|
Do you support a war with iraq? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by webmeister
Apparently in Afghanistan some Canadian GI scored the longest-distance assault rifle kill ever. He capped a Taliban from 2 1/2 kilometres !! :eek:
He said he was really pumped up afterwards, so the Canadian authorities sent him home :rolleyes: |
lmao
"are we shooting???" "i dunno! has he got a gun???" "yeah! he does!" *BANG!* "dude! u shot an iraqi!!! whooo!!!! nice one!!!" *yanks inspect dying iraqi holding white flag* lol 3 kings, what a film.
now besides that little bit of humour, i remember one scene which has some relevance to this, when the american soldier is being interrogated, and is asked "why are u fighting us?" he answers "for stability in the region" and the iraqi grabs a can of oil and starts pouring it over the american, exclaiming "here is your ing stability!!"
i (me, my opinion :p) think that is partly the reason george dubya wants to fight iraq and get rid of saddam. so he can get an american sympathysing puppet government to support the americans great need for oil.
also i think he needs something new to focus after afganistan. are the troops still over there? did america say this will be a short war? we used to get updates on things like battles and , but i dont think ive seen anything about it for a while. perhaps he thinks its been drawn out too long and not the decisive huge american victory he wanted and so he wants to deflect attention to something else. like others already said, he hardly talks about osama bin laden now. he was like "the worlds most wanted man" for ages, now everyone hates saddam.
i think a few points about this also need to be made, i think america made it possible for osama bin laden and the taliban etc to come to power after the support and arms they got while fighting russia. the same with iraq, they were supported by america while fighting iran or kuwait i think. they say saddam harbours terrorist networks, but who knows what kind of support the americans have given other groups to help further their own agenda. who knows what kind of terrorist cells are actually operating in america itself. i dont think america can go on making these claims when they could be called responsible, inadvertantly or not, for them being in power anyway.
you hear on the news reports of terrorism and the reporters say "it is unsure whether they are linked to osama bin laden's al-quaida group." that in itself doesnt mean much, but it puts the idea that they are a lot bigger than they are, and a bigger threat to everyone. as far as ive heard, there hasnt been one bit of proof that iraq has anything to do with al-quaida in terms of arms and funding etc.
and why is he so obsessed with getting saddam anyway? he feels insulted that his dad couldnt get rid of him? he wants to finish the job? weapons inspectors are trying to do their job, to find the weapons of mass destruction. perhaps they have been impeded, but that doesnt necesarrily mean they are hiding anything. i cant imagine us government letting weapons inspectors just go and look at anything and everything they want. so far they havent found anything and there hasnt been proof that anything illegal or against the un resolutions is being done?
| quote: | "Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit, about this amount - this is just about the amount of a teaspoon - less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001.
This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.
Iraq declared 8,500 litres of anthrax, but Unscom estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 litres."
|
where did that anthrax come from? shipped in overseas to attack american postal workers? or was it produced in america? and wtf does "unscom estimates there could be 25000 litres" mean. u can just as easily say something like america declares 10000 litres but could have produced 30000. thats just crap.
| quote: |
In any case even if it is in Australia's interest to go along with the US for a free trade agreement or whatever (which we are unlikely to get because the agricultural lobbies in the US are way too strong)
|
exactly. if they want our ing SAS then they should buy our ing steel and stuff! :p
a side note: ive heard our normal infantry are better skilled than american rangers :p
and they should be ing glad that they are getting the SAS. and i love reading stories like that about small squads of commandos and stuff pulling off like that. i read in a book for a vietnam war essay in yr11 about an aussie patrol that was ambushed and a soldier being shot through both his eyes and another through his neck or something and making it out of there alive. go the ing SAS!!! (even i personally dont really want them to go there, if it comes to that i hope they ing on everything!! ing hard as nails s! better than any soft US ! :p)
god knows what kind of weapons america is hiding. as far as im concerned im more scared of george dubya going nuts and unleashing everywhere than saddam hussain :p what business do they have in the region anyway? human rights abuses? im not arguing it doesnt happen, but i dont htink america has a clean slate in that department, operating clothing sweat shops and ty working conditions for immigrants. besides trade sanctions against iraq probably hurt their people just as much anyway.
isnt the north korean threat far more greater? they do have nuclear weapons, and i think have made it clear they will use them against american forces in south korea if america attacks iraq. america is still unsure if iraq has these weapons! isnt north korea a communist nation? america hates communists! why dont they bully them??
reasons for not going to war?
we dont need to be involved. americas current obsession with gettinf rid of saddam should be left to them.
if we join in an attack, it could provoke muslim extremist attacks against us.
we dont have anything to gain, other than brownie points with america.
whats it got to do with us anyway?
why does he want to go in with or without UN support? even if the inspectors find nothing and the UN says "hey, theres no evidence they are hiding or building weapons that they shouldnt have, so back off." he seems like he will go in anyway. that seems more like a personal vendetta than any concern for the well-being of the world. perhaps george dubya wants to get iraq because they dont know their arms potential and they can get rid of any possible threat. whereas he knows what north korea is capable of, and is too scared to try anything on them.
now im sure there was more i wanted to say but its after 3am and i cant be ed! :p |
|
|
| ascension |
A few quick questions we would all like answered
1) Which country in the world has the largest arsenel of weapons of mass destruction..?
2) What does america hope to achieve by waging war against Iraq? One evil dictator in a bodybag and a subservient iraqi government to provide america with boundless supplies of oil?
3) Will Australia if it goes to war with Iraq, change its policy on *ILLEGAL refugees* :rolleyes: ?? as i for one can forsee a large population of displaced iraqi people as a result of such a war.
4) When this crisis with iraq is over and done, who will be America's new public enemy #1 ??
War is futile, it is a pointless waste of life... what gives some trigger happy neanderthal the right to play god with thousands and thousands of lives? |
|
|
| escee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
why does he want to go in with or without UN support? even if the inspectors find nothing and the UN says "hey, theres no evidence they are hiding or building weapons that they shouldnt have, so back off." he seems like he will go in anyway. that seems more like a personal vendetta than any concern for the well-being of the world. perhaps george dubya wants to get iraq because they dont know their arms potential and they can get rid of any possible threat. whereas he knows what north korea is capable of, and is too scared to try anything on them.
|
Im not sure how true it is. But i read the other day that north korea has no navy what so ever, and i would imagine that they would have little airforce. Whats to stop america sitting in the water launching plenty of missiles at korea?
The anti war media builds up the threat of korea and often says 'million man army'. Thats crap. If i was John Howard, i could cut into the budget, buy 1 million uniforms, and 1 million automatic weapons. Give everyone 1 weeks training and roberts your fathers brother, ive got a 1 million man army. North could invade the south if america attacked. But there were enough american troops on the border then I think that could be halted.
North Korea is a poor nation that is hoping to benefit from this somehow. |
|
|
| escee |
| quote: | Originally posted by ascension
1) Which country in the world has the largest arsenel of weapons of mass destruction..?
2) What does america hope to achieve by waging war against Iraq? One evil dictator in a bodybag and a subservient iraqi government to provide america with boundless supplies of oil?
3) Will Australia if it goes to war with Iraq, change its policy on *ILLEGAL refugees* :rolleyes: ?? as i for one can forsee a large population of displaced iraqi people as a result of such a war.
4) When this crisis with iraq is over and done, who will be America's new public enemy #1 ??
|
1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them.
2) If this was the only reason for starting a war (im not saying that this isnt a reason, just not the only one) then the US could attack plenty other countries who have more oil. Afghanistan also has some oil interests, so america would be set for a while if that was their only reason.
3) Im not saying that refugee's will completely stop coming from iraq, however i would think that a country that is rid of a manical dictator (who a lot of the country do not support) would have less people seeking asylum in other countries from it.
4) I would assume North Korea. |
|
|
| MichaelDudikoff |
hehe this all reminds me of a joke (even though i'm aware war is NOT a joke) ...
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
A large group of Taliban soldiers are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a sand-dune.
"One Australian SAS soldier is better than ten Taliban".
The Taliban commander quickly sends 10 of his best soldiers over the dune whereupon a gun-battle breaks out and continues for a few minutes, then silence. The voice then calls out "One Australian SAS soldier is better than one hundred Taliban".
Furious, the Taliban commander sends his next best 100 troops over the dune and instantly a huge gunfight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence. The Australian voice calls out again "One Australian SAS soldier is better than one thousand Taliban".
The enraged Taliban Commander musters one thousand fighters and sends them across the dune. Cannon, rocket and machine gun fire ring out as a huge battle is fought. Then silence. Eventually one wounded Taliban fighter crawls back over the dune and with his dying words tells his commander, "Don't send any more men, it's a trap, ...there's actually two of them."
:p :p :p :p :p :p :p |
|
|
| Tranceilvania |
I doubt Australian SAS among the best!!! There is no such thing beign best by just training. To reach such status u need two things
1- Battle hardening (engaging in operations often, which Au troops don't. Considering other nations special troops doing it more often. Russians in Checnia, Turks in Northern Iraq, Georgians in Abkhaza, Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir, Colombians in Amazon jungles, French Foeign Legion in parts of Africa etc.) Surely those other nations special forces are more experienced and know the perils of such operations. Thats why they're not eager to join Americans in every conflict unlike Aussies.
2- Technologie, which I'm sure Australian troops has unlimited access. But mostly a SAS soldier carries light sort of armament which supported with hi-tech comminications and air support which Aussie troops rely mostly on Americans.
How can you say we're the best? Do they have competitions between the SAS teams around the world. Is there a secret league of SAS matches with paintball guns? If not, how can you measure such a thing and claim you're the best???? If you're referring bombing the out of taliban who don't have anything other than obsolute weapons day and night with tons of Napalms, Bunker busters and Carpet bombs with pin point accuracy. I'm sure even you and I could go and take on them with our Counter-strike and Rogue Spear experiences:haha:
It's all Fascist Redneck propaganda. I miss Bill Clinton. In his time we only had exiting Sex scandals not wars and stuff |
|
|
| Jah |
i love these hooooooj posts
guess what guys! john howard doesn't read au. tranceaddict!
:) |
|
|
| escee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jah
i love these hooooooj posts
guess what guys! john howard doesn't read au. tranceaddict!
:) |
i love you man!
dont you ever change baby! |
|
|
| ascension |
i have a mate who came back from the army about a week ago - he resigned 8 days before he was to graduate as an officer commander (or something like that) due to australia's commitment to the war without parlimentary discussion.. in his words, australian troops would be slaughtered if they were deployed in iraq because they simply have very little training in desert warfare...
however i'd assume he wouldnt be talking about the SAS troops that are being sent to iraq.... so yeah :rolleyes:
| quote: |
1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them.
2) If this was the only reason for starting a war (im not saying that this isnt a reason, just not the only one) then the US could attack plenty other countries who have more oil. Afghanistan also has some oil interests, so america would be set for a while if that was their only reason.
3) Im not saying that refugee's will completely stop coming from iraq, however i would think that a country that is rid of a manical dictator (who a lot of the country do not support) would have less people seeking asylum in other countries from it.
4) I would assume North Korea. |
1) i hardly call americas actions at the moment "necessary" - as someone else pointed out, why has Iraq's threat to the world suddenly escalated in the last few months...? why is there such urgancy to launch an attack on iraq now??
2) i agree its only one of the reasons - after all its probably less likely america could create vast amounts of paranoia and panic and therefore public support if it were to attack one of the other oiled up countries, but iraq... now they have weapons of mass destruction
3) Yes perhaps if saddam hussain was overthrown then many iraqi people would be inclined to stay, but im sure you'd agree that if this war was to be drawn out theres a possibility of hundreds of thousands of iraqi people being left without a home
4) Yep never liked those damn koreans :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jah |
| quote: | Originally posted by escee
i love you man!
dont you ever change baby! |
group hug! |
|
|
| Teknoscaper. |
| well done fag boys |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by escee
1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them.
|
define necessary?
how do u know saddam hussain will use them if he had them anyway? if he does attack anything there will no doubt be uproar and everyone will say hey look iraq attacked lets get them. but how is that any different to american forces making "pre-emptive" strikes against "threats" to them? as far as saddam hussain is concerned, he has the world's biggest military power just itching to let loose, in my eyes thats definately a ing threat! if the US wants to make a pre-emptive strike against iraq or attack them because they feel threatened, then by the same logic its perfectly reasonable for iraq to attack american forces for the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
