Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hristo on March 21, 2003, 06:38:25 AM
-
How many so far ?
-
who cares ...
lost at least 8 on our side if you are counting....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who cares ...
Hmm, I didn't expect any better, somehow.
-
1 well known PLF member dead
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen032003b.asp
More Bad News for Daschle
Taking out terror of all nationalities
The vision-challenged opponents of the war against the terror masters, those who have been saying that you can't fight Saddam and terrorism at the same time, got bad news today from Baghdad. It turns out that our surgical strike on Wednesday night - the one aimed at the "top leadership" of Saddam's little hell-between-two-rivers - got an unexpected bonus: a terrorist from the Palestine Liberation Front. And the good news comes not from the Pentagon but from the PLF itself.
According to UPI, the Palestine Liberation Front said Thursday one of its guerrillas was killed during the U.S. missile strikes on Iraq. A PFL statement released in the southern city of Sidon (Syrian-occupied Lebanon) identified the slain guerrilla as 1st Lieutenant Ahmed Walid Raguib al-Baz who was killed early Thursday "while confronting the treacherous U.S. air bombardment on Iraq."
I don't know anything about the late Mr. Al-Baz, but I know all too much about the PLF and its evil leader, Abu Abbas. This was the group that organized the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro back in the mid-1980s. They segregated the American passengers from the rest, and then courageously pushed an American Jewish paraplegic in his wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, into the Mediterranean. We tried to have Abu Abbas arrested in Italy, but he escaped through Yugoslavia to Yemen.
The PLF has long been one of the most lethal Palestinian terrorist groups, and achieved notoriety for its high-tech killings. Recently, Abu Abbas had come to live in the Palestinian Authority, but when Israel moved against the terrorists there he ran away - to Baghdad. The PLF has been one of the main conduits for Iraqi money to Palestinian suicide bombers.
So, in a single stroke, we have demonstrated the rightness of our cause and the wisdom of President Bush. It makes no sense to distinguish between the terrorists and the regimes that support them, for they are one and the same. We targeted a high-level meeting of top Iraqi officials, and willy-nilly eliminated a member of the terror network. Time will tell just how good and how lucky we were in the opening salvo of the Second Gulf War. But there is already cause for satisfaction.
Somebody should tell Daschle and Byrd.
-
74,319 have been killed in the past two days as the USA contiunes its criminally merciless and indescrimnate campaign against the civilan population centers of iraq...
-
One life lost is one to many :(
Does not matter what country the person happened to be born in.
-
Originally posted by AronL
One life lost is one to many :(
Does not matter what country the person happened to be born in.
But there are no terrorists in Bagdad ;)
-
Saddam qualifies as a terrorist (terrorising his fellow iraqis) in my book, and most of his closest family so they are fair game in my book :cool:
-
But losing a few to save many.......... what of that?
-
Allow me to explain AronL's statement:
Yea Saddam is a bad guy and I hate him and i want him gone but I dont want you do anything to get rid of him except constantly repeat that he is a bad guy and that he must be gotten rid of.
-
Originally posted by AronL
Saddam qualifies as a terrorist (terrorising his fellow iraqis) in my book, and most of his closest family so they are fair game in my book :cool:
You sure changed your tune fast:
AronL said "There is no indication that Iraq sponsors terrorism or Al Quaida.
That being said, this terrorist was hit by one of the missles fired at "Targets of opportunity" which was where the Iraq leadership command was rumored to be at.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Allow me to explain AronL's statement:
Yea Saddam is a bad guy and I hate him and i want him gone but I dont want you do anything to get rid of him except constantly repeat that he is a bad guy and that he must be gotten rid of.
hehehe beat me to the punch Grun :D
-
Loosing afew of "our" soldiers to save many sivilians in the future you mean?
Tricky question to answer i think, but is there any gurantee that we actually save any in the future?
Will this attack on Iraq stop future terrorist attacks on the US or any other nation?. or will it enhance the resolve and hate that many organisations/individuals and countries have agains us?
This war is a gamble and i dont think its the correct way to fight terrorism and or make the world a safer place for all.
We will not know the outcome of this thing for many years ...if ever.
Without the UN supporting this war, it will without a doubt be a huge propaganda victory for all the "groups" that already has a grudge against us and in that respect this war has already been lost.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Hmm, I didn't expect any better, somehow.
please name any other conflict, in history, where the money, technology and weapons were used to minimize CIVILIAN losses as what you see in this one .... hmm??
some will die, that is why they call it war ... fewer will die if/when they follow instructions provided by the advancing allied forces and/or stay the hell out of the way ...
-
AronL, aren't you late for school??? what are you 15?
-
Once again I step in and translate AronL's ramblings to the rest of us:
All is lost junior bosh devil al capone type gangster!!! Amreeka has failed and our glorious leader Saddam Hussein is victorious yet again! Deth to Amreeka!
BTW did anyone else notice the smart bellybutton "our" characerization he used when reffering to our troops?
-
Well Aron, you can ponder the imponderables like the future and wonder.
Or you can go to the Amnesty International website and read about how many Iraqis he kills on a continuing basis and take comfort that the lives lost in removing him will save many more from death by his order.
Maybe that can become your focus and help you through these difficult times.
-
Hey look AronL is on the radio.... He has a suprisingly feminine voice and goes by the name Andrea - wierd...
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
-
LOL
Was that all you could think of?
Does not matter if im 3 or 50, your replies prooves that your are just a bunch kids that cant argue on a mature level.
You lost the discussion when you could not post an intelligent reply without having to resort to insults.:cool:
-
Originally posted by AronL
Was that all you could think of?
Seems you're picking your battles...I will repeat:
Originally posted by AronL
Saddam qualifies as a terrorist (terrorising his fellow iraqis) in my book, and most of his closest family so they are fair game in my book
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You sure changed your tune fast:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AronL said "There is no indication that Iraq sponsors terrorism or Al Quaida.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, this terrorist was hit by one of the missles fired at "Targets of opportunity" which was where the Iraq leadership command was rumored to be at.
-
No
Iraq is terrorising its own population, not the US or any other nation.
Al Quaida and Iraq has no prooven connection.
-
Originally posted by AronL
One life lost is one to many Does not matter what country the person happened to be born in.
----------------------------
Saddam qualifies as a terrorist (terrorising his fellow iraqis) in my book, and most of his closest family so they are fair game in my book :cool:
What happened here? Are you from California? :confused:
-
Originally posted by AronL
No
Iraq is terrorising its own population, not the US or any other nation.
Al Quaida and Iraq has no prooven connection.
Again, you said "There is no indication that Iraq sponsors terrorism or Al Quaida."
You used OR..
Either way, hope to see you on this board in a month from now when all sorts of interesting things are uncovered in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
OH yeah. shhhh. Don't anyone say anthing about it or the US might actually have to attack a country that could offer some serious resistance.
Oed
Yeah, like the Falklands or something.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
"But there are no terrorists in Bagdad "
You may be right. But it's known that there are a quite a few in Karachi and Riyadh! Why aren't the bombs falling there?
OH yeah. shhhh. Don't anyone say anthing about it or the US might actually have to attack a country that could offer some serious resistance.
Oed
One of the weakest arguements, no surprise you'd use it.
NEXT!
-
Originally posted by AronL
You lost the discussion when you could not post an intelligent reply without having to resort to insults.:cool:
Do you actually expect serious responses to your idiotic naive childish rants. There is a reason that 12 year olds dont run this nations foreign policy, and you are that reason...
Just shut up untill you grow up a bit and have a chance to learn a bit about the world brefore you coment on it.
No worries though none of what I said means you arent mommies little special angel anymore...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
One of the weakest arguements, no surprise you'd use it.
NEXT!
Lets not forget that the USA has WMD.... Must disarm here first if we expect to do the same here.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
please name any other conflict, in history, where the money, technology and weapons were used to minimize CIVILIAN losses as what you see in this one .... hmm??
some will die, that is why they call it war ... fewer will die if/when they follow instructions provided by the advancing allied forces and/or stay the hell out of the way ...
You miss the main point.
Nobody would have to die if there wasn't that White house cowboy.
-
Except all the civilians who would be killed by saddam hussein in the next few years...
Are people in my old country really that stupid?
Hristo its like saying our 1995 offensive should not have happened because people would die - you ignore the neccesity of acting and consequences of not acting.
Plese dont give me BS about how you rememver the war and now think all war is bad. The French and Russian appeasers use this excise in referncese to WW2 and in the meantime started colonial and imperalstic wars in africa, vietnam, afghanistan and south america.
-
AronL you sure spell like toejam for being a submareen enginere
-
You miss the point-no one would have to die if Saddam wasn't a psychotic homicidal maniac.
I find it rather odd that any Iraqi who's managed to get the hell out of there in the last 35 years supports our actions-and the Westerners (who's greatest death threat occurs when they drive on the highway) are making apologies for him!
-
US rhetorics as of recent.
Hey, look, Iraq is our mortal enemy ! Damn, how we missed that for years ? We must attack before it destroys us !
Hey, Iraq is supporting OBL ! But wasn't OBL an enemy of Saddam ?! Yea, maybe, but we'll attack anyway. They are all Arabs, afterall !
Hey, Iraq is dangerous for having WMD ! What do you mean you say can't find it ? No problem, we'll attack anyway !
Listen, we'll atack Iraq if Saddam doesn't leave his country in 48 hours ! But, you know, even if he does, we will attack anyway.
Hmm, we need an UN resolution to start an attack. No problem though, even if we don't get it, we'll atack anyway.
Hey, terrorists might blow up Arizona nuclear power plant. Hurry, we must get Saddam quick, time is running out !
If it wasn't sad, it might even be funny.
-
If that wasn't a blatant misrepresentation of the facts to support your weak opinion, it would be sad Hristo... instead, it's just funny.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AronL
One life lost is one to many :(
Does not matter what country the person happened to be born in.
One death is a tragedy, 74,319 is a statistic.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
If that wasn't a blatant misrepresentation of the facts to support your weak opinion, it would be sad Hristo... instead, it's just funny.
-SW
Blatant misrepresentation ? Another long word ?
I thought these were facts.
-
Some are facts, some are hearsay, they are ALL used out of context or with little understanding of what has transpired here in the US over the past year and a half.
Hint about that nuclear power plant: The government told us a year ago all nuclear power plants are targets, so are chemical and industrial plants. It's nothing new that nuclear power plants are a suspected prime target, yet you associated it with Saddam for some unknown reason. Hence it is a misrepresentation.
I can take a part of a fact and use it in any context I want, it then becomes a false misrepresentation of facts to support my poorly informed opinion.
-SW
-
Heresay ? Misinterpreted ? There war sure has started ? An aggressive one, without UN approval.
The cowboy fulfilled his threats, without providing one important thing. A reason.
about the power plant
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82303
You can continue to read Rip's idiotic threads of liberated Iraqis screaming of joy. Next thing you'll see reports of Iraqis begging marines to be killed by Amerikan bullets.
-
I saw the power plant deal, obviously you chose to ignore my statement which is FAR more informed than you will ever be.
You get to sit out there on the sidelines, you only get the BIGGEST headlines. I get all the small details, like school districts being prepared for chemical weapons attacks. See that right there, if you had known about that, you would of thrown that up there in your list.
"Children in schools have to be prepared for bio/chem/nuclear attacks... Must attack Iraq!"
When the two are entirely unrelated.
An aggressive war, you uninformed people sure do like to throw that around. We don't need the UN's approval. Iraq's continued non-compliance with past resolutions makes this war completely legit.
As for the rest, you ever heard the term "rock bottom, still digging"?
You are already uninformed and spouting your own rhetoric that you have put together from various headline clippings which in many cases bear absolutely no connection to one another other than what you have invented, why don't you just quit digging?
-SW
-
Hristo, would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?
Only need a simple yes or no, not a dodge. Thx.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hristo, would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?
Only need a simple yes or no, not a dodge. Thx.
Shall I get the cross and nails ready?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who cares ...
sick. :(
-
Hristo I would rather listen to Rip's facts that he can back up than your BS that is incomplete and full of Anti-Bush remarks.
Bush has made his case for War. I don't believe everything he says but on the main reasons for going to Iraq I agree.
-
"body counts" are so viet nam, nobody uses body counts anymore, now they just count how many are still shooting back at you, thats the only number thats important
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hristo, would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?
Only need a simple yes or no, not a dodge. Thx.
Yes.
This way Bush made a mockery of UN.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Yes.
This way Bush made a mockery of UN.
The UN is deserving of mockery.
-
Bush did not make a mockery of the UN. The UN did that themselves.
-
No, France made a mockery of the UN. (I don't know if China and Russia would actually have cast a decisive veto, France spared them from that decision.)
-
any loss of life is regrettable, but better them now...than us when that bastard gets a nuke.
-
74,319 have been killed in the past two days
Where is your proof Grun? Please back up that statement.
Elfie
Armageddon Pile-it
HiTech give us Napalm
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
AronL you sure spell like toejam for being a submareen enginere
just took a drag off a cig, while holding the smoke in i took a sip of Coke, and after reading this the noise I made resembled a "grhumph, cough, cough" as it spewed forth onto my monitor. Damn that is funny.
Seriously AronL, if a top TERRORIST, is hanging out with the LEADERSHIP of Iraq and dies when we kill them, you have to MABY consider the fact that they were working together for one reason or another. Granted, I am sure in your world terrorist and leaders of countries hang out together all the time and it is considered "normal". Not to mention the twenty five THOUSAND dollars Saddumb gives families of terrorist suicide bombers (no connection there right?)
Don't criticize people about not having valid arguments just because YOU have your head soooooo deep in your arse (personal attack ;->) that YOU don't want to accept something that is right infront of your face (hmmmm......his head's in his ass, and it's in front of his face..... that would put it just about......... ewwwwwwww dat's gross) You said age didn't matter. Sure as heck does. That is why you have to be a certain age to even RUN for elected office. I agree with the others in that you sound quite young, and niave, and I can cut you some slack for that.
Grow up Jethro, then we can talk. (of course if you ARE like fifty years old, then I must give you a hearty <> because I was not aware that retarded [sorry, brain challenged] people flew in Aces High and that in and of itself is worthy of respect.)
+Lute
III/JG26 9ST Widow Makers
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
74,319 have been killed in the past two days as the USA contiunes its criminally merciless and indescrimnate campaign against the civilan population centers of iraq...
WRONG
Pravda is now reporting 493,124,541.307 dead.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who cares ...
lost at least 8 on our side if you are counting....
who cares
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
who cares
Hurry, that line for toejam paper is getting smaller! Go collect your square!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
WRONG
Pravda is now reporting 493,124,541.307 dead.
can you post a link ?
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
who cares
Americans dont share the Russian mentality when it comes to the importance of the individual or his/her life.
We care.
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
who cares
As an American I am a staunch proponent of free speech...
This however, is just idiotic ranting from a lowlife numbnut without the brains God gave a retarded squirrel. <--Free Speech
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
can you post a link ?
I'm sure Funked would love to but the information is being suppresed by the CIA and Exxon corporation..
If you think thats bad the US casualties so far are in tens of billins accoring to Iraqi TV, in fact they report republican guard is having a hard time lighting up the oil wells as all the fields are flooded with american blood...
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Where is your proof Grun? Please back up that statement.
Elfie
Armageddon Pile-it
HiTech give us Napalm
Idiot american media propaganda drone, stop questiong my true superior USA-hating sources, but if you must know I heard it from Boris - Boroada' pimp...
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Americans dont share the Russian mentality when it comes to the importance of the individual or his/her life.
We care.
read my post again.....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As an American I am a staunch proponent of free speech...
This however, is just idiotic ranting from a lowlife numbnut without the brains God gave a retarded squirrel. <--Free Speech
LOL read my post again..... im not the one who said " i dont care about Iraqi looses"
Im the one who sayd i dont care what you care
btw did you note, that you dont mind, that americans do not care about iraq, but you are about to shoot me, when im saying, idont care about your 8 dead tards ..
may you should reeducate your pilots :rolleyes:
-
Of all the tens of million stalin murdered, how on earth did he miss your family?
Lemme guess the purges, forced famines and gulags are just a myth.....
-
you dont even know, where im coming from and if you do, you are just a off....
check history first before you gonna talk about it
guys you pathetic phrases are somehow poinless waisting of mySql records
-
Woohooo! He told ne to checlk my history about stalins murders!!!
He deneid it!!! :D
-
no you silly idiot.... you were wondering, that our family wasnt annihilated, so im saying check history *******, coz you know nothing
Stallin did live in diferent country if you didnt note...
baaaa What a wise guy is that Grun
-
Are you czech or russian? At one point yoy seemed to chezc and another russian..
-
im czech
actualy there are still people in russia whitch do love still until today... do you know that ?
they belive in his goodness as you belive in goodness of Mr. Butcher
-
Who has bush butchered?
Now that we establishe you are chezc let me ask something?
Arent you ashemed by arguing for appeasement of saddam after what happend to your nastion in 1938?
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
who cares
Ok... I read it again... now what exactly am I not understanding here.
Im aware that English is not your first language... but Im pretty sure Im not confusing "who cares" for "I love America." Although given the content of your postings, its obvious enough youre not quite sure what youre saying... regardless of language.
-
its not my native language.. its my 3rd...
so i will try to say it again... when someone say "i dont care how many iraqi did die, i only count 8 US soldiers (w/o british as you noted)"
what to say to idiot like this ??
when he dont care about people, whitch hes trying to make "free" i realy dont care about band of butchers dieing for few $$ there ..
got my point ?
Look at the original post, from whitch i got eagler`s quote
-
I belive they meant Iraqi military...
I doubt they meant iraqi civillians.. that's just sick
-
Aye - no way Eagler meant Iraqi civilians. But stating that you dont care how many Americans, British, or Aussies die is somehow supposed to be a smart thing to say?
You wanna protest the war, fine. But dont show up to an American BBS, supporting an American game, run by American employees and tell us you dont care how many of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are killed.
Thats about as disrespectful as you can get.
-
Hristo:
So, you wouldn't support any military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, correct?
-
Originally posted by AronL
No
Iraq is terrorising its own population, not the US or any other nation.
Al Quaida and Iraq has no prooven connection.
If thats so then WTF was a Lt of a known Terrorist oragnization doing in a command structure.... tea and crumpets perhaps.
Get a damn clue, you and rest of the Iraq isnt involved in terrorism morons. I can only imagine how'd he support them w/any weapons he developed in the future if we allowed it.
Christ almighty... no wonder friggen Jerry Springer has such great ratings in my nation.
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
LOL read my post again..... im not the one who said " i dont care about Iraqi looses"
Im the one who sayd i dont care what you care
btw did you note, that you dont mind, that americans do not care about iraq, but you are about to shoot me, when im saying, idont care about your 8 dead tards ..
may you should reeducate your pilots :rolleyes:
Your posts are pretty intense Orel. I'm not going to start spewing venom back your way as your mastery of English is suspect... I sure as hell dont know Czech. Your posts seem very hateful of my nation though.
FACT: The USA is the ONLY NATION that develops weapons to AVOID CIVILIAN DEATHS.... yes..AVOID! We do NOT carpet bomb...nor use bio/gas weapons. We COULD if we wished.
We risk the live of our soldiers,sailors,airmen,marines etc to try and spare the innoncent.
We wage WAR as humanily as it can be waged..period.
WHAT does THIS mean.... we geeeze... I quess we DO care about those Iraqi CIVILIANS.
Yes..I know, its rocket science.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hristo:
So, you wouldn't support any military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, correct?
Correct, immediate self defence excluded.
-
Hristo:
OK, understand. No military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, unless in immediate self defense. (I assume "self-defense" would include helping an ally, if for example a NATO ally were attacked, other NATO countries would send military aid.
Now, second question:
What is your position on the March 1999 NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia that went on for weeks? These were, of course, not authorized by the UN Security Coucil.
Were these justified or not?
-
EagleCZ..
i'm sure you realize your comments are not winning any converts to your cause.
in fact, by your commentary; you are coverting the opinions of folks that regard the czechs as a worthwhile freedom loving group of folks worthy of american respect and consideration as equals in a world determined to rid the planet of murdering dictatorships and the sponsors of terror.
since you are well aware we're all a buncha war-mongering cowboys intent on the destruction of the planet, your commentary to that effect is accomplishing not a single thing.. masturbation would have to be significantly more gratifying than trying to tweek the noses of americans that have no intrest in your dogpatch sympto-suckass commie politics.
As a result, it's now my intent to make sure you understand that you are, in my humble opinion at least, a disgusting worthless piece of **** unworthy of the duct tape it would take to patch your ****ed up SQL server up to amiga standards to enable your 1 line reply.
it's also my privledge to invite you to stuff your head back up your bellybutton and suffocate post haste. we'd love a picture of the event, but i'm afraid we'll not be sending you any crayons and old shopping bags for your dog to draw it on.
should you find that you are not quite double-jointed enuff to accomplish the above suggestion, you might try taking a long walk off a short plank stretched off the side of the tallest building in your three street 1 car three light bulb commie leftover town of 10,000.
in short.. go **** yerself. and do it someplace else.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hristo:
OK, understand. No military action anywhere in any circumstance without UN SC authorization, unless in immediate self defense. (I assume "self-defense" would include helping an ally, if for example a NATO ally were attacked, other NATO countries would send military aid.
Now, second question:
What is your position on the March 1999 NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia that went on for weeks? These were, of course, not authorized by the UN Security Coucil.
Were these justified or not?
Formally illegal. It was mixing into country's internal affairs.
However, as they were targetting an army engaged against civilians, they were silently left unsanctioned. But still illegal.
-
Hristo, the UN is shreckless. Unable to even resolve to take action against an ARMY ENGAGED AGAINST CIVILIANS.
The hell with the UN.
It gets no respect from americans because they have no respect for the diffrence between right from wrong.
the sooner the UN is dismantled, the better.
-
I agree. Totally illegal, I'd say. Not only did they not have UN SC resolution to go in, but it was also CLEARLY a violation of the NATO Charter itself.
Now, given that it was totally illegal, should they have stayed out?
If you say yes, please explain your view of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on. Should it have been allowed to continue? Should the rest of the world, absent a UN resolution, just stood by hands folded and let the Kosovars be driven out and/or suffer and die?
-
Hristo how can you have any respect for the UN after how they acted in our country?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I agree. Totally illegal, I'd say. Not only did they not have UN SC resolution to go in, but it was also CLEARLY a violation of the NATO Charter itself.
Now, given that it was totally illegal, should they have stayed out?
If you say yes, please explain your view of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on. Should it have been allowed to continue? Should the rest of the world, absent a UN resolution, just stood by hands folded and let the Kosovars be driven out and/or suffer and die?
As I said, illegal, but tolerated.
Was it needed ? Yes, that's why it was tolerated.
Just the same as driving Saddam out of Kuwait. Or hitting him when he was killing Kurds in Iraq. That was needed.
But now, there simply is no reason. Saddam is not even a shadow of a threat he used to be. None of the alleged terrorist connection is proven either. If he was allowed to survive in 1991, I just don't see how he became the target now.
Is Saddam a tyrant ? Perhaps, to Western standards. Many leaders in the world would qualifiy , accoring to those standards. But what about Iraqi standards ? Maybe Saddam qualifies as best by Iraqi standards.
Who is US to decide what is best for Iraqi people ? Maybe they don't know any better. Maybe they dont deserve any better. Maybe they don't want any better.
If these attacks are just preventive, to hit whatever WMD is there, it holds no water. A number of other countries should be attacked as well then, including US itself. Afterall, it was them who supplied some of WMDs to Saddam and other countries. Including Israel, whos actions are often far from defensive and justified. Aside, US has long history of supporting dictators and supplying them with arms, even military intervening to keep them in power. Chile is one of prime examples.
This war is aggressive. I see it very similar as when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. To enter another country which was not a threat to himself, overthrow the government, install puppet leadership and stay there to feed on oil. That's what US is doing there now. The rest is just windowdressing.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hristo how can you have any respect for the UN after how they acted in our country?
I have to. I see no other alternative.
But I could argue about its role back then. Yes, extremists might say they tried to legalize Serbian gains. IMO, they helped us.
They allowed Croatia to take breath. If fights continued, I am not sure how long we would last. Even if we would, many lives would be lost. UN imposed a ceasfire, much needed by our side. (This was also official standing of Tudjman government, remember).
After Krajina lost great deal of political and military support and Croatia gained more military power (4 years after UN peackeepers arrived), we got green light to attack. UN peacekeepers just left and our army was free to advance. This was impossible in 1991 and would result in much more casaulties.
-
Dont be an idiot hristo. The argument that we cannot go after saddam for having wmd just becausev the usa does is one of the most retard things i have ever heard. Donr forget it was the usa that helped win our war in 1995 and frankkly a bunch of drunken krajina serbs were absolutely no threat to the usa.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Dont be an idiot hristo. The argument that we cannot go after saddam for having wmd just becausev the usa does is one of the most retard things i have ever heard. Donr forget it was the usa that helped win our war in 1995 and frankkly a bunch of drunken krajina serbs were absolutely no threat to the usa.
The question is, would you go after Saddam if Iraq had no oil ?
OK, go after Saddam. But be sure to go after Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, former Soviet republics, France, Britain etc. They all have WMDs, some of them have very unstable leaderships.
US helped driving Krajina rebels ? Well, maybe, but I don't see how they helped more than Argentina, for example. Or Hungary. Maybe I am missing something.
I am strong supporter of UN ways. I am very afraid of what would happen the other way. Simply, too much power is concntrated in the hands of too few.
-
If we wanted his oil we would just drop the sanctions and buy it from him. Trust me has no problem selling to the USA an in fact he does it through UN/Russian/French middlemen and their oil for food program - thats why they are so oppused the war. They want "no war for oil."
Plus Saddam has made the decion that his wmd program is more valuable than oil sales which means that he sees posseision of wmd as a greater source of power than billions of oil dollars, otherwise he would have complied with demends to disarm and have the oil sancxtions removed at some point in the 12 years since the gulf war.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82494
-
Originally posted by Hristo
As I said, illegal, but tolerated.
Was it needed ? Yes, that's why it was tolerated.
Let's stick to the main question here.
You oppose the present action in Iraq because it is illegal without UN SC sanction.
You "tolerate" the NATO action in Kosovo which was:
1. Absolutely NOT sanctioned by the UN SC.
2. Absolutely in direct violation of the NATO charter.
So what exactly does "tolerate" mean to you? Does that mean you supported the NATO action without UN SC sanction? Can you be more specific about what "tolerate" means? Were you "for" it or "against" it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's stick to the main question here.
You oppose the present action in Iraq because it is illegal without UN SC sanction.
You "tolerate" the NATO action in Kosovo which was:
1. Absolutely NOT sanctioned by the UN SC.
2. Absolutely in direct violation of the NATO charter.
So what exactly does "tolerate" mean to you? Does that mean you supported the NATO action without UN SC sanction? Can you be more specific about what "tolerate" means? Were you "for" it or "against" it?
I opose present actions. Loss of lives for no obvious reason.
Action in Kosovo was an intervention to stop loss of lives which was happening right there at the time, also to avoid humanitarian disaster. That's why it is OK to be tolerated.
I supported that action.
Action in Iraq is not stopping anyone from killing people, forcing their out of their homes or anything similar. It is certain, though, that it will result in severe loss of human lives and humanitarian crisis for years to come.
Tolerated ? SC wasn't supporting it, but surely wasn't against it.
Iraq ? SC isn't supporting it, but many are against it (members of SC also). The US vote will block anything UN tries to stop it though. That's sad.
I won'r even touch terrorism consequences of US actions in Iraq. Let's just say nobody in Arab world is happy about what's hapenning now.
-
So, then UN SC sanction really isn't a determining factor in doing what is "right" in all cases, is it?
Is that what you just said? Or did I misinterpret?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, then UN SC sanction really isn't a determining factor in doing what is "right" in all cases, is it?
Is that what you just said? Or did I misinterpret?
IMO, it is. That's why Kosovo strikes weren't sanctioned.
Iraq aggression won't be sanctioned due to US influence on SC members, its allies and its right to veto.
-
Let me see.
I asked you "would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?"
And you said "yes".
You said don't support the current Iraqi operation because it is not sanctioned by the UN SC.
Then you say you supported the US action in Kosovo which violated the NATO charter and was also unsanctioned by the UN SC.
You supported the US action in Kososvo because it was a "humanitarian action" to stop the "loss of lives which was happening right there at the time".
Do I have all this right?
Basically UN SC sanction is unnecessary IF the action is to stop loss of lives which is happening right there at the time?
-
Hristo has been sucked into the retarded no war for oil camp - all logic will henceforth lead him to the fact that this is wrong. He is beyond help....
-
Just trying to fully understand his position, Grun.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just trying to fully understand his position, Grun.
Impossible
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let me see.
I asked you "would you be in support of this war if there had been another UN SC resolution beyond 1441 authorizing the US to take action?"
And you said "yes".
You said don't support the current Iraqi operation because it is not sanctioned by the UN SC.
Then you say you supported the US action in Kosovo which violated the NATO charter and was also unsanctioned by the UN SC.
You supported the US action in Kososvo because it was a "humanitarian action" to stop the "loss of lives which was happening right there at the time".
Do I have all this right?
Basically UN SC sanction is unnecessary IF the action is to stop loss of lives which is happening right there at the time?
Yes, that's my position. If loss of lives is happening and immediate action is in order, then action before SC resolution can be justified.
Same for defending against an aggressor, or, as you said, helping an ally defend itself.
If there is no immediate threat or lives lost, then we should wait for SC resolution .
-
Thanks.
How many lives must be lost to justify immediate action? What's the threshold?
And, in what sort of timeframe?
And who would get to make that decision since the UN is out of it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thanks.
How many lives must be lost to justify immediate action? What's the threshold?
And, in what sort of timeframe?
And who would get to make that decision since the UN is out of it?
I think this has more to do with media coverage, elections and votes, in reality.
Ideally, if it is obvious such action is about to take place, the countdown until strike should start. Only a matter of efficiency of how many lives are saved then.
Who makes the decision. The nation most concerned about world peace, of course.
-
Well, let's use Kosovo as the example then.
How did the media determine it was "time", when "enough" lives were lost?
When did it become obvious the action was about to take place? What sort of countdown timeline was there?
Which nation was the most concerned about world peace?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, let's use Kosovo as the example then.
How did the media determine it was "time", when "enough" lives were lost?
When did it become obvious the action was about to take place? What sort of countdown timeline was there?
Which nation was the most concerned about world peace?
Time was already too late. Who determines is irrelevant, be it Reuters, CIA or Greenpeace. More like what is determined.
Again, no lives have to be lost. Somoene's intention for people to lose lives should be enough. In that case, it was Milosevic's military actions against the population of Kosovo.
Nations concerned may act. Who was most concerned about world peace back then ? No idea.
-
Well, let's examine it in detail. You seem to be ignoring some obvious flaws in your system.
You are saying the media determines when action will be taken. Then you say the media was too late in Kosovo. The UN didn't act at all.
So obviously, this "media" system doesn't work any better than the UN.
Now you tell me the "threshold" is actually zero. No lives have to be lost, merely the intention to take life has to be present. When the Serbs took military action against what amounts to their own population is used as an example of the "go" command.
You must realize this is also an unworkable standard, right? Intention to take life? Isn't that a bit..... ummmmm.... PREEMPTIVE? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are protesting now in Iraq? Preemptive action? And again, you run into the problem of who makes that decision. Clearly, the UN SC could not make the decision in Kosovo and according to your earlier statements, they're the only entity that truly has that "right".
As to the last, first you tell me "The nation most concerned about world peace" should/will make the decision.
Next you say "Nations concerned may act."
Yet you appear mystified as to who was most concerned about "world peace" when deciding to act in Kosovo.
By your logic, it's pretty simply, isn't it? The nation(s) most concerned about world peace made the decision. The nation(s) concerned acted.
You do remember who that was, don't you? After all, you supported the action.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are saying the media determines when action will be taken. Then you say the media was too late in Kosovo. The UN didn't act at all.
Not always media, anyone who can be trusted. In Kosovo media wasn't late, only intervention.
So obviously, this "media" system doesn't work any better than the UN.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I wouldn't disregard both anyway.
Now you tell me the "threshold" is actually zero. No lives have to be lost, merely the intention to take life has to be present. When the Serbs took military action against what amounts to their own population is used as an example of the "go" command.
If an armored column heads for village and imposes an ultimatum to the people to leave or die, that's proven intention.
You must realize this is also an unworkable standard, right? Intention to take life? Isn't that a bit..... ummmmm.... PREEMPTIVE? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are protesting now in Iraq? Preemptive action? And again, you run into the problem of who makes that decision. Clearly, the UN SC could not make the decision in Kosovo and according to your earlier statements, they're the only entity that truly has that "right".
Action against tanks ready to open fire at people can be considered preemptive. Action against fleet sailing into territorial waters can be considered preemtpive.
Action against a country accused for having WMD and terrorist connections, while no proof has been found is aggression.
Decisions should always be done by SC, whenever possible. Only situations of utmost urgency would be the exception.
As to the last, first you tell me "The nation most concerned about world peace" should/will make the decision.
Next you say "Nations concerned may act."
Yet you appear mystified as to who was most concerned about "world peace" when deciding to act in Kosovo.
By your logic, it's pretty simply, isn't it? The nation(s) most concerned about world peace made the decision. The nation(s) concerned acted.
You do remember who that was, don't you? After all, you supported the action.
I don't see the problem here. NATO intervened.
Back then there were concerned nations. If the US, who was both concerned and able to strike, was the most concerned, is beyond me.
-
Then there is no "system" or "process" to determine when to act.
Obviously, the UN, which has authorized military action twice... Korea and Iraq 1, has clearly shown an inability to act militarily and that situation will persist if not get worse. Using your examples of triggers, it's clear that the UN SC would react to none of those. They never have. The only two instances of the UN authorizing military force were both mass invasions of another country. One of those was only possible because Russia was boycotting and clearly would have vetoed it. So you really have one example.
The media is unreliable. We both agree. It's rather a nebulous concept anyway. Any talk about using the "media" as a yardstick is actually, well, rediculous, to quote a famous BBS poster.
Your system gives ANY country the right to act militarily if ANY country's tanks point their weapons at their own population or a neighboring population and then issue an ultimatum to "get out"?
Want to think about that one for a while or just revise it now?
NATO intervened? :) You must be aware of the entire history of the intervention. Tell me this..... which nation prodded NATO to act, eh? Nothing happened until.......... ......... got involved? Just can't bring yourself to say it can you? It's ok. We're used to it.
-
You see Toad he is so wrapped up in the "no amreekan war for oil" bs that he cant even bring himself to admit america was the country that organized an initiated 3 key military campaigns that helped resolve the really 10 years of civil war in our old country and set up conditions to push miloshevic the butcher out for good - all without any help from the UN security council. Not to mention the peace agreement was signed in Dayton Ohio on an Airforce base and not in some swanky UN coffe house debating society...
BTW Hristo as a friend and countrymate of yours please stop this ridiculous twisting and reforming of your argument around all the logical flaws Toad points out just to keep reaching your predetermined belief that this is an evil war for amreekan oil.
Drop this flawed logic and come up with something else if you realy beleve this idea..
Molim te :D
-
Toad, US did major effort in Kosovo strikes. It pushed the decision, as well as carried out vast majority of actions. I supproted that.
That really is not a problem for me to state and never was.
They reacted in Bosnia, although too little, too late. But, then again, better than nothing.
Now for Iraq. If Iraq was peoven having WMDs and UN ordered destruction of it and Iraq refused, then I could see i reason of attacking it. If Iraq was harboring a wanted terrorist and it was a proven fact, I could support military actions (limited to bringing the terrorist to justice). Now, I am aware nothing of mentioned happened or was proven.
Now, after answering to your questions, Toad, answer me this, please.
What is the official reason of US attacking Iraq ?
-
Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.
That doesant count because it justfies the US attack. The only acceptable evidence to judge the US attack must in no way justify the attack.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
They reacted in Bosnia, although too little, too late. But, then again, better than nothing.
And therein lies the problem with the UN SC system.
It would be worse using your "media" system.
Face it. The Security Council couldn't agree on where to have lunch, let alone a matter of life and death use of military force. Again, remember that ONLY Gulf War I was the ONLY UN military action authorized by the ENTIRE UN SC.
As a means of employing military force, the UN SC simply is not a player, given the way it works. They've proven it over and over.
I think now, after this current precedent, it will always come down to individual countries taking action, whether in "Coalition" or by themselves from now on.
I seriously doubt we will ever see another UN SC resolution that authorizes military action or even "serious consequences".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.
Isn't it for UN to decide if someone doesn't comply with UN resolutions ?
Isn't it for UN to decide what to do if someone doesn't comply with UN resolutions ?
Seems to me Bush thinks he is UN. His precedent is very dangerous. Direct loss of lives, terrorism escallation in near future and inpiration to other world's big bully types.
-
Your argument here is based around one view of UN SC 1441.
One side says it does not authorize military action, the other side says it does.
In theory the threat of "serious consequences" is mutually understood by all members to mean "military action".
At least until it is inconvenient to understand that. ;)
Why do politicians speak and write ambiguously? Why didn't they just write "military action" into 1441? Because they are politicians and they never commit.
Which is why the UN didn't do anything effective in Bosnia.
And, lest anyone forget, I too was against initiating action against Iraq without a clear UN SC resolution to do so.
It's just that I can also see where US/UK/Australia/Spain/et al felt they had UN SC justification to act. Clearly, Iraq has not complied with the terms of the GW 1 surrender.
I'm not going to be a bit sorry to see Saddam out of power either. I just don't think acting w/o "better" clear SC support is going to be in the long term best interest of the US.