal your true motivations.
 
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.


FYI: I did see today that when US forces bury Iraqi dead, they mark the spot, record it with GPS, and send the information back to headquarters.

The information is being gathered to turn over the Iraqis after the war.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Well in case you are postulating or hinting at "Peacefull" scenario where US should be the only nation going about offering that "Umbrella" of military protection in that case we do not need it....So we pursue our own self defense policy which is not guided by the desire to invade and pervert the sovereignity of a UN member nation. If we can afford a brave defense force ( and not commanders who would not enter a city fearing street fights) we have the right to maintain it.

Your definition of Peaceful boils down to stripping the military strength and our definition is one where we do not maintain a dfense force for Bullying but for self defense. And self defense does not mean that we willfully cross over into others sovereign borders as agressors and dictate terms there. We refused joint Military excercise request of US in deserts and high altitude in India precisely for this reason. It was a far sightedness that some day Iraq would be attacked. We have an embassy there. We cannot be a pawn in the hands of US desires...

Arab league's ambassador to UN is not talking in lines that would suit your aspirations. Mr Fahm is not talking the way US would have liked. Indonesians have started registering for going to Iraq to fight Jihad.

All the Mid East TV channels (not just Al Jazeera) is televising the supposedly "Pious Attempts Of Liberation" as "Massacre by the Agressor". They are watched by the masses where the western media has litle access.

Mr Kofi Anan is not talking the way US would have wanted. "Respect Soveriegnity And Integrity Of UN Member State"....."Many Member Nations are not happy over the developments" were his words...

And BTW your thoughts about violent nationalism is again ill conceived and misplaced.

So that's about it....

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 26, 2003, 3:54 PM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
What appears on middle eastern television, the pronouncements from the Arab League, or speeches from the chattering members of the UN is of no surprise. It is not even new.

You are free to pursue your national security, and we will pursue ours...and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what really makes you angry isn't it?

How many can you convince around the world that the nuclear capable missile you just tested is solely for defensive purposes? How about your neighbors, I'm sure they don't see it as any sort of provocation. . .
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
How many can you convince around the world that the nuclear capable missile you just tested is solely for defensive purposes

Did Israelis, Americans, Chinese, Russians and others ever convince. And BTW who is to be convinced is not clear. Who decides which nation has to nuclear. The nation themselves. If the Big Brothers feel uncomfortable about it then slam those sanctions.. often used against every bomb that we exploded as bullying attempt of least impact.. And if we have the resouces to develop /test then we have the right.... we are not stealing drawings/designs/disassembling any prototype illegally obtained from any where. Its all done under the Nose of Hi Tech Surveilience Toys in Space and yet get unnoticed...:=)

Quote:
How about your neighbors, I'm sure they don't see it as any sort of provocation. . .

We have 4 neighbours with borders and 2 other neighbours. I really do not know which one you are referring to. So kindly be precise. And you can avoid the hassle of getting the information about one neighbour from me as that one is the closest US ally so possibly US administration must be having all the information. Amongst rest three you can ask....

Quote:
and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what really makes you angry isn't it?

Did i ever say that it was my or my country's desire. I think there is some fogged impression. All those who are opposing war are not necessarily angry. When anger takes precedence over common sense then there is WAR, demonstrations, riots, deaths etc etc.

But yes if any nations military policy ventures into territorial borders of my nation, there's a lot that we can do...

Last edited by:

anup123: Mar 26, 2003, 4:44 PM
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
You are against our war, but advocate for your own weapons of war. I get it.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
Quote:

The Russians back Saddam's regime. The Canadians are not participants in the coalition. I doubt a non-coalition country would allow a private company to operate in Iraq. Nor should anyone expect the coalition, which is controlling a war zone, to allow a non-coalition based company in.
- p.s. To claim this is a war due to pressure from campaign contributors is not really worthy of discussion.


Of course the Russians back Sadam's Regime. It is the Russian Contracts and Russian interests that the Russians want to protect. Money is Money. Why wouldn't the Canadian Government allow their companies to make extra money from overseas and bring the money back to Canada? The U.S. also only wants to protect their interest. I have heard that the U.S. has awarded a Seattle based company with a 480 million dollars contract of rebuilding the port of Umm Qsar. This is someone else's port. Who give the American the right to award this kind of contract to U.S. company? Shouldn't this be decided by Iraqis? At the lease it should appear to have been decided by the U.S. controlled post war Iraqi government. Someone has awarded this contract to U.S. company this port city that U.S. really has not entirely controlled yet.

Who will pay for the above 480 million dollars? Is going to be the American Tax payers or the Iraqis with their oil assets? No one else is picking up the tab in this war. The Japanese contributed over 10 billion dollars last time, but they are not putting out any money right now. Because they know they are not getting any of the contracts this time. Blair and Bush right now is probably talking about which contracts should be awarded to the Brits. Bush and his campaign contributors may be too greedy this time, they are not giving any of the contracts to other countries not even to the British.




Quote:

Iraq's regime has long used human hostages around their sensitive sites. They have also positioned military equipment next to mosques, ancient antiquity, and amongst civilian populations. Some of their units operate in civilian attire and drive civilian vehicles.

They know our soldiers will do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. So they will conduct combat operations from this shield while the world media reports how horrific and inhumane the coalition militaries are.


This is the General Description for Guerrilla War Fair. I have heard CNN reports that one U.S. soldier has already called it Vietnam War. Unless you kill the entire village in Vietnam, you will not know if the enemy is still in the village. Iraqi women may be different from Vietnam women who might pick up a weapon to revenge the death of her parenets. I don't think an Iraqi women would do the same. What would a U.S. soldier do if a 12-year-old boy picks up a gun to avenge the death of this father. Remember his father were an Armed Civilian.
 
Re: [oilrights] A war against Iraq? In reply to
..and your point is?
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I am against Perversion of "Sovereignity And Integrity" of any Independent Nation whether it is by War, Terrorism or any other means which indicates that "Anger" has taken precedence over "Common Sense". In the present context since Perversion is through WAR I am against WAR. In Kashmir Perversion is through Mercenaries from Sudan, Afghan Terrorists And Pakistan sponsored by ISI of Pakistan and so I am against "Terrorism" Even in "Animal Kingdom" the animals maintain the respect for "Territorial" inetgrity and you rarely find the "Boss" of one territory trying to enforce their "Authority" over the Other's Territory. And I think Humans are Superior than Animals and so we should always maintain that Superiority through actions.
 
Re: [anup123] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It's too easy to overlook the reason for the war and the factual evidence in favor of your personal opinion. I'm certainly not pro-war but Saddam is a clear threat that needs removing. If no action had been taken, I guarantee that in maybe five to ten years (or less) we would be in a far worse situation in a world where Saddam had completed his weapons of mass distructions program and would be in a position to launch chemical, biological or nuclear attacks wherever he pleased with the potential to kill millions of people. He would also be in a position to sell the weapons to terrorists.

However you look at it, you cannot deny that Saddam is a dangerous man - I think all UN members agree on that. He's not a normal human being and will not listen to the half hearted demands of the UN. He will only respond to military action.

You can continue to believe all these ulterior motives and propoganda your government is feeding you, but the evidence we see and read speaks for itself. The US has invested over $70 billion dollars into this war with a huge amount going towards aid, both medical and food, this has already started arriving and their are ship fulls of aid waiting to come into Um Qasr. If the US is ruled by anger as you claim, it seems quite contradictory that they would spend so much money and time into precision bombing and humanitarian aid.

I'm afraid your argument is severely flawed. I'm sure we could debate the motives and consequences all day, but until you can see things objectively or at least without such severe bias then it's probably not worth continuing.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
The point is simple. Blood for oil, Blood for money at the cost of Iraqis and other countries. The consequences of this war will spread all over the world. It will cost the U.S. a lot more in terms of money, international relationships, and its reputations for decades.
 
Re: [oilrights] A war against Iraq? In reply to
*Paul wonders if any anti-war folk can come up with anything better than oil...*
> > > >