Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
pritch

The War

Recommended Posts

Well I didn't say it was likely N Korea would join in, I'm just saying that they could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Vulg@r said:

I want to see us say, "Go ahead motherfuckers, burn your oil wells." And after we say that, we STILL continue the war. That'd show what our real intent is.


And you'd buy it if they said that (and I don't see how you feel so identified with a government that so obviously values the needs of powerful corporations and the wealthy much more than some poor nobody that you are)? Remember Kuwait, the burning oilwells? Do you think that really affected the oil resources over there in any significant way? Of course not, it just destroyed the installations, the main mass of oil being safe underground.

Also, have you considered the costs of this campaign? and I don't mean just the military mobilization, take into account also the cost of the media elements telling you about terrorism all the time, recall Hollywood agreeing to make war movies with heroes and what not, the increased spending in security and counter terrorist preparations, coupled with a cut on the high-end taxes which decreases the state's income. Do you think that a campaign like this, in a time when megacorporations try to hide the fact that they go bankrupt, can be effected without a forseeable payback?

And do you know what the safest bet is to counter the lack of income (there's a state deficit now) and the increased spending (not just the state, but all the companies making concessions to "save the world from terrorism") is to obtain a relatively tight hegemony over the oil industry (where your God-loving president is an active participant.) Why? You'd be able to lower the international price of raw oil, thus you could obtain it cheap from all the nations who produce it, most of which are dominated by US oil corporations already, which draw the oil with little state interference... and if it were cheaper, the gain would surely be much greater. Would this benefit the client nations (or other nations) where the oil is in? No, as they'd let go of it for less, with less of a say about what to do with the oil and without much choice as to where to sell it and how. Thus the nations who still do have a relative sovereignty over their oil, let's say Venezuela for one, could soon lose that right, weakened as they'd be and even more susceptible to a high-class based coup and a resulting US-puppet state. Oil is pretty much what gold was in the past now.

If the Bush administration "succeeds" you'll get a general nervous atmosphere where many of the countries that were against the war become alienated from the US (who knows where that could lead eventually), you'd see the US government and backing corporations weathering a crisis, although you probably wouldn't see a consistent rise in general living standards, since as you can see the top pier of society pretty much assured itself the means to stay well on top of the $ charts with the recent changes (less taxes for the rich, more means of control in case anyone is annoyed about this... both on the media and on the streets.) Changes that, with the gains, could even be reinforced, if necessary.

If it were to fail (for some reason the "war" being stopped or revoked) you'd have a tough crisis in the US, as well as a chance to get rid of Bush and the recent structural changes his group intoduced... maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

a lot of stuff


there's some good points in here, although many of these have been blurred out a bit by all the bias. bush's ridiculous "structure changes" are here to stay, unfortunately, as there are too many terrified americans (who obviously watch too much CNN) to do otherwise, at least for the time being. i don't see why you would even consider a military defeat against saddam.. even iraq knows it has no chance.

saddam may even be dead already. hard to tell when he has dozens of doubles. and his mistress seemed to think the man who gave the speech was not him, and she's correctly identified saddam doubles on several occasions.

and on the last note, don't think any new president would be much different than bush. bush if you can recall was bitched at in the first half year of his term for being "too isolationist"... now that stuff is going on he's considered having gone too far out of our borders. no matter who's president, in a democracy it's always going to end up about the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Lost Soul said:

I see nothing funny about that. The way things are going that could very well happen.

Like Iraq has a lot of strong international support.

Share this post


Link to post
Lost Soul said:

I see nothing funny about that. The way things are going that could very well happen.

World War 3 is already going on, you just don't see it. In fact, I think that this world "war" is the only war so far that truly deserves the term "World War" as it is the only war that at least indirectly involves pretty much every country in this world.

Now wtf am I getting at?

Well, the "War on Terrorism" is the war I'm talking about. It's not constantly active, but it has its outbreaks like this war on Iraq, and it affects the entire world. We were all affected when the September 11 attacks occurred and there was several people from a lot of different nations that lost their lives in that attack.

Just thinking out loud.

Share this post


Link to post

You American bastards better pray that Saddam hasn't been hiding big fat stocks of Nuclear and chemical weapons as you have insisted all this time.

Burning the oil wells is a great move. He's shown his people that he will not hesitate to blow them all to kingdom come assuming America takes Baghdad. And the "Saddam has nukes" collation propaganda machine is going to be working in Saddam's favor, because I'm sure that the Iraqi's really DO believe Saddam is hiding stuff... if they didn't before the UN weapon inspectors started going catshit crazy, they certainly do now.

So a last minute revolution ala Milosovich is probably not going to happen.

I can't wait for the street fighting. Either they flatten Baghdad from the air and kill just about everyone in it or they have to send the ground troops in to actually capture the city and crack the bunkers... that's going to be a brutal fight. I can see us getting our asses kicked all over the place.

We are not prepared for casualties. I can see us getting massacred in the streets, loosing the propaganda war and being FORCED to get out of Iraq by the Hippies back home.

Yey for Saddam! Go Iraq!

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

Some incredibly retarded shit.

I hate extremism from both sides of this debate. Given a choice between Saddam and your own Primeminister how can you choose Saddam? Even if you think Blair is wrong.

Oh yeah, because you're a retard. Sorry. Never mind :P

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that anyone is FOR Saddam even though they are , like me against this illegal act of terrorism. I am not anti-American, just anti this American regime.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that is not going ot be a war.I think its going ot more of a huge bombing run.But thats just me. Of chorse theres going to be ground force's involved. Pluse there alot of people thinking that Iraq will call it quits.Every thing seems to be up in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Rotting Corpse said:

I think that is not going ot be a war.I think its going ot more of a huge bombing run.

A bombing run IS a war - I dunno how you define a war, but I define a war as a "political debate" in which any physical weapon is used against the counter part, be it bombs, assassins, ground troops, etc.

The USA (and their allies - correct me if I'm wrong) have dropped bombs on Iraqi soil, thus enforcing their political views with weapons - if that's not a war, then I sure as Hell don't know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post

sargebaldy:
bush if you can recall was bitched at in the first half year of his term for being "too isolationist"... now that stuff is going on he's considered having gone too far out of our borders.

He was called isolationist because he made some decisions in favour of America, which led to much discomfort in other countries (Kyoto, to name one). He broke treaties and made it very clear he doesn't care about the rest of the world (except for pet Isreal of course). The war on Iraq doesn't not contradict this policy, but underlines it...

Share this post


Link to post

I think a war is a huge battle. A bombing run is a small part of a war.If there is a huge ground battle then to me its a war.Becouse troups fighting is a lot more of a war then a bombing run.But thats what I think.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know what to think about the war. And I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I don't know what anyone else thinks. I'm just typing blindly.

A lot of times, I think we should of finished the job 13 years ago, or whatever.

Then we wouldn't have this war.

Just cut out the bad seed and you don't have to worry about weeds damaging the nice flowers.

Then yesterday as I was walking to the library, I talked to a protestor.

She said that there was a rumor that the oil well in alaska is running dry and that we need Iraq, which is why bush is doing this.

I'm sure that's bullshit.

But hey, he's just trying to kill someone who tried to kill his dad ten years ago.

THAT makes sense to me.

Except I hate my dad.

But it's not like we're going there, shooting at everything that moves and stuff that doesnt. We've dropped pamphlets telling people how to surrender. We told them we were coming. Hell, Saddam has had years to get his shit together.

If you let small annoying people get too big for their britches, bad shit can happen. Remember wwII? We ignored hitler at first. It wasn't our war. Then the japs hit us, and we were in it. He almost succeeded in creating his perfect world back then.

okay, im done ranting.

i cant think of anything else to say.

**hides behind sandbags before the stones come flying, if any**

Share this post


Link to post
Disorder said:

SHOCK AND AWE campaign begins NOW according to the Pentagon, Baghdad is fucked.


I was watching about that last night.

They say the ultimate example of the Shock and Awe campaign is Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Once that happened, WW2 ended abruptly.

It seems to me like you'd have to top that nowadays.

I wonder what Bush will come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Tobester said:

I was watching about that last night.

They say the ultimate example of the Shock and Awe campaign is Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Once that happened, WW2 ended abruptly.

It seems to me like you'd have to top that nowadays.

I wonder what Bush will come up with.

A HUGE amount of Tomahawks according to CNN. An unbelievable bombardment with conventional weapons with the goal to shock the enemy so heavily that it is too scared to fight back. Sounds really scary.

Share this post


Link to post

Something else I forgot to mention.

Last week, I was going to my doctor, which is almost next door to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. I've heard it is the biggest strategic base in North America. They had peace talks here with some middle eastern guys back in 1996, arafat i think.
As I was walking by it, they were loading humvees onto those big personell choppers, and they were loading b52s with bombs.

BIG bombs.

It kinda fucks with your head to know that one of those will drop onto saddams head.

Share this post


Link to post
Rotting Corpse said:

I piss my pants of I seen hundreds of missles falling out of the sky. I wonder if sadam has depends handy? :)

he might :P we're pretty sure he was in that bunker when we hit it, judging by indications of medical teams sent out to help him.. and it's hard to say for certain the man who gave that speech soon afterwards was the real saddam, considering he has twenty trained doubles... so he may very well be in the hospital (or dead) and have diapers readily available :)

Share this post


Link to post

OH MY FUCKING GOD, did you guys see the explosions? This is fucking insane!!
This will WITHOUT DOUBT provoke lots of terrorist attacks, that's just impossible to avoid from now..

Share this post


Link to post
Disorder said:

OH MY FUCKING GOD, did you guys see the explosions? This is fucking insane!!
This will WITHOUT DOUBT provoke lots of terrorist attacks, that's just impossible to avoid from now..



Well ,we are at the second highest level on the scale. I dont think that will happen.
They got people on around the clock sevlace.

Share this post


Link to post
Rotting Corpse said:

Well ,we are at the second highest level on the scale. I dont think that will happen.
They got people on around the clock sevlace.

All I'm saying is that the attack that I've just seen will make a lot of people angry all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it incredible to hear embedded reporter with Southern Iraq troops saying that the troops used NAPALM against the Iraqi soldiers last night! Chemical weapons? By "our" side? How hypocritical can Bush and Blair get?
/edit

The US took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. - Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Share this post


Link to post

America seems to be like the "uncool" parent figure that is mocked in secret. If America leaves Saddam alone, they Iraqis hate him and believe for the most part that he's oppressive, a despot etc. But as soon as America comes in their to remove him for what they believe to be Iraq's good (or so they say...who knows for sure what their true motive is?) then the Iraqis rally behind him and depict Saddam as a hero, just as he always tried to do in times of "peace" in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

I find it incredible to hear embedded reporter with Southern Iraq troops saying that the troops used NAPALM against the Iraqi soldiers last night! Chemical weapons? By "our" side? How hypocritical can Bush and Blair get?

Haven't heard any of that here at all.

Share this post


Link to post
stphrz said:

Given a choice between Saddam and your own Primeminister how can you choose Saddam? Even if you think Blair is wrong.

Isn't darknation Scottish? That would explain it.

dsm: AFAIK, technically a "war" is something that is declared by one nation against another. You can have a war without hostilities, and you can have hostilities without a war. For example, the Falklands/Malvinas conflict involved no war declarations, and in WW2 there were some largely technical war declarations, such as the UK declaring war against Romania, Finland and Hungary when they (under Nazi influence) attacked the USSR. (And IIRC there were some war declarations from WW2 that were just forgotten about, and not rescinded until decades later.)

Rotting Corpse: "doubles" are nothing new. Churchill had several, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Disorder said:

OH MY FUCKING GOD, did you guys see the explosions? This is fucking insane!!

War = bombs = explosions. What were you expecting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×