L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
The bombing has begun.
100 planes .. US and UK....
enforcing no fly zone my arse.
100 planes .. US and UK....
enforcing no fly zone my arse.
K
*Kornholio*
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
Large scale doesn't necessarily mean lots of people need to get involved, as Sept 11 last year showed us... Could you imagine the destruction & loss of life if we get 10 to 15 nutters with pockets full of C4 blowing themselves up on different London / NY tubes all at peak time ??
D
dysfunction
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
Or it could be Anthrax...you dont need very many people to distribute that either...
S
Scooba Da Bass
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
....CNN
Definitely impartial reporting there then
P
prime1
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
no im not american, but it does piss me off when people regurgitate crap like that :/
I dislike america for a number of reasons, i beleive they are arrogant and brash, but ultimately thier goals and thier ambitions are in the right place, a very 'similar' place to Britains. Theyve been our closest ally and best "friend" in the last century and the mutual coooperation has enourmously benefitted both countries -- us more than them in all honesty. I find it difficult to stomach that so many people that owe thier very existance to that country are so quick to condemn them on the propaganda of a known homicidal maniac (sadam).
It is believed that once Iraq has the materials to build a nuclear weapon, it has the expertise to be able to do so .. within 1-4 months. Now.. bear in mind the recent problems with Russia, and the fact that they have "lost" some nuclear material. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to assume, that in 4 years, Iraq could have aquired the materials and could have built a weapon.
There are beleived to be around 12 SCUD missiles (as crap as they are they dont have to be THAT accurate for a nuclear payload) that are compeltely unaccounted for IE hidden. Iraqs known chemical weapons factories have shut down, but they maintaint the knowledge and the ability to set them up again (and may have done so). Large quantities of biological and chemical weapons (including around 8 aircraft drop tanks as well as missile systems and the raw chemicals themselves) have "gone missing" from their known stock piles.
In 1998 an RAF fighter took destroyed the roof of a hangar, within it were several czech made fighters, rigged to fly with no pilots - as drones, and capable of carrying a reasonable payload - why would they need fighterless planes? - cause they are not allowed to develop long range missile technology. Even with that restriction, since the end of the Gulf war Iraq has developed 2 short range missile systems (less than 150km range), however analysts beleive that these systems can be quickly and easily converted to much monger range systems.
People often say "what right has the UK and US got to demand weapons inspections on Iraq, when they themselves would not let people inspect their weapons". Well its pretty simple, to my knowledge the US and UK have never (in recent history) launched and unprovoked invasion of another sovereign country (with the intention of taking control there). They have never launched unprovoked attacks at civillian targets (for example the random launching of scud missiles at Isreal during the first Gulf War). They are not run by an individual, regardless of what anyone may beleive, Bush and Blair will not be able to press ahead- or at least maintain their positions, without the backing of the government. Thier track record is far cleaner than most and they have shown (albeit with exceptions.. mainly misguided mistakes at that) that they are responsible international powers.
In all honesty its quite simple : Gulf War 1, iraq is beaten, we allow Iraq to surrender on certain conditions, IE we stop the war providing they agree to our terms. Iraq is not meeting those terms therefore the peace treaty has not been adhered to - therefore there is nothing in international law that says continuing the Gulf War is an illegal act. To try and highlight this very simple point il take an extreme example :
WW2, germany surrenders, we agree to the surrender under certain conditions, lets say for example that they stop rounding up and executing Jews, Gypsies, pollitcal prisoners etc. Germany agrees to this term and the war is "over". 1 year later the executions etc. are still taking place - and the governement has been trying ot hide it, and refusing to allow the stories to be checked up on, would you then consider it wrong for the allies to go back in and remove the powerbase that was doing this?
I dislike america for a number of reasons, i beleive they are arrogant and brash, but ultimately thier goals and thier ambitions are in the right place, a very 'similar' place to Britains. Theyve been our closest ally and best "friend" in the last century and the mutual coooperation has enourmously benefitted both countries -- us more than them in all honesty. I find it difficult to stomach that so many people that owe thier very existance to that country are so quick to condemn them on the propaganda of a known homicidal maniac (sadam).
It is believed that once Iraq has the materials to build a nuclear weapon, it has the expertise to be able to do so .. within 1-4 months. Now.. bear in mind the recent problems with Russia, and the fact that they have "lost" some nuclear material. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to assume, that in 4 years, Iraq could have aquired the materials and could have built a weapon.
There are beleived to be around 12 SCUD missiles (as crap as they are they dont have to be THAT accurate for a nuclear payload) that are compeltely unaccounted for IE hidden. Iraqs known chemical weapons factories have shut down, but they maintaint the knowledge and the ability to set them up again (and may have done so). Large quantities of biological and chemical weapons (including around 8 aircraft drop tanks as well as missile systems and the raw chemicals themselves) have "gone missing" from their known stock piles.
In 1998 an RAF fighter took destroyed the roof of a hangar, within it were several czech made fighters, rigged to fly with no pilots - as drones, and capable of carrying a reasonable payload - why would they need fighterless planes? - cause they are not allowed to develop long range missile technology. Even with that restriction, since the end of the Gulf war Iraq has developed 2 short range missile systems (less than 150km range), however analysts beleive that these systems can be quickly and easily converted to much monger range systems.
People often say "what right has the UK and US got to demand weapons inspections on Iraq, when they themselves would not let people inspect their weapons". Well its pretty simple, to my knowledge the US and UK have never (in recent history) launched and unprovoked invasion of another sovereign country (with the intention of taking control there). They have never launched unprovoked attacks at civillian targets (for example the random launching of scud missiles at Isreal during the first Gulf War). They are not run by an individual, regardless of what anyone may beleive, Bush and Blair will not be able to press ahead- or at least maintain their positions, without the backing of the government. Thier track record is far cleaner than most and they have shown (albeit with exceptions.. mainly misguided mistakes at that) that they are responsible international powers.
In all honesty its quite simple : Gulf War 1, iraq is beaten, we allow Iraq to surrender on certain conditions, IE we stop the war providing they agree to our terms. Iraq is not meeting those terms therefore the peace treaty has not been adhered to - therefore there is nothing in international law that says continuing the Gulf War is an illegal act. To try and highlight this very simple point il take an extreme example :
WW2, germany surrenders, we agree to the surrender under certain conditions, lets say for example that they stop rounding up and executing Jews, Gypsies, pollitcal prisoners etc. Germany agrees to this term and the war is "over". 1 year later the executions etc. are still taking place - and the governement has been trying ot hide it, and refusing to allow the stories to be checked up on, would you then consider it wrong for the allies to go back in and remove the powerbase that was doing this?
P
prime1
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Dosnt matter how they report that story, its a simple fact, they delivered an ultimatium to Australia, cease your support for the US or we will stop importing grain from you, I fail to see how anyone can actually put any kind of a "viewpoint" on that.
Ive been reading over it on the BBC, CNN and annanova websites as well as a few random others, to get a good picture (and waste time at work).
F
Fergus
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
The bottom line here, in my opinion that is, is that no one really knows who did what on September 11th. It all stinks of cover up and alterior motives. Yes it has been well documented that Al Queda were responsible for what happened on that day. But has any irrefutable proof ever been provided? There has to be more to it all than meets the eye. Religion maybe, oil, most certainly.
There are literally hundereds of unanswered questions surrounding events which have remained unanswered when those that should know the answers should have no reason to hide anything. If the claims that they are making as to whom is responsible for the actions are to be believed, why can't they show us concrete evidence?
Not wanting to bore the shit out of you all any further, have a read through the links on the page below and tell me if you still believe everything you have been told about what happened.
I'm not saying its the truth, but it certainly makes you think.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
There are literally hundereds of unanswered questions surrounding events which have remained unanswered when those that should know the answers should have no reason to hide anything. If the claims that they are making as to whom is responsible for the actions are to be believed, why can't they show us concrete evidence?
Not wanting to bore the shit out of you all any further, have a read through the links on the page below and tell me if you still believe everything you have been told about what happened.
I'm not saying its the truth, but it certainly makes you think.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
O
old.Kez
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
There's shrouded idiocy in them there hills!
C
Cod
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Bollocks
The time we're in now is safer than ever, there's so many treatys and ppl watching over everything that human privacy is getting less and less. Granted if any country had the balls to pull a large scale biological attack then they could cause alot of damage. But if anything that big happend then the other country would respond with the same thing and everything would get out of hand. It was the same with Nuclear weapons, everyones just making them but i doubt they'll be a large scale use of it.. ever.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
Originally posted by the-frizz
Sar, i'm going to marry you.
/pulled
/gets coat
\o/
D
Damini
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
S
Sawtooth
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
Too many dumb bunnys in the world.
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
I guarantee you there will be more than 1.
S
SLiC3R-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
Originally Posted by Cod:
"Bollocks The time we're in now is safer than ever, there's so many treatys and ppl watching over everything that human privacy is getting less and less. Granted if any country had the balls to pull a large scale biological attack then they could cause alot of damage. But if anything that big happend then the other country would respond with the same thing and everything would get out of hand. It was the same with Nuclear weapons, everyones just making them but i doubt they'll be a large scale use of it.. ever."
What a crock of shite. are you taking the piss? that's the biggest crock of shite i've heard on this forum in a fucking long time.
"Bollocks The time we're in now is safer than ever, there's so many treatys and ppl watching over everything that human privacy is getting less and less. Granted if any country had the balls to pull a large scale biological attack then they could cause alot of damage. But if anything that big happend then the other country would respond with the same thing and everything would get out of hand. It was the same with Nuclear weapons, everyones just making them but i doubt they'll be a large scale use of it.. ever."
What a crock of shite. are you taking the piss? that's the biggest crock of shite i've heard on this forum in a fucking long time.
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
The last time was one of your posts
X
xenon2000
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
Any chance of reason/backup on that statement? Not that I'm neccesarily objecting it or anything... (I'm indifferent on the matter).
S
SLiC3R-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
the world has got nukes, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction - they did not have that 100 years ago.
we have religious wankers prepared to commit suicide in the name of religion, and cause as much mass destruction to the west as can do.
just fucking shutup and kiss my ass.
we have religious wankers prepared to commit suicide in the name of religion, and cause as much mass destruction to the west as can do.
just fucking shutup and kiss my ass.
O
old.Jas
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
An excellent article -
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/9/6/125519/3631
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/9/6/125519/3631
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
A polite reply would have surficed.
S
stu
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
Well Saddam is definitely a threat to his own people. But then so are (and so have been) many regimes around the world for years, and we've never done anything about them. Is he a threat to bordering countries? Well we have Kuwait obviously. Mentioning tribes is more astute though - what we often fail to realise is that political power in non-western countries is governed by local factions, not by lines we arbitrarily draw across a map. Central government doesn't really exist. We've shown how badly we cocked that up with Afghanistan, for instance. Aggressive manoeuvres into a local warlord's territory are nothing new - it's just Saddam made the mistake of infringing on western interests while he was doing it.
Which leaves us with his threat globally. And that's the crux of the matter really. Scott Ritter's (a 'card carrying Republican with over 10 years inspections experience) UNSCOM (UN Special Committee) report on Iraq stated that "95-98%" of Iraq's strategic and NBC weapons capability had been destroyed or rendered inoperable. Attempts to link Iraq to September 11th have proven utterly false. The US and the UK keep threatening to publish a "dossier" on just how dangerous Iraq is, to show us how justified they are - but it still hasn't appeared.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Saddam Hussein. He's a bully and a tyrant, who has no problem with exploiting his own people. But... that does not justify going to war against a country and overtly deposing their leadership, and nor do some mocked up half-assed excuses about global terrorism. The regime of a country is the responsibility of that country - if the people do not want Saddam in power, it's up to them to overthrow him. It may sound harsh, but it's true, and outside intervention is actually illegal. Show me some evidence that Saddam does pose a threat to the world, and that's a different issue. But using terrorism as a global Carte Blanche when you haven't got any legitimate reason for doing something is both insulting and despicable.
D
Durzel
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
If anything the 11/9 attack did the U.S a somewhat macabre favour, now it can just carry on as it has been doing but with added gusto - exacting "justice" on whomever it sees fit under the patriotic banner of "fighting teh global terrorists!". Having said that, since when has Dubya needed an excuse to attack Iraq.
D
Damini
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
I don't think the fact that we've been inactive in other situations should be a reason that we should remain inactive now. I think its utterly deplorable that the women of Afghanistan were made virtual prisoners, that music was banned, that a totalitarian regime began suppressing human rights practically over night and that no military force intervened until after 9/11. I don't like war, but I do firmly believe it is necessairy at times.
I think government authorised incidents of genocide in any country are enough reason to have that leader deposed.
It is naive to believe that Saddam would banish the weapons inspectors in order to just maintain status quo and not start re-acquiring all that was lost. If you don't believe that everything that was destroyed has been replaced and more so, I'd be very surprised.
9/11 is inconsequential in this debate, and it is sad that that date seems to form the crux of the argument for action. Saddam is a cold blooded egomaniac, and is clever enough to be able to manipulate the media. Powdered Baby Milk my arse.
I think government authorised incidents of genocide in any country are enough reason to have that leader deposed.
It is naive to believe that Saddam would banish the weapons inspectors in order to just maintain status quo and not start re-acquiring all that was lost. If you don't believe that everything that was destroyed has been replaced and more so, I'd be very surprised.
9/11 is inconsequential in this debate, and it is sad that that date seems to form the crux of the argument for action. Saddam is a cold blooded egomaniac, and is clever enough to be able to manipulate the media. Powdered Baby Milk my arse.
D
doh_boy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #84
I agree with Stu, its a horrible situation but it would be unethical to impose our values upon another country. I don't think blair or bush should(or will - fingers crossed) do anything until the UN says so, thats what they're there for. Also did anyone see the programme on CH4 last night? It was a debate on "the war on terrorism" and some black dude made this speach which I thought made some really good points. In the end they concluded that the war on terrorism is just playing into the terrorists hands. A phrase which I liked was "by waging war on the terrorist you turn them from the criminals that they are into the warriors they want to be.."
Also the us & uk seem to have lost most of the support of the countries around the middle-east which, if(!?!) they do start another war, would be important if they don't want things to be construed as a war against Islam by the, mostly Islamic, people of the middle-east.
Also the us & uk seem to have lost most of the support of the countries around the middle-east which, if(!?!) they do start another war, would be important if they don't want things to be construed as a war against Islam by the, mostly Islamic, people of the middle-east.
D
Damini
Guest
- Thread starter
- #85
I don't think you can use the terminology of ethics with regards to a country that systematically murders those that object diplomatically to the regime, or innocent villagers in their thousands. It's all very well bantering the cultural differences of eastern and western philosophies and policies, but can you show me anyone who honestly agrees genocide is a good thing, black, white, or any colour going?
Like I said, its a shame this follows 9/11, because then its always going to be seen as a West versus Muslam/Islam/Middle East issue, when infact I'm still arguing the corner against a country that invaded Kuwait, plundered the land, stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and killed thousands of innocent people.
Like I said, its a shame this follows 9/11, because then its always going to be seen as a West versus Muslam/Islam/Middle East issue, when infact I'm still arguing the corner against a country that invaded Kuwait, plundered the land, stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and killed thousands of innocent people.
E
exxxie
Guest
- Thread starter
- #86
Israel are also occupying another country and subjecting its own citizens (Israeli arabs) to unbelievable acts of cruelty and brutality. 100's of israeli arabs have died since the 1995 assasination of Rabeen, when peace was assasinated aswell as a politican. Do we now look to the UN to prosecute the Prime Minister of Israel for war crimes? Are we imposing sanctions on this country to force a policy change within the regime?Isnt "ethnic cleansing" something we went to war over in the baltics?
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #87
We should, he's a fucking psycho.
S
stu
Guest
- Thread starter
- #88
Actually, Iraq never banished the weapons inspectors. Firstly, the American element of the team were uncovered as being CIA operatives, performing illegal espionage and using the UN as a cover - something that the UN were rather understandably miffed about. Following this, the agents were pulled from Iraq by the US government, and the non-US elements were "strongly advised" to leave the country. Operation Desert Fox commenced 72 hours after their departure. The media frequently reports that they were 'banished' by Iraq, but read the UNSCOM report - it's all there in black and white.
I fully appreciate your humanitarian standpoint Damini, I'm just troubled by the fact that those who clearly do not give a shit about human rights and civil liberties when it suits them will use it as an excuse for action when it does. Exxie raised the very valid example of Israel, but there are dozens of countries out there with far more brutal regimes than Iraq, that the US has totally ignored - or worse yet, actually *supported* when it suited them. After all, Saddam is only there because of American intervention in the first place. Ditto the Taliban in Afghanistan. And most of the other tin pot dictatorships around the world.
N
Nos-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #89
In the wise words of Nick 'IT Commando' Jones
<nick> they should flatten the middle east and start again i think
Amen
<nick> they should flatten the middle east and start again i think
Amen
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #90
Well, if no one else is volunteering ...
