quote:
How.... Mod.... uughhhhhh:
Like the time all of Europe refused to help you in Afghanistan? IIRC quite a few countries still have soldiers on the ground there.
He was pointing out the belittlement of France. 
That wasn't including all of Europe. It was specifically geared against his argument on France and other such nations.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Faelynn LeAndris was all like:
He was pointing out the belittlement of France.That wasn't including all of Europe. It was specifically geared against his argument on France and other such nations.
Nevermind then, I assumed the 'and others' meant 'other countries that opposed the war in Iraq'.
quote:
We have done that and are turning the government over to the Iraqis on June 1st I believe. Their interum government will then organize elections.
And also stated that you will ensure that the new governement doesn't do anything that you dislike too much.
quote:
So are we going to rely on the Iraqi industrial complex that is an international powerhouse? Or should we just require American companys to donate their services?
Maybe not bid away all the traditionally state-controlled things in Iraq to profit-searching companies? We're not talking about bidding away the reconstruction here, we're talking about selling the major industries, land, and so on. Notice that I said "free-reign."
quote:
Hey, we rebuilt all the infrastructure that Sadam destroyed fairly quickly. Getting power back up as quickly as they did when there are ragheads shooting RPGs at you is pretty impressive.
From what I've read and heard, Iraq is severely lacking of jobs, law enforcement, and so on.
quote:Apparently you don't believe in 'innocent until proven guilty.' Rumsfield did it and he should resign. Sounds like 'guilty until proven innocent.' Maybe that is only for US officals though. With Sadam you seem to be saying 'innocent when proven guilty
I didn't even mention Rumsfield. But do you honestly think that those seven individuals were the only ones that knew?
I said I would ensure that all soldiers knew such treatment of prisoners was unacceptable. Again, you're reading exactly what you want to read. Zaza fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 12:48 PM.
quote:
Mod enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Like the time all of Europe refused to help you in Afghanistan? IIRC quite a few countries still have soldiers on the ground there.
In fact Germany is currently leading the whole operation in Afghanistan.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Yea, it was a WMD. But it was a small one so it dosn't count.
By that definition, your average joe bomb is a WMD.
quote:
Zaza painfully thought these words up:
From what I've read and heard, Iraq is severely lacking of jobs, law enforcement, and so on.
No doubt they are lacking Law Enforcement when their own people are blowing up their newly trained and recruited Law Enforcement officers more often than the American troops.
Anyway, this thread is moving too fast for my tired mind.
quote:
Tarquinn enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
WTF, how is my last post too old to edit?!Anyway, this thread is moving too fast for my tired mind.
<hands Tarq a tankard of beer!> ^.^
For those of you too lazy to click, the link involves a Las Vegas Marine who gave an interview to the local paper last year after returning from Iraq. In the interview he claimed to have tracked down and killed two Iraqi soldiers who fired on his unit and wounded some Marines. A big brouhaha starts, war crimes charges were considered and then an investigation found that the whole story was 100% Grade A bullshit. This new story sounds suspiciously like the old one.
And for those playing along at home, I believe ICBM also stands for Improved Cluster Bomb Munition. A down side is that, like everything else in the world munitions don't always work like they're supposed to either. Something like 1-5% of the submunitions fail to go off when you drop a CBM, leaving unexploded ordinance laying around. Hell, they still find unexploded bombs and shells from WWI and WWII in Europe. Callalron fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 01:35 PM.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris obviously shouldn't have said:
Nope, and it wouldn't have been for me either. Just on the fact they are a 3rd world country and lacking that is. It was WHO and WHAT thier Spiritual and Political leaders WERE that warranted that. Chickshit terrorist, and powermoguls, with no qualms on mass destruction, fear, suffering, corruption, genocide, and any other numerous offenses that puts them on the shitlist. And again saying that it would only stop with America is completely naive. If left unchecked and left to continue IRaq's influence and torment would continue to spread, and we would have had WWIII.
Continue to Spread? Where? Where had it even start to spread? One of the things you seem to be overlooking is There are no known ties with Al'Queda and Iraq. Yeah, Saddam was a sadistic jackass. Yeah, there were people in Iraq who hate America.
How in the hell can you use that to justify the whole region being 'eliminated' in the '70s? And that shit about someone having to take the fall for 9/11... I thought that was what 'the War on Terrorism' was for. I thought that was what Afganistan was for. If hunting terrorists and dealing with Afganistan isn't enough, then why turn to a nation who, though it has it's problems, has nothing to do with terrorism? Iraq and Afganistan have no common thread other then proximity. And yet... we ruled ourselves judge and jury for the UN (without the UNs approval!) to rip thier country apart.
Yes, Saddam was a horrible man. It's a good thing he's not in charge anymore. Same for his sons. But... We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Now, Iraq is a horribly war torn country, with little water, food, or jobs. There is no safety. There is no knowing your family will be ok.
But hey, someone has to pay for 9/11, right? So who's next after Iraq?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
After 9/11, the U.S. went into a great big war on terror. Afghanistan being the primary target. We saw terrorism as a threat, and we wanted to do what we could, to take it out. We knew that the terrorists most likely would not just take this lying down. Hence all the added security damn near everywhere.
Now, enter Iraq. Here's a country that hates us, headed by a madman, who's being dodgy about whether or not he has WMD's. We send in weapons inspectors, they don't find anything, but they're still being dodgy about the whole thing. So, we tell him shape up, or you and your regime get forcefully removed from power. They still act dodgy. Everyone's heard about how uncooperative Saddam was when the UN inspectors were there. He didn't shape up. So, we can't just back down from what we were saying. We made a threat, he called our bluff, so we go in guns blazing.
Known madman and his evil regime has had WMD's in the past (Which he used against Iran 20 years ago, or so), and is being all screwy when we try to figure out if they have WMD's now. We've already been the target for one major attack on US soil, and we're worried that Saddam's sons (Who, IIRC, had ties with Al Quaida) may give some of Papa's toys to his friends against us. The UN Inspectors looked up and down but never found anything, but mentioned time and again how uncooperative Iraq was being.
Personally, I would have done the same. Invaded Iraq, that is.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about dark elf butts:
Well said, Khyron. Well said indeed.
I hope I was clear in what I was trying to say =/
My brain kept bouncing from one line of thought, to another, to another.
Basically, I was trying to say that the reasons we were so worried about WMD's in Iraq, and invaded them, was BECAUSE of the war on terror, not 'setting it aside' as Nina said. I think we were worried about who would be supplying the next terrorist group with a vendetta, with something packing a bit more punch than a plane 
Iraq was the closest, we knew they HAD the weapons, they're being all dodgy about whether or not they still do, so we needed to so something about it, and we did. We made the threats, they called our bluff, and so we made good on what we said would happen...
This definition for WMDs is I believe far to broad. The first sentence is meaningless. Collateral damage has become a commonplace term, civilian casualties in warfar are an undisputed fact.
For the second you have to ask what turns a substance into a weapon. Botox is one of the deadliest toxins known to man, yet it is widely available since it is used in facelift treatment. What turns a dangerous substance into an actual weapon is the delivery system. Now to qualify as a WMD, I would think it reasonable, that a weapon should be able to reliably kill more than 100 people (in a city setting).
Now I can't find a definition of what a WMD is as according to the US government. I would be very interested in seeing such a definition.
[edit] just to quickly add: The chemical attack on the Tokyo subway caused 12 fatalities. The conventional bomb used against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania caused 301 fatalities and ~5000 injured. Hugin fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 02:38 PM.
quote:
Nina wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Now expect every conservative trying to disprove it, uttering cries of dismay when they realize it's true, then start blaming the guy for being a deserter.
You need to STFU--I'm tired of seeing your snide little bullshit comments on every thread involving the military.
Most of that article is sheer uninformed blabbering by a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
He learned about DU from a Rolling Stones article? Gimme a fucking break.
The government manufactured WMD evidence? Every intelligence agency in the world thought--quite legitimately--that Iraq had or could quickly manufacture WMD.
And I guarantee there were no orders--ever--to massacre demonstrators.
The rest of this guy's experience, while probably mostly factual, doesn't mean what he thinks it means. "Onos! Civilians are being killed!" doesn't imply some monstrous plot by the US. . .it simply speaks to the difficulty of urban warfare when the enemy takes great pains to blend in with the population, hide amongst them, use them as shields, and various other ways to sow confusion.
If you've got something to contribute, feel free. Try to engage the higher functions of your brain first, though.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Because most countries with a sizable military that would actually stand a fleeting chance against our modernized military, are all our allies. Or there's really no chance of us going head to head. China, Japan, England, hell, even France has nothing they need to prove that they cant do politically. I'm sorry if this sounds off color, but the first world nations can damage each other a lot more using words and politics than they ever could using fists.
There's an analogy lurking in my mind about this. The so called 'third world countries' are the ones who, lacking the political weight, feel they can only get their meaning across by throwing a punch. I see the US and all the other aforementioned countries as adults who sit and act stately while Iraq, acting as a child, comes out with statements that others dont take seriously. Like a child puffed up with their own importance, and when the grown ups dont do as he says, he takes a sucker punch to them while they're asleep and is surprised and dismayed when the consequences of his actions come back to haunt him.
I realized that I am not as informed as others on the board, and I really dont care for politics one way or the other, but from the politics I was exposed to, this is how the situation strikes me.
The reason there will be sizable civilian casualties in future wars, in my opinion, is because some countries cannot or will not outfit in uniforms. The lack of uniforms distinction invites trigger happy mishaps that, sadly, will never be avoided.
quote:
Callalron thought about the meaning of life:
Wow, let's see. A guy who says he was in the Marines tells a fascinating and shocking story of bad stuff going on in Iraq and what part he played in it. I'm willing to concede the guy was a Marine. I hope that the report would at least be smart enough to check the guy's bona fides before writing the story. However, I'm will to bet this is a case of "Here's what happened and here's what I saw. Trust me, I was there." with no physical proof offered. It makes me wonder if, a couple of months from now we'll see another article like LV Marine who lied forfeits pay.For those of you too lazy to click, the link involves a Las Vegas Marine who gave an interview to the local paper last year after returning from Iraq. In the interview he claimed to have tracked down and killed two Iraqi soldiers who fired on his unit and wounded some Marines. A big brouhaha starts, war crimes charges were considered and then an investigation found that the whole story was 100% Grade A bullshit. This new story sounds suspiciously like the old one.
And for those playing along at home, I believe ICBM also stands for Improved Cluster Bomb Munition. A down side is that, like everything else in the world munitions don't always work like they're supposed to either. Something like 1-5% of the submunitions fail to go off when you drop a CBM, leaving unexploded ordinance laying around. Hell, they still find unexploded bombs and shells from WWI and WWII in Europe.
It's been widely reported, but apparently some people don't bother to stay informed on subjects they're passionate about. Odd, that.
Call's right. Almost all CBU these days use the improved sub-munitions. The only ones during OIF who didn't (because they're not fielded in sufficient numbers yet) is Army artillery. Also, for the clueless bashing CBU on general principles, they are an essential munition for the type of fight anticipated around Baghdad. The old munitions have a higher dud rate, and don't self-destruct. . .and, unfortunately, look a lot like tennis balls.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Hugin fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 03:15 PM.
quote:
Bloodsage obviously should have said:
The government manufactured WMD evidence? Every intelligence agency in the world thought--quite legitimately--that Iraq had or could quickly manufacture WMD.
Going to back you up with a bit of other evidence that this is nothing new. Please note some of these are BEFORE 9/11 ever occured. Saddam was given 14 years and countless UN resolutions to disarm.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Source
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Source
Thanks to the technology we currently have we have kept death of the innocents relatively low. Hiding in mosques and schools, places that we will not dare to bomb. It's cowardice through and through, the same as the cowardice of the 19 terrorist operatives that killed 3000 innocents on 9/11.
The borders of Iraq have essentially been open for the last year, and many of the terrorists that are killing US troops and innocent Iraqis aren't even from Iraq.
quote:
Kaglaaz How'ler stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
I seem to recall a few shells discovered a number of months back that had a band marking them as chemical or biological shells. I'm trying to find the story on that now.
I'm fairly certain not. We have had a few "false alarms" though.
NO WMDs have been found so far.
I for one would have been glad if they'd found some soon after the invasion since it would have made matters much less painful for everyone concerned.
A January incident initiallly tested positive for mustard gas but was later found to just be fuels for the rockets found.
But you go nuts on this shit. You look at arguments and say crap like: "So, what you're saying is we should kill all civilians?" or "So, you say anyone with a religion needs to die?" Then, in the next post, you go telling people not to twist your words around.
And Tier, how can you possibly do this? The majority of the board is against the war! If you're with the majority, how will you be cool by disagreeing with everyone?!? You'll lose your personality and individuality if you agree with people!
Seriously, shut the fuck up. The conspiracy theories of a deranged cross-dresser don't come into play here.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about pies:
Zaza, do you realize how utterly hypocritical you sound? Now, now, I know what you're saying: "Me? Hypocritical?! But...I call everyone else hypocritical! You can't call me that!"But you go nuts on this shit. You look at arguments and say crap like: "So, what you're saying is we should kill all civilians?" or "So, you say anyone with a religion needs to die?" Then, in the next post, you go telling people not to twist your words around.
And Tier, how can you possibly do this? The majority of the board is against the war! If you're with the majority, how will you be cool by disagreeing with everyone?!? You'll lose your personality and individuality if you agree with people!
Seriously, shut the fuck up. The conspiracy theories of a deranged cross-dresser don't come into play here.
Actually, I was just responding to Fae, and if you look at his post, he was essentially justifying any war on the middle east with that they deserve it for hating America.
Or else how should:
The middle east is a sesspool. Plain and simple. Not nessesarily all of it's people, but a vast majority. It is a matter of jealousy in human nature plain and simple. Its like Poor versus the Rich in human nature, Poor people hate Rich people for what they have, same as the middle east. They hate the US because of what we have compared to thier struggling and shitty way of life. At least thats MY opinion on thier hatred. REgardless, I think they should have been elimnated in the 70's, I have no qualms about it happening now.
By interprented? They obviously refers to the Middle East. The entire argument of twisting my words was that Naimah was trying to imply that my response to Fae's opinion on what justifies a war was actually aimed at the Iraq war.
I'm not even going to comment on you calling people hypocritical, mr "It's okay to torture some people" Zaza fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 04:23 PM.
quote:
How.... Mr. Parcelan.... uughhhhhh:
And Tier, how can you possibly do this? The majority of the board is against the war! If you're with the majority, how will you be cool by disagreeing with everyone?!? You'll lose your personality and individuality if you agree with people!
I'm for the war (see above reasoning). Does that mean I'm cool by disagreeing with everyone? 
quote:
Mr. Parcelan stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
The majority of the board is against the war! If you're with the majority, how will you be cool by disagreeing with everyone?!? You'll lose your personality and individuality if you agree with people!
I'll ignore the cross-dressing part, because it certainly isn't not true and obviously just a sad result of closed-mindedness.
As for the rest, not only is the "I'm cool because I disagree" opinion absolutely played out and irrelevant besides, it doesn't apply here precisely because I agree!
Brilliant logic there, Parce 
[Edit: And since when is the majority of the board against it? Last I checked, only foreigners and a few liberal americans were against it.] Nina fucked around with this message on 05-18-2004 at 04:37 PM.
quote:
Zaza got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
By interprented? They obviously refers to the Middle East. The entire argument of twisting my words was that Naimah was trying to imply that my response to Fae's opinion on what justifies a war was actually aimed at the Iraq war.
quote:
Zaza:
The carpet bombing analogy doesn't really hold for Iraq, because yes, there were some efforts to limit civilian casualties, but the very basis, the "accidental deaths", does. If you're going to accept that innocent people will die, you damn well have a better reason for invading than a bruised ego.
quote:
Naimah:
If civilian casualties are completly disallowed, we might as well disband our army.
quote:
Zaza:
I didn't say they aren't allowed. I said that you need a good reason to start a war, since innocent people are going to die. I wasn't even talking about the Iraq war, I was talking about how Fae had no qualms starting a war just for vengeance, or for America's bruised ego.
You twisted your own words. I didn't say anything about Iraq either. YOU brought up Iraq in that particular case. I just pointed out that civilian casualties are a part of war, justified or not, and need to be taken as a matter of fact.
Sorry if I was unclear.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Robocop:
Before the invasion people were saying that even one weapon would justify action. Now we have the weapon and those same people are crying that it is only one weapon. Amusing.
We were kinda hoping for at least a nuke.
Besides, isn't it more than likely that the shell in question was a forgotten leftover from the Gulf War? Hell, apparently the person who rigged it to be used as a bomb didn't know what it was. That or he just didn't know how to trigger the chemical reaction properly.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about John Romero:
Before the invasion people were saying that even one weapon would justify action.
Would THIS qualify as well? I'm surprised no one jumped all over this one. It was all over the news yesterday. I mean, I can understand the anti-war crowd ignoring it, since, ya know, it shows the existance of at least some chemical weapons. But I thought for sure someone would have mentioned it before now.
To be fair, the press did say the bomber probably didn't know the shell had sarin in it. But still, the fact that he stuck his hand in a pile of shells and randomly pulled out one with a chemical munition leads one to ponder how many other shells like that are in the pile and how many other piles have shells like that in them.
Just a ponderance though: Wonder how old the shell was as the war has been going on for a year now.
