Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: N1kPaz on March 17, 2003, 09:50:03 PM
-
When iraq is liberated, and the people get a chance to speak out, the coalition will be able to say..."we told you so" and looky here guys.....chemical artillery shells....hmmmm
this will be cool.
-
If this were a war about 'liberating' people, why not start with places that really treats its people bad: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, North Korea, China?
Answer: Because that wont get you re-elected.
That being said, I am ready for the Big Show. They better have some news crews set up to video tape the air strikes. I'm paying for this show and I want to be entertained. A low-level high sped dogfight over the desert would be neat. Perhaps an F-15 versus two Mig-29s. Fair fight probably.
M1s are not any fun to watch. Maybe if the Marines used there M60s vs the Iraqi T72s it would be better.
Aint no stopping it now, sit back and watch the fireworks.
-
Marines haven't used the M60 for quite some time...
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
If this were a war about 'liberating' people, why not start with places that really treats its people bad: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, North Korea, China?
Answer: Because that wont get you re-elected.
Maybe it's because there's no 12 year record of ignoring UN SC resolutions on disarmament for any of those nations?
No "SC resolution 1441" against those nations?
Just a couple of "starters" for your consideration.
-
because this is really more convenient, and he is a killer and has been a thorn in the side of civilized people for many years. its about responsibility. we are taking that responsibility. Dont worry...we will help other oppressed people to be liberated. It makes me sick to think that supposedly civilized countries (france?) could be so callous of the true plight of the iraqi people. makes you wonder who is really in this for the money...us or them...well looks like we at least have the morality angle too.
-
Hes the lesser of two evil folks. Iraq is probably the most civilized middle-eastern country. True, their police are brutal. But what has Saddam done that is so saddistic? Gassing the Kurds? Heck, it was Saddams RESPONSIBILITY to put down that uprising.
But compared to some of the Islamic fundamentalist countries, Iraq is a trip to Disney Land. Women don't walk around with veils on their heads in Iraq. They do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and a few other countries. I've seen plenty of footage of what they do to women in Islamic fundamentalist countries. If you've got a strong enough stomach, I can even send you a link to that stuff.
But by far, Iraq is not the most brutal country in the middle-east or asia. If you want to see some blood-shed, watch what happens if the country turns Muslim.
-
.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
If this were a war about 'liberating' people, why not start with places that really treats its people bad: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, North Korea, China?
Answer: Because that wont get you re-elected.
GHWB, and Churchill lost elections after they led military victories.
Your answer does not have historic precedent.
-
Wow, Saddam was responsible for all that, Toad?! Who's grasping at straws now?
Didn't Saddam shoot JFK too?
It makes me sick to think that supposedly civilized countries (france?) could be so callous of the true plight of the iraqi people.
Where were you 20 years ago when Saddam was being supported by the US, in the knowledge that he was a genocidal maniac? Where were you when the US was selling chemical weapons precursors to Saddam AFTER he had gassed hundreds of thousands of Iranians and thousands of Kurds? Where was your indignation then?
The US and UK can't claim moral superiority after what has gone before.
-
Churchill held onto the job after WW2. So did Thatcher. So did Major.
It does have historic precedence.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Hes the lesser of two evil folks. Iraq is probably the most civilized middle-eastern country. True, their police are brutal. But what has Saddam done that is so saddistic? Gassing the Kurds? Heck, it was Saddams RESPONSIBILITY to put down that uprising.
Where were you 20 years ago when Saddam was being supported by the US, in the knowledge that he was a genocidal maniac? Where were you when the US was selling chemical weapons precursors to Saddam AFTER he had gassed hundreds of thousands of Iranians and thousands of Kurds? Where was your indignation then?
Odd to see two people on the same side of the argument citing the same incident, one condemning, the other praising it.
We want Saddam gone. He is a threat. We are going to remove him. If you don't like it, do something about it. They are looking for volunteers for operation "Human Shield".
When we are done with him, we'll move to next on the list.
-
Odd to see two people on the same side of the argument citing the same incident, one condemning, the other praising it.
It's called diversity of opinion. Last time I checked, it was still allowed.
When we are done with him, we'll move to next on the list.
And who might that be?
-
Is that what you call it when someone praises the gassing of civilians? Diversity of opinion? And it's ok?
Heck, we need some diversity of opinion in France.
And when we move up the list, you'll know. So be a good boy, and it won't be you.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
And when we move up the list, you'll know. So be a good boy, and it won't be you.
Define a "good boy".
-
You got me shaking in me booties, Martlet. "Be and good boy and it won't be you". Oh my!
Is that what you call it when someone praises the gassing of civilians? Diversity of opinion? And it's ok?
Of course it's diversity of opinion. What would you call it? A crime?
-
That pic above is the worst photoshop work I have seen in a while.
-
If you aren't shaking, then you obviously have nothing to worry about.
And yes, I would call it a crime. Civilians, not in a war zone, not engaged in combat, killed by illegal means, is criminal.
-
Don't dodge Martlet, you haven't the finesse. I was talking about diversity of opinion being a crime, and you know it.
If you aren't shaking, then you obviously have nothing to worry about.
Thank-you Big Brother! See you at the two minute hate!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Don't dodge Martlet, you haven't the finesse. I was talking about diversity of opinion being a crime, and you know it.
Thank-you Big Brother! See you at the two minute hate!
actually, i wasn't dodging. I thought that was what you were referring to.
And no, difference of opinion isn't a crime. It's welcomed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Churchill held onto the job after WW2. So did Thatcher. So did Major.
It does have historic precedence.
Dowding - Churchill did not remain at Downing St. for very long after WW2. Clement Attlee enjoyed a landslide election victory in 1945 to become Labour's second Prime Minster. Churchill returned to the Premiership in 1951.
Yes, Thatcher and Major held on. There were calls for Thatcher to resign over the Falklands (before the conflict began) by the out of touch peaceniks (including my hero, Tony Wankbag Benn) who thought it was just plain rediculous. But it was a brilliant campaign, and her popularity soared and propelled her to a second election victory with a majority of 144 in 1983.
Major finally got bounced out - not because of his war policy in 1991, but because of the shameful ERM debacle with Norman "Je ne regrette rien" Lamont. That one utterance was so callous that I have never voted for the Tory party since.
-
So you welcome diversity of opinion, but find it funny when it occurs?
Very confusing, Martlet.
-
Major was in power in 1997, 6 years after the Gulf War ended.
Thatcher was in power in 1990. 8 years after the Falklands war ended.
There is therefore precedence.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So you welcome diversity of opinion, but find it funny when it occurs?
Very confusing, Martlet.
I don't find it funny when difference of opinion occurs.
I do find it funny when a person skips over one post praising an act, only to use the same instance to slam someone who condemned the act. All while condemning it yourself.
At least be consistent.
-
Well the most obvious conclusion would be that I don't agree with davidpt40. It's a shame you missed it; it would have won you the top prize.
-
what's the second prize?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Major was in power in 1997, 6 years after the Gulf War ended.
Thatcher was in power in 1990. 8 years after the Falklands war ended.
There is therefore precedence.
But Churchill got the boot within a few months of the end of WW2, which makes your point difficult to understand, assuming there is one.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It's called diversity of opinion. Last time I checked, it was still allowed.
It is?
some would differ
Is that what you call it when someone praises the gassing of civilians? Diversity of opinion? And it's ok?
Heck, we need some diversity of opinion in France.
And when we move up the list, you'll know. So be a good boy, and it won't be you.
Ahhhh just when my faith had been shaken, it's put right...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by takeda
That pic above is the worst photoshop work I have seen in a while.
agree
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But Churchill got the boot within a few months of the end of WW2, which makes your point difficult to understand, assuming there is one.
Churchill, and Thatcher were a completely different situation.
Britain had suffered so very much more by war in 1945, than 1982 and also a was completely different society.
Thatcher took the credit for the resurgence of national pride after the Falklands and rode it for years after. Thatcher used this enthuaism to cloud all of the social problems partly created by her tory government up to and beyond the Falklands.
Major to a lesser extent.
1945 Britain was completely exhausted, and sick of war. Churchill was the most obvious result of this mood as the British public desperately needed a sense of complete change. The ensuing years of war had bought the British people much pain, and Churchill's govt. was the face of this war.
Tronsky
-
Dowdling...I was in the 2nd grade.
Where was france in 39???
where is france now???
oh...in case one...sitting on their tulips while an ally gets thumped and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing about it (even though the forces opposing them were so diminished in number that a French invasion would have almost surely dealt a heavy blow)
#2...opposing a valuable ally and giving credibility to murderous bastards who use rape as torture.
hmm.. im pretty comfortable with my position.
-
again ...
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
If this were a war about 'liberating' people, why not start with places that really treats its people bad: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, North Korea, China?
Answer: Because that wont get you re-elected.
and china has over 1 billion people...you cant airstrike without killing hundreds you cant invade normally because of there huge population...
and im sure all those places (except china) will be 'liberated' eventually...
-
Originally posted by N1kPaz
Dowdling...I was in the 2nd grade.
Where was france in 39???
where is france now???
oh...in case one...sitting on their tulips while an ally gets thumped and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing about it (even though the forces opposing them were so diminished in number that a French invasion would have almost surely dealt a heavy blow)
#2...opposing a valuable ally and giving credibility to murderous bastards who use rape as torture.
hmm.. im pretty comfortable with my position.
Well they obviously don't teach history or geography in the second grade do they.
Tronsky
-
what does that mean?
please explain how i am wrong about france letting poland get thumped whilst declaring "war" LOL
jeezus...nevermind
i finally got it LOL
btw...anyone got a current map of europe i need to verify the location of Toadland.
-
vorty....i think china will liberate itself. any people who can provide such culinary delite for me at only 4.95 all you can eat, is cool in my book...
yay China Buffett