Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

Iraq

(Page 1 of 2)
> >
Quote Reply
Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/...n=world&cat=iraq

Some of the articles on that page are scary :(

Is George Bush a bit dense?....you don't make the guy who owns weapons of mass destruction, angry.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
Hmm we have an episode of ER on this week and the story line is a myterious small pox outbreak.....hmm not good timing really.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
The same question could be asked of you. "Oh no don't make Saddam angry"..."Run-a-way!". You don't fail to act just because there is danger in doing so.

Saddam has already used 'weapons of mass destruction' against Iraqi citizens - the difference being that they couldn't defend themselves. While his officers should know that use of such weapons in combat against Allied forces would bring massive retaliation in kind, the risk that Saddam's regime brings to the region and to the world must be dealt with.

That risk is not something that will go away simply by burying our heads in the sand. Sanctions have proved to be ineffective and the UN is simply impotent.

Ideally, freedom loving Iraqis would solve the problem for themselves, but Saddam is a well studied student of Stalin and knows how to retain power with an ironclad boot (and well oiled pistol).

But opinions may vary Wink

Some good reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/...tent/?020325fa_FACT1

http://chembio.janes.com/

http://www.fas.org/...uide/iraq/index.html

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Jul 22, 2002, 9:34 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq In reply to
>>
The same question could be asked of you. "Oh no don't make Saddam angry"..."Run-a-way!". You don't fail to act just because there is danger in doing so.
<<

Hmm I don't believe I said to run away, I just said making Saddam angry is not the best solution.

Judging by your username you have a biased view anyway.

I don't know if you've ever seen the film "Tremors" with Kevin Bacon but you remind me of one of the guys in that film.....

Ooo I found a nice pic of him :)


Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq In reply to
Sanctions have not worked due to countries such as Turkey (a supposed allie) taking up billions of dollars in export business to Iraq. And now Turkey has warned the US that an invasion would be costly. I wonder which side of the bread they have buttered?
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
We're all biased, otherwise we wouldn't have opinions. Yes, I'm a college educated military veteran. Does that make me a caricature of some gun happy moron, no.

Nor do I assume that you're some young naive, bad reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain...although I wonder Tongue

Saddam's level of anger is irrelevant to the threat he poses. He's not going to pose less of a threat because he's happy.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Jul 22, 2002, 9:50 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq In reply to
>>
Does that make me a caricature of some gun happy moron
<<

Your replies do :)
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq In reply to
Who is Neville Chamberlain?


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Quote Reply
Re: [Ian] Iraq In reply to
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm

Last edited by:

Paul: Jul 22, 2002, 10:01 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
Ahhh, in there with Hitler etc.... you learn something everyday.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
The lame insult only solidifies the weakness of your argument.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
I wonder if the US has plans to invade Poland Wink



Cheers - Dan Cool

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq In reply to
>>
The lame insult only solidifies the weakness of your argument.
<<

You mean like calling me "Neville Chamberlain" lol

It was more an observation than an insult.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jul 22, 2002, 10:17 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
Let's just say that both our tongues were planted firmly in cheek (our own cheeks not each others).

My point is that peace and security are admirable goals, but that dialogue will only be one sided in any conversation with the likes of Saddam Hussein. Saddam has only one goal - the security of his dictatorship at the expense of any who stand in his way and personal enrichment.

-Scott
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq In reply to
>>I wonder if the US has plans to invade Poland<<

I'm only speaking as an Englishman watching from overseas and this is just my opinion....

It just seems complete irony to me. I started off by agreeing with what was going on but I'm changing my mind....

Essentially the Taliban and Al-Quaida are only defending what they believe in...that is how they've been brought up, that is their "faith" and what they believe in...most are brain washed and know no better....by bombing all over the place the US are acting in the same way....just because they are in the west and Afghanistan is in the east doesn't mean the west is right and the east is wrong. You didn't see Ireland bombed to smitherines as a result of the IRA's behaviour did you?

American just has a big hardon for itself.

.....is bombing Afghanistan any better than what happened on Sept 11th?....the US has a lot more power and have kicked the shit out of Afghanistan. Hijacking and more meagre forms of retaliation are the only options open to Al-Quaida due to the nature of the country and their resources...it seems awful to us in the west but flying over in fancy planes and dropping big bombs doesn't make it any more acceptable.

.....with all these bombing campaigns it just seems that the USA wants to gain more and more power, or at least wants the feeling of power which is part of the reason Osama has such hatred towards the US in the first place.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jul 22, 2002, 10:32 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
Paul,

3000 people losing thier lives is not a meager retaliation. It was a full frontal assult.



To put this in perspective Paul, the USS Arizona which was sunk in Pearl Harbor went down with 1100 men on board. The total losses from Pearl Harbor were equal to or less than the losses of 9/11. Pearl Harbor put us at war with Japan. 9/11 put us at war with terrorism.


edit: I should also add that the UK is VERY much a part of the Iraq issue and has and will continue to be a supporter of the ousting of Saddam.

A little trivia: Did you know that during the gikf war then president Bush was calling Saddam a nasty name everytime he said his name? Saddam (pronouncing it like the word SAD then um) is a derogatory term there. I laugh my rear off every time I see the old footage.

Last edited by:

Teambldr: Jul 22, 2002, 11:35 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Teambldr] Iraq In reply to
>>
3000 people losing thier lives is not a meager retaliation. It was a full frontal assult.
<<

Of course...the end result was tragic, but I was referring to the way in which they reached the end result...hijacking three planes with box cutters _is_ meager compared to a B52 dropping 1500lb bombs

Last edited by:

Paul: Jul 22, 2002, 11:47 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
and dropping an ounce of Anthrax in the ducts of a major 10,000 person mall or office building is any different?

Last edited by:

Teambldr: Jul 22, 2002, 11:48 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Teambldr] Iraq In reply to
Erm that is the point I'm making :) ....I'm saying they are both as bad as each other....the way in which the attacks are carried out may differ but the end result is the same...death.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
War is death.

But war they have and war we will give them. Without remorse for our actions.

The BIG point you are missing is that WE were prevoked, they were not. Currently you do not live with terror as we have to here in the US. Your financial district was not a target of these terrorists. But your politicians understand something that you are overlooking. You are not immune and you are a world power which makes you another target of these extremists.

I hope that England would not have to suffer the losses that we have before you understand.


edit: Have you ever had to go get your mail wearing surgical gloves and a particulate mask? There were people here that did just that. Yes it was over the norm but the point is the terror that they live with was not there before 9/11.

Paul, please take the time to read up on biological weapons of mass destruction. It makes any bomb EVER dropped look like a water balloon.

Last edited by:

Teambldr: Jul 22, 2002, 12:01 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Teambldr] Iraq In reply to
>>
The BIG point you are missing is that WE were prevoked, they were not.
<<

So you think they had no motives for doing what they did (the only way they know how) ?

You see this is part of the reason for this whole thing...USA can't see it's own faults. I'm not siding one way or the other and I'm certainly not condoning the behaviour of either "side" but in order for this to be resolved the USA have to start accepting some responsibility.

>>
Currently you do not live with terror as we have to here in the US. Yur financial district was not a target of these terrorists.
<<

Hah, that is bull....granted we can sleep a little easier at night as Osama has most of his beef with the US but do you think London isn't a target with one of the largest airports and financial districts in the UK/world, nevermind the royal family, Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and huge (important) buildings like Canary Wharf?

>>
Without remorse for our actions.
<<

That says it all.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jul 22, 2002, 12:05 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq In reply to
And Paul, I said that the UK was a potential target.



As well, the first call after being hit with a terror attack there will be to the Old Buddies (the US) to help. And we will as we always have.



Osama didn't start the fight on 9/11, his actions of blowing up our buildings and trying to take out the WTC prior were there way before 9/11. We lost men when he blew up one of our Naval vessels in port in the middle east. But we didn't strike back then. We lost people when he blew up our embassy but we didn't strike back then. We had thousands injured in the first attempt on the WTC and we didn't strike back then.



At what point do YOU think we should stop taking losses and stike back?
Quote Reply
Re: [Teambldr] Iraq In reply to
Before (some years before) September 11, 2001, bin Laden and al Qaeda did declare (Holy) war on the US when the US 'invaded' the Moslem world - especially Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. And their 911 attack does parallel the US (a-bomb) attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; an attack that melted tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. The 911 attack pales in comparison. However, I do not condone either attack and my heart-felt sympathies go out to the family and friends of all the victims. But al Qaeda is fighting a war in the similar spirit as the Americans or freedom fighters like the French Resistance during World War Two. You use whatever weapon at your disposal to disrupt and hopefully defeat the enemy. Especially against a formidable enemy as the US. Economical targets even at the expense of non-combants is a twentieth century tactic employed by most countries including the US.

But at least the US has recouped the loss of innocent US lives through their trigger happy and often inaccurate bombing of Afghanistan. Hundreds if not thousands of innocents (including some foreign troops, and UN representatives) blown to bits. That should give the US administration and military some comfort.

And I'm glad to see that Canada is witrhdrawing most of our combat troops from Afghanistan. It is not our war. It's not one we initiated, and not one that serves our national interests. Although not the reason we are withdrawing, it's good news to have our troops return. Hopefully other nations will (albeit unlikely - especially the Brits) follow suit.



Cheers - Dan Cool

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq In reply to
>>
Hopefully other nations will (albeit unlikely - especially the Brits) follow suit
<<

I think the general feeling over here is that we don't want to get involved either. However Tony Blair has a soft spot for George Bush (maybe not so soft ;) )......as shown in George Michael's latest video.

I don't see why we should get involved, like you said, it's not Canada's war and it isn't England's war either.
Quote Reply
Re: [Teambldr] Iraq In reply to
Paul, you indeed are a trouble maker Wink

So the only thing I will add here is that I think it is comon knowlege that the Antrax deaths and scares were not acts of external terrorosts, but rather it was an inside job. In other words, it was crazy americans doing that to ourselves....taking advantage of the chaos of 9/11. I am not sure if this is widely known, or some how I summized that it was crazy right wing religious zealots who were spreading the Anthrax around. Did anyone else read/hear/summize this as well?

Smile
> >