Do you think there will be a major war soon?

Well just watched platoon and started discussing past wars and realtionships between countries in Asia/India with my mum (she knows her stuff), Then my dads brother who is staying over and was kinda drunk came in the conversation and discussed them with us and then went on to teach me how Nukes and Hydrogen(spelling?) bombs are made. Hes a physics or something teacher in some rich thailand school. Said a lot of stuff to me which i kinda understood, physics skills are pretty basic :? .

Anyway he then said they he reckons there will be a major war soon and he thinks it will be fanatic muslims or something vs other. So just want to know if other people think there will be a major war soon and who it will contain.

Ohh if there ever is a war and i am in it and i see anyone doing what the americans did to the village people in that platoon movie ie rape and shit i will kill ya or be very very very very angry. Don't like that kinda stuff at all.

Edit : Use can delete the last paragraph if its offensive kinda in some wierd mood after watching platoon and having a long discussing with the above people.

Quote from Tachi:
i will kill ya or be very angry. Don't like that kinda stuff at all.

omg nice way to draw the line.

yeah if ur like 12 years old i'll kill ya but um, if ur big, and look mean, and say, ur the type of person who actually rapes people because you're big mean and ugly then you know... i'll like, be rool mad yanno :P

but seriously, i think the malaysians are gonna go the jews soon :lol:

edit: shitty english

Quote from Harbinger:
[quote:9efbf92a44="Tachi"]i will kill ya or be very angry. Don't like that kinda stuff at all.

omg nice way to draw the line.

yeah if ur like 12 years old i'll kill ya but um, if ur big, and look mean, and say, ur the type of person who actually rapes people because they're big mean and ugly then you know... i'll like, be rool mad yanno :P

but seriously, i think the malaysians are gonna go the jews soon :lol:[/quote:9efbf92a44]

Sif if someone is big and stuff and they are your ally and you see them doign that stuff then they will probably not be taking notice about what you are going to do with that gun you are about to aim at them.

Yeah after watching what the malaysian president? said at that metting thing things are looking pretty bad :shock: and after us supporting america in iraq they don't like us much either.

yup

there will prolly be a major nuclear catastraphe soon

I too reckon india pakistan war is escalating

tho i dont think these guys will hold back like yankees and americans

scary but the world is changing

religion and territory will be playing in that war

as opposed to egos and world domination....similar but not as fanatical

Solution: Put big fences around cultures that we dont understand.

Hmm hard to really tell.
I do think if there is to be a major war of some sort, its going to be rather quick. I don't think it'll be anything like the length of say Vietnam or WW#.

I honestly don't think it'll be nuclear, I only believe it'll come to that if its a Terrorist act and they want to die or are just crazy in the first place.

But hey thats what I think.

With Iraq pretty much sorted out in some sense, I can't see the US needing to do anything else but this is Bush/US so who knows.

Just my thoughts.

Alright everyone i put forward a nomination that we build a GU nuclear bunker. Run on a nuclear reactor, independent atmosphere, gardens for food and shit... Big room for pc's... We gotta drag the game development teams with us so they can make games so we dont get bored... What else...

Quote from Minorci:
Alright everyone i put forward a nomination that we build a GU nuclear bunker. Run on a nuclear reactor, independent atmosphere, gardens for food and shit... Big room for pc's... We gotta drag the game development teams with us so they can make games so we dont get bored... What else...

you forgot attractive women for reproduction. we can't just keep using milenko

lol nice sif, how could we forget that.

Hub, lan cords (I sure as hell aint playing single player anything!)

Yep chix0rs are always good. However, cos of the wide range in our ages, there would be a wide range of aged chicks there too :D

Anyone here who's 12??? And has girl-friends :D

Heh didn't take long ot move off topic :x Now move back onto topic.

solution- take all the warning labels off dangerous chemichals and let the problem solve itself

That will only work in America.

Quote from Milenko:
Solution: Put big fences around cultures that we dont understand.

Like Israel in the West Bank and Gaza strip, or even the Iron Curtain.... the last was a stretch but the world is a seriously screwed place at the moment.

Until the worlds relegons get along with each other, there is always the possibility of something "dumb" could happen. As for our troops getting involved.. I work at Robertson Barracks a few days per week, those boys look so young, and I am only about 8 years older than them.

pakistan and india...
israeli's and palestinians
america with...half the world
honestly, who the fuck gave india and pakistan nukes? were they drunk?
if there is another major war requiring me to fight, i will be doing a runner to the pacific. if i have to die, i'm gonna do it in paradise, not in no mans land. thousands of islands in the pacific, there's gotta be one for meeeeeee...

Its gonna happen WW3 who knows what will happen during the war besides that alot of people are going to get fucked up killed raped torchered experamented on used for labour etc.
Dont think Australias so innocent, our soldiers have raped murded and all the rest along with every other nation in the world.
Nukes will fall scar the earth, if you think logicly were a doomed race.
It will be humanity that destroys earth and if that dont happen when the sun goes nova were doomed.
The only way we would all unite was if an alien race attacked us.
We are our own enemy

Man's worst enemy is man it self.

EDIT

soz dude, was referring to the yankees and ruskies, i mistakiningly put in americans twice...but u get that....

Quote from hobo_phill:
[quote:4f0951edcb="P-air"]yup

tho i dont think these guys will hold back like yankees and americans

Quote from Cr@zY L|aMa:
solution- take all the warning labels off dangerous chemichals and let the problem solve itself

Quote from Milenko:
That will only work in America.

Umm, to me i really don't like being called the same thing twice and I didn't particularly care for the remark by Milenko. No offence or anything but do people care where other people are from or do they just diss other countries??[/quote:4f0951edcb]

It's the aussie way man. Plus most aussies tend to either dislike americans , or think that they are stuck up little so and so's that can't see past their own nose....

and dude, you might not have realised, but it seems to me that some people in this world care VERY much where other people are from... If you can't see that.... well.....

On the matter of the war, I don't really know, but I don't think there's gonna be any major wars happening for a while, every ones too big now.

-D.

Quote:
With Iraq pretty much sorted out in some sense, I can't see the US needing to do anything else
what about the rest of the axis of evil...north korea?

and i think you're all forgetting the big one..australia v tasmania :P

Ok, i will just not read all of that cause im heaps tired - but yeh - their will be a 'war' but if you haven't noticed...their already has been. Not even a decade passes without at least skirmishes. How much was it that Bush asked Congress for to keep funding Iraq?? 60 billion!?!?! That's insane! Their was NO need for this war apart from the fact that America possesses less than 2% of the world's oil - and Iraq and Afghanistan combined have more than 60%. In short, war will always happen - people always get pissed at each other for stupid reasons. :|

Quote from Illusions:

honestly, who the f*ck gave india and pakistan nukes? were they drunk?

India conducted their first nuclear explosion in 1974. Given that they're surrounded by unfriendly neigbours (Pakistan and China) who have invaded them in the recent past (and one of them already having nukes - China), why in the world would the Indians not develop nuclear weapons?

i agree with azreal - people are always looking for a reason to fight each other over anything

if you look at history, i don't think there was a period in time when someone, somewhere wasn't trying their hardest to kill someone else. its just human nature

Quote from Azreal:
Their was NO need for this war apart from the fact that America possesses less than 2% of the world's oil - and Iraq and Afghanistan combined have more than 60%.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that the USA has an interest Afghanistan's oil resources, or that it in any way influenced their policy post-911.

The only significant natural resources Afghanistan produces is natural gas, which no American oil company has an interest in exploiting.

Quote from Jaian:
[quote:e9fec581ea="Illusions"]
honestly, who the f*ck gave india and pakistan nukes? were they drunk?

India conducted their first nuclear explosion in 1974. Given that they're surrounded by unfriendly neigbours (Pakistan and China) who have invaded them in the recent past (and one of them already having nukes - China), why in the world would the Indians not develop nuclear weapons?[/quote:e9fec581ea]

they have incentive to develop nukes, although clearly they aren't as restrained as some of the other countries currently holding nuclear weapons (note that this does NOT include the US). considering that only last year they had a major standoff requiring the rest of the (somewhat) mentally sound nations to mediate, i think they pose a far larger threat - if only to each other - than saddam hussein.
and why does india have such a huge standing army, airforce and navy when they can barely feed the population? that to me indicates a far more dangerous/militarist society than Iraq was. Iraq didn't have nukes; India is the 7th largest nuclear power on earth. puts things into perspective.

Quote from Illusions:
although clearly they aren't as restrained as some of the other countries currently holding nuclear weapons (note that this does NOT include the US).

In what sense? Their PM specifically stated they would not use their nuclear weapons first. The Pakistanis on the other hand have stated that they are willing to use their nukes as a first strike option.

Hell, when the Pakistanis invaded and held Indian territory in 1999, the Indian only pushed the Pakistanis back into their own territory...they could easily and justifiably invaded Pakistani territory as a buffer, or at least strike at terrorist camps within Pakistani territory. They did not.

How can they be any more restrained than that?

Quote:
considering that only last year they had a major standoff requiring the rest of the (somewhat) mentally sound nations to mediate, i think they pose a far larger threat - if only to each other - than saddam hussein.

They had a 'major standoff' with a country that continually funds terrorists who strike at India, a country that regularly threatens them, a country who's invaded their terrritory etc.

If any other country had to put up with this kind of crap for fifty years from a much smaller country, they would have invaded and destroyed that country. India has been remarkably restrained.

Quote:
and why does india have such a huge standing army, airforce and navy when they can barely feed the population? that to me indicates a far more dangerous/militarist society than Iraq was. Iraq didn't have nukes; India is the 7th largest nuclear power on earth. puts things into perspective.

- Did you say fourth biggest military? Funny number, they also have the fourth largest GDP in the world, in terms of purchasing power parity.
- Barely feed their own people? IIRC, India is the worlds second/third largest exporter rice in the world. Their poverty problems do not lie in food supply.
- Do you really expect India to have anythign but a large and modern army, considering they have actively hostile neighbours? Two neighbours with nuclear weapons, one of which has repeatedly tried to invade India and has threatened to use their nukes (Pakistan), while the other has declared war on, and invaded parts of India before, as well as having nuclear weapons (China).

China had an active nuclear program when they invaded India, which forced the Indians to kickstart their nuclear program, and increase their military budget. The Pakistanis excabberate the problem. Claiming they are a dangerous/militarist society based on the size of their army is ridiculous.

I've been thinking a wee bit about all this...basically we're all screwed while our respective "democratic" or otherwise governements are in power. Screwed I tells you...we all need to migrate out to somewhere away from all the nukes/chems and whatever genetic weapons have been thought up.

We all take our computers and shit and stage a mass exodus out to the Cocus, mauritius or samoan islands or where ever...drink our worries away.

Quote from samid:

We all take our computers and shit and stage a mass exodus out to the Cocus, mauritius or samoan islands or where ever...drink our worries away.

I'll second that :D

Wait - do they have broadband on paradise islands?

Quote from Jaian:
[quote:e54b927e58="Azreal"]Their was NO need for this war apart from the fact that America possesses less than 2% of the world's oil - and Iraq and Afghanistan combined have more than 60%.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that the USA has an interest Afghanistan's oil resources, or that it in any way influenced their policy post-911.

The only significant natural resources Afghanistan produces is natural gas, which no American oil company has an interest in exploiting.[/quote:e54b927e58]

Dude considering America got resources for the war by taking oil from Iraq as the so called protection and food for oil to help fun the cost of there fuel bill. Even Australia got some oil out of our first aid help.
And quote me if I’m wrong but didn’t G W Bush say on TV,
“After all this is the man who tried to kill my daddy”
Dude this guy has some issues and considering the whole invasion of Iraq was that *clears throat* “Weapons of Mass destruction” which I think there probably was but like a dictator like Sadam would be dumb enough not to hide them and I don’t even think there in Iraq and what a better way then for the US to play a game of cat and mouse over the whole idea. And the whole war was based on weapons of mass destruction.. Does this mean we can go invade China, Korea, America and all the other nations that have “Weapons of Mass Destruction” And what about all the crap that followed the war on Iraq?? Like the Head weapons inspector in the UK telling parliament that they found NO EVEDENCE which the UK Government didn’t like to much and after all the threats and other crap the poor guy gives up on life all together.
I don’t see the point to the US even being in Iraq still it should be the united nations, and drifting of the topic what give the US the right to stick there flag on the moon? Why not put a United Nations flag there?

Quote from reload!:
Quote:
With Iraq pretty much sorted out in some sense, I can't see the US needing to do anything else

Man Iraq is far from sorted out, sorted out is running water, power, food and public order, I don’t think that’s going to happen for awhile seeming the US is in the region there’s a lot of anti US opinion over in Iraq and I think its about time the United nations did there fu*king job and got back there and worked things out.

Quote from Rent@Kill:

Man Iraq is far from sorted out, sorted out is running water, power, food and public order, I don’t think that’s going to happen for awhile seeming the US is in the region there’s a lot of anti US opinion over in Iraq and I think its about time the United nations did there fu*king job and got back there and worked things out.

I don't think america wants them in there for any other reason then money. Also seeing as they were against the war it should be up to America who started it to fix it and fund it. Sif make other countries pay for what they did. Although other countries are kind i guess and will pay.

Anyway any think they have some dates on the next major war :shock:

Broad band connection to what??? It'd be like The Beach with computers and no gun toting drug dealers :D

But back on the subject of war and America's recent megalomaniacle behaviour...that huge post above this one and all you other guys really thinking about this stuff. Isn't anyone else verging on this whole apathetic mood caused by the knowledge that we aren't going to make any difference. I marched earlier this year in London with all those people, it was the most intense experience ever and yet the brits ignored up to two million people's outcry and became second in the "axis of the willing"

Nothing we do makes any difference to these f*cks.

http://www.ww3report.com/

Quote from Rent@Kill:

Dude considering America got resources for the war by taking oil from Iraq as the so called protection and food for oil to help fun the cost of there fuel bill. Even Australia got some oil out of our first aid help.

Huh? What does that have to do with Afghanistan? The previous poster was implying that the USA invaded Afghanistan for it's oil resources, which is a load of BS. Iraq is a completely different issue, and lumping Afghanistan with Iraq is being ignorant.

Quote:
And quote me if I?m wrong but didn?t G W Bush say on TV,
?After all this is the man who tried to kill my daddy?

I'm not sure what your point is?

Quote:
Dude this guy has some issues and considering the whole invasion of Iraq was that *clears throat* ?Weapons of Mass destruction? which I think there probably was but like a dictator like Sadam would be dumb enough not to hide them and I don?t even think there in Iraq and what a better way then for the US to play a game of cat and mouse over the whole idea.

You think there 'probably' was? Dude, Iraq *admitted* to possessing WMD after the Gulf War, and has been unable to account for their whereabouts. You'll have to forgive the US adminstration for believing that the Iraqis somehow misplaced tonnes of deadly biological/chemical that were originally created in secrecy.

Quote:
And the whole war was based on weapons of mass destruction.. Does this mean we can go invade China, Korea, America and all the other nations that have ?Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Only if you're retarded. If I see a 15 year old boy raping a girl, I can stop him. If I see an armed gang of eight large men raping a girl, it would be suicidal for me to stop them. My point being you can't go after everyone, so you go after who you can. And given that the USA has limited resources, it makes more sense for them to target those who you have a specific interest in. To extend the analogy, if your sister and some random girl off the street were being raped, you would want to help your sister first and foremost.

Besides which, not many other nations aside from Iraq have used WMD. Saddam Hussein was the current leader of Iraq when the US invaded, and was responsible for the use of WMD against the Kurds. I'm adding this because there's bound to be some idiot who'll bring up Hiroshima which was from over ten different administrations ago.

And yes, I realise I pick really fucked up analogies :p

Quote:
And what about all the crap that followed the war on Iraq?? Like the Head weapons inspector in the UK telling parliament that they found NO EVEDENCE which the UK Government didn?t like to much and after all the threats and other crap the poor guy gives up on life all together.

Does that really matter? The fact is that we know there were weapons of mass destructions; that they haven't found them yet has no meaning, except for trying to pull the wool over an ignorant public's eyes that there is evidence in Iraq, and that it's just a matter of finding it.

Quote:
I don?t see the point to the US even being in Iraq still it should be the united nations,

I agree. However, the UN has shown it's weakness by repeatedly failing to take action against Iraq when Saddamn constantly flouted the terms of surrender he made with the UN. Someone had to take action, and guess what? That someone was the USA.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the limp-dicked UN for being so weak when it comes to preventing genocide and letting genocidal maniacs walk free.

Quote:
and drifting of the topic what give the US the right to stick there flag on the moon? Why not put a United Nations flag there?

It's pretty simple: The USA funded, and launched the space mission which involved man landing on the moon. Hence the USA had the right to plant their flag their. Unless you're claiming the UN somehow has the right to own the entire universe?

Who cares wether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He had to go he was a complete fruit cake mudering and supressing is own people. Look at all this luxury palaces he had while the rest of the country was in shit creek. Something had to be done.

As far as all these rogue nations that have nukes, they would never use them as a first strike wepon because they know it would be guarnteed destruction for thier own country with the retelation.

The only country i feel that would use a nuke as a first strike weapon would be the USA. If they knew that for example North Korea were fuelling ICBM nukes ready for launch i do not think they would hesitate.

If you want to watch i interesting movie about this subject hire this one out its called "Deterrence" It puts forward a very interesting concept of what may have happened in 5 years time if Iraq was not liberated.

It is a really good film.

Jaian, The role of the UN is to prevent war unless its necessary. Sure Saddam was bad but so have many pther Leaders of countries. He might have been bad to his country, well other leaders have been bad to other countries ie America with the vietnam war etc. So should we all go invade them and say will kill their president as the have killed many incocent civilans in there wars?

Yeah I think they should just nuke all the countries with 'stan' in the name, so afghanistan, khazakstan, and most importantly, new zealandstan. :P

HEY! :o

Quote from Tachi:
Jaian, The role of the UN is to prevent war unless its necessary. Sure Saddam was bad but so have many pther Leaders of countries. He might have been bad to his country, well other leaders have been bad to other countries ie America with the vietnam war etc. So should we all go invade them and say will kill their president as the have killed many incocent civilans in there wars?

There's a difference: Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement with the UN...by breaking that ceasefire by, among other things, kicking UN inspectors out of their country, and continuing their WMD program. Both which violate signed ceasefire agreements.

In case that wasn't clear enough, let me focus on that word again:

Noun: Ceasefire

1. A state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms.

Iraq chose to break the peace terms. When you have no peace terms, you're at war. Besides which, UN Resolution 678 more or less authorises the US to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq:

Quote:
The Security Council...

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council.

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter...

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Unless you believe Iraq has the right to conquer smaller nations with impunity, I don't see why you would object to the actions taken against Iraq.

Jaian I wasnt refering to Afghanistan :P the quote had Afghanistan/Iraq in it. Afghanistan is a totaly diff issue

Well have any WMD actually been found yet?, Also i never said i disagred with america's invasion of iraq but i think its unfare how America is allowed to make WMD and then stops anyone else doing it.

Also America has also broken UN rules with the invasion does that mean the UN should go bomb the F*&K out of them?

Quote from Jaian:
(a lot of stuff)

A reason to object to the actions taken against Iraq?
The fact that they had insufficient evidence to prove that Iraq were making WMDs comes to mind.

LOL at those stupid trucks they had nukes or soemthing being made in them :lol:

Anyway topic more on Future wars.

Quote from Rent@Kill:
Jaian I wasnt refering to Afghanistan :P the quote had Afghanistan/Iraq in it. Afghanistan is a totaly diff issue

That's what I said, but when you quoted me, I didn't mention Iraq, only Afghanistan.

Quote from Tachi:
Well have any WMD actually been found yet?,

I don't see the relevance of this. The fact is that they do/have existed.

Quote:
Only in 1995 did Iraq declare its offensive biological weapons program, after publicly denying its existence for four years.

Only in 1997 did inspectors discover evidence of production completed on prohibited missiles in 1992.

Only in 1997 did Iraq declare an additional 187 pieces of specialty equipment used to produce deadly chemical agents.

Only in 2003 when confronted by inspectors, did Iraq turn over the "Iraqi Air Force" document that contradicts Iraq's chemical weapons declaration ? by disclosing an additional 6,500 bombs with 1,000 tons of the blistering agent mustard gas. - Source

Given that they do exist, what does it matter that they haven't been found by the Americans? Does that somehow make them dissapear?

Quote:
Also i never said i disagred with america's invasion of iraq but i think its unfare how America is allowed to make WMD and then stops anyone else doing it.

That's incorrect. They don't stop anyone else from doing it. They discourage other countries, but most certainly do not stop them. Look at India, Pakistan and China for proof of that.

Quote:
Also America has also broken UN rules with the invasion does that mean the UN should go bomb the F*&K out of them?

Now you're just being ridiculous. What 'UN rules' (whatever that means) has the US broken, and what UNSC resolution authorise member states to enforce these alleged 'rules'?

http://www.un.org/documents

You should be able provide references from that site.

Quote from Mungus:
A reason to object to the actions taken against Iraq?
The fact that they had insufficient evidence to prove that Iraq were making WMDs comes to mind.

Irrelevant. The Iraqis possessed WMD, in direct violation of the ceasefire agreement they agreed to that ended the Gulf War in 1991. They neither handed over the WMD (such as anthrax) that they admitted producing after the Gulf War, not provided any evidence of the destruction of said materials.

wow...abusive :?

Quote from samid:

Um...get over your self dude.

Nice "source" there...completely unbiased and everything:

Quote:
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs

Wow, aren't you a frickin genius. Facts issues by the Americans must be false. I mean, if the Americans say it, we don't even have to bother verifying them, because they must be lies.

Moron.

Quote:
How is what Mugus said irrelevant? Your source is about as factual as the Green Left Weekly or something. Both are publications with their own unique purpose. The US Department of State;s Office is always going to produce infromation proving that the governement was correct in its actions.

You're an idiot.

I chose source because it had the most concise and succinct display of the information I wanted to quote, after a quick Google search. However, the information presented in that link is PUBLICALLY available through the UN documents centre.

Let's see what five minutes of research can yield:

Quote:
" In the period under review, Iraq has taken important decisions to acknowledge its offensive biological weapons programme and documents are being obtained in all areas. However, much of the new information contradicts earlier declarations by Iraq"

"In summary, Iraq has declared the production of at least 19,000 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin (nearly 10,000 litres were filled into munitions), 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax (some 6,500 litres were filled into munitions) and 2,200 litres of concentrated aflatoxin (1,580 litres were filled into munitions);"

"Iraq declared that it had decided to destroy biological munitions and the remaining biological warfare bulk agent after the Gulf war. An order for destruction was claimed to have been given orally, and no Iraqi representative seems to be able to recall an exact date for the order or the dates of destruction operations. The order was said to have been given some time in May or June 1991. All filled biological bombs were relocated to one airfield and deactivation chemicals added to agent fill. The bombs were then explosively destroyed and burnt, and the remains buried. A similar disposal technique was used for the missile warheads at a separate site. In late August 1995, Iraq showed to an UNSCOM team a location which it claimed to be a warhead destruction site. However, later on, Iraq changed its story and was unable to identify with any degree of certainty the exact location of warheads destruction operations;"

"The Special Commission has detected and identified a hitherto secret offensive biological weapons programme in Iraq comprising a large-scale production of biological warfare agents, the filling and deployment of missile warheads and aerial bombs with agents, as well as biological weapons research and development activities of considerable width and depth. As late as August of this year, Iraq presented to the Commission a formal, but essentially false, declaration on its biological weapons activities"

Source: 11 October 1995 UNSCOM report

But hey, no doubt the UN commission is on the payroll of the Americans, and are obviously falsifying these reports.

Quote:
Even if America didn't break any sort of resolution through invading iraq, how can you argue that it was the "right" thing to do? Especially given the consequences of said invasion.

I'm sorry, what consequences? A brutal genocidal dictator removed from power, steps to introduce democracy being made in Iraq? Lifting of crippling sanctions that have resulted in the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children since 1991?

For lifting the sanctions alone I think the war worth it.

Quote:
To be empathetic of america's situation is understandable...but to support america's actions on the basis of such propaganda-like infromation is idiotic.

See, if your head wasn't so far up your ass, you'd understand the signficance of Iraq ADMITTING to it's continued production of biological agents such as anthrax.

ADMITTING.

IRAQ.

Think about it. Regardless of who mentions it, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq ADMITTED to continuing it's biological weapons program.

Now I'm going to quote that heavily biased pro-American tabloid, the BBC:

"UNSCOM discovered that Iraq had sought to build a biological weapons capacity. In July 1995, Iraq finally admitted that it had sought to build a offensive biological warfare capability." - BBC Special Report: Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"When UNSCOM was established, Iraq said that it had no biological weapons programme. However, it quickly became clear that this assertion was totally false.

UNSCOM has discovered that Iraq produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin and clostridium." - BBC Special Report:
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

Jaian, I am not to sure about what rules were broken but america went against the UN's wishes and rules when it invaded iraq.

Tachi, every member of the UN goes against the wishes of the 'UN' in some way or the other, repeatedly. However, America was enforcing UN Security resolutions by going into Iraq.

I think you aren't familiar with how this works (then again, I'm not exactly an expert myself), but most UN resolutions are not considered binding. I'll quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. The International Court of Justice suggested in the Namibia case that resolutions other than those made under Chapter VI can also be binding, a view that some Member States have questioned. It is beyond doubt however that those resolutions made outside these two Chapters dealing with the internal governance of the organization (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding, where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

I previous quoted to you UN Resolution 678, which I'll do so again:

Quote:
The Security Council...

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council.

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter...

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

The Americans had the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government, they went in to enforce previous UNSC resolutions that Iraq was bound by. It seems reasonable to me.

Christ dude...you are one angry angry monkey.

I realise you're going to go on another rant about this, but anyways...democracy imposed by the free world? Sanctions also imposed by the free world? You think Iraq has turned into a better place since the war? Yes, a dictator was deposed. WOOHOO! And america seized saddam's arsenal...oh wait...it didn't. American hasn't found shit all, whether or not these weapons exisited, the major reason for the Iraqi invasion was to take these WMD out of the middle east. Something which has not occured.

So we have a bunch of WMD floating around in the middle east, a fugitive dictator, an outraged iraqi populous and some rather confused people who'd like to understand why nothing went to plan. And yeah, just a few barrels of oil.

Back on the subject of "Do you think there will be a major war soon?": Yes, america will go on another goose chace after bin Ladin, saddam and these WMD. Though perhaps this one will have the support of the country being invaded - ie Jordan.

Anyone think any super powers are going to go at it and cause ww3 :shock:

Quote from Tachi:
Anyone think any super powers are going to go at it and cause ww3 :shock:

super powers could be an interesting twist to it

maybe superman could be recruted for the US and then iraq coul recrute someone else like teh hulk or someone and maybe then

kill em all

everyone should fight it out and see who is supreme ruler of the galaxy.......ummm world yeha thats it..........imho

samid are you a member of resistance?? if not, look into it, they're your type of crowd :P

Aye, I am...resistance are a pretty good organisation. Even if half of what they say is untrue, they still do a good job with increasing public awareness about all these issues.

Anyone want to jump on a bus to canberra at an unspecified time to protest against George bush. He's not announcing when he's coming to aus and so the timing is unspecified...it's also costing $2 million to recall parliament for his speach.

Quote from samid:
Christ dude...you are one angry angry monkey.

If you say so. It's irritating when someone who knows shitall about what he's talking about chooses to denigrate the facts that I present because he can't be bothered to verify, and call my opinions idiotic because he's completely clueless about the topic at hand, and has no other way of disagreeing with me.

Quote:
but anyways...democracy imposed by the free world?

Yes?

Quote:
Sanctions also imposed by the free world?

Yes?

Quote:
You think Iraq has turned into a better place since the war?

It will. Oh wait, unless you believe entire countries can be overhauled with a new government and way of life in a matter of months. The Americans spent at least five years (or was it seven?) in Japan post-WW2 setting up a functional democracy, before withdrawing, and look where they are now; world's second largest economy. What in the world makes you think Iraq is going to take a fraction of the time?

Quote:
Yes, a dictator was deposed. WOOHOO!

Those who lost loved ones to Saddam's torture chambers, the Kurds who lived in perpetual fear that they would be subject to more chemical attacks...yes, many people are happy about his removal from power.

Quote:
And america seized saddam's arsenal...oh wait...it didn't. American hasn't found shit all, whether or not these weapons exisited, the major reason for the Iraqi invasion was to take these WMD out of the middle east. Something which has not occured.

Have you ever considered, like, thinking about what you say before saying them? If Saddam is still alive, then he's no longer in power, and has no way of using the biological/chemical agents, unless you believe he and a dedicated core of staff are working furiously in some underground lab to concoct anthrax=tipped warheads to fire upon the Americans.

No, the invasion of Iraq and deposal of Saddam from power has had the effect of nullifying the threat of WMD from Iraq. Basically, the Americans have achieved what they officially came for. Of course, finding the actual materials would be great for what you call propoganda, but in reality is not necessary.

Quote:
So we have a bunch of WMD floating around in the middle east, a fugitive dictator, an outraged iraqi populous and some rather confused people who'd like to understand why nothing went to plan.

I think it's more a case of some anti-American zealots who will always find fault with American foreign policy, and are not at all interested in whether aims and objectives were met.

Quote:
And yeah, just a few barrels of oil.

Are you insinuating that the Americans are going to steal the oilfields for themselves? Bullshit.

If you're insinuating that oil is why the Americans were interested in Iraq in the first place...then so what? That's been pretty obvious since 1990. Or do you think you're making some major revelation?

Quote from samid:
I realise you're going to go on another rant about this, but anyways... :roll:

I can't be bothered arguing with you. Obviously you wont listen to my reasoning however garbled it may be. I'm trying to generate some sort of commentry about actions in the middle east. Just because you can be bothered to verify your arguements doesn't mean it is any more relevant than mine.

Anyways...congrats mate. You win alright?

Fascist

Yay for first post.

But seriously Jaian: are you going to listen to anyone's point of view that is contradictory to yours? You're being rather picky when it comes to that samid guy's posts. If he, I or anyone else constructed an appropriate arguement, would you actually listen to their points?

Quote from samid:
Just because you can be bothered to verify your arguements doesn't mean it is any more relevant than mine.

If there are two contradictory arguements, and one of them can be verified, it generally means the other arguement is incorrect. So yes, the verified arguement would have more relevance than the other.

Quote from random:
But seriously Jaian: are you going to listen to anyone's point of view that is contradictory to yours?

The fact that I go to the effort of making a point by point refutation of what I disagree with indicates that I am listening to other people's POV. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or does it?

Quote:
You're being rather picky when it comes to that samid guy's posts.

He jumped into the thread and called my opinion idiotic. Why wouldn't I be 'picky' about it? Especially when he knows shit all about the subject?

Quote:
If he, I or anyone else constructed an appropriate arguement, would you actually listen to their points?

Yes, and I would address them, as I have so far in this thread. If I disagree with them, I'll state why, and if necessary provide references to support my reasons. If I do agree, then I see no point in addressing them, or I might state that I agree eg:

Quote:
[quote:7e7a1c48fd]Rent@Kill wrote:
Jaian I wasnt refering to Afghanistan the quote had Afghanistan/Iraq in it. Afghanistan is a totaly diff issue

That's what I said[/quote:7e7a1c48fd]

I don't really know what your point is random, does it annoy you that I don't agree with the opinions of other people?

Quote from Jaian:
He jumped into the thread and called my opinion idiotic. Why wouldn't I be 'picky' about it? Especially when he knows shit all about the subject?

Ok dude. I "jumped" into the thread one hour and fourty-seven minutes after you...the point of these forums is that everyone is equal, but that small time difference makes your opinion more important than mine? Also, it was my fourth reply to this post in which I told you to "get over yourself", implying that you take yourself way too seriously - which you do.

Get it right. :P

Finally, just because I don't feel the need to justify my opinions to you, doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject. You know nothing about me.

One more time:

GET OVER YOURSELF!

Quote from samid:
Ok dude. I "jumped" into the thread one hour and fourty-seven minutes after you...the point of these forums is that everyone is equal, but that small time difference makes your opinion more important than mine?

Who's talking about importance or time differences? My point is that your first contact with me involved you referring to my position as 'idiotic'. You chose to denigrate my opinion, so I have no frickin idea why you expect me to go easy on you, especially when your own opinion is borderline retarded.

I'm still not sure where you're coming in with the time difference angle...have I berated you for not posting fast enough? Or are you just blathering on incoherently?

Quote:
Finally, just because I don't feel the need to justify my opinions to you, doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject.

Dude, you have displayed you ignorance of the topic with your posts, regardless of your justifications or lack thereof.

Quote:
You know nothing about me.

That would have been true three days ago. Since then I've learnt of your existence, your username, your (presumably) country of residence and some of your opinions. It has me suspecting you're Muslim.

Quote:
One more time:
GET OVER YOURSELF!

You're a moron.

You're the one who jumped in to criticise me, I had no contact with your before that. If you can't handle criticism, perhaps you should be more sparing in dishing it out?

well i think we have an answer /\/\ there is another major war and its happening on this forum

Aye, but there's some really brilliantly intelligent guy or girl arguing with a utter retard. Not really fair is it?

Quote from samid:
Aye, but there's some really brilliantly intelligent guy or girl arguing with a utter retard. Not really fair is it?

Modesty ill suits you, I said you're borderline retarded. :)

dont mess with samid cause he gets it on everyday and everynight RAH

i agrea with samids arguments completly

Cheers llama

...

boarderline? SEEF!

"I AM THE LIZARD QUEEN!"

But seriously...rather than argue about all that petty shit. Likelyhood of war jaian? (And I'm an anglo atheist actually :wink:)

bink

i think this topic has gone on way to long, its getting a tad to personal now

Ok lets move back on topic to Future Wars.

Quote from Tachi:
Ok lets move back on topic to Future Wars.

Future wars grow from past wars, generally.

Besides, it's fun to watch someone else slugging it out instead of Illusions and I.

Although Resistance are bad, mmkay?

Quote from pres:
Although Resistance are bad, mmkay?

SEEF! :o

But if resistance are bad, does that make the NT (all) Liberal Party some sort of front for the anti-christ?

yeah dude, you missed the point that I was taking the piss out of you

I didn't seriously think that you were IN resistance, I was fairly sure that people in resistance have difficulty turning a computer on.

Let alone playing games, don't you oppose the ruthless slaughter of sprites??

Oh, and we aren't all equal here, that's a funny joke :D

Quote from Harb:
Oh, and we aren't all equal here, that's a funny joke

Yeah, just read your other post dude...I guess we'll see if our dictators on GU are benevolent or not soon enough. I can only count to three (being retarded and all) but I can only see three avatars under the suggested 80x50 limit.

And I didn't realise you were joking...from reading Jaian's posts I had come to the conclusion that humour was a thing of the past.

Quote from samid:

But if resistance are bad, does that make the NT (all) Liberal Party some sort of front for the anti-christ?

Non sequitor.

(translation: huh?)

ps: Resistance are bad, mmkay? :D

We come out of a hole we spend out life trying to get in a hole and then you die and go into a hole anyway

whats the diff unless your a chick and even then its still the same

War death a hole its all the same

Im lost were was the derection of this topic going agian?

I think most of you were just giving shit to samid - very constructive :?.

Quote from random:
I think most of you were just giving shit to samid - very constructive :?.

while this MAY be true samid still has good points which are relevent and i agrea with him but any waythank you captain obvious

*doffs hat to llama*

Thank yea kindly.

the great equaliser: we all end up as wormshit. to all you rich bastards out there, all that money won't stop you from losing bowel control and eventually dying in an undignified heap like the rest of us :P

Samid. If you're in a debate, the other guy backs his claims up with evidence and you don't - your opinion isn't worth sh*t.

If you can't be bothered providing arguments quit posting in the goddamn thread, an opinion in itself has only the value of the facts and thoughts backing it up.

I do beleive that Saddam being removed from power is a good thing. He was guilty of many evil acts and many people suffered under his reign. Whether or not America did it for those reasons or for the oil I don't know - but removing Saddam was a necessary act for which there was no other means but war.

Although America has made a few other world powers worried, and I hope they don't make that worse. Stirring up more enemies is not a good idea, and could well cause another major war.