According to Der Spiegel, the German equivalent to Time or Neewsweek, a little bit higher in class, will publish on Monday:
The vice-president of Iraq, Taha Yassin Ramadan says that "UN is allowed to investigate every place in Iraq, including the presidential palaces.'
So what is now the reason to begin to bomb? Or in reality they are bombing already everything from movable radar-stations to missile ramps.
If the reason is “that the missile-what-so-ever just are there”, there will be much to bomb here in the world.
Is it the missiles that are forbidden or what? Why has it not been a problem for the last 10 years, but become one now? :eek:
Or is it that “he tried to kill my Daddy”, (and therefore he should not have missiles nor radars). Every fucking country has missiles of some kind. :smack:
Personally I think Bush should be put in court in Hague. If someone, at the end of a war, makes “no-fly-zones”. OK.
Then invents new “no-fly-zones” and begin to bomb, a foreign country, I think he could be put in court.
Or is it legal to bomb non-Christians?
Where is the fucking moral? If Saddam is the prick, why to bomb the radar-stations?
What is so criminal with radar-stations in any country?
What is the reason now for some Americans to wish a war with Iraq?
The real reason, not just oil, elections, power in the area, combined with Enron etc. etc. I do not think a US citizen is ready to begin a war because of that.
And if we are just thinking about the people that Saddam gassed etc., there is quite a many wars coming up every decade. Why did his Daddy not think about this when it actually happened?
Or he, The Holy Sheriff himself when he came to power? Just the last months. Is The Sheriff a slow thinker or just sick?
So what is the reason now? Can we just say; “Saddam is lying, he will not let UN into Iraq, let’s bomb something just to be sure he will speak the truth next time?”
Or are ”we” the liers, we the Holy Christian Whities?
Going back on every accusation and just inventing new accusations? Inventing new motivs to begin a war. At any cost.
What will be our next accusation and motive? If You can think of a new one, send an E-mail to The Sheriff. He will be most grateful. He is just sick, but then he will be happy in his sickness.
The world can not afford sick or stupid US presidents!
Yeah, I know, I know. I wake up every morning wondering if the TransIslamic Jihad Wars for Survival Against American Aggression have been started yet or not, and wondering how many Americans are figuring it’s just a little war between the US and Iraq that we’re contemplating here. God help us all.
Say, Henry B, just how long does it take to get magazines in Siberia, anyway? This debate has been going on for the past three months at least. Did you not notice the 1,111,111 (estimated) threads in GD on this very subject?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Henry B *
You are of course aware, aren’t you, that the radar stations fired on by US warplanes are mobile guidance radars for surface-to-air missiles? That these radars have generally been fired on when Iraqi forces shoot said missiles at US aircraft?
The firing of surface-to-air missiles at US warplanes has been an issue ever since the no-fly zones were put in place. US warplanes have been fired on several times a year by Iraqi forces, more or less continuously since that time.
You are now confusing anti-aircraft missiles with ballistic missiles intended to hit ground targets at great distance, and which could carry nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. I can assure you that not every country has missiles of this type.
BTW, the missiles of this type in Iraq’s inventory are known as ‘Scuds’ and are a developed version of a weapon originally supplied to Iraq by :cough: Russia :cough:
Haven’t a clue, Saddam being such a benign, fair ruler and all-round wonderful human being. You tell me.
Y’know, you and your ilk are starting to give me a headache.
Right. Just like last time. :rolleyes:
Hey, if Charlie Manson said he were rehabilitated, would you let him out of prison? Of course not. And so it is here. These people have lied and misled at every turn. Why should we believe them now?
Yes, the missiles are forbidden. It’s one of the terms that was set upon Saddam when he LOST THE FREAKIN’ GULF WAR.
How you guys can continue to support a guy who gassed his own people and launched a war of naked aggression is beyond me.
He didn’t invent the No-Fly Zones. They were instituted after the Gulf War. Which Saddam lost. (Which, incidentally, I am gonna beat into your head until you understand that the winners make the rules.)
You see, Bush is doing what should have been done a long time ago. Enforcing the conditions that were set upon Saddam after he lost the Gulf War (See?).
While we’re trying to take out the trash with Osama and his little gang, why not finish the job and get rid of that lying, genocidal madman while we’re at it? The world will be a better place without him.
I am. And so are the rest of us in the military. What, you think we don’t know what we’re getting into? We volunteered for this, friend. We know EXACTLY what we’re getting into.
Bush the Elder did exactly what the UN required him to do. Push Saddam out of Kuwait. He had no mandate to get Saddam, so he didn’t. That wasn’t his failing.
Our current President is now making efforts to correct that situation. And who’s fighting him? The very same UN that stopped his father. Well, the UN doesn’t realize that this Bush is different just yet. But they will.
Nor can it afford solicitous pussies like you who let stuff happen and then when somebody tries to do something you say “Oh no! Mustn’t do that!”
You’re a coward. Or if you do sincerely believe the BS you wrote above, merely ignorant. I’ll let you decide which.
Incidentally, the term you’re looking for is casus belli.
And the fact is, due to his continuous defiance of UN resolutions, we’ve had cause to get him for a long time. We just had a pantywaist as President who thought that lobbing a few cruise missiles at Osama would be enough to deter him. Or telling Saddam that he was a bad boy would be enough.
:rolleyes:
Did Clinton do anything but weaken us?
And I guess you guys want some some sort of concession. OK, I’ll step up to the plate.
Iraq is capable of producing an obscene amount of oil. It is in our interests, as the world’s largest oil consumers, to make that oil available to us.
Having lived without Iraqi oil for more than a decade, however, it’s safe to say that that fact is not our primary motivation. I’m sure you don’t see things that way, though.
No, I have only seen that Der Spiegel has written about the admittance of letting the inspectors to the presidential palaces.
Have You some info about that? In the case You have, I think it is classified.
Have You seen in Your press that USA has made the no-fly-zones broader after the terms of the peace was agreed by every party?
Did You read in Your papers about this? Or is Your press so propagandistic that it does not print this?
Does it justyfy USA to dictate, after the peace is made, whatever just because they liked to have it that way?
El_Kabong wrote further:
So here You are writing about anti-air-craft missiles?
And here You are speaking of “missiles with ballistic missiles intended to hit ground targets at great distance” = SCUDs.
And then You come to the great observation “that I am confusing the missiles”?
Well, now, which one are forbidden by the treaty of peace? If anti-aircraft missiles are forbidden can You give me a site?
Or are You just confused by the word “missile”?
If also the radars are forbidden, please give me a site?
And why can not a nation shoot at planes that oversteps the treaty of peace? Is it also forbidden for Iraq to defend themselves? If so, against who is it forbidden, just USA or anyone that flies across a territory not mentioned in the treaty of peace?
Has every country the right to fly with military planes over a territory not mentioned in the treaty of peace? Or is it just we whities that are allowed?
Now I ask You very politely, if You did not know that US has made new broader no-fly-zones, that even the UN has not ratified, and even less Iraq, to push Your propagandistic newspapers 20 cm inside the ass of the directors of e.g. FOX-news.
It is obvious that they have not told You, so it is obvious that they are not very objective = pure propagandistic.
I am not aware how much Russia has sold of what to Iraq, but I am aware of that when the mass-murdering of people in Iraq took place, the act was mainly made with US weapons.
I am glad that my country (Finland) has not sold, as far as I know, any military stuff to Iraq.
Btw., did You think that the name Henry is a very common name in
Russia?
El_Kabong quoted me: ‘What is the reason now for some Americans to wish a war with Iraq? El_Kabong answered:
I have not said that Saddam should not be put out of place. What I write about is that he made his biggest crimes when he was an ally with US.
US did not condemn them then, not to a proportion that there was even a mentioning about a conflict.
What is now the reason to attack Iraq? Why not let the UN and others go and inspect when they can do that without conflict? Even the presidential palaces.
I guess that if the Russians or Chinese would have made an inspection in the name of US, and put spies among the inspectors, FOX-news would have had a public orgasm.
Your administration do not understand that Your “inspectors” were investigating in the name of UN, not US, and they stopped, by their (spying)actions, the process of a body representing UN, from investigating in this matter.
I still ask You to give one reason not to inspect Iraq instead of war? If the real reason is weapons of mass-destruction. That is what the whole OP is about, just have to provocate You a little bit.
I admit, even a provocation did not give an answer.
Is USA hiding a secret from the Europeans? Europe was first smiling, and even laughing, when Your president begun his war speeches, but now the smiles has turned very sour, because this guy does really believe in what he is talking. And nobody seem to know what he will speak the next day, except about the necessity of war…
Now he is not on the war against terrorism, (which everyone would back up and help to win), now he is just another Saddam that wants war.
But what is the other reason?
Does this mean that Us can attack any country with a bad guy, or a bad party, without further reason?
Just because The Sheriff wants?
Take a deep breath. You’re going to hyperventilate.
Firstly, forgive me if I did not know you are Finnish (although I was unaware that Henry was a Finnish name as well). You see, I was thrown off by your listing your location as Russia and your sig line as “from Siberia with love”.
Secondly, if you have ever seen any of my posts to the various GD threads on Iraq, you would realize that I am dead set against a unilateral US invasion of Iraq without just cause, and that I do not yet find that sufficient case has been made for an invasion. That doesn’t mean, however, that I support just any old argument against military action.
Thirdly, this is the Pit, and if you post ridiculous assertions, you are likely to hear complaint.
The problem here is that you are proceeding from more than one erroneous premise. Iraq has repeatedly opened fire on US aircraft overflying the country. The US has returned fire in defense. Many incidents have occurred, over more than a decade, and to the best of my knowledge these have always been defensive actions by the US. I invite you to name incidents (locations and dates) in which US aircraft have opened fire on Iraqi targets without having being threatened in some way, since the no-fly zones were put in place, or that US aircraft have targeted the geenral Iraqi population (that is,m non-military targets) in any of these actions.
My comments on missiles are based on the fact that you don’t seem to understand that there is a clear difference between antiarcraft missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles. Judging from your reply, you still don’tget the disinction. So be it.
Here’s another eroneous premise that you suggested in your OP: that there is a religious component to the administration’s belligerence towards Iraq. I find no evidence that such is the case.
Here’s yet another erroneous premise, this time from your reply: that Fox News is the principal media outlet for news in the US, and that US news media are in any substantive way merely propaganda outlets. I find it strange that you have not noted the intense debate both for against military action, that has taken place in the US media (yes, even that aupposed government mouthpiece Fox news).
Here’s one more erroneous premise:
Your OP did not mention anything about this, and in any event I have no idea what exactly you are complaining about. You seem to be saying that the US is prohibited from ever being anything but an ally of Iraq becasue we once (sadly) supported them against Iran?
Secondly, you do realize, don’t you, that the US government in place now is not precisely the same one in place then? I can’t see why you would find it so strange that there might be a US policy change towards Iraq over the course of twenty years and a major war.
In any event, you don’t have to sell me arguments against the US invading Iraq; just make sure you have the facts straight, okay?
If Your government is backing the wrong horse (Saddam) and can’t see that he is a new C. Manson, is it my fault? Even bin Laden has been trained by Your people.
You have made Your own bed for years and now You have to lie on it. Then You drag all US citizens in this mess, and if the rest of the world does not like it, they are cowards?
And about lies, how about Your beautiful administration. They are the real truth-speakers? I think You believe the propaganda is everywhere else but not in USA?
And that all the citizens of US that sees it differently are cowards and wrong? And so is the rest of the world? And the rules are just and only for the rest of the world?
Airman Doors, USAF writes further:
Me too. But not Your administration at that time. Ask them.
Airman Doors, USAF strikes again:
So, bin Laden is in Iraq? Phone Your president about the news! Or if You mean every madman, You can begin from the most western point in Africa, through the continent to Asia, stop at Japan, take a deep breath and turn back.
We in Europe have also some politicians that we would put on The Death list of Caesar.
Airman Doors, USAF gives the brave announcement:
Yes what You go into, even an @sshole like me can understand. But why? You “just follow orders” and not even in peacetime ask why?
Even a blind hen founds a grain now and then, but nobody of Your bunch has come to the great question: “Why?” You certainly seem to be the most concentrated bunch of @ssholes that I know.
Airman Doors, USAF writes further:
Yeah, he’s sick allright, but I hope You do not run for president?
Airman Doors, USAF writes to all pussies in the world:
Let what stuff happen? Ruin the inspections? Read my earlier post.
Airman Doors, USAF gives me alternatives:
And You are brave, breeding new terrorist by going to a war that even Your government can’t explain, nor You.
Just a war against “evil”.
You will be in an endless war, trying to drag the whole world in whatever whim Your President seem to have. And that is brave?
I would say that much braver were those senators in US that did not want to give Your President a blank check to do whatever he wants?
They were telling you that the American involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake. But you didn’t listen then any more than you are listening now. When some pissed off Kuwati or Pakistani or Phillipino finally succeeds in dispersing hoof and mouth disease through the feedlots of Texas, I’m sure you’ll argue once again that:[ul]
[li]No one could have predicted it[/li][li]It was an unthinkable act of madmen[/li][li]We couldn’t possibly have done anything to provoke it[/li][/ul]
Of course you’ll be wrong on all three counts.
It’d be a better world if you could just once take off your ideological blinders, and think about the world in a rational way.
My Clairvoyance Machine tells me that you are all for coddling the terrorists, by not daring to do anything that their insanity-riddled minds may find offensive at some point.
When the fuck will the simpering fops among you learn that appeasement does not work? It matters not what the US is doing to piss the Islamic extremists off. They, like many on the appeasement band-wagon, are not rational. If President Bush ordered all women to dress like Casper, and men to grow beards, I would daresay the America-hating terrorists would keep right on being terrorists.
A rational being does not blow themself up to make a point. Stop trying to treat terrorists rationally.
El_Kabong
Yes, Henry is a quite common name in Finland among the 6% minority there, the Finn-Swedes. I was named after my fathers best combat-friend in the war (against Russians, if that interests anyone). Nowadays I live and make my business here in Russia.
So, You are also “set against a unilateral US invasion of Iraq without just cause” as I am. I am asking “what is the cause?”
I am not against the invasion if e.g. UN is agreeing to it. But just that any country can invade another country without giving a cause that is specific. (There are about a dozen of mad dictators in this world on any given moment, so if Your president is declaring a “War Against Lunacy Among Dictators”, he surely has much to do. I am sure the American people do not wish that?)
El_Kabong wrote:
1) USA was bombing a radarstation at the airport from which the two US senators flew from Iraq back to US some week ago. How was this radarstation on a lorry showing it’s hostility? 2) It is You that do not seem to realize that there was the non-fly-zones after the war and then US made new non-fly-zones unilaterally.
That is not, as I can see a very well known fact in US. Or is it?
I can myself, through Internet, read a quite many European news-papers in different languages, as well as the American ones, and to me it seem to be that the American discussion is, if I put it mildly, “quite twisted”.
It is true though that I have never read through the peace act made after the war. But I do not think so many of us has. So my question is still: Are the anti-aircraft missiles and radars really included in that or not? Can radars really be forbidden in any country?
I can not understand how You can come to the next conclusion:
Then You write:
The religion is no part of this, that I know, but USA seem to believe that the world, except Europe and some countries with nukes, is just a big back-yard where You can play football with any rules You invent for each game. El_Kabong wrote further:
Naturally I understand that FOX-news is not a very serious media. But many here are taking it serious, taking a stand for it more or less. And I know for sure that the writers here in SD, from any country, are above the “man of the street”.
It is more usual to stare at the stupid-box than to write letters all over the world.
If You ever have studied propaganda etc., You will soon see that the most effective propaganda is distributed by “having an open discussion”.
Let’s say that a TV-company selects debating people to it’s studio. It can take a senator that oppose the war. Do You think he can very openly speak about “Why is USA bombing a radar-station in Iraq? Is this in the peace-contract?, or are we already at war with Iraq?”
Of course he can’t, because he needs votes. But the guys that are for a war can take every point home, just beating this senator to dust. They will not lose votes on that, they will win votes.
And the whole debate will seem to be very objective etc. and “every standpoint was made”. And the people does think that “see how free our media is!”
How many times are there people from the Iraq ambassy been given the right to ask questions like “Why did You do this or that?”, just asking the warmongers?
I can not see US TV from here, but I would guess that: never.
If they are on TV they just have to defend themselves against questions like: “You did gas Your people, didn’t You?” It is a fair question, but to be objective would give the other guy also some time to address some questions to some politicians.
Read also the posts posted in e.g. New York Times’ Internet discussion.
That half of the people do not know what they are speaking about is quite clear. And NYT does not so much work to clarify anything either in their articles that I’ve seen. And that paper is far from FOX!
El_Kabong wrote:
<SNIP>
I am complaining about that Your administration does not give a cause of war. Everything is just explanations that does not hold even in the eyes of US allies.
True, but does the moral also change from administration to administration? The moral not to condemn a systematical killing of civilians? And now the only reason for war, (not so bad reason in itself), is this moral question! The question of a tyrant.
Let me rephrase the question to: “How many tyrants do You think US can “evaporate” this decade?” If it is the nukes that bothers: “Why not to send the specialists there to investigate? You will get Your new resolution in UN, so what is now the problem?” Or is there another reason?
Okay, okay! Just a stupid question: “What facts am I missing?” :rolleyes:
Next on stage (fanfares): Slip Mahoney:
Der Spiegel knows because they bothered to ask. And reading more, even You will know more.
May I ask You, why should they be fucked for? For being a magazine? :smack:
