Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » United States using chemical weapons in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181155 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 15:11   |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
So, you'd knowingly bomb a building with civilians in Iraq? LIBERATE IRAQIS! YOU = DEAD = TEH LIBERATED!
The point is the same with napalm: They're both weapons that disfigure with fire and chemical reactions.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181158 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 15:27 |
 |
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
In war there's always civilian casualties. If someone attacked the US on their soil you'd bet your ass there'd be lots of civies dying. no one wants civilians to die (Well; except Saddam, but that's another case) We all know war is hell.
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181160 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 15:37 |
|
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
so if you had bombed an area that had 20 enemies and one civilian and they all died, this is wrong compared to 20 enemies and say 6 of your men dying? I'll have to say that most won't agree with that sentiment. I mean it's not like they're going house to house and killing them on purpose. It doesn't make it right to do these things. but considering the alternative. How many innocent civilians were killed by their own people? by explosives? Oh well that's so much different right? Let's just jump on the bandwagon hey?
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181164 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 15:49 |
|
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You're pointing out the fact that now, TERRORISTS are "they're own people," or rather, the terrorists are killing "they're own people." Terrorists and civilians aren't the same, terrorists don't kill they're own people, because a terrorist's only other "person" is another terrorist. They don't live for keeping civilians safe, or we'd have gave them the country.
You're forgetting that you started the war, if there were twenty targets standing around and maybe five civilians, it's worth the risk, but since, it's one, I might wait till they're safe or if it's an important battle, fire. If it's just a patrol and there's a civilian to be saved, I'd wait.
The last few sentences you just wrote practically scream "I ADVOCATE KILLING CIVILIANS!" That's the problem, people who don't care because they're not there. If a forgien country was saying "lol wutevr" and the US was being attacked like that, you'd scream about some sort of international treaty.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181165 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 16:01 |
|
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
what i meant was that they were from the same country. My point was that, in war, people have to do aweful things. The very fact that sometimes we do think of their civilians even if it means greater risk for the soldiers fighting(which is generally always the case). While "people who live in their own country" (if that works better for you) have no such regard for the civilians. See the blantant difference? why you would rather attack US instead of them is way beyond me to even understand. The fact that you would first go to criticizing us shows enough to me what you really think. I mean why not criticize the people who try and prevent civilian deaths sometimes compared to "people in their own country" knowing full well that civilians will die and do them anyways without any regard, right? right...
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181166 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 16:20 |
|
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I critize YOU because you went into this war, and you are not a nation that has extremist terorrist cells. There's not point in going OMG TERRORIST CELLS GHEY! LOL! Everyone knows that, but the US is a country that should, as a superpower, know better than to go "bibi cives lol."
Unfortunatley, not everyone thinks that way. "Y R U CRITIZING UZ WER ONLE TEH SMRTR GROUP!!1oneoen!11!"
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181168 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 16:28 |
|
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Just a question: Do you think Iraq will be better after this is all said and done? Just wondering
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181184 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 17:53 |
PhantomScope
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Hm Lets think about a few things here. If your country is involved in a war and you know that forces are headed in your direction, will you stand around by the people who have guns? I sure as hell wouldn't I would rather try to become a refugee than chill out in a target clearing zone.
Next fact is that this is guirilla warfare so what seems like a "civilian casualty" could just be a troop in disguise and his buddies took his gear as the supplies are short. You would be suprized how many assault carbines can be purchased and concealed.
One more thing, I have yet to see remorse for civilians they've taken hostage. They intentionally kill civilians such as media representatives, or just someone in that country at the wrong time. The coalition isn't intentionally trying to kill any civilians not to mention propaganda fliers have been distributed in the past to warn civiliants of the dangers of remaining in the target area.
I'm not advocating the war but in times of war you should stand firmly behind your nation. One more thing, If you can provide me a historically documented war that had no civilian causalties, killed, wounded, missing, or otherwise, Then I will keep my mouth shut.
[Updated on: Fri, 02 December 2005 17:57] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181185 is a reply to message #181180] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 17:55 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:28 |
Really, now... last I heard, it was the USA who invaded Iraq based on now-admitted faulty intelligence.
|
Last I heard, Saddam invaded another country thinking the world wouldn't care. America kicked him out, but didn't finish him off for political reasons. Then Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. After that he spent years shooting at American forces with little response. The US finally finished the war Saddam started over a decade ago, citing WMD among other reasons.
I know people like hitting Nodbugger over the head with his own knee jerk reactions, but at least do it right. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, the US would probably never have gotten involved in the region, at least militarily. There would have been nothing to respond to. Now that I think about it, 9/11 might not have happened either since Bin Laden hates the US primarily for its involvement in protecting the Middle East from Saddam.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181187 is a reply to message #179455] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 18:31 |
|
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 18:45 |
glyde51, the US did not start this war, Saddam did.
As for civilian casualties, they happen. There is no way to avoid them when your enemy hides among them.
But as I have always said, if we left Saddam in power we would be guaranteed death.
|
You're STILL missing the point, you can reduce civilian casualties by not just saying "What's a few more" and using WP.
| Nodbugger wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 18:48 |
| glyde51 wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 18:44 |
Will it? Depends what you mean by "said and done."
It will take MANY more years to stabilize Iraq.
|
Have you ever been doing something and someone is looking over your shoulder complaining about what you are doing, you know you are doing it right, but you can't get it done because that other person won't shut the fuck up?
If people like you stopped acting like fucking retards and get positive about the situation it would have ended a while ago, if the people like you allowed the military to operate like it wanted to , it would have.
If Bush didn't have idiots like you harping over his shoulder complaining about every little thing, it would have been over a long time ago.
|
What do you mean if I got positive it would have ended? Am I really the WMD that started the war, the terrorist that keeps it going, or the politicians that used faulty intelligence? If so, come invade my house in Winnipeg, Manitoba. People in the West having bad attitudes towards your illegal war doesn't make it last longer.
| warranto wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:28 |
| Nodbugger wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 16:45 |
glyde51, the US did not start this war, Saddam did.
As for civilian casualties, they happen. There is no way to avoid them when your enemy hides among them.
But as I have always said, if we left Saddam in power we would be guaranteed death.
|
Really, now... last I heard, it was the USA who invaded Iraq based on now-admitted faulty intelligence.
|
I love you.
| Javaxcx wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:36 |
| Nodbugger wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 18:48 |
If Bush didn't have idiots like you harping over his shoulder complaining about every little thing, it would have been over a long time ago.
|
Why would you want a leader who has a "mixed" (and admitted) record of successes and failures (by wholely American standards) operating free from critical analysis?
What are you, Saddam?
|
You too, for that matter.
| PhantomScope wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:53 |
Hm Lets think about a few things here. If your country is involved in a war and you know that forces are headed in your direction, will you stand around by the people who have guns? I sure as hell wouldn't I would rather try to become a refugee than chill out in a target clearing zone.
Next fact is that this is guirilla warfare so what seems like a "civilian casualty" could just be a troop in disguise and his buddies took his gear as the supplies are short. You would be suprized how many assault carbines can be purchased and concealed.
One more thing, I have yet to see remorse for civilians they've taken hostage. They intentionally kill civilians such as media representatives, or just someone in that country at the wrong time. The coalition isn't intentionally trying to kill any civilians not to mention propaganda fliers have been distributed in the past to warn civiliants of the dangers of remaining in the target area.
I'm not advocating the war but in times of war you should stand firmly behind your nation. One more thing, If you can provide me a historically documented war that had no civilian causalties, killed, wounded, missing, or otherwise, Then I will keep my mouth shut.
|
Oh, so you're saying people who won't flee they're only home, they're only possesions, in a poor country should all get up and run? When you have nothing else, your family lives there, your home is there, you don't just run. You stay it out, and hope. Your second point also sucks, most of the fighters have Ak-47s, and I know that if someone had an Ak down they're pants, I wouldn't think they're happy to see me. Besides, even if they did have an assault carbine in their pants, it'd be awfully hard to pull it out. For your third point, read my first point to this particular post. For your last, and final point, you're an asshat. Civilian casualties have been in every war, and they should be pervented. Don't using the bad parts of the past to justify the bad parts of the future is just being a jackass.
| NeoSaber wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:55 |
| warranto wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:28 |
Really, now... last I heard, it was the USA who invaded Iraq based on now-admitted faulty intelligence.
|
Last I heard, Saddam invaded another country thinking the world wouldn't care. America kicked him out, but didn't finish him off for political reasons. Then Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. After that he spent years shooting at American forces with little response. The US finally finished the war Saddam started over a decade ago, citing WMD among other reasons.
I know people like hitting Nodbugger over the head with his own knee jerk reactions, but at least do it right. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, the US would probably never have gotten involved in the region, at least militarily. There would have been nothing to respond to. Now that I think about it, 9/11 might not have happened either since Bin Laden hates the US primarily for its involvement in protecting the Middle East from Saddam.
|
I ALMOST love you, but Osama is just a terrorist. Maybe you're partially right about Osama, though.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181203 is a reply to message #181202] |
Fri, 02 December 2005 21:43 |
|
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 23:20 |
All around the Logical Bush
The hippie chases the war hawk
The hippie thinks the war was in vain
Pop! goes the war hawk
|
It's nice that you can rhyme, but since this isn't a logical arguement you are a failiure until you post one. kthx.
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181211 is a reply to message #181185] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 02:23 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:55 |
| warranto wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:28 |
Really, now... last I heard, it was the USA who invaded Iraq based on now-admitted faulty intelligence.
|
Last I heard, Saddam invaded another country thinking the world wouldn't care. America kicked him out, but didn't finish him off for political reasons. Then Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. After that he spent years shooting at American forces with little response. The US finally finished the war Saddam started over a decade ago, citing WMD among other reasons.
I know people like hitting Nodbugger over the head with his own knee jerk reactions, but at least do it right. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, the US would probably never have gotten involved in the region, at least militarily. There would have been nothing to respond to. Now that I think about it, 9/11 might not have happened either since Bin Laden hates the US primarily for its involvement in protecting the Middle East from Saddam.
|
The invasion was a long time ago. Since then the UN and members have agreed to a cease-fire. Note that it is the UN that was involved in the cease=fire, and NOT the United States.
As far as my research has suggested, Saddam was firing at Troops from America, correct; however, America was acting a representative of the UN at the time,therefore they were actually considered UN forces before American forces. As such, Saddam was firing at the UN forces during the cease-fire, and only the UN had the power to act on it. Of course, America doing what Iraq did to them did not help things either. This being the cruise missile attack after the assassination attempt on Bush.
9/11 would have happened regardless. Perhaps not when it did, and perhaps not in the form it did, but a 9/11-type attack would have happened. But yes, the involvement in the Middle East did not help that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181214 is a reply to message #179455] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 04:32 |
PhantomScope
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ok Glyde, Tell me that this is [http://digilander.libero.it/ak47web/AKS-74U..A%5B1%5D.jpg] Now, remove the clip, Also keep in mind that most middle eastern civilians and insurgents alike wear rather baggy robings. You now have a concealed automatic weapon that can be locked and loaded in under 15 seconds. Get shit through that thick skull of yours that Concealing a weapon can be relatively easy. And it's true the AK-47 is widely use but I highly doubt they are restricted to just that. that link was an assault carbine weighted at most likely 5-7 pounds, not much. Ammunition clips can be pouched on a belt under said garments unnoticed. I know people who can hide 16 inch knifes and still move naturally in public. Also keep in mind a little think called suicide bombing, those are just walking shrapnal and they also try to get them infected with AIDS to assure death.
And like I goddamn said, I don't advocate the killing of civilians but in war it's likely to happen, also tell me this, what good is a home if your dead? I know they don't have much but come now, if someone invades your home town are you going to
A:Pick up a weapon and defend your home [Technically making you an insurgent if you fire upon Genevia Convention confined groups.]
B: Stay in your home at the risk of becoming collateral damage and casualty
or C: Leave the bulk of your possesions, take what you need and return once things get better. Remember, items can be replaced and walls repaired but losing family or limbs for possesions is just foolish
Oh and for your information I'm against killing civilians, but I'm also a firm beleiver in darwinism. Your acting aweful childish, people die in wars, it's what happens. Should we try to reduce casualties? Yes. Is it completely unavoidable? No.
Unless you experience this crap yourself first hand I wouldn't talk shit All you know is what media has told you you dillusional little fuck. Start getting your own opinion and learn something for christs sake.
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #181224 is a reply to message #181185] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 08:03 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:55 |
Last I heard, Saddam invaded another country thinking the world wouldn't care. America kicked him out, but didn't finish him off for political reasons. Then Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. After that he spent years shooting at American forces with little response. The US finally finished the war Saddam started over a decade ago, citing WMD among other reasons.
I know people like hitting Nodbugger over the head with his own knee jerk reactions, but at least do it right. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, the US would probably never have gotten involved in the region, at least militarily. There would have been nothing to respond to. Now that I think about it, 9/11 might not have happened either since Bin Laden hates the US primarily for its involvement in protecting the Middle East from Saddam.
|
The big problem here is that this is simply not accurate, but the general public takes it as truth. We went through this argument ages ago, and it was concretely proven that while American soldiers did act in the Kuwait campaign, they were working under U.N. orders and as such (and affirmed by the UN itself) ought to be considered a UN army; acting under UN law and its periferals. This is especially important, seeing how America's army wasn't the only one IN Kuwait.
That being said, the Gulf War I was not between America and Iraq, it was between The United Nations (United States, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, Egypt, Syria, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Canada, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Honduras, Italy, Niger, Romania, South Korea) and Iraq. This goes further to say that a cease-fire was never made between America and Iraq, it was made between the UN and Iraq. Thus, *only* the UN has juristiction to nullify the cease-fire in the event Iraq does; not the members acting independently of both UN rulings and universally ratified international law.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 11 14:42:37 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01431 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
