Mei Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [color=green][size=1]Yeah that was really needed Charles...I can't believe the comments.-- We seem to be forgetting about the troops out there, suffering, fighting, for who, us. Really lets stop arguing about our political parties and leaders, and start sharing real(but NICE) opinions and sharing hope for the troops. That'd be nice wouldn't it.?Oo()[/size][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuoMax Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I hope they come home soon. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSalvtore Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Yeah the troops are the ones giving us the freedom to use the right of freedom of speech. You think in other countries they allow this, no, you get shot on site for making any hateful or negative comments towards the government. I understand people expressing their views on the subject, but a debate shouldn't be making petty remarks or insults to another. (this may have already been said, but I guess I will repeat it, otay?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Quote | Vegitto4- Even if it is human controlled, why does it matter. It is most likely a radar screen they look at, and all they see is a figure flying in. Not the make, model, and country of it. - I know for a fact that the radar screens they were looking at had, Model Plane ID Country of Origin And a lot of other information. Every plane, commercial through to military has a small beacon that when "pinged" by a radar bounces back the information. (One of the advantages of visiting the local Air force base, you get to see their sweet equipment!) Quote | S@bretooth- Would you still be anti war if he nuked Sydney? or if he gassed New York? I don't think so. correct me If I'm wrong. - Hell no, if Sydney was destroyed I would be looking to America for how long it would take them to get a nuke to the people who did it. That would apply to any major attacks against western countries. I had no real problem with the Afghanistan thing, because America was struck first. Iraq is different; so far they haven't done any thing and had no real plans to even attack any one. Eps - Looks at CWB, I'll be good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [color=#808080]Regarding the Patriot Missile System; it is primarily automatically controlled. At the time of this incident, there were many, many fighter aircraft moving through that region. A large number were leaving for bombing raids whilst others were returning from missions. It seems to be, based on all the information, that this was a technical error; the Patriot Missile's on-board computer software misjudged the target. Obviously, these systems are relatively accurate and are designed to shoot down missiles themselves. And so, in this situation (which was undoubtedly very confusing for the navigation technology), a mistake was made. It was obviously a horrible mistake though; so I really hope that the United States can investigate and work out what went wrong so that it can be prevented. But let's not assume for a moment that friendly fire incidents won't occur -- they can and do occur. Although it's true that the United States seems to encounter them more frequently than other coalition forces. But that's probably because the volume of American troops is much larger. So you know, it's a ratio/percentage thing as well. As for Iraq's plans...Iraq has obviously been a very aggressive state in the past. They obviously pursue various unconventional weapons. We have to use logic here. Why does one pursue such weapons? In America's case, these weapons are used as a deterrent. History supports that logic. In Iraq's case, these weapons are used as a tool to threaten and conquer. History supports that logic, too. When people say that America has to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, I cringe. I cringe because these simplistic statements [i]totally[/i] disregard history. Can we assume, if Saddam had nuclear capabilities, that he would not use them against other countries? If Saddam had such capabilities, Israel, Kuwait and Iran would probably cease to exist as we speak. Sometimes you really do need to act in a preemptive fashion in order to prevent a looming danger. In my view, that's just common sense. If you take out all the spin and silly rhetoric, you're presented with some very basic facts. And I think, for me at least, common logic dictates that the end result is very worrying. Once again, I refer to that "tooth" analogy that I used last time. I think it's very apt. Oh and...I'm glad that Charles made that post. I think it was needed. It [i]is[/i] possible to have a sensible discussion without resorting to underhanded tactics. I'm pretty sure that it's already self explanatory, but it's always worth reinforcing.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I'm just thinking over what that missile targeted. Iraq has about 150 old jet fighters who all have ID's, this British plane had an ID to say who it was as well. That was a massive mistake. How could any one looking at a radar screen misread the information like that. I think the question that is raised is should the system be automated? Or at least have some one watching to make sure that targets its acquiring are legitimate enemy targets. One thing that would be horrible would be if America's rules of engagement had come in to play, or lack of rules. It is well documented that they attack without a lot of proof. Just the other day an Australian fighter pulled out of an attack mission because they did not believe in their own minds that the target was a real one. (I support that move by them, they stood up for the Australian rules of engagement.) But just think, they could have fired that at the British plane not realising what it was. If this was the case, and it is in a lot of their other friendly fire cases I think they really need to go over their rules of engagement... Eps - GW2, the game, coming soon to a low budget computer near you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [color=#808080]I'm sure that there will be a lot of discussions about how that is handled. I know that Australia's SAS forces have been doing a spectacular job so far. The coalition is said to be extremely impressed with their performance, which is a further confirmation of the quality of the ADF. But as I said, these things are bound to happen. I don't know exactly how the United States monitors its Patriot Missile systems; the details of that are probably a bit harder to find. But, you know, when you consider the massive amount of forces in the area, these mistakes are bound to happen. From my perspective, I'm not going to lay any kind of massive doubt on the USA because of this one incident. But by the same token, I think all incidents like this need to be followed up very thoroughly.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversive Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]Poloticans never fight the wars themselves, they just send other people in to do their work, and die for them..[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Soldiers don't fight for them, soldiers fight for what they represent. The view of a people in the most free country in the world. Soldiers fight for America, not the people running it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathKnight Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpyderDragon [/i] [B]Soldiers don't fight for them, soldiers fight for what they represent. The view of a people in the most free country in the world. Soldiers fight for America, not the people running it. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=crimson]Lol. Soldiers fight for an opinon. Not for America.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I agree with Ken. I've just heard on ABC radio during an interview with a journalist that America has told independent journalist that if they use a sat phone they will become targets. For making unauthorised transmissions. Now this is out right disgusting. I know America doesn't want independent reporters so that only the "embedded" reports views come through. This is okayish, I don't like that but it?s better than the last few wars where no one was reporting at all. But threatening independent journalists is just plain unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Actually, I have to agree with SD, Ken. Soldiers who join the army do so knowing that there's a possibility that they'll have to fight and die for their country. With that said, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that soldiers fight for their country...not the politician who send them to fight. Though, this only really applies in America. I think most other countries have a draft of some kind. In which case the soldiers fight for themselves because they don't want to go to jail. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathKnight Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [color=crimson]No. They are fighting for an opinon, generally not their own- It isnt America's opinon either, its the Presidents opinon that Iraq is a threat to America, along with other members of his cabinet and party, so he sends the soldiers there to nullify the threat he thinks is there- And thats his opinon, not the opinon of all the people in America, as shown by the demonstrations. They are fighting for the poloticians veiws, not the veiws of the general people.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegitto4 Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I personally dont like this much covrage on the war. All the video feeds are over doing it. Honestly, who really needs to know exactly whats going on, so we can all create more mass hysteria? I figure, send out a few Military journalists, maybe a couple civies, and thats that. le them send home some film, or articles about the conflict. But having to watch all of this is just downright idiotic. If you REALLY want to know exactly what happened, ask somebody whow as there. Then, when they tell you" join up, and go see for yourself" , dont walk away in a huff because you didn't get what you wanted. The delecacies of war should only be known that fought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 It's Called the TR principle, If you are so willing to go to war, then fine, you go first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuoMax Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I agree with DK. Politicians NEVER go and fight. Even before they're politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Actualy, i know a few politicans who went to Vietnam, Al Gore and John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B]Actualy, i know a few politicans who went to Vietnam, Al Gore and John McCain. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah but they weren't politicians when they were fighting. I believe thats the point trying to be made. If politicians feel so strong toward it, they should go do it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Gore was a politicians son. Only 5 members of Congress have proginy in the military, so most of them will not have "buyer's regret". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Just wanted to throw down some facts related to the war... 1. the downed apache pilots are captured by Iraqi authorities. 2. the apache has been destroyed. 3. the "live and historic" speech by saddam was aired. This tape had 57 edits in it where the film was cut (not too live if you ask me) And in the tape saddam praises the 51st infantry of the Iraqi army, whom, if you have been keeping up on the news, surrendered to American forces roughly 5 days ago. So I dont know what to think of the tape. The estimate of when the 51st surrendered (although I know it was several days ago) could be inaccurate. But the rest is pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Lends credibility to the theory that we took him out to begin with...So much for taboo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Have a read of this... "All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war . The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right? Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it. Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them." - PETER FREUNDLICH Great isn't it. This really sums up most, not all, of the reasons why I don't support this war. Eps - Confusing the crap out of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war . [/B][/QUOTE] Thats quite possiby the best way I've ever seen that. I will remember that. I want to use it in my next class discussion :) Although the fact this goes to proove, like you said, the UN has no power... it's just there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 We are doing it to help the world...that is against us doing it in the first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Hehe... Change this will sound very weird to you because it is an argument that is hardly ever said in western countries. (Mainly because we think we are better than the rest of the world, I know I think we are. :P) But, you are bias in your view. All you are doing is imposing what you think is right on the rest of the world. You may in fact not be helping them at all. (Please don't pick at that comment, I'm trying to apply this to the last few wars.) For example people think the way they live in Iraq is right, they have been brought up thinking that. Just as you have. So how do you know you are right? How do you know it's not just the standards that you were brought up with coming in a stamping your logic? People have the right to choose how they live, it is not some one else?s right (America) to change that. (Though I think there should be limited restrictions on that freedom.) Eps - Still confusing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 You are preeching to the choire. I do understand refernce frames, ya know? I argue them all the time. I am against imposing our will elsewhere mainly for that reason. How about you redirect that and a Republican oil Barron (who is doing what is right for them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts