The War

[Jonathan]

sig heil

[jute]

Ct_red_pants said:

SHUT THE FUCK UP. That as stupid as going of at an ochre at the cinema because you didn’t like the film. I can tell you, a lot of solders don’t think this war is a good idea. As naive as they might be, they still joined up with every intention of (and using these three words together always makes me cringe) severing there country.

God help us if this should turn into another Vietnam: Lets attack the troops for doing THERE JOBS.

that doesn't seem like accurate logic to me. it's not attacking the troops for doing their jobs, it's not pitying them for doing their jobs. it's true that they signed up with the intention of serving their country, but it's also true that they signed up with the knowledge that doing so might result in their death. obviously, if they joined anyway, they were willing to take that risk. it's not like going off at an usher in a theatre because you didn't like the movie you just saw, because before you watched the movie, you didn't know all the unpleasant things about it. these soldiers certainly knew they would be in danger before they signed up. so why pity them?

[IMJack]

m0l0t0v said:

The following may sound a bit Utopian or cynical, especially in times like these...

We must teach our children (and parents) that there is always an alternative to violence; Gandhi, King and Kosovo are proof of this.
We must end the glorification of violence and start preaching reason and thruth.

Utopian plans are a good idea, in the long run.

But until everybody who is willing to kill and die for what they believe in is dead and buried, you're gonna need people to kill and die for what you believe in, just to protect the not-so-willing.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

m0l0t0v said:

The following may sound a bit Utopian or cynical, especially in times like these...

We must teach our children (and parents) that there is always an alternative to violence; Gandhi, King and Kosovo are proof of this.
We must end the glorification of violence and start preaching reason and thruth.

That way they can have a threesome with W. Bush...
<3

I was being cynical as well, as that's what it seemed like at school (and my area in general). But you're right, something must be done to stop the kids getting hooked on beating the crap out of everyone. (trouble is that these days the parents haven't got a clue how to raise kids to be good-natured. And the anti-learning laddish culture that exists is to blame as well.

[pritch]

m0l0t0v said:

If Iraq uses them, they'll be crushed by the USA and UN. If America uses them no-one dares to get involved. America can do (is doing) whatever it wants, regardless of law, ethics or reason. Therefore America is a far greater threat to the world than Iraq!

Did America drop a chemical weapon on a neighbour in 1988? Did America invade a neighbour killing thousands a couple of years later?

I don't think anyone here is really pro-war. In life you make tough choices and we are faced with a socialist generation nowadays who seem to advocate bypassing every tough decision that needs to be made. Rolling over forever and ever allows evil men to prosper. I would rather have a largely fair if imperfect democratic system enforcing world order than a chaotic isloationist system where everyone must live in fear of not having any collective security because anyone who tries to act is branded as a warmonger.

[darknation]

pritch said:

Did America drop a chemical weapon on a neighbour in 1988? Did America invade a neighbour killing thousands a couple of years later?

No. America dropped two nuclear weapons in 1945 and I don't even want to start thinking how many people will have died a couple of hundred years later.

[Fredrik]

I would rather have a largely fair if imperfect democratic system enforcing world order

The UN is the democratic system attempting to enforce world order, the US is the part that defies those attempts.

[m0l0t0v]

pritch:
1: Did America drop a chemical weapon on a neighbour in 1988? 2: Did America invade a neighbour killing thousands a couple of years later?

3: I don't think anyone here is really pro-war. In life you make tough choices and we are faced with a socialist generation nowadays who seem to advocate bypassing every tough decision that needs to be made. Rolling over forever and ever allows evil men to prosper. 4: I would rather have a largely fair if imperfect democratic system enforcing world order than a chaotic isloationist system where everyone must live in fear of not having any collective security because anyone who tries to act is branded as a warmonger.

1: no, not in 1988 and not on a neighbour. It did how ever use chemical weapons (napalm) in the vietnam war...
2: again no, not a neighbour. It did however kill thousants in Afganistan to name but one of many examples. Soldiers, civilians and refugees were all targetted...
3: Socialist is a very poor choice of words, since it were socialists who liberated the world from Hitler. As I said before there is always another way than violence. Just because the UN isn't bombing the crap out of a country doesn't mean it's not doing anything.
4: That's easy for you to say, since you are not on the receiving end.
Futhermore I can think of 2 alternatives to this " imperfect democratic system". 1: A balance between 2 or more powers (like in the cold war). This system would involve constant fear and the everyday risk one side will fall behind... 2: A global socialist order. This would ban war, inequality and poverty. It would be very difficult to realize though...

[IMJack]

Bah. Name me one serious country that isn't guilty of at least three or four big atrocities during their history. It doesn't matter if it happened fifty, a hundred, or five hundred years ago.

[darknation]

Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Disorder]

darknation said:

Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wrong, I saw Braveheart! Those Scottish people with skirts and no underwear were brutal!!

[fodders]

pritch said:

Did America drop a chemical weapon on a neighbour in 1988? Did America invade a neighbour killing thousands a couple of years later?

Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, George Shultz refers to a declassified CIA report which notes Iraq’s use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the State Department and/or the National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons at this time. If the use of chemical weapons was known in August of 1983, and Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq in December of 1983, he was on notice that this country was using and was going to continue to use weapons of mass destruction. Why, then, did the United States move to de-list Iraq from those considered to be terrorist nations?

On March 23, 1984, Iran accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas. Donald Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad on March 24, 1984. On that same day, the UPI wire service reported that a team of UN experts had concluded that:

“Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”

Probably the most critical piece of information is that according to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to “calibrate” mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

It is public record that the U.S. not only armed Iraq from 1983 thru August 1, 1990, but that they also provided the money to Iraq to purchase the weapons via the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), George Bush, Sr., and the Export-Import Bank. Iraq received $5 Billion dollars funneled through the Commercial Credit Corporation ostensibly for food credits. It is also public information that at least $2 Billion dollars from the defaulted loan was repaid by the U.S. citizen taxpayers.

[zark]

Disorder said:

Wrong, I saw Braveheart! Those Scottish people with skirts and no underwear were brutal!!

I hate you.

[Disorder]

ZarcyB said:

I hate you.

Good!

[Scientist]

Starting this war was a mistake. It will increase the gap between the arab world and the west. It damaged the image of the UN and the relationships within the UN. It is an illegal and unprovoked war.
There was no need to attack. UN-inspectors Blix and El Baradei and the Security Council still believed in a new ultimatum.

But...

now that this war has started the situation has changed drastically. Although I do not like this war I don't think it would be wise to end it. If the war was stopped now, Saddam will not be defeated. He will have won and feel invincible. He will probably cool his anger on minorities in his own country and no-one will be able to stop him. If America called its troops back now, Saddam will not be as cooperative as it was before the war. America just bombed ever possible way of solving the problem peacefully. So it seems now there is only one way out. To continue this war and end it as soon as possible.

So starting this war was wrong but now it has started it must be won as soon as possible. Ending it now without defeating Saddam will probably result in more tragedy than continuing this war now.

This whole situation just sucks. :`-(

[Rotting Corpse]

Gezzz, it sounds like some people got out of bed on the worng side today.Cant we all just be happy?

[fodders]

Time for a breather?
Three days of violent sandstorms and low clouds are forecast for southern and central Iraq from Tuesday, March 25. For the Iraqis, this means a couple of days’ respite; for the American and British, a scramble to shroud their tanks and equipment in canvas and tarp sheeting to protect them from the creeping grains. Not only are the tanks out of action until the end of the week, but grounded too are the heavy bombers, the fighter bombers and the helicopters which fought their first skirmishes with the Special Republic Guards Al Madina Division near al Kut on the road to Baghdad – and lost an Apache. Its two pilots were captured and shown on Iraqi television Monday night.

In the mountains of Kurdistan in the north, snow blizzards instead of sandstorms will hamper the movements of British and American special forces for the next couple of days. Since Monday, March 24, these forces have been coming down in five northern Iraqi airfields: Barmeni, Harir, Bakarjo and Ankwa and H-3 in the west, forming up for the assault to secure the oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk. Their next mission will be to head south for the offensive against Saddam Hussein’s tribal home of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.

The Iraqis, accustomed to these extremes of climate, will use the breather for reorganization, re-supplying the units with fresh stores of ammunition, fuel and provisions and urgent repairs of combat vehicles. They will also use the time to carry out snipe at and harry American convoys, stray vehicles and small campsites.

[pritch]

Molotov has some good points...

Don't get me wrong I would never try and absolve the US of any blame throughout history. But this is now, and if you ask me where I'd stick my counters I'd say with my own people and their allies, which I think is fair and which is why I feel sympathy for so many Arabs because conflicting dictatorships make that so hard.

Going forward in the world today, blame games rooted in the past, and even sometimes in the present, hardly interest me. I make no comment about what Iraqi civlians are going through because any attempt by a relatively affluent Briton to try and phrase what it's like to have to be forcibly extracted from a brutal regime like a rotten tooth would just sound, well, dumb. I can't imagine it, I'm very grateful I don't have to.

That's why I pray we realise what war really means. It means a committment to making Arab civilians lives everywhere better in the long run. Whilst I appreciate there are less noble reasons why war is probably occuring, I genuinely believe Bush and particulary Blair care about the future of this situation. It's obvious this is going to be the major issue of our epoch: Arab self-rule and relations with the West. This action must be part of ensuring we get that the hell right. Of course it won't be easy and smooth but I'm not interested in people making problems out of scenarios: it's something we have to deal with, we'd better just get on and resolve it.

Of course this grandiose planning is in danger of forgetting the brave men who fight in the hope their actions may benefit others whom they do not know. Some of my friend's fathers are invloved in this war, and we owe it to those who give their lives in combat to make sure we focus on the positives we get out of this conflict for teh greater good, rather than dwelling on the negatives for minorites, as we are all to wont to do in this wretched media-driven frenzied age.

[Captain Red]

m0l0t0v said:
I think lament has a point, although I wouldn't have formulated it so bluntly. People always emphasize how soldiers are willing to DIE for their country and ignore the fact that they are willing to KILL for it as well.

Oh, I am well aware of what they are doing. I am well aware that they are there to KILL, But saying they deserve to die is completely stupid. (practically) no one in this war deserves to die, because this war simply shouldn't have happened. but it did.

pregnant with worms
These soldiers certainly knew they would be in danger before they signed up. so why pity them?

Because they are fighting a war that shouldn't be happening. and because the system (however foolishly) they believed in has failed them. That is why I pittiy them.

[fodders]

I would feel more secure in our leaders morals if the following had not occured: Hoone (British defence minister) makes a statement that "We are not targeting the Iraq people, look, you can see, Baghdad has lights and water, we are leaving the infrastructure alone". This is fine, but consider this, Baghdad is on 24hr tv, now look at Basra ...not on tv, power and water knocked out for 3/4? DAYS, humanitarian crisis, not on tv so they can get away with it. Is this not the greatest hypocricy you have ever heard?

[Captain Red]

Oh lookie here!! Hitler references!! Well obviously you know what you’re talking about, and your not just spouting slogans, and half remembered Rhodic.

As much as I am opposed to this war, it has yet to blind me to the stupidity of some of these so-called pacifists. I’d rather have a small minority of people who know what they are talking about on my side( thank you fodders, pritch, m0l0t0v, and Scientist, you fine gentlemen have help me keep some faith in my corse.), instead of a large angry mob that are just blindly following different set of propaganda.

Make sure you know where you stand.

[darknation]

Ct_red_pants said:

Oh, I am well aware of what they are doing. I am well aware that they are there to KILL, But saying they deserve to die is completely stupid. (practically) no one in this war deserves to die, because this war simply shouldn't have happened. but it did.

So the american soilders are out there to KILL people who don't (practically) deserve to die.

Well done. I'm glad you've grasped this.

[Captain Red]

Oh your absolutly right, because there are good guys and bad guys. Make sure you're a goodie, or else you're a baddie, and the baddies are bad.

Congratulations. You've just takin the logic that drummed up support for this conflict and mirrored it.

Nice to know people are lerning form this.

Edit: Characters fixed.

[darknation]

Ct_red_pants said:

Oh your absolutly right, because there are good guys and bad guys. Make sure youfre a goodie, or else you're a baddie, and the baddies are bad.

Congratulations. Youfve just takin the logic that drummed up support for this conflict and mirrored it.

Nice to know people are lerning form this.

it's your arguement I'm presenting here you dipshit, I just applied sarcasm.

[stphrz]

The situation in northen Iraq needs more discussion. Here's what is happening. The Kurds are assisting the U.S. in setting up a northern front and are willing to provide ground troops to fight against Saddam's regime. They are surely going to want a sovereign state of their own when this is over and will expect the U.S. to provide the needed support to make this happen. Thing is the U.S. will not be able to do this because:

1. Turkey would freak.
2. Iran would freak.
3. Jordan would freak.

Essentially every country in the middle east would rip their hair out in rage if this happens. Rather than precipitate a regionwide war and put the U.S. in the position of defending the new Kurdish state they will say "Thanks for all the help guys but no you can't have your own country."

Since the Kurds are bound to feel irrevocably betrayed they will turn on the U.S. and any government installed in Iraq. This will mean the U.S. will be the ones that will have to put down any uprising that occurs. In short the U.S. are setting themselves up to be the new oppressors of the Kurdish people. Not to mention they are setting themselves up to be long time occupiers of Iraq if only to keep the whole place from tearing itself to pieces.

[Captain Red]

Perhaps I was a little thrown by your "Go Saddam!!" avatar (albeit form yesterday).

I’ll elaborate:

Why is it ONLY the US who is evil? Saddam isn’t really a lovable fellow. And some (not many) of his troops aren’t exactly noble, Dressing up in plain cloths as and hiding among civilians during fire fights, executing prisoners, pretending to surrender and ambushing their opponents. These story’s might simply be US propaganda, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t truth to it.
The politics of this war are wrong, but the military is doing the best they can. They ARE helping the wounded (from BOTH sides) they ARE offering the option to the Iraqi troops to surrender (of corse, if I was an Iraqi solder I wouldn’t.) and even if it’s just for the sake of looking good to try and win over the support of it’s citizens, so be it, because they sure as hell can’t let that get any lower.

[unrelated]what the?!! where did those squares come from?![/unrelated]

[IMJack]

Yeah, dn, I like the little "Cannon Fodder" guy.

[Tyockell]

Ct_red_pants said:

Perhaps I was a little thrown by your "Go Saddam!!" avatar (albeit form yesterday).

I’ll elaborate:

Why is it ONLY the US who is evil? Saddam isn’t really a lovable fellow. And some (not many) of his troops aren’t exactly noble, Dressing up in plain cloths as and hiding among civilians during fire fights, executing prisoners, pretending to surrender and ambushing their opponents. These story’s might simply be US propaganda, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t truth to it.
The politics of this war are wrong, but the military is doing the best they can. They ARE helping the wounded (from BOTH sides) they ARE offering the option to the Iraqi troops to surrender (of corse, if I was an Iraqi solder I wouldn’t.) and even if it’s just for the sake of looking good to try and win over the support of it’s citizens, so be it, because they sure as hell can’t let that get any lower.

[unrelated]what the?!! where did those squares come from?![/unrelated]

I dont think that the US is evil at all, what i do think is there getting pissed off because the enemy is doing dirty fighting. What the fuck do you think there going to do?? this is war this is what happens the people want to kill you and they will do it by any means possible.

[IMJack]

Interesting read: Salam Pax's blog

Uncensored reports from inside Baghdad. Join the rest of the world in waiting for this poor shlub to die.

[Black Hand]

Disorder said:

Wrong, I saw Braveheart! Those Scottish people with skirts and no underwear were brutal!!

Speaking as the Scottish person I am I’d have to say the British caused the atrocities that lead up to the war.

I'm sure this has already been mentioned before, but the footage shown on Iraqi tv goes against the geneva convention, not just the actions performed in the footage but showing the footage itself. It seems all you anti war pacifets don't want to hear about these iraqi atrocities and go in endless circles thats suposed to take some form of a one sided arguement.