American military plans 'blitzkrieg'type attack.
taranaki
01-31-2003, 06:39 AM
CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.
The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.
Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.
If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.
Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.
Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement from CBS News Anchor Dan Rather: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military
...............Sounds remarkably like TERRORISM to me .
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.
The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.
Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.
If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.
Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.
Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement from CBS News Anchor Dan Rather: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military
...............Sounds remarkably like TERRORISM to me .
YogsVR4
01-31-2003, 09:08 AM
I'm not surprised it sounds that way to you. :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The_ScareCrow
01-31-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.
The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.
Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.
If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.
Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.
Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement from CBS News Anchor Dan Rather: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military
God help us. Should this happen, the repercussions could be disasterous, or should I say WILL be. I agree with Nelson Mandela, Bush is a moron. That's my opinion and Im sticking with it.
CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.
The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.
Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.
If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.
Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.
Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement from CBS News Anchor Dan Rather: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military
God help us. Should this happen, the repercussions could be disasterous, or should I say WILL be. I agree with Nelson Mandela, Bush is a moron. That's my opinion and Im sticking with it.
BLU CIVIC
01-31-2003, 12:16 PM
I'D REALLY HATE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN...MAN...JUST THINK THAT WHILE WE'RE DOING ALL OF THAT WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE PLANNED FOR US....SICKENS ME TO KNOW THAT MY BRO JOINED LAST YEAR AND IS NOW ON STANDBY....WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN:( ...I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S ALL FOR OIL
kris
01-31-2003, 12:39 PM
You think they would really allow there plans to be published? Sounds more like propaganda than anything else.
jon@af
01-31-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by kris
You think they would really allow there plans to be published? Sounds more like propaganda than anything else.
You make a very good point my friend:D . I hadn't thought about it, but you are quite right. No smart military would put their plans of attack out before it actually happened, usually they put it out as it's happening.
You think they would really allow there plans to be published? Sounds more like propaganda than anything else.
You make a very good point my friend:D . I hadn't thought about it, but you are quite right. No smart military would put their plans of attack out before it actually happened, usually they put it out as it's happening.
taranaki
01-31-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by kris
You think they would really allow there plans to be published? Sounds more like propaganda than anything else.
I'd like to think so,but having seen a few truths about the crimes against humanity commited in the name of liberating Kuwait,I fully expect this invasion to be unneccesarily high in civilian casualties,both from direct attack and from destruction of essential services.
You think they would really allow there plans to be published? Sounds more like propaganda than anything else.
I'd like to think so,but having seen a few truths about the crimes against humanity commited in the name of liberating Kuwait,I fully expect this invasion to be unneccesarily high in civilian casualties,both from direct attack and from destruction of essential services.
GTi-VR6_A3
01-31-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
...............Sounds remarkably like TERRORISM to me .
to quote my ccsf political science teacher "Political violence targeting non-combatants to send a political message" thewre fore if we go after the generals and the infra structure and not hospitals then this is not terrorism. as for the war yes i am an american and im not exactly sure if we should be going to iraq YET but if now is the time then i trust that the govnt has a reason and truly believe it is right that we go and that we will carry it out in a most professional manner. wow me not being cynical its amazing i think but those are my $.02.
-GTi-VR6_A3
ps ive been thinking aobut this alot lately being my english poly sci and religion calsses all have this in their topics right now and all have different and similar views
...............Sounds remarkably like TERRORISM to me .
to quote my ccsf political science teacher "Political violence targeting non-combatants to send a political message" thewre fore if we go after the generals and the infra structure and not hospitals then this is not terrorism. as for the war yes i am an american and im not exactly sure if we should be going to iraq YET but if now is the time then i trust that the govnt has a reason and truly believe it is right that we go and that we will carry it out in a most professional manner. wow me not being cynical its amazing i think but those are my $.02.
-GTi-VR6_A3
ps ive been thinking aobut this alot lately being my english poly sci and religion calsses all have this in their topics right now and all have different and similar views
GTi-VR6_A3
01-31-2003, 08:02 PM
also sorry bout the rant but it seems like its gunna be one of those threads where no1 is right or wrong and no1 will budge
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
Cbass
01-31-2003, 08:06 PM
Well of course it's propaganda, it's a Pentagon press release being spoken by Dan Rather on the evening news... What do you think it's going to be?
Or did you mean that it's anti American propaganda? God knows they run that on the major US networks all the time. :rolleyes:
YogsVR4, I'm interested to know, what does that sound like to you? Let me guess, protecting America from terrorists, and liberating Iraqi civilians?
Or did you mean that it's anti American propaganda? God knows they run that on the major US networks all the time. :rolleyes:
YogsVR4, I'm interested to know, what does that sound like to you? Let me guess, protecting America from terrorists, and liberating Iraqi civilians?
GTi-VR6_A3
01-31-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
I'D REALLY HATE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN...MAN...JUST THINK THAT WHILE WE'RE DOING ALL OF THAT WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE PLANNED FOR US....SICKENS ME TO KNOW THAT MY BRO JOINED LAST YEAR AND IS NOW ON STANDBY....WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN:( ...I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S ALL FOR OIL
im gunna have to disagree wiht you on the oil statement. dont you think your being a little to cynical. i mean id like to think the people running this country have a few other things on their mind than oil. while it may be a small incentive or a reward it will not be the cause of this war. and just so you know all 5 of the members of the security council have oil interests too so it not just us. i truly believe that the president has information we dont and that he has a bettere sense of whats going on in the world than we can with our limited knowledge. i may not like bush or agree wiht him but i would like to trust the leader of the free world i dont know about ou guys. maybe im gettin a little bit too idealogical but hey what kan i do. i dont condone the war with the knowledge i have and there are better things we can adress like N korea but thats not whats happening and at the moment i am not the pres so i dont have too big of a say
-GTi-VR6_A3
I'D REALLY HATE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN...MAN...JUST THINK THAT WHILE WE'RE DOING ALL OF THAT WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE PLANNED FOR US....SICKENS ME TO KNOW THAT MY BRO JOINED LAST YEAR AND IS NOW ON STANDBY....WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN:( ...I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S ALL FOR OIL
im gunna have to disagree wiht you on the oil statement. dont you think your being a little to cynical. i mean id like to think the people running this country have a few other things on their mind than oil. while it may be a small incentive or a reward it will not be the cause of this war. and just so you know all 5 of the members of the security council have oil interests too so it not just us. i truly believe that the president has information we dont and that he has a bettere sense of whats going on in the world than we can with our limited knowledge. i may not like bush or agree wiht him but i would like to trust the leader of the free world i dont know about ou guys. maybe im gettin a little bit too idealogical but hey what kan i do. i dont condone the war with the knowledge i have and there are better things we can adress like N korea but thats not whats happening and at the moment i am not the pres so i dont have too big of a say
-GTi-VR6_A3
Darth Cypher
02-01-2003, 01:43 PM
Doesn't sound like terrorism because we are targeting "lawful targets" as outlined in the Law of Armed Conflict. And since we have more guided weapons then we will keep civilian casualties that much lower.
All this "battle plan" stuff could be "released" as a scare tactic to Iraq. Who knows?
All this "battle plan" stuff could be "released" as a scare tactic to Iraq. Who knows?
taranaki
02-01-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Doesn't sound like terrorism because we are targeting "lawful targets" as outlined in the Law of Armed Conflict. And since we have more guided weapons then we will keep civilian casualties that much lower.
That is a lovely piece of propaganda,part of the carefully constructed image that war is a quick and tidy operation against the military forces of another country.There are 5 milllion civilians in Baghdad alone,no way can anybody claim that weapons can be targetted into a city that size without causing major civilian casualties.
The other point that I have raised previously is that the U.S. military will take out essential services such as power and water prior to any invasion.This action alone will result in enormous numbers of civilian deaths.Iraq is still littered with the toxic detritus of the last war,pouring large amounts of depleted-uranium ordinance onto Iraq [plus whatever other weapons of mass destruction George Bush chooses to unleash] will only further contaminate the land for decades to come.Add to that the thousands of mines that will be laid by one side or the other,many of which will remain dormant until long after any conflict is over,and the picture for the Iraqi civilians looks pretty grim.Seems that America wants to 'liberate' Iraq from Saddam,and doesn't care if it reduces the whole country to a smoking ruin in order to get him.If Saddam were the real target,and he was as hated in his own country as the U.S. claims,then the U.S. would have simply funded and trained his opponents to overthrow him.By going in and removing him directly,the U.S. will gain controll of large oil resources,and a platform in the Middle East from which to launch further terrorist attacks.
Doesn't sound like terrorism because we are targeting "lawful targets" as outlined in the Law of Armed Conflict. And since we have more guided weapons then we will keep civilian casualties that much lower.
That is a lovely piece of propaganda,part of the carefully constructed image that war is a quick and tidy operation against the military forces of another country.There are 5 milllion civilians in Baghdad alone,no way can anybody claim that weapons can be targetted into a city that size without causing major civilian casualties.
The other point that I have raised previously is that the U.S. military will take out essential services such as power and water prior to any invasion.This action alone will result in enormous numbers of civilian deaths.Iraq is still littered with the toxic detritus of the last war,pouring large amounts of depleted-uranium ordinance onto Iraq [plus whatever other weapons of mass destruction George Bush chooses to unleash] will only further contaminate the land for decades to come.Add to that the thousands of mines that will be laid by one side or the other,many of which will remain dormant until long after any conflict is over,and the picture for the Iraqi civilians looks pretty grim.Seems that America wants to 'liberate' Iraq from Saddam,and doesn't care if it reduces the whole country to a smoking ruin in order to get him.If Saddam were the real target,and he was as hated in his own country as the U.S. claims,then the U.S. would have simply funded and trained his opponents to overthrow him.By going in and removing him directly,the U.S. will gain controll of large oil resources,and a platform in the Middle East from which to launch further terrorist attacks.
YogsVR4
02-01-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
By going in and removing him directly,the U.S. will gain controll of large oil resources,and a platform in the Middle East from which to launch further terrorist attacks.
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
By going in and removing him directly,the U.S. will gain controll of large oil resources,and a platform in the Middle East from which to launch further terrorist attacks.
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
jon@af
02-01-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit"
:lol2: :thumbup: you're funny yogs. I thoroughly enjoy your sense of humor.
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit"
:lol2: :thumbup: you're funny yogs. I thoroughly enjoy your sense of humor.
Darth Cypher
02-01-2003, 10:04 PM
Never said that civilian casualties weren't going to happen but the use of guided bombs increases the success rate that we will hit our target. People tend to think that because we have the most advanced (and accurate) weapons systems that it is "error free". Not so, the laser can still be thrown off, we use satellite now and it is better but still there is room for error (as with everything). Also, we don't have 100% inventory of smart bombs, I think we are only around 60% now.
Propoganda is a funny game. Whenever one of our sorties goes wrong the media (no matter who own the company) has a field day with it and dwells on it to death. They never seem to talk of the thousands of successful sorties that were flown.
Another thing that saddam will do is the same thing that he did in the Gulf War. He will use the Law of Armed Conflict against us by doing things such as putting gun turrets on hospitals and such. And this isn't propoganda because we get training in Law of Armed Conflict a lot in the military (obviously) and it is briefed about putting weapon systems on "non-lawful" targets. They wouldn't have briefed us on it if it never happened, coughsaddamcough.
Remember, people are already starving in Iraq due to our embargos (not true but for sake of argument.....), so how much worse off will they be then that they weren't before? Once we accomplish the regime change, we are going to rebuild the city and feed the people and provide them with medical care (as we have doen several times before like with Japan). But we have to look out for our own soldiers too. And no that does not mean that we are going to break out the nukes and bomb cities to decrease our share of the casualties like we did with Japan in WW2.
Propoganda is a funny game. Whenever one of our sorties goes wrong the media (no matter who own the company) has a field day with it and dwells on it to death. They never seem to talk of the thousands of successful sorties that were flown.
Another thing that saddam will do is the same thing that he did in the Gulf War. He will use the Law of Armed Conflict against us by doing things such as putting gun turrets on hospitals and such. And this isn't propoganda because we get training in Law of Armed Conflict a lot in the military (obviously) and it is briefed about putting weapon systems on "non-lawful" targets. They wouldn't have briefed us on it if it never happened, coughsaddamcough.
Remember, people are already starving in Iraq due to our embargos (not true but for sake of argument.....), so how much worse off will they be then that they weren't before? Once we accomplish the regime change, we are going to rebuild the city and feed the people and provide them with medical care (as we have doen several times before like with Japan). But we have to look out for our own soldiers too. And no that does not mean that we are going to break out the nukes and bomb cities to decrease our share of the casualties like we did with Japan in WW2.
Darth Cypher
02-01-2003, 10:05 PM
Another thing: We did try the funding saddam's enemies so they can overthrown him. But good 'ol clinton came along and cancelled that program (not Bush Sr. like many tend to think).
Cbass
02-01-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
And with that statement, you (once again) counter a reasoned argument with an insult. Why don't you try to defend your views with reason? It's far more credible.
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
And with that statement, you (once again) counter a reasoned argument with an insult. Why don't you try to defend your views with reason? It's far more credible.
Cbass
02-01-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Never said that civilian casualties weren't going to happen but the use of guided bombs increases the success rate that we will hit our target. People tend to think that because we have the most advanced (and accurate) weapons systems that it is "error free". Not so, the laser can still be thrown off, we use satellite now and it is better but still there is room for error (as with everything). Also, we don't have 100% inventory of smart bombs, I think we are only around 60% now.
While this is better than the tried and true US tactic of carpet bombing that served them so well in WW2, it doesn't mean it's going to be used exclusively. By taking out the infrastructure of the cities, you are dooming thousands to die, although by different causes, such as disease and freezing to death.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Another thing that saddam will do is the same thing that he did in the Gulf War. He will use the Law of Armed Conflict against us by doing things such as putting gun turrets on hospitals and such. And this isn't propoganda because we get training in Law of Armed Conflict a lot in the military (obviously) and it is briefed about putting weapon systems on "non-lawful" targets. They wouldn't have briefed us on it if it never happened, coughsaddamcough.
Or that actually could be propaganda, giving the Air Force free run to bomb hospitals?
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Remember, people are already starving in Iraq due to our embargos (not true but for sake of argument.....), so how much worse off will they be then that they weren't before? Once we accomplish the regime change, we are going to rebuild the city and feed the people and provide them with medical care (as we have doen several times before like with Japan). But we have to look out for our own soldiers too. And no that does not mean that we are going to break out the nukes and bomb cities to decrease our share of the casualties like we did with Japan in WW2.
You say that's not true? What do you base that on? You make it sound like because you have unfairly subjected tens of millions to abominable conditions, that you are justified to take their only natural resource, because it will alleviate the suffering you have cause... That seems to be pretty shaky logic to me.
If you are concerned about your soldiers, perhaps you shouldn't send them overseas to die so GW Bush can have that oil. The US will use nuclear weapons if they have half a chance, under the pretense they need to protect themselves from weapons of mass destruction... That would be if anything happens, just as US troops being gassed, or chemical weapons showing up in the US.
Never said that civilian casualties weren't going to happen but the use of guided bombs increases the success rate that we will hit our target. People tend to think that because we have the most advanced (and accurate) weapons systems that it is "error free". Not so, the laser can still be thrown off, we use satellite now and it is better but still there is room for error (as with everything). Also, we don't have 100% inventory of smart bombs, I think we are only around 60% now.
While this is better than the tried and true US tactic of carpet bombing that served them so well in WW2, it doesn't mean it's going to be used exclusively. By taking out the infrastructure of the cities, you are dooming thousands to die, although by different causes, such as disease and freezing to death.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Another thing that saddam will do is the same thing that he did in the Gulf War. He will use the Law of Armed Conflict against us by doing things such as putting gun turrets on hospitals and such. And this isn't propoganda because we get training in Law of Armed Conflict a lot in the military (obviously) and it is briefed about putting weapon systems on "non-lawful" targets. They wouldn't have briefed us on it if it never happened, coughsaddamcough.
Or that actually could be propaganda, giving the Air Force free run to bomb hospitals?
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Remember, people are already starving in Iraq due to our embargos (not true but for sake of argument.....), so how much worse off will they be then that they weren't before? Once we accomplish the regime change, we are going to rebuild the city and feed the people and provide them with medical care (as we have doen several times before like with Japan). But we have to look out for our own soldiers too. And no that does not mean that we are going to break out the nukes and bomb cities to decrease our share of the casualties like we did with Japan in WW2.
You say that's not true? What do you base that on? You make it sound like because you have unfairly subjected tens of millions to abominable conditions, that you are justified to take their only natural resource, because it will alleviate the suffering you have cause... That seems to be pretty shaky logic to me.
If you are concerned about your soldiers, perhaps you shouldn't send them overseas to die so GW Bush can have that oil. The US will use nuclear weapons if they have half a chance, under the pretense they need to protect themselves from weapons of mass destruction... That would be if anything happens, just as US troops being gassed, or chemical weapons showing up in the US.
Darth Cypher
02-02-2003, 12:22 AM
I don't think it is true because saddam is more to blame than embargoes (that let food get through by the way). Once again, he splits his budget with billions to the military and millions to the rest of his country. It's not our fault how he allocates his funds. Then again, given this it might be better for the regime change after all.
And no, we don't bomb hospitals. There was another incident where saddam parked some of his aircraft next to some ancient temple (can't remember what it was specifically). Accourding to LOAC, historical sites are "unlawful targets". We decided not to bomb it. Really, we didn't. We are not these gung-ho, bomb dropping freaks that the media portrays the military to be. Much like what it did associating soldiers with being babykillers.
If I do get deployed to the Middle East, I'm not doing it for oil. I'm doing it because I believe that Iraq is going to be trouble. Maybe not in the streets in the US but to the US citizens over there and/or our allies. There is some reason that he is sluffing off the inspectors. Call it the right to defend themselves but we too will reserve that right.
Remember, Germany was under sanctions after WW1 and they still got to do thier thing in WW2. saddam violating the terms of his surrender is pretty shady if you ask me. Not saying that saddam is going to plot world domination like hitler did. But you get the idea.
And no, we don't bomb hospitals. There was another incident where saddam parked some of his aircraft next to some ancient temple (can't remember what it was specifically). Accourding to LOAC, historical sites are "unlawful targets". We decided not to bomb it. Really, we didn't. We are not these gung-ho, bomb dropping freaks that the media portrays the military to be. Much like what it did associating soldiers with being babykillers.
If I do get deployed to the Middle East, I'm not doing it for oil. I'm doing it because I believe that Iraq is going to be trouble. Maybe not in the streets in the US but to the US citizens over there and/or our allies. There is some reason that he is sluffing off the inspectors. Call it the right to defend themselves but we too will reserve that right.
Remember, Germany was under sanctions after WW1 and they still got to do thier thing in WW2. saddam violating the terms of his surrender is pretty shady if you ask me. Not saying that saddam is going to plot world domination like hitler did. But you get the idea.
Cbass
02-02-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I don't think it is true because saddam is more to blame than embargoes (that let food get through by the way). Once again, he splits his budget with billions to the military and millions to the rest of his country. It's not our fault how he allocates his funds. Then again, given this it might be better for the regime change after all.
That is propaganda, something you have been told many times, I would suspect. Iraq spent vast amounts of money on it's people in health care, education and luxuries before the US imposed it's embargoes. Those embargoes do not allow enough food or medicine into the country. The woes of the Iraqi people are entirely the fault of the US.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And no, we don't bomb hospitals. There was another incident where saddam parked some of his aircraft next to some ancient temple (can't remember what it was specifically). Accourding to LOAC, historical sites are "unlawful targets". We decided not to bomb it. Really, we didn't. We are not these gung-ho, bomb dropping freaks that the media portrays the military to be. Much like what it did associating soldiers with being babykillers.
I never said you did, I'm just saying it could be propaganda, and that it could be used as an excuse, in the event that it happens, intentional or otherwise.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
If I do get deployed to the Middle East, I'm not doing it for oil. I'm doing it because I believe that Iraq is going to be trouble. Maybe not in the streets in the US but to the US citizens over there and/or our allies. There is some reason that he is sluffing off the inspectors. Call it the right to defend themselves but we too will reserve that right.
They're much less of a threat than Israel is. Don't you think it's more likely that by invading Iraq, you would cause Saddam Hussein to use his alleged weapons of mass destruction? Bush certainly must know this. You'll be fighting for oil, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Remember, Germany was under sanctions after WW1 and they still got to do thier thing in WW2. saddam violating the terms of his surrender is pretty shady if you ask me. Not saying that saddam is going to plot world domination like hitler did. But you get the idea.
That is more ridiculous propaganda, I've heard it several times. Germany had ridiculous impositions forced on them by the Allies, who had not even won the war. The Western front was fought almost entirely on French(and a few insignifigant countries) soil, and yet when the armistice was called, France paraded about as if they had defeated the Germans. They demanded the Rhineland be demilitarized, a huge chunk of Prussia made into Poland, and that Germany have a tiny army. They also demanded that Germany pay humiliating war reparations to France. Hitler didn't declare war on France and Britain, they declared war on him, when he invaded Poland, in concert with Russia. Why did they not declare war on Russia, their communist enemy, that they were engaged in a massive war of political support with?
Saddam is in much the same position Hitler was, true, but now the Americans want his oil. It's as simple as that.
I don't think it is true because saddam is more to blame than embargoes (that let food get through by the way). Once again, he splits his budget with billions to the military and millions to the rest of his country. It's not our fault how he allocates his funds. Then again, given this it might be better for the regime change after all.
That is propaganda, something you have been told many times, I would suspect. Iraq spent vast amounts of money on it's people in health care, education and luxuries before the US imposed it's embargoes. Those embargoes do not allow enough food or medicine into the country. The woes of the Iraqi people are entirely the fault of the US.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And no, we don't bomb hospitals. There was another incident where saddam parked some of his aircraft next to some ancient temple (can't remember what it was specifically). Accourding to LOAC, historical sites are "unlawful targets". We decided not to bomb it. Really, we didn't. We are not these gung-ho, bomb dropping freaks that the media portrays the military to be. Much like what it did associating soldiers with being babykillers.
I never said you did, I'm just saying it could be propaganda, and that it could be used as an excuse, in the event that it happens, intentional or otherwise.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
If I do get deployed to the Middle East, I'm not doing it for oil. I'm doing it because I believe that Iraq is going to be trouble. Maybe not in the streets in the US but to the US citizens over there and/or our allies. There is some reason that he is sluffing off the inspectors. Call it the right to defend themselves but we too will reserve that right.
They're much less of a threat than Israel is. Don't you think it's more likely that by invading Iraq, you would cause Saddam Hussein to use his alleged weapons of mass destruction? Bush certainly must know this. You'll be fighting for oil, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Remember, Germany was under sanctions after WW1 and they still got to do thier thing in WW2. saddam violating the terms of his surrender is pretty shady if you ask me. Not saying that saddam is going to plot world domination like hitler did. But you get the idea.
That is more ridiculous propaganda, I've heard it several times. Germany had ridiculous impositions forced on them by the Allies, who had not even won the war. The Western front was fought almost entirely on French(and a few insignifigant countries) soil, and yet when the armistice was called, France paraded about as if they had defeated the Germans. They demanded the Rhineland be demilitarized, a huge chunk of Prussia made into Poland, and that Germany have a tiny army. They also demanded that Germany pay humiliating war reparations to France. Hitler didn't declare war on France and Britain, they declared war on him, when he invaded Poland, in concert with Russia. Why did they not declare war on Russia, their communist enemy, that they were engaged in a massive war of political support with?
Saddam is in much the same position Hitler was, true, but now the Americans want his oil. It's as simple as that.
taranaki
02-02-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
If Idid cross into the world of 'full of shit',I'd be able to shake your hand.
Too bad I'd rather not.
And with that statement you have crossed (once again) into the world of "full of shit" :rolleyes: I believe your young children use better logic then yours - at least I can hope.
If Idid cross into the world of 'full of shit',I'd be able to shake your hand.
Too bad I'd rather not.
Darth Cypher
02-02-2003, 02:26 AM
Why is it everything I say is only countered with "propoganda, propoganda, propoganda"????? What about all this "the US is evil" propoganda that people believe?
And Iraq's starving people is saddam's fault. Japan played nice and look at them. We did saddam, Iraq and even us a favor by allowing him to surrender. We had the chance for his oil and we didn't take it. Since then he has not complied with his terms of surrender (to disarm). The entire UN (all 15 members) voted for him to disarm, thus Resolution 1441 was created.
He has not complied with those terms. clinton sat on his ass about it (until he was in court for his little "extramarital affair"). The ways that saddam has not been complying with those terms are now coming to light. It's a slow process but remember, the inspectors have been absent from Iraq for years. That's a lot of info to try to find. Like I have said, I am waiting for Feb. 5 to roll around.
And we do know he has the stuff because we gave it to him. Remember, "the US is evil" and we gave him some bio/chem weapons in the Iraq/Iran war. Now we want to know if he has destroyed them or not. And given the report that Blix gave the UN, it doesn't seem like he has.
By the way, I got that thing about his budget from an educational show in Discovery or one of those channels a while ago. It gave his good and bad points so I feel that it is fairly unbiased. I didn't know he even had those good points so it basically countered this "villianizing propoganda" I am somehow supposedly fed.
And Iraq's starving people is saddam's fault. Japan played nice and look at them. We did saddam, Iraq and even us a favor by allowing him to surrender. We had the chance for his oil and we didn't take it. Since then he has not complied with his terms of surrender (to disarm). The entire UN (all 15 members) voted for him to disarm, thus Resolution 1441 was created.
He has not complied with those terms. clinton sat on his ass about it (until he was in court for his little "extramarital affair"). The ways that saddam has not been complying with those terms are now coming to light. It's a slow process but remember, the inspectors have been absent from Iraq for years. That's a lot of info to try to find. Like I have said, I am waiting for Feb. 5 to roll around.
And we do know he has the stuff because we gave it to him. Remember, "the US is evil" and we gave him some bio/chem weapons in the Iraq/Iran war. Now we want to know if he has destroyed them or not. And given the report that Blix gave the UN, it doesn't seem like he has.
By the way, I got that thing about his budget from an educational show in Discovery or one of those channels a while ago. It gave his good and bad points so I feel that it is fairly unbiased. I didn't know he even had those good points so it basically countered this "villianizing propoganda" I am somehow supposedly fed.
Cbass
02-02-2003, 11:40 PM
Where to begin... :huh:
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Why is it everything I say is only countered with "propoganda, propoganda, propoganda"????? What about all this "the US is evil" propoganda that people believe?
I would atribute this to the fact that much of what you say, and base your viewpoint from is propaganda. I'm interested to know, where is this "the US is evil" propaganda coming from? I guess every other country in the world is jealous of America, and because of this, we object to the things America does around the world?
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And Iraq's starving people is saddam's fault. Japan played nice and look at them. We did saddam, Iraq and even us a favor by allowing him to surrender. We had the chance for his oil and we didn't take it. Since then he has not complied with his terms of surrender (to disarm). The entire UN (all 15 members) voted for him to disarm, thus Resolution 1441 was created.
Actually, the US was part of a coalition of forces that defeated Iraq in Kuwait, and the UN was not about to support the US marching in and taking over Iraq. It wasn't until after 9/11 that they actually got free liscence to do this, under the name of "The War on Terror!"
Saying that the civilians in Iraq starving is Saddams fault is like saying a rape victim is at fault for their rape.
In order to prove he's not "disarming" which applies in this sense only to weapons of mass destruction, you first have to prove they are there. You are spouting propaganda. Furthermore, the US has been comitting daily acts of war against Iraq, patrolling illegal No Fly Zones, and bombing any targets they see fit.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
He has not complied with those terms. clinton sat on his ass about it (until he was in court for his little "extramarital affair"). The ways that saddam has not been complying with those terms are now coming to light. It's a slow process but remember, the inspectors have been absent from Iraq for years. That's a lot of info to try to find. Like I have said, I am waiting for Feb. 5 to roll around.
And we do know he has the stuff because we gave it to him. Remember, "the US is evil" and we gave him some bio/chem weapons in the Iraq/Iran war. Now we want to know if he has destroyed them or not. And given the report that Blix gave the UN, it doesn't seem like he has.
Iraq hasn't been 100% co-operative with the UN weapons inspectors, this is true, but not to the extent the US media plays it up to be. From what I see on the major networks, Iraq kicked weapons inspectors out in '98(which they didn't, they were recalled by the leader of the inspection team, Richard Butler. If you are not aware, he was a US spy, and his goal was to find justification for an invasion.
Before you go making assumptions, or basing arguments off of Hans Blix's reports, perhaps you should read them, not whatever the US media tells you they said.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Why is it everything I say is only countered with "propoganda, propoganda, propoganda"????? What about all this "the US is evil" propoganda that people believe?
I would atribute this to the fact that much of what you say, and base your viewpoint from is propaganda. I'm interested to know, where is this "the US is evil" propaganda coming from? I guess every other country in the world is jealous of America, and because of this, we object to the things America does around the world?
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And Iraq's starving people is saddam's fault. Japan played nice and look at them. We did saddam, Iraq and even us a favor by allowing him to surrender. We had the chance for his oil and we didn't take it. Since then he has not complied with his terms of surrender (to disarm). The entire UN (all 15 members) voted for him to disarm, thus Resolution 1441 was created.
Actually, the US was part of a coalition of forces that defeated Iraq in Kuwait, and the UN was not about to support the US marching in and taking over Iraq. It wasn't until after 9/11 that they actually got free liscence to do this, under the name of "The War on Terror!"
Saying that the civilians in Iraq starving is Saddams fault is like saying a rape victim is at fault for their rape.
In order to prove he's not "disarming" which applies in this sense only to weapons of mass destruction, you first have to prove they are there. You are spouting propaganda. Furthermore, the US has been comitting daily acts of war against Iraq, patrolling illegal No Fly Zones, and bombing any targets they see fit.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
He has not complied with those terms. clinton sat on his ass about it (until he was in court for his little "extramarital affair"). The ways that saddam has not been complying with those terms are now coming to light. It's a slow process but remember, the inspectors have been absent from Iraq for years. That's a lot of info to try to find. Like I have said, I am waiting for Feb. 5 to roll around.
And we do know he has the stuff because we gave it to him. Remember, "the US is evil" and we gave him some bio/chem weapons in the Iraq/Iran war. Now we want to know if he has destroyed them or not. And given the report that Blix gave the UN, it doesn't seem like he has.
Iraq hasn't been 100% co-operative with the UN weapons inspectors, this is true, but not to the extent the US media plays it up to be. From what I see on the major networks, Iraq kicked weapons inspectors out in '98(which they didn't, they were recalled by the leader of the inspection team, Richard Butler. If you are not aware, he was a US spy, and his goal was to find justification for an invasion.
Before you go making assumptions, or basing arguments off of Hans Blix's reports, perhaps you should read them, not whatever the US media tells you they said.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect
Monkey-Magic-S15-R
02-03-2003, 09:11 AM
That sounds like the sort of plan i use in Comand And Conquer Red Alert
Do they realise this isn't Comand And Conquer they'll be putting thousands of lives at risk. Not to mention annoucing the plan isn't a good idea cuz then they'll know what to expect. I'm not sure they got their marbles in the right place.
In response to CBass above claim of its a rape victims fault.
No its not the peoples fault its the governments. If the government fails to serve its people then its not doing its just properly.
Altho the same could be said about the Labour government in power in England
Do they realise this isn't Comand And Conquer they'll be putting thousands of lives at risk. Not to mention annoucing the plan isn't a good idea cuz then they'll know what to expect. I'm not sure they got their marbles in the right place.
In response to CBass above claim of its a rape victims fault.
No its not the peoples fault its the governments. If the government fails to serve its people then its not doing its just properly.
Altho the same could be said about the Labour government in power in England
YogsVR4
02-03-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
If Idid cross into the world of 'full of shit',I'd be able to shake your hand.
Too bad I'd rather not.
:rolleyes: oh my poor feelings :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
If Idid cross into the world of 'full of shit',I'd be able to shake your hand.
Too bad I'd rather not.
:rolleyes: oh my poor feelings :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Darth Cypher
02-04-2003, 05:24 AM
Thank you S15-R, you pretty much summed up my reply for the "rape scenario" as it applies to Iraq.
This "US is evil" thing is what I have seen everywhere, other boards, people, etc. I'm not surprised that we are hated, some of the reasons we are hated is what surprises me. Personally, I think a good portion of this "hatred" towards us is jealousy.
About the possibility of Iraq having WMD. I ask this: Do you believe that we did give him some WMD (in the form of bio/chem weapons) to them during the Iraq/Iran war? If you say yes, then that right there tells us that he has them, or at least had them. We would like to know the status of those weapons (as is yet to be determined if the inspectors are asking for more time). If you think no, then that surprises me but either way we are back to square one with our debate.
I read some of the link. I read this part of the site so far: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html
I see that some of the stuff in there was not what the media is "telling me" (in the above posted link/section of the site). Such as all the chemicals that are unaccounted for or whatever. Still though, why would the media simply make it up? And not just the US media but several different ones. If it was this bad then the other UN nations would be having a fit (especially the French).
Let's say that it is being made up, how could they get away with it? Instead, the number of supporters is now increasing. I watch news on Sky Satellite over here in the UK and I get the usual CNN and Fox News and stuff as well as the BBC news networks. They all pretty much agree. But I'm sure you are going to tell me that they are all in cahoots with each other. Oh well, why don't we simply agree to disagree?
This "US is evil" thing is what I have seen everywhere, other boards, people, etc. I'm not surprised that we are hated, some of the reasons we are hated is what surprises me. Personally, I think a good portion of this "hatred" towards us is jealousy.
About the possibility of Iraq having WMD. I ask this: Do you believe that we did give him some WMD (in the form of bio/chem weapons) to them during the Iraq/Iran war? If you say yes, then that right there tells us that he has them, or at least had them. We would like to know the status of those weapons (as is yet to be determined if the inspectors are asking for more time). If you think no, then that surprises me but either way we are back to square one with our debate.
I read some of the link. I read this part of the site so far: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html
I see that some of the stuff in there was not what the media is "telling me" (in the above posted link/section of the site). Such as all the chemicals that are unaccounted for or whatever. Still though, why would the media simply make it up? And not just the US media but several different ones. If it was this bad then the other UN nations would be having a fit (especially the French).
Let's say that it is being made up, how could they get away with it? Instead, the number of supporters is now increasing. I watch news on Sky Satellite over here in the UK and I get the usual CNN and Fox News and stuff as well as the BBC news networks. They all pretty much agree. But I'm sure you are going to tell me that they are all in cahoots with each other. Oh well, why don't we simply agree to disagree?
Cbass
02-04-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
In response to CBass above claim of its a rape victims fault.
No its not the peoples fault its the governments. If the government fails to serve its people then its not doing its just properly.
Altho the same could be said about the Labour government in power in England
Here is where you are misinformed however, it is not the fault of the government, as they are not failing to serve the people. It is the fault of the United States, bombing their power and water infrastructure.
Iraq was nearly as prosperous a country as Saudi Arabia, until the US turned their back on them, when it became apparent they couldn't defeat Iran. BTW, Iran was the original target as you may recall from the '80s, what with all the US propaganda on the airwaves and in the newspapers.
So then the US began a decade long campaign to break Iraq down, which is finally coming to fruition.
In response to CBass above claim of its a rape victims fault.
No its not the peoples fault its the governments. If the government fails to serve its people then its not doing its just properly.
Altho the same could be said about the Labour government in power in England
Here is where you are misinformed however, it is not the fault of the government, as they are not failing to serve the people. It is the fault of the United States, bombing their power and water infrastructure.
Iraq was nearly as prosperous a country as Saudi Arabia, until the US turned their back on them, when it became apparent they couldn't defeat Iran. BTW, Iran was the original target as you may recall from the '80s, what with all the US propaganda on the airwaves and in the newspapers.
So then the US began a decade long campaign to break Iraq down, which is finally coming to fruition.
Cbass
02-04-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
:rolleyes: oh my poor feelings :rolleyes:
My god man, you're like a child! You respond to a well thought out counterstatement with an insult, and when an insult is met with an insult, you act as if it is immature!
Is it something in the water in the US that makes people hypocritical?
:rolleyes: oh my poor feelings :rolleyes:
My god man, you're like a child! You respond to a well thought out counterstatement with an insult, and when an insult is met with an insult, you act as if it is immature!
Is it something in the water in the US that makes people hypocritical?
Cbass
02-04-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
This "US is evil" thing is what I have seen everywhere, other boards, people, etc. I'm not surprised that we are hated, some of the reasons we are hated is what surprises me. Personally, I think a good portion of this "hatred" towards us is jealousy.
The jealousy theory is more propaganda, as I have heard that many times from Americans (mostly the ignorant ones, which I do not class you as), as the reason that large portions of the world hate the US. This argument could explain why some do, but I sincerely doubt that Europeans are jealous of the US. My country is far better in most non military and economic senses than the US, such as standards of living, but I am in fact jealous of the Europeans, for the basic privileges and rights they have. This doesn't make me hate them, it makes me want to move to Ireland.
If you open your eyes and look at NON US news from the last 50 years, you will quickly see why the US is hated. Whenever the US sees a threat to their foreign interests, they take whatever action is necessary to protect them, and if that leaves thousands, or even millions dead, it's of no consequence to them.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
About the possibility of Iraq having WMD. I ask this: Do you believe that we did give him some WMD (in the form of bio/chem weapons) to them during the Iraq/Iran war? If you say yes, then that right there tells us that he has them, or at least had them. We would like to know the status of those weapons (as is yet to be determined if the inspectors are asking for more time). If you think no, then that surprises me but either way we are back to square one with our debate.
A less common, and more intelligent argument. Read the Blix reports, they begin by summarizing the work of the previous UNSCOM work, and the weapons they oversaw the disarming of. It is proven and accepted that the previous inspection team was almost as much an intelligence gathering effort for the CIA and to a lesser degree the Mossad than it was a legitimate inspection team. This infuriated the UN members, considering it was being done in their name. Richard Butler, although never proven to be a CIA agent, was proven to be working for them. His agenda was to find grounds to start a war(remember, this was under Clinton, he wasn't "sitting on his ass" as Republicans like to harp). Despite this, they still oversaw much disarming of the weapons from the Iran conflict. The UNSCOM team was not withdrawn because Saddam was "kicking them out", although CNN, USA Today and other such "reliable sources" were saying that. Butler withdrew the team, because he thought he had given the senate enough to start a war, which he had not.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I read some of the link. I read this part of the site so far: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html
I see that some of the stuff in there was not what the media is "telling me" (in the above posted link/section of the site). Such as all the chemicals that are unaccounted for or whatever. Still though, why would the media simply make it up? And not just the US media but several different ones. If it was this bad then the other UN nations would be having a fit (especially the French).
Let's say that it is being made up, how could they get away with it? Instead, the number of supporters is now increasing. I watch news on Sky Satellite over here in the UK and I get the usual CNN and Fox News and stuff as well as the BBC news networks. They all pretty much agree. But I'm sure you are going to tell me that they are all in cahoots with each other. Oh well, why don't we simply agree to disagree?
The media does not "simply make it up", they are extremely sympathetic to the governments in power. Don't bother using media scandals to refute that, because they don't. You really can tell what the US gov't is going to do 6 months in advance... By watching CNN and reading between the lines. The unconfirmed rumours that they pop up, the in depth look at a country, and how awful things are there... That sort of thing. It's called a sympathetic media, and Britain has it as well. As for the British and US state sympathetic media, of course they are going to report the same lines. What is the only country other than the US who is willing to start a war even if the UN condemns it?
If you haven't noticed, the other nations ARE infuriated. Talk to some of the non US or UK posters on this board, they're not too pleased with the US right now.
This "US is evil" thing is what I have seen everywhere, other boards, people, etc. I'm not surprised that we are hated, some of the reasons we are hated is what surprises me. Personally, I think a good portion of this "hatred" towards us is jealousy.
The jealousy theory is more propaganda, as I have heard that many times from Americans (mostly the ignorant ones, which I do not class you as), as the reason that large portions of the world hate the US. This argument could explain why some do, but I sincerely doubt that Europeans are jealous of the US. My country is far better in most non military and economic senses than the US, such as standards of living, but I am in fact jealous of the Europeans, for the basic privileges and rights they have. This doesn't make me hate them, it makes me want to move to Ireland.
If you open your eyes and look at NON US news from the last 50 years, you will quickly see why the US is hated. Whenever the US sees a threat to their foreign interests, they take whatever action is necessary to protect them, and if that leaves thousands, or even millions dead, it's of no consequence to them.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
About the possibility of Iraq having WMD. I ask this: Do you believe that we did give him some WMD (in the form of bio/chem weapons) to them during the Iraq/Iran war? If you say yes, then that right there tells us that he has them, or at least had them. We would like to know the status of those weapons (as is yet to be determined if the inspectors are asking for more time). If you think no, then that surprises me but either way we are back to square one with our debate.
A less common, and more intelligent argument. Read the Blix reports, they begin by summarizing the work of the previous UNSCOM work, and the weapons they oversaw the disarming of. It is proven and accepted that the previous inspection team was almost as much an intelligence gathering effort for the CIA and to a lesser degree the Mossad than it was a legitimate inspection team. This infuriated the UN members, considering it was being done in their name. Richard Butler, although never proven to be a CIA agent, was proven to be working for them. His agenda was to find grounds to start a war(remember, this was under Clinton, he wasn't "sitting on his ass" as Republicans like to harp). Despite this, they still oversaw much disarming of the weapons from the Iran conflict. The UNSCOM team was not withdrawn because Saddam was "kicking them out", although CNN, USA Today and other such "reliable sources" were saying that. Butler withdrew the team, because he thought he had given the senate enough to start a war, which he had not.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I read some of the link. I read this part of the site so far: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html
I see that some of the stuff in there was not what the media is "telling me" (in the above posted link/section of the site). Such as all the chemicals that are unaccounted for or whatever. Still though, why would the media simply make it up? And not just the US media but several different ones. If it was this bad then the other UN nations would be having a fit (especially the French).
Let's say that it is being made up, how could they get away with it? Instead, the number of supporters is now increasing. I watch news on Sky Satellite over here in the UK and I get the usual CNN and Fox News and stuff as well as the BBC news networks. They all pretty much agree. But I'm sure you are going to tell me that they are all in cahoots with each other. Oh well, why don't we simply agree to disagree?
The media does not "simply make it up", they are extremely sympathetic to the governments in power. Don't bother using media scandals to refute that, because they don't. You really can tell what the US gov't is going to do 6 months in advance... By watching CNN and reading between the lines. The unconfirmed rumours that they pop up, the in depth look at a country, and how awful things are there... That sort of thing. It's called a sympathetic media, and Britain has it as well. As for the British and US state sympathetic media, of course they are going to report the same lines. What is the only country other than the US who is willing to start a war even if the UN condemns it?
If you haven't noticed, the other nations ARE infuriated. Talk to some of the non US or UK posters on this board, they're not too pleased with the US right now.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025