PDA

View Full Version : Is history repeating itself???



tek9_56st
15th Aug 2002, 22:05
I have a concearn of the upcoming subject..(So if this offends anyone, please xcept my apoligies. I'm just curious of your opinions on the matter. Ty!)

I've been watching the news lately, and reading the papers. And it appears that there's a generalized opinion here among some people that the escalating problem between suddam Huisen (Sorry is spelled wrong.) and the the sometimes neighboring countries is turning to be quite a problem. Now the reason I wrote this is because I saw a rather intersting column from somebody who said that and I quote: ''We need to stop Iraq...I say we as in all countries who oppose terrorism, because if we don't he would be compared to another Hitler. I apoligize again if this offends anyone, but my question is do you think that history is in danger of being repeated???:confused: Xcom and @m, please don't close this post.....Ty

Mike_B
16th Aug 2002, 07:01
Originally posted by tek9_56st
Xcom and @m, please don't close this post.....Ty

It will remain open as long as it stays a clean post, no flaming etc.

Thorup
17th Aug 2002, 16:06
It is spelled Saddam Hussein.

I was deeply offended by what you wrote. USA have no right to attack Iraq, they have allready destroyed one country, why another one.

1shot1kill
18th Aug 2002, 11:52
Well, i think it's alright as long as they got proof Iraq funds and hides terrorists. Also remember taht like in Afghanistan alot of Iraqi's are not happy with the goverment of their country.

Thorup
18th Aug 2002, 19:40
yeah, I don't like that saddam guy either. but there is no need to create chaos there

1shot1kill
19th Aug 2002, 19:58
Well, have you seen that video that was released today? Terrorist training camps in Iraq where the terrorists are being trained for using biological and chemical weapons, if it would be my choice they would have started attacking yesterday.

tek9_56st
20th Aug 2002, 07:41
Yea, that's why I appoligized like 3 times because I felt it kinda would. But I wanted to know some of your opinions, I mena I knew I would get little replys if any at all.....So it was to be expected. I feel the same way you do I just think we have a power crazy president. But what can you do.

Thorup
20th Aug 2002, 13:17
if it were up to me, I have two solutions:

1: NUKE 'EM
2: Leave 'em alone

I don't think they should risk more american lives, just use atomics and get done with it.

and I support Israel, cos I am not a god damn nazi!

Twitch
28th Aug 2002, 15:26
A Barret .50 caliber shot from a kilometer would do the deed and rid the world of the nutcase who uses posion gas on his own people. THIS would be a commando-style op with the best results for the least expenditure.

Mike_B
28th Aug 2002, 16:08
Originally posted by Twitch
THIS would be a commando-style op with the best results for the least expenditure.

If I'm not mistaking they have sent special forces/commandos to take out Sadam before but none of them returned.


Originally posted by Thorup
if it were up to me, I have two solutions:

1: NUKE 'EM
2: Leave 'em alone

I don't think they should risk more american lives, just use atomics and get done with it.

and I support Israel, cos I am not a god damn nazi!

You might haven't realised but by nuking them you would also kill thousands innocent people.


Originally posted by Thorup and I support Israel, cos I am not a god damn nazi!
1) What has Israel to do with this
2) what has being a nazi has to do with it when you don't support Israel. Explain please.

1shot1kill
28th Aug 2002, 21:32
Just killing Saddam won't solve it, if he was the only Iraqi supporting the idea's he got he would not be the leader of Iraq anymore.

tek9_56st
29th Aug 2002, 08:54
Well I think bush has the U.S has the right idea, just the wrong guy at the helm. I say if they wanna challenge irag why dont' they wait till 2005 when bush leaves....and then take care of business. I mean i'm telling you guys I have a baaaaaaad feeling about this one...I mean i watching the news and iraq has already recruited 5 new allies or old allies whateva but majority of his neighboring countries are giving support... So tell me can you honestly tell what good will come out of this campaign ??? If you thin about it it's all politics it wont be bush or cheny fighting spilling their blood but you or even us, and what if it gets serious that they have to initiate a draft then we all know the how come of that....I mean if my country called I'd go but I say lets do it the right way. China has more people in their military than we have in our own coiuntry and that's frightening

Twitch
29th Aug 2002, 14:55
The US and old Soviet states have SO many nukes lying around they should simply join up and start "mushrooming" ALL the wacko oil countries, Saudi included, and then there'd be petroleum for the whole world. Bet some of those European petrol prices would drop- of course like in the US much of the price is taxes.

Hope the above is not a flame, but the results would be quite inflamitory :D

1shot1kill
29th Aug 2002, 19:52
Yes lower petrol prices for europe, we pay like 10 times as much as the ppl in the USA.

Twitch
3rd Sep 2002, 19:46
Yeah 1 Shot, exactly why we should annex the oil for the world. If we nuke 'em till they glow in the dark and make these places "colonies" we'd all be better off. Hmm? Dutch Eastern Arabia has a catch to it.....

Thorup
4th Sep 2002, 09:29
Good idea. Let's colonise the middle east again:D

Twitch
4th Sep 2002, 14:55
Western Norge-Arabia sounds good too!

1shot1kill
4th Sep 2002, 18:19
And the United States of Iraq. :D

Twitch
5th Sep 2002, 15:24
If we get Yakkalot's Aussie friends involved in the coalition they could get the Iranian Outback, mates!

Thorup
6th Sep 2002, 08:58
A new crusade, which conquers instead of converting.
We should use swords and atomics in the war.

Mike_B
6th Sep 2002, 14:34
There I was thinking that this thread could remain serious... :rolleyes: You know the word...


~closed~

Mike_B
24th Sep 2002, 18:31
~re-opend~

Keep it a little bit more serious now.

Thorup
24th Sep 2002, 19:40
wow, how come u changed your mind?

1shot1kill
24th Sep 2002, 23:10
Don't ask, he's Belgian... :P

Mike_B
25th Sep 2002, 05:31
Originally posted by Thorup
wow, how come u changed your mind?

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5978

Rapid
25th Sep 2002, 15:12
I asked @am to reopen it cuz it was an interesting topic and I wanted to add my two cents' worth but then it closed. So he obliged, thanks @am. My input: It's a real dilemma and is somewhat like the debate in Britain before WWII about whether to intervene in Hitler's ascendancy. Just like now, there were plenty of hawks and doves on the question both in England and Europe. England, being in the strongest position, tried "appeasement", acceding to his demands and hoping he'd then be satisified and act in a civilized manner toward neighboring countries. But it was of course in vain, and it became necessary for an allied coalition to fight Germany.

I don't think Saddam is like Hitler in that Hitler had amibtions to conquer entire continents. But I do think Saddam is as crazy, probably even more so, and there's little doubt that if he got strong enough and felt secure enough against a stronger country's interfering, he'd use those toys against someone; particularly against Israel, if he got a chance. And the U.S. just will not let that happen, ever.

In a small town, say there's a large and well-known family that had one son who was a "bad seed." He's known to be aggressive and violent, has frequently landed in jail after fights, and everyone acknowledges that he's a lunatic and an accident waiting to happen. His family can't control him, and they admit that he's nuts and they're ashamed of him. But still he's "one of theirs" and they're reluctant to have outsiders intervene.

One day he starts stockpiling pistols and rifles and making threats against his neighbors. The family can't or won't do anything about it. Wouldn't the rest of the townspeople be concerned and want to act? How would they intervene? Would they respect the family's wishes and stay out of it? Take away his guns this time but let him stay in the community because he hasn't actually done anything yet, but knowing that he wants to and will keep looking for ways to do so? Or remove the threat once and for all and, even though it angers his family, lock him up or otherwise remove him from the community?

It's sort of the same with the "Butcher of Baghdad," with the "family" being the other Arab countries. Only it's of course not that simple. Still it shows how it's a tough question. Whatever Bush chooses to do (and I am no fan of his), I hope it works out for the everyone's best....

Twitch
25th Sep 2002, 15:27
To all-
What was the matter with the lighthearted banter in this thread originally?

BACK TO TOPIC-
There are a great many things we do not know and will never know about situations. Some things from WW 2 are still classified. There is a huge, complex intel network functioning throughout the globe by most governments all the time. My feeling is that there are signs that saddam and his band of merry men are actively seeking nuclear weapons again. They had gotten to some point and ar now renewing the effort.

He would not hesitate to use a nuke on Israel or Kuwait for a second. He could be at a point soon to very easily produce a dirty bomb that does not produce a nuclear chain reaction explosion but would be filled with unrefined dust that would still produce radiation over an area for decades or more if exploded in a conventional warhead.

Bush and Blair aren't just talking about taking saddam out for fun and giggles. There must be signs. We simply have to accept the fact that we'll never know all the details of how they know or exactly what they know.

Whaddya think Rapid?

1shot1kill
25th Sep 2002, 20:35
1 thing is sure, if they attack they can't stop at Bagdad like last time.

Twitch
26th Sep 2002, 16:41
Yep. General Schwartzkoph always stated "the goals of the coalition have been met" while he was in the military but after he retired he said in an interview that he wanted to roll M1s into Bagdad which he knew was needed. He mentioned that we'd probably have to go back someday since little hitler was still in power.

I can't hold with this modern day kinder, gentler, limited war concept. It doesn't work! Whatever happened to unconditional surender?

If all this develops to another stage again we will see urban fighting that we did not before equaling more casualties both Allied and Iraqi civilians. It's just a bad-gag that we didn't take Bagdad B4!

Rapid
26th Sep 2002, 18:41
I agree Twitch, that the big shots wouldn't be pushing quite so hard for action on Irag if they didn't have some pretty good information justifying it. Sure we read about all the intelligence failures but we know little to nothing about most of the successes, because they're classified. There's a lot going on that us ordinary folks don't have a clue about. Besides, as little as I care for GW, I just can't believe he would put American troops at risk over a simple grudge fight for his daddy's honor. Or at least, if he did, he couldn't get his administration and the whole Republican congressional delegation to go along with him on that basis alone. Doofs that most lawmakers are, there still are some good heads in that bunch that can see through the bull****. That's why I'm mostly and cautiously supportive of what the nation's leaders, and not just the prez, decide to do. No easy choices there.

1shot1kill
26th Sep 2002, 19:08
Well, you know what, Iraq isn't so bad yet, maybe the rest of the world should invade the USA first, yesterday i heard that the US is still developing and producing chemical and biological weapons themselves, which is against all treaties they have signed about chemical and biological weapons...

ragsy
30th Sep 2002, 01:23
I think its fair to say 1shot, that the US still invest a lot of dollars in chemical and biological weapons, but I don't believe it is for deployment in warfare..

More that you need to know how things work to defend against them


I however am not convinced that our leaders are being honest with us, their motives may well be very different to what they are telling us, as that is the way of war

1shot1kill
30th Sep 2002, 03:35
If they just research to defend against them why do they stock them on an island? (sorry don't remember the name) If terrorists plan a strike on that island it could affect 10% of the USA.

ragsy
30th Sep 2002, 07:40
My guess would be that they are probably stored on an island because if somthing goes wrong it doesn't directly affect continental United States.

10% would be better than 90%

I also reckon that the stronghold on the island would be among the most inpenetrable in the world

1shot1kill
30th Sep 2002, 17:08
Yes but the point is that the USA has signed treaties that they may not develop and store chemical and biological weapons.

Twitch
30th Sep 2002, 17:58
Lot of that stuff is OLD munitions that have been slowly and safely destroyed. It's doubtful that there is any huge budget for developing new stuff.

In the old USSR a TV crew showed the Russian stockpile. A lone soldier "guards" it in front of a cheesy barbed wire fence. Since he makes abou $21 a month I wonder if he'd be able to be bribed to look the other way for a bottle of vodka?

1shot1kill
30th Sep 2002, 22:26
Nope, i saw it on the news a week ago, the US is still developing and stocking chemical and biological weapons in secret.

ragsy
30th Sep 2002, 23:28
Originally posted by 1shot1kill
Nope, i saw it on the news a week ago, the US is still developing and stocking chemical and biological weapons in secret.

Cant be much of a secret :D

Xcom
1st Oct 2002, 00:27
Originally posted by ragsy
but I don't believe it is for deployment in warfare..


Of course not. It's for agricultural purposes. :rolleyes:

ragsy
1st Oct 2002, 02:01
We here in australia have declared biological war on things such as the rabbit, an introduced pest

originally by distributing a virus called mixamotosis (spelling)

and more recently with a virus called Calicivirus

both haven't been very effective but they did manage to kill lots of bunnys

1shot1kill
1st Oct 2002, 04:47
Originally posted by ragsy


Cant be much of a secret :D

Well it was a secret untill it leaked out into the press, i wonder if we are gonna notice some political measures against the US.

Twitch
1st Oct 2002, 21:22
Well allright then. Let's gas somebody.

1shot1kill
2nd Oct 2002, 07:31
As long as they only use it within the Tora Bora area i'm fine with it.

ragsy
3rd Oct 2002, 01:44
One of the dudes captured from Tora Bora said the collasped part from the missile crushed Osama BL

Gas the caves would have been a good option although I think they had plenty of masks

1shot1kill
3rd Oct 2002, 02:18
Well, the Americans also got this new missile that can enter a cave or bunker and will detonate deep within, making it collaps, they used it in Afghanistan.

Funny thing i saw on tv today was that an american newspaper had an advert if the following people could report themselve to the justice department within 60 days or they would automaticly be charged for the crimes they were suspected of:

Osama Bin Laden
Members of Al-Qaeda
Members of the Taliban
Any unknown terrorist

With all it said current location unknown, last known location Afghanistan. :p

Twitch
4th Oct 2002, 19:18
Yeah, we gotta figure that schmo is under a mountain of rubble rotting.

Rapid
7th Oct 2002, 15:57
It would almost be better if he were still alive. Because, if he's dead, there's no limit to how large his legend can grow in the minds of the fanatics; whereas if he's alive, he and his merry band of idiots will have more opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot publicly and further tarnish themselves. Either way, the terrorists are going to keep doing what they do until they've been force-fed enough of their own medicine that they decide it isn't paying off any more...

Twitch
8th Oct 2002, 15:16
Yeah, a martyr can't die. But his followers certainly can. It is just blindly stupid to be pissed at all of Western civilization and think that you can return the whole planet to 1,000 years ago when your peeps ruled. The dumb thing is that no act or series of acts of terrorism have ever worked to achieve a substantial goal. It's like trying to play Commandos blindfolded and being killed again, and again, and again, and on this way forever never suceeding.

Yakkalot
10th Oct 2002, 07:08
If we get Yakkalot's Aussie friends involved in the coalition they could get the Iranian Outback, mates!

The ASASR have been in A-stan since the, well, it's not officially been announced when exactly they went in, but it was with the US and brit SAS, so you can bet a pretty penny we'll be taking part in ny sad-man whooping contests :)

As for Saddam becoming a martyr...fat chance.
Guys like Osama bin hidin becoming martyrs are one thing, but Saddam?
Who are his followers?

he has a small but militant following of sunni's around the central/western iraqi region, however there is also a large shia population in this region, not to mention the large kurdish population in the no-NFZ and the shiites in the So-NFZ.

He's got no friends in the region, the only reason the gulf states gave him ***** loads of $$$ during the iran-iraq war was because they were more worried about a spread of iran's islamic fundamentalism, something khomeini made openly clear.

For me personally, the biggest worry about any operation in iraq, for whatever the legal-ese bull***** Bush, or the UN or whoever's put forward, is who will fill the powerbase?

If the US is as commited to creating a democratic iraq that "will serve as a model state for the middle east" in the words of condi rice, they, and the international community as a whole, have one hell of a task ahead of them.

Myself, I have the utmost confidence it will fail, and fail miserably, plunging the region into the greatest economic and political strife the region has seen since the early 80's (for those old enough to remember it)

It is on that, and only that premise that I question any invasion of iraq, whether something is "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of the weenies at the UN or anyone else is simply irrelevent, if saddam wants to procure nuclear weapons, and develop the mechanisms to deliver them within the middle east, so be it, if the USA want's to bomb the living ***** out of him, so be it, if koffi annan takes a long walk of a short pier...may the world rejoice... ;)

Twitch
10th Oct 2002, 15:36
Well said Yak! That's about it in a nutshell. The old phrase about not learning from history and being doomed to repeat it is probably kinda what makes everyone wonder about letting hussein going unfettered. The world did that with hitler and...
I think they should return to the old days when the CIA toppled unfriendly governments and put puppets in that were friendly to the West.

The martyr thing was about bin laden. Hes' the kind of goon that would work with- not hussein.

I'd still like to someday take a vacation to the Iranian Outback and see the kangaroos :D

Yakkalot
11th Oct 2002, 03:36
I'd still like to someday take a vacation to the Iranian Outback and see the kangaroos

I didn't think they could survive the radiation?

:D

Though on the note of using the CIA, NSA and all them other acronymn types, to topple unfriendly governments and put in place west friendly autocrats, that, in no small way is what got us where we are in the first place. If the Us hadn't restored the Shah in '53 after he was booted out, the Iranian revolution in '79 quite probably wouldn't have happened, nd that was quite simply one of the turning points in world history, islamic terrorism increased tenfold, it fuelled thecivil war in lebanon giving it about a tenth axis, and most importantly for us today, it brought about the iran iraq war which in turn led to the empowement of Saddam today, if it weren't for the truckloads of cash given to him by the gulf states and the political baking of the US and the USSR (to a lesser extent) he would have never gotten his chemical or biological weapons pograms off the ground, that was mostlythe germans aiding him in that way, the ruskies helped him for fear of islamic extreemism spreading to azerbaijan, armenia and the other neighbouring states. Etcetera, etcetera

And from the small stone grows large ripple... :P

In short, it causes more problems than it starts :D

tek956st
11th Oct 2002, 07:05
Sup all?.....yes...yes I kn0w u all missed me, but h0ld y0ur questi0ns tilla fter the p0st, then I'll tell y0u 0f all my travels 0ver the w0rld. Well...I must say y0ur p0st have all been g0od and kn0wledgable ideas and well underst0od fews. But kn0w this war has it's c0nsequences and this war that we may face is n0t s0mething ad will g0 away in the dark......lets we n0t f0rget irag has 2 0ne imp0rtant ally that bush is trying t0 get 0n 0ur side. China! Remember when clint0n was in the chair he traded and gave china s0me 0f 0ut techn0l0gy and 0ut ballistics. And that c0untry al0ne has m0re pe0ple in their military than we have in 0ur wh0le c0untry. If we g0 t0 war with Iraq, this war will n0t 0nly be f0ught 0n a f0reign s0il, but 0n 0ur 0wn as well. Y0u must've f0rg0t we have massive terr0r training camps in 0ur very backyard, and america seems t0 let every0ne and their m0ther 0ver her, s0 u kn0w...my p0int is that I believe 0nly very little g0od can c0me fr0m this upc0ming war......very little g0od. We may be str0nger than irag militarily, but will that be en0ugh. remember we had tw0 presidents g0 after suddam already and b0th had failed. What makes bushes straegy better?:(

tek956st
11th Oct 2002, 07:07
S0rry! f0r the misspellings.....it's late and I've had a l0ng day.

tek956st
11th Oct 2002, 07:09
And 0ne m0re thing.....hey m0derat0rs what happened t0 my 0ther callname? when i came back t0 p0st it w0uld'nt let me p0st.....what's up with this

Mike_B
11th Oct 2002, 14:34
Originally posted by tek956st
And 0ne m0re thing.....hey m0derat0rs what happened t0 my 0ther callname? when i came back t0 p0st it w0uld'nt let me p0st.....what's up with this

nothing, according to the control panel your still registered. Contact one of the admins, they probably know more.

Xcom
11th Oct 2002, 14:45
Originally posted by tek956st
it's late and I've had a l0ng day.

Oh, and your keyboard is broken too.

Rapid
11th Oct 2002, 15:19
Astutely put Yak. It's a real mess. When you go playing kingmaker in other countries' or regions' affairs there's no telling how things will end up. Lie down with dogs (saddam) and you (the u.s.) get up with fleas. Still, sometimes something has to be done. I'm not convinced that we should in this case, nor that we shouldn't -- just glad I don't have to make the decision. In a way it's easy to say Bush is just diverting attention from the fact we haven't gotten Bin Laden. But Iraq is definitely a supporter of global Islamic terrorism, even if they didn't have a hand in 9/11. Saddam is just one of the hydra's heads -- gotta get 'em all so might as well chop his too. I've always hated religious fundamentalism, so for me this is definitely shaping up to be a just cause...

Rapid
11th Oct 2002, 15:20
'Course, that last is easy for me to say, I'm too old to have to go fight in it...

Twitch
11th Oct 2002, 16:18
Yeah Yak, it was a tongue in cheek statement really. But the world faces the same circumstances it always has- a tinhorn power hungry despot exporting his brand of BS. Absolute power corrupts. One reason why in the US we have term limits on most public offices of high profile and power. Choices of "friends" of the past have turned out bad on many occassions for the West. But like rapid says iraq is no doubt heavily involved in anything that will hurt the West and the US in particular.

The Romans had the right philosophy- after militarily conquering a land they had the locals run the government but had to pay tribute to Rome. In return Rome backed them up with their army and the conquered land would have to assist Rome in the field if need be in return. Economic tribute was paid to Rome and it grew prosperous. Heck the world had empires until WW2. Most independent states set free of imperial rule have floundered with great loss of life and economic hardships for decades hence.

So the alternative is to beat up a tyrant's army but leave him in power with his belligerent attitude? We'd have to eliminate hussein and remain in-country fro quite a while until or when the country stabilizes. Another guy hopefully would not be such a nut, but who knows. This time they'll have to go urban to clean things up. By doing that the populace will see "foreign invaders" and commence guerilla action. Also more innocents will die.

Look at Iran now. After the past hoohaa the younger people dominating the society today have no quarrel with the US or the West and will ultimately dispose their country of the turban-wearing wackos that run things. Then they will be on the road to economic fullness and personal freedom. One of the reasons is that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights states that no official State religion can be held above others is the consequences we see in other parts of the world. Religious elitism is the worst form of elitist attitude since the chosen ones deludedly believe that only their way is right and all others are low class. It's a bankrupt outlook that can only fail in time.

As closed to Cuba as key individuals are in the US government the peoples of both countries both believe the past is over and we'd like to interact. Someday that will happen. If it means US companies will go there and raise the Cuban standard of living with jobs after they once again have personal freedoms then so what?

It one thing to steadfastly believe your form of government is the best way and quite another to believe your religion is the only one. Governments pass into history quickly religions don't.

One thing for certain, if hussein were to croak from natural causes tomorrow there would be some more rational guys opening up a dialogue with the West from Badgag. So the problem remains with one stubborn weiner. When that weiner is cooked the main problem will be over and the picnic will continue.

YAK- the radiation wouldn't kill the kangaroos. They'd just glow in the dark so you could have night time nature safaris!!!

Ranger
13th Oct 2002, 10:38
I think america isnt so bad like everybody think only bad thing in america is that its goverment sucks! Why does Americas has to be the "police of world"? :mad:

tek956st
13th Oct 2002, 10:51
It's actually a good thing in way that america is the police of the world or has been....they've helped so many people. And the bad thing they've made so many enemies in the process, but u gotta understand so many things would've been different if america was'nt the way they were. WW2 would've been lose or probaly.Like now bush is going to war with iraq or at least trying and probaly will with in the coming months or yrs. and in way the cause is justable, but no good can come from it...war is always ugly and never ending (so sad to realize) but think.....is'nt there another means to resolve this there's always one. if my countyr calls i will galdly go if the cause is noble, but I'm not so sure about this one:confused:

tek956st
13th Oct 2002, 10:52
Sorry about this it was acually supposed to be a continuation to the other thread I created....Sorry:D

edit:
Fixed ;)
-Xcom

1shot1kill
13th Oct 2002, 11:26
Originally posted by tek956st
It's actually a good thing in way that america is the police of the world or has been....they've helped so many people. And the bad thing they've made so many enemies in the process,

The problem is that they want to solve everything with war, they have fought too many wars that they didn't have too.

Ranger
13th Oct 2002, 16:11
at years 1940-1950 America was nice but novadays its quite nosey.

tek956st
13th Oct 2002, 21:17
This is true in a sense...there are other peaceful ways to solve problems. But you must remember it's not necessarily the people of the country, but the leader or president of the country at that time. Now maybe right now this war may have little to no affect on the middle east....but of course you have to try. It boggles the mind though....2 presidents went after suddam already and had little to no success and bush wants to go?!!?! What makes him any different or even his tactics? Point is back then most american presidents just wanted world peace...and I would say maerica is after more than just world peace...we maybe gettng greedy, but again you neva know what their motives ar sometimes...Like I said before little to no good will come from this invasion and it won't be fought on just foreign soil, but on american soil. Mark my words!

tek956st
13th Oct 2002, 21:27
I mean actually while you're on the subject american has fought many wars, and only lost 1...only 1 the worst war of all military history. The veitnam war...58,000 men went to war because their country called and when it was over they did'nt even get a parade or even some kind of celebration it was as if their country forgot of did'nt truly care what they did over there. that's why Suddam made that comment about the new age vietnam war.

ragsy
13th Oct 2002, 23:19
Times have changed greatly since Vietnam, so I don't think we can fairly compare the two (nor can Sadaam)

One thing about all this is certain however.

Nothing politcal has ever been acheived by terrorism, at least, terrorism hasn't altered policy to benefit terrorism.

Terrorism will not stop, we will just get better prepared for it it and if Bush has his way, there will be better international cooperation to deal with those responsible.

After last night in Bali, I realise that these people will never stop, all our governements can do is work to prevent large scale terroism using weapons of mass destruction, and toppling other governments that support these actions.

Then it is up to local forces to control local criminal cells

Ranger
14th Oct 2002, 13:58
Lets have a sample:
If Finland would have somekinda conflict whit Sweden(this doesent mean that I hate Sweden) and Finland would attack on them I wouldnt be voluntary but if Sweden would attack agains us I would be voluntary for 100% knowing that between Sweden and my homeland is only me and other mens who are ready to protect its country for death. I would join to conflict behind enemylines only if I am at the moment at Army or if I dont have notting to lose. :cool:

Twitch
14th Oct 2002, 16:15
Haven't seen anyone from anywhere who doesn't think that all governments suck. It's a fact of the world that all it seems govenment want to do is collect taxes and get in your business as they have the warped idea that they know whats best for you. Doesn't matter whether it's Denmark or Lichtenstein micro-managing citizens gets real old.

Everyone refers to Vietnam as a comparison where a conflict gets bogged down with more and more men and material being sent in without a decisive strategic victory. No "game over" as it were.

Rapid
14th Oct 2002, 16:25
I still have a hard time believing we'll declare full-out war on Iraq. I just don't think the provocation is there. If they could definitely say yes Saddam funded Bin Laden's 9/11 attack and danced with glee when it succeeded, then that'd be one thing. But no one has found any suggestion of anything like that yet ('cept maybe the dance part). Americans have always exercised (been hampered by?) a fundamental sense of fairness, and I don't think most people here feel attacking Iraq when there's no evidence he was involved (in 9/11) would be fair; we'd look like arrogant bullies. Personally I could go either way, but I'm skeptical it'll happen.

Re: world's policeman, it's not a role the Americans enjoy necessarily; we just hate seeing a**hole dictators succeed in oppressing people. We've got that "Billy Jack" syndrome -- remember him?, the movie guy who would walk into a place and beat up all the rednecks who were abusing the poor Indian kids.

Yeah Ragsy, terrorist acts are too popular now to go away anytime soon, regardless if we smash Iraq and Al Quaida into powder. There'll always be fanatics with bombs. Remember the movie "Brazil," the Monty Python spinoff. It was set in a future metropolis where terrorist bombings were so frequent people hardly even noticed anymore; two ladies sitting at a restaurant, a bomb blows up several tables of patrons in the background, and the ladies don't even interrupt their conversation. I wonder if that's where we're headed.

Ranger
14th Oct 2002, 17:16
Oh sorry I forgot that youre Americans I thought that we are scared but I didnt realize that you would scare even more:(


My appologiez!

tek956st
14th Oct 2002, 23:10
Point is noone want s to go to war...unles it's for a noble cause. Of course we all look back on history and truly admire the guys who did it for us and had to courage to face such trials even when there filled with fear, and yet they did it. I can honestly see all your view points, buit truly someone has to do it.....even if american does'nt invade iraq, there's still another war on the brink and then america will intervene if necessary. I personally don't wanna go to war, but truly if the cause is noble...I would pray to god for the strenght to endure and to bring me home safe and I'd get ready to ship out. ''It's not the people who are fearless, but fearfold.'' Truly there will always be wars...FEar sad to say, but it is reality. Even if it is'nt countries vs. country, it'll be small skirmishes, or civil wars. I now how this sounds but the fact of the matter is it's just reality

ragsy
15th Oct 2002, 01:25
a joke I just received in email


The Saudi Ambassador to the UN has just finished
giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where
he meets President Bush.


They shake hands and as they walk the Saudi says,
"You know, I have just one question about what I
have seen in America."
President Bush says "Well your Excellency, anything I
can do to help, be sure to let me know".


The Saudi whispers "My son watches this show 'star trek'
and in it there are Russians, and Blacks, and Asians, but
never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand
why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."
President Bush laughs and leans toward the Saudi, and
whispers back, "That's because it takes place in the future..."

Yakkalot
15th Oct 2002, 01:39
Well as we speak, the dead from the terrorist attack in bali are numbering 187 - the majority believed to be Australians

At least now, I hope Howard will have the balls to remove his lips from Bush's ass and fight our own war...

Scary though, Bali is the closest major population centre to Darwin...

Rapid
15th Oct 2002, 15:20
Originally posted by Yakkalot
...and fight our own war...
Nay, join us and the Brits! Nobody I'd rather have on our side than the Aussies. The Japanese in WWII reckoned them the best fighters they faced.

1shot1kill
16th Oct 2002, 07:59
No join the Dutch! Ehhh on the other hand don't, our goverment is about to fall.

Twitch
17th Oct 2002, 15:42
The terrorists and iraq are 2 separate things. As we know there are things from WW2 that are still classified. The US intell community have had to have passed on something to the White House. No one will tell, but they know something that they didn't before. If Hussein is rebuilding his capability to refine plutonium as seen in the rebuilt factory from recon photos there is reason for worry. They certainly didn't rebuild the structure to produce baby food. What is released to the media and what is real is usually highly camoflauged and the real info and its sources will remain unknown.

We can all be certain that hussein would use any nuke he can build on whoever he thought was an enemy- Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or ??? He does want Kuwait back. He's stated that. It's just too bad the he can't be singularly taken out. The the country could get on with things and people could get off the rag of being deluded into believing everyone is an enemy. Remember he used gas on Iran and even his own Kurddish ethnic citizens. So tell me what makes him so different from Hitler gassing German Jewish citizens?

ragsy
18th Oct 2002, 01:11
Originally posted by Yakkalot
Scary though, Bali is the closest major population centre to Darwin...

Do you reckon Darwin is a target again Yakka? this is not good cause I'm applying for a job up there at the moment :(

Yakkalot
24th Oct 2002, 10:20
Where'd my post go?

@m? Xcom?

Xcom
24th Oct 2002, 11:42
What post?

Yakkalot
24th Oct 2002, 14:49
err, the post that obviously isn't there, orelse I wouldn't be asking about it would I now? ;)

Xcom
24th Oct 2002, 15:29
As far as I remember, I haven't deleted anything from here. Musta been rats. Or @m. Or those suspicious mushrooms you ate 2 days ago. :D

Mike_B
24th Oct 2002, 16:20
I didn't delete it.

1shot1kill
24th Oct 2002, 18:13
Denial!

Xcom
24th Oct 2002, 22:45
Originally posted by 1shot1kill
Denial!

And your point is?

Thorup
25th Oct 2002, 08:31
spamming

Yakkalot
25th Oct 2002, 09:55
Thorup do u all a favour and go play with that shiny red ball in the yard will you?

anyway, so if you guys didn't delete it, where'd it go?

BTW I don't do the fungus anymore... :p

Xcom
25th Oct 2002, 10:21
Originally posted by Yakkalot
anyway, so if you guys didn't delete it, where'd it go?


I don't know. Maybe Mouser or RedLegg were sneaking thru. You never know. Rest assured if it were us, we would have told you so.

iakovos
25th Oct 2002, 19:15
Originally posted by Xcom


I don't know. Maybe Mouser or RedLegg were sneaking thru. You never know. Rest assured if it were us, we would have told you so.

Or maybe it was lost in the vacuum of internet space... where no Mouser or RedLegg have gone before... hehe :D

Iakovos :)

Yakkalot
25th Oct 2002, 20:27
Originally posted by Xcom

Rest assured if it were us, we would have told you so.

Awwwww...

*with bottle of johnnie Walker Red Label in hand, puts one arm around Xcom and the other 'round @m*

I love you guys! *hic!*


:D

tek956st
26th Oct 2002, 04:44
Quick question....Were'nt the germans the first to invent the machine gun, poisonous gas, and the submarinenah the tank to I heard... ''?''

And if ths is so...how come there are'nt any movies with poisonous gas being used in either ww1 or 2?

And did anybody happen to catch this movie on the civil war...called '' The civil war'' by ken burns ?

Yakkalot
26th Oct 2002, 06:25
I take it you haven't seen all quiet on the western front then... ;)

As for them "inventing" them, thats a tenuous line, so i'll go through one by one.

The tank. no way. The first to design "tank" is accredited to Leonardo DaVincci, but the first to employ them were the Brittish in the Somme in 1916.

The machine gun, well my knoweledge of the history of guns is a little weak but AFAIK the maxim gun was developed by an american.

Poison gas, it is hard to say who "invented" the many and differing types that did and do exist, but the germans were the first to use mustard and chlorine gasses, that I know.

And the submarine, no, the first sea going submersible is widely acknoweledged as having been the "turtle", and many other nations also employed their own versions, again owing to da vincci. The Germans however were the first to use them as a effective military tool.

cheerio, luke

tek956st
26th Oct 2002, 19:50
By george I think you've got it! :p


And what about the civil war movie by ken burns

Yakkalot
27th Oct 2002, 02:28
Got what?

Poson gas?

I HAVE NO POISON GAS!

See, come inspect my palace!

I have nothing to hide...

*Quickly loads suspicious looking 44gl drums onto ute and speeds off premises*


:D

Does the movie have a name?
Which civil war? I take it American?

There's quite a few, Glory seems to be one of the newest, with ben whatsisface and Denzel washington.

Xcom
27th Oct 2002, 12:00
Originally posted by Yakkalot
I HAVE NO POISON GAS!....

...I have nothing to hide

Excuse me, what about this? ;)

http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/bushonion.gif

tek956st
28th Oct 2002, 02:45
it's called.....''The civil war'' By Ken burns

tek956st
28th Oct 2002, 02:47
it was on pbs (channel 2 in florida)

Yakkalot
28th Oct 2002, 08:11
<----- ;)

Don't get PBS in these parts ;)

Thorup
28th Oct 2002, 08:31
Originally posted by Yakkalot
Thorup do u all a favour and go play with that shiny red ball in the yard will you?



I don't like you Yakkalot:mad:

1shot1kill
28th Oct 2002, 14:24
I'm pretty sure he doesn't like you either. ;)

Rapid
28th Oct 2002, 15:59
OK the blue ball, then. Ken Burns's "the Civil War" is an 11-hour documentary film first shown as a multi-part series on public TV in the U.S. It's available in VHS and DVD, for example see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000068ULD/qid=1035819908/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-9749881-3370331

Yakkalot
28th Oct 2002, 16:37
Originally posted by Thorup


I don't like you Yakkalot:mad:

Awww, I like you Thorup, I like you, it's just that I asked where my post dissapeared to, and wanted to know, because I had written quite a detailed and long post, only to have it dissapeared off the planet, for all I know it might be subdued by mind altering drugs on an alien mother **** having a probe placed in regions of it's HTML code I dare not think about... :p

It's just you have a habit of doing things like that, ie calling those posts spam, your protest to me using thr abbreviation "jap" in another thread earlier in the year amongst others...

Now hows about a group hug? :)

Thorup
29th Oct 2002, 07:46
I didn't say your post was spamming it was what xcom asked about, and then I said an answer, and that was spamming.

sorry if you misunderstood

Yakkalot
29th Oct 2002, 15:40
Originally posted by Thorup
I didn't say your post was spamming it was what xcom asked about, and then I said an answer, and that was spamming.

sorry if you misunderstood

I'm still not following ya lad! :)

Thorup
29th Oct 2002, 19:02
Never mind. let's just forget about this and let us all get along:D

ragsy
29th Oct 2002, 23:20
awwwww all is well in the forum again :D


Yakkalot we did get the Civil War series here, a year or so ago on ABC

Yakkalot
1st Nov 2002, 09:59
In the words of one of England's greatest philosiphers, Tinky Winky the Tellitubby... "Big Hug!


:D

And we might hae gotten it in these here parts, but i've seen quite a few in my time and can't remember them all. That nd my interest in the ACW is but a passing curiousity and as a reference for tactical evolution et al...