UN, US, WTF, ETC...

[DGMacphee]

I took a look at some past posts and tried to frame them in a current context, especially with the recent announcement that the US government is seeking help from the UN to maintain order in Iraq.

First, from Panda:

A final decision on whether to take action or not has not been finished, but Bush has made it clear that UN or no UN, the US will attack Iraq.

Aye, Panda's prediction happened.

And as a result the US government made a mess that's costing them x amount of soldiers and billions of dollars per month.

Now they need the UN's help.

Idiots.

From Darth Mandarb:

But the bottom line is that diplomacy failed. The U.N. failed.

And yet the US is returning (nay, sucking up) to the same organisation that has "failed".

From Karius:

Or you think Bush said to the people in Iraq "just don't blow up your oil resources" because he is thinking about the ambiental consequences it would have?

Funny how the coalition destroyed most of the hospitals and schools in Iraq, but left the oilfields.

From Evenwolf:

Pro War argument #1:

We are liberating Iraqis from an evil power. They will be happy once he's gone and they will have democracy. Assuming the majority of Iraqis wish for democracy- that sounds fine and dandy.

I especially liked how post-war the Iraqi people started looting the country.

Let's not forget the lawlessness that's causing at least one soldier a day to die from street-fire.

GO DEMOCRACY! WOO!  

Yeah, yeah, they're still continuing, but it's costing a big-ass amount of lives and cash to do it.

From Dark Stalkey:

Why has the prime minister of our country (being the UK) risked his job, his cabinet members, diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, and general political disaster to go above the UN's head and go to war with Iraq, knowing full well all the consiquences good and bad of such a major decision?

One defense expert is dead, a spin doctor resigns, an inqury is launched and Blair is up shit creek!

"Sexing-up" my bollacks! "Lying and pissfarting" more like it!

From Darth Mandrub again:

We had/have evidence people.  For the love of God open your eyes (and your minds).

And now the CIA has spoken up and disproven most of the "evidence", especially the African urianium link that Bush mentioned very promiently in his State of the Union address.

And I also refer to the "sexed-up" dosier in the UK.

And:

The UN failed. Actually, I don't really blame the UN. I blame France. I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US. The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

I mentioned before that the US government is already asking (nay, butt-kissing) the UN.

But they've also got the hide to ask the surrounding international community (including France) for help, saying they're obligated -- even though THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MESS OVER THERE NOW!

Isn't that ironic? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  

And I'm sure the French would love to help out, even after all that name-calling most of the US population did during the war.

Freedom fries -- HAHAHAH! Still makes me laugh!

From CJ:

First of all they say 'Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed' - but North Korea does have nuclear missiles, so why aren't we attacking them?

Funny, they've still got nukes and no one's attacked them yet.

For some reason, we're all still using diplomacy -- How fucked up is that?!

From Helm:

There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness, since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such. This has resulted in wars in bosnia, serbia, afghanistan and now iraq (again). And in none of those countries, has there been eshtablished anything else than an 'fake' goverment after the US. intervention. Certainly no freedom has been given to the people. Merely a switch of the power structure so it's controlled by the US.

And still are.

Funny how the Iraqi people are saying "Get out of our country" and the coalition soldiers continue to block their ears.

From Bob the Hun

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him.

And a fine job they did too.

Only one problem: They still haven't found him!

Or Saddam.

But, hey, they killed Saddam's sons so all that military intervention and taxpayer money went to some good use.

Even though they had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11, which was why the US government started the whole war in Iraq issue.

And finally, this gem from CJ, which in hindsight reads more like a soothsayer's prediction than an opinion:

Let's think for a moment what exactly this war is going to achieve.

So lets suppose that the US charges in, and does manage to kill Saddam. Then what?

The Iraqi people are brainwashed with propoganda to such an extent that they hate the West, and are hardly likely to hail the invading troops with party poppers and champagne.

Iraq is a very unstable country. Saddam has, by his stern harsh leadership, kept it all together because people are afraid of him. If he is removed, the country will most likely descend into civil war, killing many thousands of innocent people.

And finally, if this attack goes ahead, it will only be a reason for Al-Qaeda to launch more terrorist attacks against the Western world.

That proves it!

CJ is a god -- an all-seeing and all-knowing one!



Well, what a trip down memory lane -- Shit, if I was in the UN, I'd tell Bush and Co to fuck themselves sideways and clean their own goddamn mess (only I'd state it in diplomatic double-speak, so as not to offend anyone).

(P.S. Bush is still a loser -- He can't run his own country, nor a foriegn one without the UN, and even lost a fight with a pretzel!)

(Pussy!)

[Barcik]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

[DGMacphee]

To be honest, Barcik, you shouldn't.

Iraq is just as dangerous as it was before the war.

Instead of one dictator, there's now no real leadership, which just creates utter chaos and anarchy.

And I don't think the soldiers who are stuck in the country are feeling any safer, considering they're still getting shot at even after the war "ended".

Let's not forget those mythical WMDs, which haven't been found.

Iraq has the same nuclear capabilities it did before the war -- Sweet bugger all.

And now it's an even poorer country.

[Barcik]

"I" is an egoistic term. I do not feel safer for the Iraqi people, or for the American soldiers. I feel safer for myself. I know many other people who feel the same way. The main potential immediate threat to the existence of my country has been disabled.

[Pumaman]

Hehe, nice trip back in time there DG. It is funny how things turn out.

The problem now is that the coalition forces are in a catch 22. The Iraqis want them out, but if the troops leave then the country will most likely descend into civil war and anarchy. If the troops stay, they will continue to be attacked.

They're in a pickle alright, but they should have thought of that before invading in the first place.

In fact, this whole Dr Kelly suicide and the resulting enquiry has been quite a spectacle. Mr Bliar being called to give evidence about his role in the death, and also as you say all the evidence coming out about the dossier being sexed-up, would all be quite funny if it hadn't involved countless hundreds of people dying.

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

But should you? Saddam may have had the capability, but in all likelihood he'd never actually have done anything. Since the Kuwait invasion, he's seemed more of a talker than a doer.

Now, instead of Iraq's weapons (admittedly not of mass destruction) being controlled by Saddam, they are most likely being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

Does it make you feel any safer that an anonymous terrorist might now posess the weapons, rather than a regime which could have been held to account for anything it did with them?

[Darth Mandarb]

Oh boy ... here we go again!!  

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

I think it's a smart thing to get the UN involved now. Of course the rest of the world will see it as 'crawling back' ... it's typical.

It's still pathetic that France didn't help out.

Also, as I stated in another thread, I was against all the 'freedom fries' and boycott on French products ... but of course that didn't get quoted  And I believe it was 'liberty fries'

And DGM - It's Darth MANDARB ... not Mandrub  I hope that wasn't intentional.

dm

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

So what happens if one player decides to do something stupid, runs towards the opposing team with the ball but with no support, against the will of the other players, and just generally makes an ass of himself?

[Darth Mandarb]

Archangel - I'll get back to you on that a little later ... I'm enjoying some liberty fries right now  I'm just kidding.

That's a great analogy.

The only thing I can say in response is that we (the people watching in the stands) can't really do anything to stop the player from doing something 'stupid' like that.  So I guess we just sit back and watch it happen and voice our opinions in forums on the internet

cheers,
dm

[Gonzo]

In my eyes, France came out of that sorry mess of a build-up to war looking far less 'pathetic' than the US. They stuck to their guns, and they've been vindicated because they didn't contribute to creating the Iraq we're looking at now. The UN failed because the US somehow decided it was for the greater good. If it had been used as it was meant to be, nobody would be pointing the finger at France and Iraq wouldn't be in this state.  Also, IMO, we would all be a bit safer than we are now, and a lot less people would have died.

As for 'crawling back' to the UN, the UN should never have been ignored, but now the damage is done, I'm glad to see some sanity prevailing. Iraq needs to be sorted out, and the UN is probably going to have to be involved for the job to be done well.

As for Darth Mandarb's quote in DG's post:
"The UN failed. Actually, I don't really blame the UN. I blame France. I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US. The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves."

That's ridiculous...the World War comparisons that sprung up at the time of the war and are still kicking about now are totally irrelevant. It's as bad as the one about if Churchill had appeased Hitler. It's a totally different situation. You can't imply that countries have some kind of debt in blood to one another either.

[TheYak]

It all plays out how the majority of us thought it would.  I'm from the US and from the onset was disgusted by the use of Bush of September 11th to propogate a war upon Iraq.  Hey! While the American people are looking the other way, pissed off about the terrorist acts and mourning their loved ones, let's use this opportunity to take out the guy my dad failed to take out back when he sucked in office too!  

Really, if you UN-people (It's odd to consider that the US could even still be part of this organization since it thumbed its nose at the UN months ago) want to be helpful... do something about Mini-Bush for us.

[Ali]

we (the people watching in the stands) can't really do anything to stop the player from doing something 'stupid'

The football analogy parts with reality here because we SHOULD be able to, that's the essence of democracy. But as long as U.S. elections are crooked, I guess that's true.

I think by now, Blair is quite safe because, the whole issue becomes duller and moves further from the point by the day.
The Hutton Inquiry has almost fully directed the media and the public's attention away from the war itself, and towards Dr Kelly's mystery suicide and the '45-minute claim' in the September Dossier.
Watching national news, you'd think that Kelly's death was more significant than the casualties of the war, and that the inclusion of the 45-minute line was the only mistake this government made.

[Matt Brown]

thanks for bringint this back up DG...I've been doing a lot of thinking about it, and was about to make a thread about it myself.

I have a question though, thats been bugging me.
I've made a policy now, (to get me into the mindset that I need to pursue the studies and job of my choice) that im going to try not to critize anything politcal unless I can think of a better idea. When war broke out, I was hoping that this would happen, (by this, I mean go back to the UN), since the way I see it, its the only conflict can end.

if you guys were the US, what would you do now? you are all smart people, I'd like to know.

If I was the UN, I'd like to tell bush to screw himself...it would serve him right. but his choice effected millions of other people besides americans. This is now a global conflict, or at least has the potential to be one. isnt that the UN's job? to help with these?

I hope the UN helps. The USA needs some sort of accountibilty for what it did, (unless of course, it turns out that there actually was WMD...we wont know for a while.), what exactly I don't know.

Im hoping that us tradional allies can burry the hatchet, and work to solve this, as I really dont see the US being able to do it themselves.

what do you think?

[jason]

I can't wait until Bush is out of office, assassinated, dies of a drug overdose, or explodes from constipation... It's very depressing to come home, turn on the TV, and see a monkey (Bush) leading the US. I cringe everytime I see him giving a speech.

[Squinky]

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

Arguing that life would be better without bush is like saying life would be better without saddam, and thats worked out great so far...

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

Arguing that life would be better without bush is like saying life would be better without saddam, and thats worked out great so far...

Firstly, Gore might seem silly in this predicament, but you have to remember that this is a predicament OF BUSH'S MAKING, that he could so very easily have avoided.

Secondly, since when has life with Saddam been "working out great"? Not only have British and American troops been dying since the 'end' of the war, but we have produced a hundred thousand new terrorists, who in about 10 years will be wreaking havoc on the Western world.

[Squinky]

My point was really that no matter who's in charge, no matter if saddam is there or not, it's all screwed up anyway...

It was really an answer to panda, I can't think of any good solution...

[Barcik]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

But should you? Saddam may have had the capability, but in all likelihood he'd never actually have done anything. Since the Kuwait invasion, he's seemed more of a talker than a doer.

Now, instead of Iraq's weapons (admittedly not of mass destruction) being controlled by Saddam, they are most likely being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

Does it make you feel any safer that an anonymous terrorist might now posess the weapons, rather than a regime which could have been held to account for anything it did with them?

For years, the biggest budget in the IDF (which is the government body with the biggest budget) belonged to the defensive systems against the Iraqi threat from the East. The Hetz (Arrow) system, for example, was far from cheap, even with massive US help.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore. Guerilla fighters cannot command an army to send long range ballistic missiles. Terrorists, on the other hand, are something Israel handles every day in various forms, for good or for bad, and it's hard to believe that they can buy something they don't have already, or come in larger numbers than thay do now. The terrorist threat has stayed much as it was, but the shadow from the East (what a cute LotR reference  ) has been removed.


I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance. Arguably, it's most important decision was of the foundation of two independent states on the Land of Israel. The UN is to weak a power to be able to solve this problem.

[MrColossal]

You can't imply that countries have some kind of debt in blood to one another either.

that.... is a gorgeous statement

if you can say france is pathetic cause it didn't help when the US helped them in the 40's than can't we also say that the US is pathetic for training the Taliban or for putting Saddam in power or for the slaughter of native americans. If we're going to go back 50 or so years to World War 2 and dredge up things countries did, why not go all the way?

The soldiers from the Revolutionary War must be spinning in their graves.

[Ali]

Barcik, you say that you feel safer now that the treat from Iraq has been removed, and that Israel has been facing terrorist threats for a long time, and I wouldn't dispute that. But while you feel safer, shouldn't you be concerned that the Iraq war was (apparently) fueled by two key issues: the threat of terrorism and the threat of WMD?
Neither of those dangers have been removed, your statement shows that terrorism continues and WMD appear not to have been a threat from Iraqi quarters to begin with.
Perhaps you are more secure following the fall of Iraq, but isn't that something of a side effect? And isn't the fact that the US and Britain can win a war without resolving any of the issues which started it more worrying?

[Barcik]

As I said, "I" is an egoistic comment. I acknowledge the points you brough up. I fully understand that this really is just a side-effect and that it alone cannot justify the war.
Still, I think that terrorism did receive a blow with the downfall of a regime supporting it. It was far from fatal, but a serious blow nevertheless.
As for the WMDs, I still believe they are somewhere out there, for the sole reason that I do not believe Saddam didn't have them.
But I do think the US and Britain have done many mistakes, and thus caused a lot of harm - not in their decision to invade Iraq, but in the way they have done it. But it's a rather sensitive topic I rather not touch.

[makri]

I think the true results of this war start to show couple years from now when counter strikes are ready for execution. If the war had some effect on terrorism  it created a few hundred new terrorists. I wouldn't feel safe living in the US and I hope the rest of my family gets to Canada before things start to blow up. The war strengtened anti US terrorism more than Iraq ever could have done.

[Las Naranjas]

I tend to think Israel is in a more percarious position now. Saddam might have liked to rant on about Israel every so often to get a bit of public support, but there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state for 3 decades. The attacks in 1991 were a political play after all, and one that failed. Then again, '73 was more a political manouever than a serious military campaign (one which paid off at camp David) and it now appears that the posturing in '67 was bluffing which backfired badly.
Instead, the fundamentalism that was always brutally opressed under the old rejime is flourishing in the new Iraq. Ironically that which caused 911 is the main beneficiery of a war that was justified by that act.
There's much more to fear from that fundamentalism than from a dictator who rants a bit to look good domestically.
Afterall, fundamentalists do attack Israel. And now they've been handed an opportunity to thrive in the power vacuum.

[DGMacphee]

Oh boy ... here we go again!!  

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

If they did fail, then why's the US government seeking help from such "failure" now?

I think it's a smart thing to get the UN involved now. Of course the rest of the world will see it as 'crawling back' ... it's typical.

That's because it IS crawling back.

Look at how subtle and low-key Powell is being -- Now he wants on the UN's good side cause they can't handle a widdle war.

It's still pathetic that France didn't help out.

Yeah, it's pathetic they didn't help up in making a fucking mess fo Iraq.

Also, as I stated in another thread, I was against all the 'freedom fries' and boycott on French products ... but of course that didn't get quoted  And I believe it was 'liberty fries'

I never actually said it was you who made those comments -- I said most of the US, which is pretty accurate.

I know there's a lot of US AGSers who'd never jump on the whole "french to freedom" bandwagon, which is why I said "most" and not "all".

In other words, my comment was related but not directed at you.

And DGM - It's Darth MANDARB ... not Mandrub  I hope that wasn't intentional.

No, it's a typo.  

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

I doubt Gore and Co would propagate a war in Iraq to justify Sept 11.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?


EDIT: I am now scoffing!

I first thought Bush was an idiot -- now I think it's got a mental disability (called 'dickheaditis').

Read this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

The line I like is this:

The president, in a speech in Indianapolis on Friday, acknowledged that continuing military operations in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism were aggravating the federal budget deficit, which is approaching a record $500 billion.

But he said, "This nation will spend what it takes to win the war on terror and to protect the American people."

"My attitude is, anytime we put our troops in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best training and the best possible equipment," he said.

Umm, the American people don't need any more protection from Iraq, Bush, seeing as your army blew up most of the buildings, killed off several people (soldiera and civies), destroyed the power grid and ravaged the hospitals.

You're actually putting Americans as risk by keeping them in Iraq -- And paying them a high wage isn't going to help them once they get shot.

As a minor point, don't forget the $500 billion in the red (And if $500 billion in the red is a minor point, you know for sure it's a fucked up situation).

I'm becoming less cynical of mass media -- I think they just play along with dickhead leaders until several months down the track they fuck up, and the media can see the fucked-up aftermath coming even before the war begins.

Probably makes for more news stories, thus more $$$!

I'm glad I'm studying journalism -- I'm never going to be out of work as long as there's politicians.c

[taryuu]

what do you mean there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state in 3 decades?  more specifically what do you mean by credible? as in the websters definition "of sufficient capability to be militarily effective" ?  i would say that the iraqi invasion of kuwait was fairly effective.  not mention they were suddenly in possesion of roughly 9% more of the world's TOTAL oil reserves.  

and as far as bluffing in 67, where do you get bluffing?  the removal of un troops from the sinai and the subsequent blockade of israel were bluffing? and what about what followed?

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai.

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

no shit it backfired badly.  but it was substantionally more than "bluffing".  

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

oh and by the way i wouldn't feel any safer in Canada. the arrest of 21 men possibly invovled in an Al-qaeda sleeper cell, and the recent possibility of 911 anniversary hijackings originating north of the border shouldn't put anyone at ease.  

and DG i think you've lost sight of the fact that the iraqi  men,women, and children are no longer being murdered or tortured.

and if you're thinking of saying something about US bombs or US troop fire, find some evidence about the pre-meditated US torture or execution of  iraqi women and children before you come back with a snide remark.

by the way why are you against the extra pay for soldiers serving in a desert war-zone?  it's recognition that their job is tougher to do than just the reservists sitting in tampa.  

[DGMacphee]

and DG i think you've lost sight of the fact that the iraqi  men,women, and children are no longer being murdered or tortured.

But that wasn't the reason that the US went to war in the first place.

They used (exploited) those people to satify their own agenda.

And sure, those people aren't tortured or murdered anymore, but now they don't have much to return to anyway.

And don't forget the US soldiers being killed off every day by streetfire -- they have families too.

and if you're thinking of saying something about US bombs or US troop fire, find some evidence about the pre-meditated US torture or execution of  iraqi women and children before you come back with a snide remark.

I can come back with a snide remark any time I want to, thank you very much, bucko, cause I certainly don't need your permission!  

Right now, the reported civillian deaths in Iraq is between 6000-8000.

Not only that, I can provide several pictures that show a violation of UN treaties due to the US tying up POWs in the nude and practically embarrassing them.

Oh, wait -- The Iraqi soldeirs tortured American POWs too, like Jessica Lynch.

Even though a) she was injured in a vehicle accident and not Iraqi fire, like the Petagon press office reported b) She was taken to an Iraq hospital for treatment and was quoted as saying the doctors were very kind to her.

But, nooooo -- she's a hero because she survived a POW camp -- that's what Uncle Sam told me, so it MUSt be true.

by the way why are you against the extra pay for soldiers serving in a desert war-zone?  it's recognition that their job is tougher to do than just the reservists sitting in tampa.  

I'm not against it.

But I prefer to pay them less and get them out of Iraq ASAP before another one gets shot.

You can't put a price on people's lives.

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

Wait, you're probably saying, if you remove the soldiers, Iraq will fall in to anarchy.

There was a simple solution to that -- Don't invade Iraq in the first place (cause they didn't have those mysterious WMDs in the first place).

Iraq was just an excuse to make people feel better about Sept 11 and fulfill the Bush-Cheeny-Runsfeld agenda.

But it's too late now.

[Darth Mandarb]

Is there anybody in these forums who is either from Iraq (or was there during the war or now) or works in the US gvt. and was directly involved in war based decisions?

Everybody (myself included) is making assumptions about what is/has happening/happened over in Iraq (and in the US gvt.) that they have no way of knowing for sure about.

So some of us agree with what's going on and some don't.  Neither side can 100% prove their 'facts'.  It's good that we all feel so strongly in what we believe but in the end, none of knows for sure.

So I'm not going to argue this anymore.

Can't we all just get along?

Peace I'm out!
dm

[Bob The Hun]

Note to all anti-Bush fanatics:

We won the war. Get over it.

Saddam murdered over a million people. Even the Clinton administration admitted that Iraq had WMDs. Saddam, despite what some of you say, was quite simply a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of the aforementioned million people.
Now he's gone, thanks to Bush. Get over it.

Before the war, liberals in general said that this was going to be another Vietnam. We won. Months ago. Get over it.

But that wasn't the reason that the US went to war in the first place.

The reason that England declared war on Hitler wasn't because of the the millions he murdered, but I think we can all agree that it would have been good enough reason.
And to those of you who now say, "But that's not the same. Hitler attacked first!"
Remember that Churchill wanted to take all possible action to get rid of Hitler before World War 2 started, but he was ignored, as "Hitler wasn't a threat", and "Hitler isn't going to attack us." Despite all of the regulations enacted after the first world war, Hitler broke them anyway. But they still said that he wasn't going to attack anyone. Chamberlain took the route of:

There was a simple solution to that -- Don't invade Iraq in the first place

Removing Iraq and replacing it with Germany, of course.
And you know how the whole thing turned out.
And don't you tell me the two have nothing in common. You see the parallels, so I'll have none of that "nothing in common" stuff.

So,

We won the war. Get over it.

[Las Naranjas]

Taaryu - The new perception is arising because of the newly released Soviet archives in which it's revealed that as part of global geopolitics they were presurring the Arab states to look big. Their (mistaken) assumption was that neither side would actually go to war.
Part of the crushing victory was due to the fact they were not prepared for war because they were being told  that Israel would back down.
The evidence you provide shows that their bluff was a good one however, but it was fatally miscalculated as, whilst Israel did mistake mistake it for the real thing, the mindset was attack was the best defence.
No wonder Egypt expelled all the Soviets before '73.
And the Kuwait issue was irrelvevant considering I was talking about Sovereign state threat to Israel.


Above all else, history is a comedy of errors. The Franco Prussian war, the first world war and the European war from '39 to '41 were started by fuck up in bluffs as well, as well as countless others. Unless we want to debate geophysics of history which is nearly fruitless.

[taryuu]

I don't recall giving a reason for why bush went to war you added THAT on your own.  

and what was all that about "embarassing POW's"?  were you trying to compare the supposed "UN violation" of the  delousing of pows to the aforementioned UN violations of saddam hussien?  look at the big picture.

and why would paying the troops less make them come home sooner? why would US troops be pulled out sooner simply because their various hazard pays were revoked?  show me the correlation cuz i just don't get it.   bonuses for being in hazardous locations are standard for almost every job, why not for those who face some of the most dangerous working conditions imaginable?

your total of 6,000 to 8,000 is also debatable. the error in reporting both of the figures you quoted is almost as much as the TOTAL the associated press lists.

its 5 week investigation counted civilian casualities at 3240.  part of this death toll can be attributed to iraqi soldiers riding around in amublances,  storing weapons in mosques and schools, exploding ammunition piles that iraqis had stored in residences and iraqi shells aimed at US planes falling back into residential areas.  

I never said anything about lynch, nor did i say anything about the treatement of pows.  what i did say that you seemed to have overlooked was this

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

you skipped right over that and added this at the end

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

i'd rather not debate you on every point we differ on, why don't we find some things we agree on?  probably make for a more civil conversation too.  

I'll start,
that jessica lynch is so overblown, she broke her ankle falling off a truck didn't she?  and now she's getting a movie deal?  i bet they gloss right by that part in her book.


EDIT - missed las's post while i was typing.  i don't think that a combined force of 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft is a bluff.  especially when of 100,000 of those troops were eygyptians mobilized in the sinai after the expulsion of the UN.  tho i guess i can't prove it wasn't a bluff, because i wasn't in NAsser's camp,  tho if it was you're right, it was horribly miscalculated.

[DGMacphee]

We won the war. Get over it.

Despite whether you think you won the war or not, I doubt the ethicality of such a victory.

Hemmingway once said: "Never think for a minute that war, no matter how necessry or how justifiable, is not a crime."

If you think "you won the war", I question your ethics Bob -- I really do.

And I feel sorry for you.

and what was all that about "embarassing POW's"?  were you trying to compare the supposed "UN violation" of the  delousing of pows to the aforementioned UN violations of saddam hussien?  look at the big picture.

Giving water to a tied-up, unarmed POW while another soldier sticks a gun directly at his head counts as a UN violation in my book.

and why would paying the troops less make them come home sooner? why would US troops be pulled out sooner simply because their various hazard pays were revoked?  show me the correlation cuz i just don't get it.   bonuses for being in hazardous locations are standard for almost every job, why not for those who face some of the most dangerous working conditions imaginable?

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

your total of 6,000 to 8,000 is also debatable. the error in reporting both of the figures you quoted is almost as much as the TOTAL the associated press lists.

I said the figure is between those two values -- no one can get an accurate reading.

its 5 week investigation counted civilian casualities at 3240.  part of this death toll can be attributed to iraqi soldiers riding around in amublances,  storing weapons in mosques and schools, exploding ammunition piles that iraqis had stored in residences and iraqi shells aimed at US planes falling back into residential areas.  

This seems highly inaccurate to the numerous body counts I've read.

I never said anything about lynch, nor did i say anything about the treatement of pows.  what i did say that you seemed to have overlooked was this

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

you skipped right over that and added this at the end

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

[makri]

We won the war. Get over it.

And the US has never been so unsafe place to be. What a great victory.

Probably when couple years from now things start to blow up on US soil people are shocked and puzzled what harm their country has ever done to anyone.

[Barcik]

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?

I'd like to know that too. The most likely answer is that they want to get rid of the shit they have on their hands and leave all the fun of clearing it to the UN. But there is no way the UN can actually do it, even if they agree.

I tend to think Israel is in a more percarious position now. Saddam might have liked to rant on about Israel every so often to get a bit of public support, but there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state for 3 decades. The attacks in 1991 were a political play after all, and one that failed. Then again, '73 was more a political manouever than a serious military campaign (one which paid off at camp David) and it now appears that the posturing in '67 was bluffing which backfired badly.
Instead, the fundamentalism that was always brutally opressed under the old rejime is flourishing in the new Iraq. Ironically that which caused 911 is the main beneficiery of a war that was justified by that act.
There's much more to fear from that fundamentalism than from a dictator who rants a bit to look good domestically.
Afterall, fundamentalists do attack Israel. And now they've been handed an opportunity to thrive in the power vacuum.

As far as I've noticed, the fundamentalists have not taken charge of the country just yet.

[Hobbes]

DG, I agree with you. Almost completely, that is.

UN involvement is a must. I can see where you're coming from, saying that the coalition should clean up its own mess. Agreed, they f-ed up big time.

However, try telling that to the many refugees who have escaped Iraq over the years and are still in doubt about relatives being alive. Try telling that to the civilians who live in Iraq and had a job, a life, and now find it all in ruins.

If the UN can do anything for those poor souls, then I say: Do it.

[Butcher]

Nice to see people still commenting the war. We shouldn't forget these crimes that the coalition performed in front of our very own eyes. Especially now that they're crawling back for help. Especially now that all their reasons are proven total crap.

DG thanks for bringing the subject back.

Bob congrats for winning your war. I seriously doubt that most American people in this board would agree with you on that victory. I can't ever possibly understand your way of thinking so I'm not even going to try and debate.

[Matt Brown]

havent more american soldeirs died after "combat" was over then when it was going on??

sounds a bit like a crappy victory then.

When Iraq elects their own leader, and when our troops (and everybody elses) leave, then, I think we can safely say, we won. until that happens, a conflict is still going on.

[DGMacphee]

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't see what a great threat Iraq was to Israel.

Israel had way more firepower than Iraq.

Once again, the absence of WMDs makes me think that Iraq was just a puppy compared to the pitbull the US spin doctors made it out to be.

Yeah, yeah, Saddam was a maniac, etc, etc -- but he was a maniac in charge of a very resource-poor country.



Panda:
Aye, I heard the same thing.

[Barcik]

And yet, the budget the Ministry of Defense allocated to the Iraqi threat was second only to the one within our borders. In fact, the whole money flaw of the army is about to go through an overhawl because of the fall of Saddam.

Although there were no real signs to imply on a sudden massive attack, Israel is not a state that can take such risks. Syria has, as a state done nothing bad recently, and yet they still pose a potent and serious threat.

Do the attempts of Iran to acquite nuclear power necesserily mean that they will launch a rocket on Tel-Aviv the first change they get? Most likely not, but they are another enemy state which cannot be ignored.

With a lack of a peace treaty (not that I trust those) with many of the countries that surround us, they are all enemies and potential threats. The fall of one of them makes me feel safer.

[|Alky|]

Now they need the UN's help.
Nope. They want it. They 'needed',apparently, the UN's help to take over in the first place ...or not. The UN support will give legitimacy to the new government. They asked France and Russia, who said they would now help keep order, but they need a resolution, to make it seem like they haven't changed their mind and decided that this isn't the sequel to Vietnam.


Anyhow, the UN is the biggest P-O-S ever. Why?
Because it doesn't work. It's like a bottle of mineral water that's empty, and has a message inside saying 'just ad water'. It consists of nothing, and this sadly suits the fat ass nations. We have some great and mighty organization that's based around a couple of pieces of paper. This great idea of 'international cooperation' is really not that new - groups of Amerindians in North America, the Greek Nation-States and the Polynesian Islanders all banded together to fight under one flag, but spent much more of the time squabbling among each other.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but it's just not working. It might work if people were to give the UN some real power to regulate human rights laws, trading between nations (A multinational embargo is the only one which works, if any) and disband the security council. Also, the idea of having countries represented is pointless if the people aren't represented. The whole thing is basically wrecked anyhow, and while I could explain how, that's irrelivant.

Anyhow, as regards to the Iraq war, I'm kinda in favor of it. The reasons aren't necessarily Mister Dubya's though.
1) Iraq's Government - Iraq's government was not only tyranical, it was disfunctional. Control was kept by fear and brainwashing and a mafia-style organization. Saddam Hussein was only part of it - the way that the Ba'ath mafia worked meant that Iraq would never be prosporous, partially because of the corruption and terror, and partially because it was seen as 'criminal', by, well, pretty much everyone. Of course, countries were still doing business with it, but then again politicians take kickbacks.
2) Iraq's motivation - I didn't really see any, except that of the first word of their council's name - 'Revolutionary.' What were they doing? Trying to make a stable government for their people? Oh please. To keep up the godfather-government analogy, people who stay loyal to the government will be rewarded. Places like Tikrit got new hospitals and such, but many of the other improvements were self serving- the palaces, the TV stations, the schools, the Universities... everything.
3) The Middle Eastern situation. - Currently, you have Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as its main neighbours.
In the 'sit on our ass' scenario favoured by you guys, Saddam Hussein would have died(or become a giant robot). The Shi'ite folks would have loved to peace out with their Iranian buddies, and in their spare time not spent getting nukes from Pakistan, they would have beat the crap out of the Sunni minority, and quite possibly moved on Saudi Arabia, and even Palastine. And while the Shi'ites may still recieve orders from Tehran, they won't be able to waste the Kurds and Sunnis with a US supported constitution in place. This way, people will be able to live in harmony (corny but true), with a secular state that allows religion, and quite probably become even richer than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, due to the fact that American companies will invest in the country (Did it hurt West Germany??) and there will be no royal family to take it.

I'm not going to say much about WMD, since it doesn't apply much to my reasons for supporting the Iraq war. I think that  they could have been removed due to the works of diplomats, but at about 1/4 of the speed they could be made. And please don't tell me that Saddam just destroyed the WMDs. He sold, them as CJ said, to the highest bidder, but has been doing so for years. (As Russia does, but whatchagonnado) That's another reason to take out the Iraqi mafia, right?

Funny how the coalition destroyed most of the hospitals and schools in Iraq, but left the oilfields.

Funny? Try Irrelevant. The coalition did not destroy most of the hospitals and schools. Some were destroyed, but I should think the Iraqi ammunition stacked next to them would have had something to do with it. I'm not going to say that no public services were hit, but likewise its foolish to say all or lots were. And in Kuwait, your buddy Saddam wasted not only the oilfields, schools and hospitals, but he went around personally smashing up cars with baseball bats. Okay, he didn't, but cars were smashed up. Likewise, the USATCO wasn't directly responsible for all of the decay of all of the schools.

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

You're totally right. And maybe, as Archy said, we wouldn't have a problem, but then again we might have an undefeated Afghanistan, no Israel, or any number of possible scenarios. And remember, folks, that a lot of major democrats supported the war, as did the British conservative party. They raise questions now, but if they were put in control, they would have to answer a whole new set of them.

And now it's an even poorer country.

Hmm. The USA wasn't exactly doing brilliant economy wise in 1777.

we have produced a hundred thousand new terrorists, who in about 10 years will be wreaking havoc on the Western world.

The rioters in the streets of Bagdad are no more likely to become terrorists than the average tax-hating American is to open fire on the IRS lackeys. In fact, if you gave the crowds at an average Inter-European soccer game the kind of armaments civilians were allowed to stockpile in Saddam Hussein's reign, you'd get a similar bodycount to this whole war, I'd bet.

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

I believe that's what happened in Afghanistan... Now, Heroin dealers are out in force, Karzai carries a sidearm, and the 3 different forces in there have to flip a coin in order to decide what to do.

Sexing-up" my bollacks! "Lying and pissfarting" more like it!

I saw posters, shouting out thousands of reasons that the masses are meant to digest without thought. I met talented spin doctors who used surgical precision. I saw people on TV shows, making fun of the opposition. All of those bore the little green anti-war sign. People appealed to vegitarian, liberal non-intellectuals, just as the Republicans used 'If you didn't like terrorists, you'll HATE these guys' tactics. Both of them are pretty despicable. But is it the politicians fault that people are stupid? Nope.

[Andail]

I'm not gonna gett involved too much in these discussions again, just gonna give my two cents

1. Good post, DG
2. USA failed; there is no safety in Iraq now, no democracy, no bloody nothing, just a big vast desert of misery and abuse...they're doing the right thing to ask UN for help, if it's not too late
3. France shouldn't have to take all this shit just for having the opinion that there existed other alternatives for the war...I'm with you, France

that's just my opinion, but I have this little hunch that I will somehow get involved in this thread later, and that I'm gonna get pissed of....so I guess I'll just have to look away and pretend this thread didn't exist...it's not worth it

Thanks DG, Butcher and Naranjas and all those who try to clarify things...don't think it will help, though

[Darth Mandarb]

I agree with Rebel, and Bob, and Barcik.  Just as Andail agrees with DG, Butcher and Naranjas.

Neither side is right or wrong.  (Though each side feels strongly that they are right)

Andail said, "Thanks DG, Butcher and Naranjas and all those who try to clarify things...don't think it will help, though."  Which is a good statement because he agrees with them.

I could say, "Thanks Bob, Rebel, and Barcik" for the same thing.  It's all perspective depending on which side you take.

I don't see a resolution to this debate.

I'm not going to argue my views in this thread (Lord knows I did enough of that in the famous War Unleashed thread) ... I'm just going to enjoy reading everybody's rants!

cheers,
dm

[DGMacphee]

Now they need the UN's help.
Nope. They want it.

They may say they "want" it, but in reality they need it.

The US budget can't handle the aftermath.

Anyhow, the UN is the biggest P-O-S ever. Why?
Because it doesn't work. It's like a bottle of mineral water that's empty, and has a message inside saying 'just ad water'.

And to quote Jack Nicholson, "People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch!"

Also, the idea of having countries represented is pointless if the people aren't represented.

I don't need to say how redundant this comment is -- UN Ambassadors also represent the people.

That's the whole point of having an Ambassador.

I'm not going to say much about WMD, since it doesn't apply much to my reasons for supporting the Iraq war.

And oddly that was the main reason the US went to war.

The coalition did not destroy most of the hospitals and schools. Some were destroyed, but I should think the Iraqi ammunition stacked next to them would have had something to do with it. I'm not going to say that no public services were hit, but likewise its foolish to say all or lots were.

But lots were -- and you're making empty excuses now.

And in Kuwait, your buddy Saddam wasted not only the oilfields, schools and hospitals, but he went around personally smashing up cars with baseball bats. Okay, he didn't, but cars were smashed up. Likewise, the USATCO wasn't directly responsible for all of the decay of all of the schools.

Firstly, don't call him my buddy -- I don't support him and I hold him in the same regard as I hold that deadbeat Bush.

Secondly, are you trying to say that what ever Saddam does is okay for the US military to do, even if not to the same extremity.

I think you're trying to water down the US military's role by comparing them to Saddam.

I'm not comparing them to Saddam at all -- why shoudl I?

I'm saying this -- If you're a gobal superpower (like the US is), then you should set a responsible agenda for keeping control.

And the US's role in the Iraq war was grossly irresponsible in many respects.

And now it's an even poorer country.

Hmm. The USA wasn't exactly doing brilliant economy wise in 1777.

The US isn't doing brilliant economy wise right now either -- so what's your point?

The rioters in the streets of Bagdad are no more likely to become terrorists than the average tax-hating American is to open fire on the IRS lackeys.

I think the loyalists would beg to differ.

I believe that's what happened in Afghanistan... Now, Heroin dealers are out in force, Karzai carries a sidearm, and the 3 different forces in there have to flip a coin in order to decide what to do.

Congrats! Now you've come to the same conclusion I came to before the war -- There's no solution to this problem.

I saw posters, shouting out thousands of reasons that the masses are meant to digest without thought. I met talented spin doctors who used surgical precision. I saw people on TV shows, making fun of the opposition. All of those bore the little green anti-war sign. People appealed to vegitarian, liberal non-intellectuals, just as the Republicans used 'If you didn't like terrorists, you'll HATE these guys' tactics. Both of them are pretty despicable. But is it the politicians fault that people are stupid? Nope.

And my point is that no one should prey upon stupid people.

Especially political figures.

I don't see a resolution to this debate.

Aye.

[taryuu]

Giving water to a tied-up, unarmed POW while another soldier sticks a gun directly at his head counts as a UN violation in my book.

When soldiers have prisoners under their supervision they may appear to treat the POW's rougher than is completely neccesary.  The soldiers have no idea tho whether or not  in the next 5 seconds the POWs will attack and kill the guards  to gain freedom.  Volumes of information can be passed from prisoner to prisoner simply by using facial signals, hand movements, or even  solitary movements of the eye.  Guns are used as a detterent to prisoner insurrection. knowing that there's a gun pointed at your head puts the kibosh on many ideas of escape.  A pow is just that, a PRISONER.  they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.  

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said

But I prefer to pay them less

You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra  pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

This seems highly inaccurate to the numerous body counts I've read.

Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue.  notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2  numbers is fairly substantial.  what does that tell you?

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.
The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

[Las Naranjas]

No-one's made anything of them. Even the current administration knows they can't construe them as WMD. They're outdated technology and far from an example of what was being described as Iraq's arsenal although perhaps a technical violation of the sanctions.

I suppose they could launch an attack within 40 days rather than minutes, provided they had a sudden influx of tools to repair them and them and the world decided to look the other way for a month or two.
But one would have to be very optimistic to consider it something that would provide you with a tool to provide a security risk to a neighbour, let alone a country an ocean and a continent away.

[Darth Mandarb]

I should think 30 fighter jets (even in disrepair) could pose a pretty substantial threat to a neighboring country.  They could pose a bigger threat than say ... I don't know ... 3 commercial airliners??

hmmm ....

dm

edit - dammit!!  I argued

[Barcik]

2. USA failed; there is no safety in Iraq now, no democracy, no bloody nothing, just a big vast desert of misery and abuse...they're doing the right thing to ask UN for help, if it's not too late

I'd like to point out that comment. Surprisingly to some of you, I agree. I don't think the failure is a absolute as Andail makes it seem (I do feel safer), but it's still a total mess.
However, I am pretty sure me and Andail will disagree on the reasons the war failed - while he will say that the the whole war was started without proper causes, I will say the war was right, but the US handled things badly (and it still does).
But that's life...

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

[Nacho]

This is a fucking aritmetric problem...

Barcik, Rebel, Bob and Darth think that:

Total number of dead people with war<Total number of dead people without war.

Andail, DG, Butcher and  LasNaranjas think that:

Total number of dead people with war>Total number of dead people without war.

I really agree with Barcik, Rebel, Bob... Let´s remember that Saddam had a family behind him, a son ready to rule the country after his dead. Not only that... there was a whole average size town (Tikrit) with family ties with Saddam, a whole town with people ready to rule the country with iron fist after Saddam.

So, let´s suposse:

How many lives will the war cost?... how, 50,000 deaths (Let´s exagerate, no problem...)

It was proved that in Saddam´s prisons more than 5,000 people died every year. So, in 10 years, 50,000 lives. At year 2014 the war will start "saving lives".

Would Saddam´s regime last more than 10 years? Of course, let´s face it... It was a regime with enough power to least at least during the next 50 years (That Qusay and his brother were quite young...)

All the rest... WMD´s, Al Quaeda... That is not so important. The war is saving lives, in my opinion.

So... I won´t reply any statements about anything else which is not related with my aritmetric formule. I can´t try to convince people that war is "good" in some way. But I really believe that.

Spain was under a fascist regime during 40 years... I would liked that in 1960 EUA came to finish with that Franco.

[taryuu]

Even the current administration knows they can't construe them as WMD.

Well duh, i never said they were WMD.  point is that they were buried in the sand.  you got a hella lot of desert in iraq to hide other shit in.  don't forget that Iraq  had hid SCUD missiles, chemical weapons and biological warheads by burying them in the desert. the UN only found them after detailed information of the exact locations was obtained.

They're outdated technology and far from an example of what was being described as Iraq's arsenal

You must not be familiar with fighter aircraft. MiG-25 Foxbats are the fastest fighter aircracft in the world today, some models reaching speeds of over mach 3.  it is comparable to the F-14 Tomcat, and  F-15 Eagle.  two planes both currently flying for the US.
The first air-to-air kill of the Gulf War is believed to be a US F/A-18C Hornet shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 on January  17, 1991.

the Mig 29 reaches a top speed of 2.3.  and one of the Mig 25's found is of a model never before seen in the west, outfitted with illegal french and russian electronics.

although perhaps a technical violation of the sanctions.

Perhaps? here's the original sanction http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/15
and here's the other
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

so let's review.

30 fighters (10 % of the estimated prewar fleet of 300) were found buried in the desert under 10 feet of sand.  

What else is 10 feet under the desert in a nation the size of california?

i'll tell you. 2000 corpses.  

Al-Janabi said that he and three other officers were assigned to Abu Ghraib prison on March 20. According to his testimony, President Saddam Hussein's son Qusay toured the prison on April 26 and issued an order for the execution of an estimated 2,000 inmates held in one section. "At six the following morning, the executions began. By nine that evening, 2,000 Iraqis had been executed. Most of them were from the South, accused of joining parties and taking part in [opposition] activities some were hanged, while others were shot. Each victim was shot once in the head." Al-Janabi said many of the bodies were then buried in the nearby al-Karkh cemetery

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm#3

and talk about the US violating poor iraqi prisoners rights.  this is a country where the death penalty was MANDATORY for

the Smuggling of cars, trucks, and certain construction machinery outside Iraq or to a hostile party (Decree 95 of July 27, 1994)

Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis to live now that Saddam is gone.  the UN should help in order to reconstruct it properly.

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away.  it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem.  not an american or british problem, but a world problem.  which needs a solution from the whole world.  hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

[DGMacphee]

A pow is just that, a PRISONER.  they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.  

A POW is a human being that deserves dignity as much as you or I.

And I doubt they can get very far with hands tied behind their backs.

A gun pointed at their heads while feeding water is unnecessary.

I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said

But I prefer to pay them less

You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra  pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

First, use my full quote, dickhead -- I hate people who only partially use my quotes and thus take my comment out of context.

Second, I do not wish to risk any person in a hazard area -- Therefore, I see hazard pay as more of a harm than a good.

Besides, when more soldiers are killed after the war than during the war, I'd say the morale is pretty much fucked anyway.

No extra amount of dollars is going to bring them back to life.

Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue.  notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2  numbers is fairly substantial.  what does that tell you?

There's no error.

It's a range, and it's verified.

It tells me you're poncing around with this mythical "two figures" argument.

However, if you want a more accurate reading than my range, go to Iraq and find out for yourself!

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

Not to mention most of the UN reps were against going to war in the first place due to flimsy of evidence.

And, in recent months, reports show the evidence is now even flimsier!

Quote:
But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away. it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem. not an american or british problem, but a world problem. which needs a solution from the whole world. hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

Fisrt of all, you've already use my above quote in your previous reply -- you don't have to do it twice.

Secondly, it is not a world problem at all -- statistically, most of the people around they world were against the war -- Thus, it's a US government problem (more so the defense department), especially since Iraq has been high on Rumsfeld's list of countries on his axis of evil years before Bush came to power (even before Bush Sr too).

It's more Rumsfeld's problem.

Thirdly, there is no solution -- that's idealistic nonsense, cause the situation is fucked beyond belief.

The US government can't even provide decent aid for most of its own country so how does it expect to provide aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

And fourthly, never ever accuse me of turning my back on Iraq, you fuck --notice I was the one who brought the whole topic of the war back up and I don't see you wanting to face facts.

No, it seems like you want to justify a war with spin and bullshit, and then forget about it, like how most people forgot about Panama (which, as I have said, is practially the same situation as Iraq -- just substitute drugs for WMDs and Noriega for Saddam).

The US government comprimised the truth so many times in the lead up to the war and that is a fact on so many accounts -- you've probably read about them in the last month?

But don't ever accuse me of turning my back on a far-off country -- I have worked a lot with humanitarian groups, pledged financial support for third-world countries, and shown my support against many injustices.

Yes, I hate Saddam and all he has done -- But, my respect of the truth stands high above anything else, even above my hate for a dictator, and as sanctimonious as it may sound it is far greater than trying to justify a war.

So, next time you want to accuse me of turning my back on a country that's been turned into a crater, you'd better wear some thick, steal underpants or else find my steel-capped boot up your arse, kiddo!


As for Barcik:

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

[Darth Mandarb]

** DM throws his hat into the ring

There are people in this world who do 'bad' or 'evil' things.  Those people NEED to be stopped.

Asking/Telling them to stop isn't going to do it.

The frickin' wussy world at large is far too PC minded and pacifistic.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

They wouldn't just blow up a hospital unless they were being attacked from within it.

And, in my opinion, if the 'hospital' is empty of people and is full of weapons (as most of them were), it ceases to be a hospital and becomes a weapons depot.

This whole problem would never have happened if the UN had done what it should have in the first place and supported this endeavor.  So, is the U.S. crawling back?  No, they're graciously allowing the UN to do it's job.  The UN should be humbly bowing and scraping their way into Iraq.

dm

[Barcik]

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

The problem with the UN, however nice the idea is, is that it will always be torn by the conflict of interests between the main powers, thus making it a pretty useless organization with only symbolic meaning. It is useless to rely on the UN, as an organization. The US isn't crawling back to the UN, but to France, Germany and Russia.
Furthermore, UN forces, especially under an UN flag cannot help. They will be static, too scared to leave because of the fear of civil war, and too actually wussy and anti-American in policy to take action. The situation will stay much as it is today, and it will be strecthed over a very long period.

[taryuu]

A pow is just that, a PRISONER. they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.

A POW is a human being that deserves dignity as much as you or I.

And I doubt they can get very far with hands tied behind their backs.

A gun pointed at their heads while feeding water is unnecessary.

Quote:
I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said
Quote:
But I prefer to pay them less
You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

First, use my full quote, dickhead -- I hate people who only partially use my quotes and thus take my comment out of context.

Second, I do not wish to risk any person in a hazard area -- Therefore, I see hazard pay as more of a harm than a good.

Besides, when more soldiers are killed after the war than during the war, I'd say the morale is pretty much fucked anyway.

No extra amount of dollars is going to bring them back to life.

Quote:
Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue. notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2 numbers is fairly substantial. what does that tell you?

There's no error.

It's a range, and it's verified.

It tells me you're poncing around with this mythical "two figures" argument.

However, if you want a more accurate reading than my range, go to Iraq and find out for yourself!

Quote:
Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?
Quote:
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go. They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

Not to mention most of the UN reps were against going to war in the first place due to flimsy of evidence.

And, in recent months, reports show the evidence is now even flimsier!

Quote:
Quote:
But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

Quote:
DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away. it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem. not an american or british problem, but a world problem. which needs a solution from the whole world. hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

Fisrt of all, you've already use my above quote in your previous reply -- you don't have to do it twice.

Secondly, it is not a world problem at all -- statistically, most of the people around they world were against the war -- Thus, it's a US government problem (more so the defense department), especially since Iraq has been high on Rumsfeld's list of countries on his axis of evil years before Bush came to power (even before Bush Sr too).

It's more Rumsfeld's problem.

Thirdly, there is no solution -- that's idealistic nonsense, cause the situation is fucked beyond belief.

The US government can't even provide decent aid for most of its own country so how does it expect to provide aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

And fourthly, never ever accuse me of turning my back on Iraq, you fuck --notice I was the one who brought the whole topic of the war back up and I don't see you wanting to face facts.

No, it seems like you want to justify a war with spin and bullshit, and then forget about it, like how most people forgot about Panama (which, as I have said, is practially the same situation as Iraq -- just substitute drugs for WMDs and Noriega for Saddam).

The US government comprimised the truth so many times in the lead up to the war and that is a fact on so many accounts -- you've probably read about them in the last month?

But don't ever accuse me of turning my back on a far-off country -- I have worked a lot with humanitarian groups, pledged financial support for third-world countries, and shown my support against many injustices.

Yes, I hate Saddam and all he has done -- But, my respect of the truth stands high above anything else, even above my hate for a dictator, and as sanctimonious as it may sound it is far greater than trying to justify a war.

So, next time you want to accuse me of turning my back on a country that's been turned into a crater, you'd better wear some thick, steal underpants or else find my steel-capped boot up your arse, kiddo!


As for Barcik:
Quote:
And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

that better? hopefully now you'll avoid calling me a dickhead.  tho it's ok, when confronted with childish behaviour i'll come back at you with teh same childish remarks.
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

pow's should be treated with dignity, but to the point consummate with the safety of the troops holding them.  talk about actual mistreatment of POW's not questinoable concerns about teh dignity of the situation.

the range is verified??  explain to me how 2000 people may or may not have been killed.  the nice thing about being dead is that once you're dead you're dead.  
you can't die again, and you can't live again.  if iyou die and i shoot you in the face you don't get more dead.

so are those 2,000 people dead or not?  are theirdeaths verified or not? if they are verified than you have 8,000 people dead.  if they're not, than you can only say you have 6,000 people dead.
your statistics has a "range" of error of 2,000 people.  the AP has a total sum of 3240 dead.  do the math. which figure seems faulty?

hazard pay does more harm than good?  what the hell? i dont' even think i can argue this with you anymore, you've crossed over on to the side of illogical.  should the remaining UN workers in iraq lose their hazard pay as well as the US troops?  will that bring everyone home quicker?

the UN's mandate is to maintain peace.  it will need to go into iraq to fufill its mandate.

and when you say something like "there's no solution" and "let them clean it up on their own", that  couldn't be a clearer example of turning your back on the situation.  is english your first language?  or were you just unaware of what that words would actaully mean when combined into a sentence?  It's called reading. Top to bottom, left to right, group words together as a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches...Midol for any cramps.

a civilian who takes up a weapon is no longer a civilian, a hospital full of weapons and ammunition is no longer a hospital, just the same as a plane crashing into the side of a building is no longer a plane, it's a weapon.  

and fuck you in the ear twice for making this argument personal. why these attacks on me? no reason to threaten me with violence just  because i'm making some valid points that your argument  can't deal with.

speaking of points you can't deal with, i notice you didn't say anything about the possibility of WMD lying under 10 feet of sand in iraq.  want a refresher course??

iraqs have the capability to bury tons of large objects under the sand.  

ex 30 FIGHTER JETS

they haven buried WMD in the past

ex Chemical and  biological weapons found by UN inspectors in the 90s

isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw that there might be more things buried in the sand in a nation the size of california?

[DGMacphee]

that better? hopefully now you'll avoid calling me a dickhead. tho it's ok, when confronted with childish behaviour i'll come back at you with teh same childish remarks.
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

I know you are but what am I?  

pow's should be treated with dignity, but to the point consummate with the safety of the troops holding them. talk about actual mistreatment of POW's not questinoable concerns about teh dignity of the situation.

Once again, you're trying to justify cruelty.

the range is verified?? explain to me how 2000 people may or may not have been killed. the nice thing about being dead is that once you're dead you're dead.
you can't die again, and you can't live again. if iyou die and i shoot you in the face you don't get more dead.

so are those 2,000 people dead or not? are theirdeaths verified or not? if they are verified than you have 8,000 people dead. if they're not, than you can only say you have 6,000 people dead.
your statistics has a "range" of error of 2,000 people. the AP has a total sum of 3240 dead. do the math. which figure seems faulty?

Because the majority of sources I've read commonly quote a figure between 6000 and 8000 -- but hey, I'm sure your AP figure is exactly the number of civilians that have died, but I question your reasoning when you only take one figure and accept it blindly without taking into account various other sources.

hazard pay does more harm than good? what the hell? i dont' even think i can argue this with you anymore, you've crossed over on to the side of illogical. should the remaining UN workers in iraq lose their hazard pay as well as the US troops? will that bring everyone home quicker?

They're better off unemployed than dead.

the UN's mandate is to maintain peace. it will need to go into iraq to fufill its mandate.

It wouldn't have to if the US hadn't entered into a non-UN approved war.

and when you say something like "there's no solution" and "let them clean it up on their own", that couldn't be a clearer example of turning your back on the situation. is english your first language? or were you just unaware of what that words would actaully mean when combined into a sentence? It's called reading. Top to bottom, left to right, group words together as a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches...Midol for any cramps.

And you take a laxitive cause you're talking shit now.

I support the people of Iraq and their decisions -- but they've been fucked over so many times (by the US governement and their own leaders) that it's hard to see a solution anymore.

And as for the US Government cleaning it up on their own, yes, they should -- That's still not turning my back upon Iraq, it's turning my back upon the US Government.

a civilian who takes up a weapon is no longer a civilian, a hospital full of weapons and ammunition is no longer a hospital, just the same as a plane crashing into the side of a building is no longer a plane, it's a weapon.

I disagree -- your arguement is a very utilitarian one, and is far from an ethical argument.

and fuck you in the ear twice for making this argument personal. why these attacks on me? no reason to threaten me with violence just because i'm making some valid points that your argument can't deal with.

Your last comment was personal -- how dare you automatically asusme I'm turning my back on something when you know fuck all about me?

As for your "valid" points, I fail to see the ethical side of your "validity".

speaking of points you can't deal with, i notice you didn't say anything about the possibility of WMD lying under 10 feet of sand in iraq. want a refresher course??

iraqs have the capability to bury tons of large objects under the sand.

ex 30 FIGHTER JETS

they haven buried WMD in the past

ex Chemical and biological weapons found by UN inspectors in the 90s

isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw that there might be more things buried in the sand in a nation the size of california?

So, I skipped over some your shamblalic argument.

Anyway, if you want to prove it to me, go grab a fucking shovel and dig em out yourself.

The current weapons inspectors seem to be having trouble finding them, so maybe you can tell them where they are, smartarse?


In conclusion, believe what you like, taryuu, and don't believe me -- I don't care whether you take my points seriously or not, cause quite frankly I'm just some other blank face across the other side of the world.

Justify all you like, say I'm turning my back, argue the shit out of my points till your lungs turn blue -- I don't care, cause you tried to challenge my points of view and I tried to give you the best answers I could.

But quite frankly, they're just my opinions, based upon what I've read (and after studying journalism, you read a lot on current events) -- I'm not from Iraq, and neither are you -- I'm not trying to discredit your point of view, only trying desperately to give you the answers you expect, but that simply don't exist (yet).

How the fuck I'm I supposed to know whether the WMDs are buried beneath the Iraqi soil?

I'm just a student from Australia.

So, in conclusion, what do you gain by trying to prove a student from Australia wrong on a shitty debate in an adventure game forum?

To me, it sounds like a waste of time, but that's just my retarded point of view -- I'm sure this will be something you can tell your grandkids about.

Well, here you go, son: You win the argument.

Now, I'll just get back to writing my opinion in peace.

[taryuu]

zing

[SSH]

So, in conclusion, what do you gain by trying to prove a student from Australia wrong on a shitty debate in an adventure game forum?

To me, it sounds like a waste of time, but that's just my retarded point of view -- I'm sure this will be something you can tell your grandkids about.

Well, you did start the debate, DG, I don't think you can complain when people differ from your point of view. Also, given the number of lives and deaths involved, its fair enough for people to get angry about it all, too.

On the other hand, I tend to agree with you on the points of Iraq. The US have said that terrorists have tasted US justice. The trouble is that violence begets violence and that all that has happened is that the US finds itself in a very difficult situation (albeit greatly of their own making) and hatred against the USA has increased. Since the "war on terror" started there has been MORE terrorist attacks on western targets around the world. This is a fact (they said so on BBC Radio 4 this morning, so it must be true   ). Now some of these are unrelated to Al-Quaeda, but the USA is naive if it thinks that killing one guy who hates them, or 20, or 1000, or 10000 will stop anyone else from hating them.

After all, look what happened to Tulsa Doom.

[DGMacphee]

Well, you did start the debate, DG, I don't think you can complain when people differ from your point of view. Also, given the number of lives and deaths involved, its fair enough for people to get angry about it all, too.

I didn't start any debate.

I started this post to bring back certain things people said before the war with the purpose of comparing them to what's happening now -- no real want of debate at all.

I don't like participating in debates cause I usually spend too much time writing endless garbage that won't really make a difference -- I'm never going to convince my opposition, as much as he isn't going to convince me of anything.

So, when a debate comes up, and I feel heated about it, I try to end it.

I do not have the time nor energy to try and win arguments all the time.

And I'm especially tired of replying to taryuu (or whoever it is) just because he doesn't like a particular aspect of my post -- to be honest, it's a pain in the arse.

I'd rather not start any thread that tries to bring some intelligent discussion to the forum.

So, to resolve the issue, he wins, and I don't care.

[SSH]

I'd rather not start any thread that tries to bring some intelligent discussion to the forum.

I dunno, you don't want forum games, you don't want intelligent discussion, you don't want people who haven't finished a game demanding respect.... what do you want?

[Andail]

I think there's a difference between "intelligent" discussions and the bickering that has taken place here as of late, though...it's rather impossible to handle a debate concering a topic this hot, when either of the sides is obviously biased.

When it comes to the debate itself, all this thread has done is making me more sure on whom I respect and whom I have some difficulties respecting, seriously.

I do believe we could lock the thread, though, as freaking usual

[YOke]

Just a little comment on that whole "hid the weapons in the sand" claim. Recently scientists used a satelite to find water several hundred meters under Sahara. Military technology has a way of being better than "public" technology at any time, something the military not only agrees with but even brags about. Point is; I think they could find them if they really wanted to/were there.

Now over to another point.

Is freedom given to a people going to last?
Many countries have had their share of dictators before. Let's just define the word dictator before we go on: A dictator is ONE person that rules a country with absolute authority. Just like the kings of Europe that we are so proud of. If he is a tyrant or a saint really only relies on luck.
Maybe we should just rely on evolution and the people of the countries in the world that have shit leaders. To get all pretentious: Victory given is an empty victory.
Freedom needs to be deserved.
Of course you can always dig up people who say that their leader is shit - "come and invade our country".
Even in the US, and we KNOW you guys have WMD coming out of your ears! And Bush is not the most popular guy in the world right now. Just watch out for the policy you enforce, it might come back and bite you in the ass in the future.

That's my rant for now.  

[Darth Mandarb]

YOke - the U.S. does have WMD 'coming out our ears' but we're not a terrorist run, third-world country either.  Nor are we a dictatorship.  Yes our foreign policy might come back to 'bite us in the ass' in the future but part of being a super power is the projection of power.  If we don't act now the alternatives are more assured than what might happen in the future because of that action.

rant
I agree that some of the discussion in this thread has degenerated to bickering.  I think (and this is in no way a jab at you DG) the wording of the subject is the cause.  This is a hot enough topic without the subject being worded insultingly.  With that subject it causes people's blood to be up before they even start reading.

I think a lot of the problems of this thread are representative of the entire forum.  I think it's a very similar situation the "Homestar Runner: Too Popular" thread by Jam Torkberg.  He states how 'veteran' fans resent the newer fans because they aren't original members of the club.

I think that happens a lot on these forums (especially in the GenGen).  I've heard some n00bs say some things that make a lot of sense but they're completely discredited because somebody (who has been here longer) disagrees with them.

I think these forums suffer (just a little) elitism from the older members.  I think some of them demand respect because they've been here longer.  But, as the old saying goes, "Respect is something you have to earn."

cheers,
dm

[Nacho]

I think that we must think in something before critisizing US attitude in front of the world...

How would OUR country do it?

Would the UK do better? Surely not, the UK has created many of the big problems of the XXth century by their colony policy and by the way he abandoned that colonies after (Some examples: India and Bangladesh, Palestine, Iraq...)

Would German do it better? Mmm... Recent Germany story does not invite optimism...

What about France? Well, France also abandoned their colonies, leaving them in a war situation, many of them still continue (Coste D´Ivory, Argelia...)

And what about Spain? I must unproudly recognise that Spain has problably been the Country whose more people killed in its colonies (Let´s remember that Spain killed, at least, 10,000,000 south american indians, terminating the Maya and Inca population...)

So... Is that my argument to "deffend" the US? Of course not. If I am remembering the dark past of the other countries is just for reaching to one conclussion:

Powerfull countries usually are mercilessly.

Please, do not just shut up in front of my opinion, do nut just think "I won´t never convince him!"... I REALLY wish to hear, to be convinced that there is another way to do the things if you´re a powerful country.

I even demmand less... Please, tell my a civilization which ruled the earth which was mercy.

Not the greeks, nor the romans, germanics (Anglo and Saxons...) Britons, francs, egyptians...

Maybe the chinese?


Thanks for your replies in advance:

Nacho Ayala.

[YOke]

Farlander: You make some good points. This illustrates the problems that will occur when a country is "liberated".
You are a citizen of a country that until quite recently (historically speaking) was a dictatorship. I must confess that I don't know much spanish history so could you please tell me how you rid yourself of Franco. Did he just die, or what?

DM: Who the terrorists are is all a matter of who you ask. I'm from Norway, and under WW2 we were occupied by the nazi's. We had resistance groups that fought the nazi's. Now since we won they are known as heroic freedomfighters, but if the nazi's won they would have gone down in history as the bad guys. As for the political situation in the US it looks very dubious to me. In a country that claims that everyone can be president a father is almost succeded by his son as head of the nation. Only interrupted by a representative of the other of the two(?!?!) partys (yes I know there are more, at least theoretically) who according to some sources is related to Georgie-boy, albeit distantly. (Still quite a coincidence.) When the Bush family also has close ties with the Bin Laden-family and, as I recently discovered, the Hinckley-family (Hinckley tried to shoot Reagan back when George the Elder was vice president) everything seems a bit too weird.
Maybe I've just heard too many conspiracy theories.
I certainly hope so, cause what happens in the US affects the world.

[Darth Mandarb]

It's all about perception I agree.  Although, I think an invasion of Iraq to remove a dictator differs quite a bit from crashing commercial airliners into buildings.

I hadn't heard about the connection between Hinkley and Bush ... what was the connection and where'd you hear about it?  I'm a historian and I would like to read about this!

Maybe I've just heard too many conspiracy theories.

Eh ... that's cool.  Conspiracy theories are fun

cheers,
dm

[Pumaman]

When it comes to the debate itself, all this thread has done is making me more sure on whom I respect and whom I have some difficulties respecting, seriously.

I do believe we could lock the thread, though, as freaking usual

Personally, I think debate threads are great - they give people an opportunity to express their opinions and back them up with evidence. It informs people who are undecided about an issue, of the arguments both for and against it.

The golden rule is simply not to take anything personally. If somebody says something you disagree with, post and explain why. If you find yourself becoming too emotional about it, step back from the debate for a while and return later.

For example, a friend of mine is a die-hard Socialist, whereas I'm a Conservative. We've discussed and argued the issues many times. The outcome of it is that I respect his opinion, and he (I hope) respects mine.

Whilst discussing something is not likely to change your opponent's mind, a well-formed argument can make them step back and think twice about part of their viewpoint - then everyone's a winner.

[Nacho]

I must confess that I don't know much spanish history so could you please tell me how you rid yourself of Franco. Did he just die, or what?

The history of Spain in the XXth century is quite curious... Let me explain it in short:

1935:Radicals groups of "socialists" kill the main "conservative" opositor.

1936:The socialist party wins the elections, but the fascists start a revolt. The General Mola, leader of the revolt, but quite moderate and "sensible" in comparision with Franco, dies while flying to Portugal to Spain in an aircrash. Franco becomes the leader of the Fascist revolt.

1939: Franco enters in Madrid, he becomes the "Caudillo", the ruler... General Mola wanted the Monarchy to rule Spain after the war. Let´s remember that Franco had several problems to cross Morocco to Spain during the first months of the revolt... Who helped him? Hitler´s Kriegsmarine.

And it was a "socialist" terrorist strike to a German ship in Mallorca who encouraged Hitler to aid to Franco. We have to examples of two terrorist strikes of the "good" ones (people who fighted for freedom against fascists) which worked totally in the oppossite direction of what they wanted.

Let´s remember that it was when a netherlander anarchist burned the Reichstag at 1936, when Hitler "realised" of the need to use iron fist against the others... Thir example.

So... Terrorist strikes usually turn against the aims of the people who does them.

Franco died in 1975, but the democracy started in 1978. Fortunately, the person who Franco decided to keep his regime surprised the World giving us democracy. That person (Former President Suárez) And the King (He aborted a coup d´Etat at 1981) are very loved in Spain.


Now... let me say that this thread has not much to see with the subject, but I wanted to tell st of the Spanish modern history and how useless terrorism is. Let´s remember that Ghandi leaded a peacefull revolt in India. That´s the way to follow. Terrorist are not romantic fighters for freedom, they put lives in danger, generally not the lives of the "bad guys", but also the lives of the innocents of the people on both sides of the fight.

[DGMacphee]

I'd rather not start any thread that tries to bring some intelligent discussion to the forum.

I dunno, you don't want forum games, you don't want intelligent discussion, you don't want people who haven't finished a game demanding respect.... what do you want?

But I do want intelligent discussion -- you misunderstand what I'm saying.

What that quote means is I'd rather forget about trying to bring intelligent discussion here if it's going to lead to (as Andail says) a two-sided biased deabte.

And to clairfy your two other points:
1. Yes, I think those word games are a waste of time (for reasons I've just stated in the 'word game' thread)

2. I'm not just talking about finishing games -- I'm talking about contribution to a game.

In other words, how can users take someone seriously when they contribute nothing to a game?

For example, to my knowledge, c_leks hasn't made a game, yet he's contributed voice works and music to some games.

After all, this IS a forum on making adventure games, right?

But to give you an idea of what I mean on intelligent discussion, I liked topics like 'Homestar Runner: Too popular?' or 'the SARS-virus will blossom man...' or 'Meet and greet ffs!' -- They had some value to them other than the cheap thrill you get from a word game or the endless banter you get from a biased debate (Mainly cause debates like this one are turning out to be a "You're wrong" "No, you're wrong!" deal, while the previously mentions topics allow room for some kind of expansion of ideas and discussion).

Darth:

I think (and this is in no way a jab at you DG) the wording of the subject is the cause.

In hindsight, yes the wording is a little bad -- I'll change it.

[YOke]

Now this is turning in to the kind of discussion that I like!

Farlander: Thank you for giving me some insight into the political situation in Spain. I've thought about it a lot since I visited Spain earlier this year. I noticed that the resistance in Spain against the war in Iraq was quite big amongst the people, even though the government backed it up. I agree that Ghandi's way is by far the best way so far, but still Ghandi was a leader with people following him as sheep. India was just lucky that he was a good man. As soon as he's dead they start building nukes.  
Terrorists are people who tries to fight what is (or is concieved) as the opposition on the oppositions terms. It would truly be great if nobody resorted to violence at all...

Darth: The Hinkley-clan was/is an oil-family just as the Bush-family. So was the family of Lee Harvey Oswald if I remember correctly. (?)
Some claim that theese assasinations is a result (I'm watching the topic disappear in the distance) of "Project Monarch". The mindwashing project the government is supposed to be behind.

DG: Well... I've seen politicians behave worse than this.


But please, in any case. Don't let this become a thread about wether this should be a thread or not. Reset all diplomatic relations, and get back to topic. If you want to hate someone, do it silently in a corner. This is really an interesting topic, and this is a good chance to find out what people in other countries think.

[DGMacphee]

DG: Well... I've seen politicians behave worse than this.

And on that note, I'm running for the Australian Senate.  

[Pumaman]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

Sorry to dredge this back up, but I just read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3101364.stm

"Ahead of the war, says the report, Mr Blair was told the threat from al-Qaeda and allied terrorist groups would be made worse by invading Iraq.

The JIC assessed that al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

[Barcik]

My words are taken somewhat out of context this way. I, as an Israeli person feel safer because Iraq posed a real military threat to my state, and the situation isn't the same with Britain. I am not sure I would have felt safer as a Brit.

Besides, there will always be a report in the media about how the goverment ignored intelligence warnings, no matter what the government does. It's a hot story. Had the UK not joined the US, newspapers would write on how this or that intelligence agency said that not attacking Iraq is raising the risk of terrorism.  

[Pumaman]

Indeed - good points.

I know this may sound rather naive, but why can't everyone stop bombing each other and just get along ._.

[Barcik]

That's where Las should say "Because X are humans, and Y are humans, and humans are idiots."

[Nacho]

Mmm... I don´t really see the point of Iraqui people bombing US troops... Let´s remember a Monthy Python sketch in Life of Brian:

(A terrorist leader for Palestine Freedom to his accollites)

-(Leader)What have the romans gave to us?
-(Accollite 1)The roads...
-(L)Ok, the roads, what else?
-(Accollite 2) The aqueduct!
-(L)Ok, the roads and the aqueduct, what else?
-(A1)Mmmm... the City shewer!
-(A2)Oh yeah, do you remember how bad the streets smell before?
-(L)Ok, Ok... but what else?
-(A1)The Wine!
-(Everybody) Oh yeah, the wine was good!
-(Everybody)The security, the irrigation, city lighting...
-Leader: Ok... but except the road, the aqueduct, thecity shewer, the wine, the citizen security, the irrigation, tjhe city lighting... What have gave us the romans?
-(A1) The peace!
-(Leader) The peace? Fuck you!

That is what now is happening in Iraq... Of course, the country will go better if they´re a US protectorate that an Islamic dictadure, but they can´t see it...

That makes me lay down, and then I have desires to arm both Feyaidines and Chiíes to let them kill theirselves.

Fortunately I have Andail, who is like my "socialist, pacifist alter-ego", I read his posts, and that evil desires pass away.