a war - a war

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 22:10:39

Hmm, tough one.

While French president Chirac was in Iraq meeting with Saddam in the 70s, he met with bin Laden. Apparently the three had drinks, and even joked about how Chirac's name rhymed with Iraq. Sources say they gassed a few people for fun before retiring for the night in one of Saddams palaces.

dickbill · 2003-03-20 22:22:22

Hmm, tough one.
While French president Chirac was in Iraq meeting with Saddam in the 70s, he met with bin Laden. Apparently the three had drinks, and even joked about how Chirac's name rhymed with Iraq. Sources say they gassed a few people for fun before retiring for the night in one of Saddams palaces.

not bad.

about OBL, he's certainly not the ascetic that he pretends to be. I have a picture of him in Paris Match when he is like 15, with 2 or 3 girlfriends (spanish if I remember well). And what's funny, hmmm, I donno how to say that nicely, he has so "much fun" that his pant is almost cracking to be distended...you see that clearly in the picture. Next week I can scan the picture and send it. But it's Paris Match Copyrighted, so it cannot be distributed. remind me if I forget.

soph · 2003-03-20 22:24:48

And why did you outright lie by saying that 1441 and Gulf War resolutions were the same?

I didn't lie, Josh, don't make things up. I said that 1441 is implicity allowing war, which the hypocritical security council members now wish to ignore.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 22:25:13

The main problem I see with the whole ?Serious consequences means war? interpretation, is that historically (see the Gulf War resolutions), the language about war is actually defined by calling upon member states and so on. Interpreting ?serious consequences? that way requires a warmongering sprit, because that's not how it works. It really isn't.

soph · 2003-03-20 22:29:07

They had no problem defining it that way in the early '90s. Or else the specific Gulf War resolutions, which came after the war was approved via 1441, would not have resulted.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 22:29:13

I didn't lie, Josh, don't make things up.

Well, what did you mean by this?

1441=war in 1991-1992.

???

I said that 1441 is implicity allowing war, which the hypocritical security council members now wish to ignore.

The Security Council members are doing their job, the US is the one who is ignoring the UN.

There is absolutely no UN resemblence between now and the Gulf War.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 22:30:34

They had no problem defining it that way in the early '90s. Or else the specific Gulf War resolutions, which came after the war was approved via 1441, would not have resulted.

Bullcrap, show me a war resolution that uses vague language like that.

clark · 2003-03-21 11:01:11

Legality and illegality of a war that is currently taking place?

What's being done is for the best. Even Hans Blix was saying that real disarmament can now take place.

Politicans in other countries are merely going through the motions to subdue their population- France I am sure is just hoping for a moment of opportunity to back track on its previous position.

I think Bush has muddled this all up, and should take a page from Blair's position:

Saddam Hussien is a tyrant, the Iraqi people are oppressed. Tyrants with WMD's use their oppresed populations as hostages, which prevents retalitory WMD strikes, which invalidates all MAD doctrine and any stability derived from it.
Saddam Hussien will only comply with UN mandates through the *immediate* threat of war. However, we cannot maintain that immediate threat indefinitely, can we? We threatened for years, and then for the final months, and still no substantial improvement in the situation was forthcoming.

Our choices were simple: 1. Get this over with in a time frame that would be best for us. OR 2. Continue to wait in the sand as Saddam strung us along, and then managed to develop what we all feared.

Idealism gave way to pragmatism.

We tried diplomacy, however meekly, we still attempted. We only forced unilatteral action once there was no more opportunity for consnsus building.

When a barn is burning, action is required, and debate on that course of action is limited by the reality of the situation.

Cobra Commander · 2003-03-21 11:26:04

Our choices were simple: 1. Get this over with in a time frame that would be best for us. OR 2. Continue to wait in the sand as Saddam strung us along, and then managed to develop what we all feared.
Idealism gave way to pragmatism.
We tried diplomacy, however meekly, we still attempted. We only forced unilatteral action once there was no more opportunity for consnsus building.
When a barn is burning, action is required, and debate on that course of action is limited by the reality of the situation.

Well said. Of course we have thirty-some countries backing us one way or another, so it's hardly unilateral as certain elements like to claim.

I'm watching this whole thing live, they keep claiming that "shock and awe" is still coming "as advertised", and I can see a live feed of Republican Guard headquarters in Baghdad. This is surreal. It's kind of like a Tyson fight: brief and and over-hyped.

Cobra Commander · 2003-03-21 12:05:51

And then a pummeling starts...

I don't want to make light of this, but I have to admit that al Jazeera's cameraman has a great shot from whatever rooftop he's holed up on.

CalTech2010 · 2003-03-21 12:20:39

The one whom the Oracle prophesized has returned...

The Aerial Campaign has begun.

I believe someone owes me $20

Cobra Commander · 2003-03-21 12:28:37

The Aerial Campaign has begun.

Hell, the ground campaign got going last night, live and in color. "Campaign" isn't even the right word so far, considering that it's the fastest advance in the history of warfare.

May it all continue to be as easy as it has been.

soph · 2003-03-21 16:44:06

Cal, who's that? I don't remember anybody denying a war was going to happen.

CalTech2010 · 2003-03-22 14:11:25

Cal, who's that? I don't remember anybody denying a war was going to happen.

ON JANUARY 1, 2003, AltToWar WROTE:

I bet you $100 that we go to war mid febuary at the latest, no matter what the UN says.

ON JANUARY 2, 2003, CalTech2010 WROTE:

And let's keep that bet at $20 Alt... just to remain friendly.

All of the information quoted above in on Page 26 of the chat thread President Bush.

I would like my payment in unmarked $1 bills, thank you.

George H · 2003-03-22 15:16:46

Cal, who's that? I don't remember anybody denying a war was going to happen.
ON JANUARY 1, 2003, AltToWar WROTE:
I bet you $100 that we go to war mid febuary at the latest, no matter what the UN says.
ON JANUARY 2, 2003, CalTech2010 WROTE:
And let's keep that bet at $20 Alt... just to remain friendly.
All of the information quoted above in on Page 26 of the chat thread President Bush.
I would like my payment in unmarked $1 bills, thank you.

Of course the US is at war with Iraq-- Dubya wants the oil. You can be so gung-ho & glib about it, like it's just a game, since its not YOUR butt on the line, over there. Let's see how excited your gonna be about the Iraq war when we start getting pay-back by p.o.'d Arabs for it. Hey, if there's more war like this when your 18, are you gonna join the military & serve? Your so geared for everyone else to get shot at, blown away. Let's see you WALK THE TALK. I'd love it. People getting killed right now, its all a money game to you. Pathetic.

CalTech2010 · 2003-03-22 15:30:24

Sure, if my nation needs me to serve in the armed forces when I turn 18, so be it. But if they would rather I go to college and then help them build the missiles, tanks, and airplanes that keep those troops alive, I'd be glad to do that too. The guys at Lockheede-Martin had as much to with fighting this war as the 18-year-old Marine fighting in Basrah right now.

War isn't a game, I made a legitimate bet with a collegue (if you could call Alt that) about the start of this war. We weren't taking bets about number of casualties, or Iraqi deaths, or downed aircraft, just when the war would start.

Shut up.

Adrian · 2003-03-22 15:49:05

I've already stated that I don't particularly want war discussions here. I *definitely* don't want war discussions that are filled with messages in bad taste that do not reflect well on the Mars community here, or discussions that are filled with comments such as 'Shut up'. If things don't improve here, this topic will be locked, as will other topics relating to the war.

CalTech2010 · 2003-03-23 19:58:23

Adrian, I think this will be the last war post. There is nothing left to debate anymore:

FOX is now reporting that US troops have seized a 100-acre chemical weapons facility. It was disguised by the Iraqis to look from the outside like the surrounding desert and impossible to photograph from the air.

Resolution 1441- Iraq must disarm immediately or face severe consequences. They didn't disarm, the US claimed they had WMDs, and the rest of the world said "poppycock".

The US and Britain have proven once and for all that force is the most persuasive form of diplomacy. Russia, France, China, Germany- the list goes on- claimed that inspections were working, and obviously Dr. Blix did not do his job.

Case closed. The US and Britain were and are 100% correct in declaring war. Facts cannot be argued with. They are clearly in material breech of UN Resolutions and inspections, the peaceful route, have not worked.

I feel no guilt whatsoever about this war, and everyone who claimed this was an oil war should write a letter of apology to the President immediately.

Thank you for keeping the forum open this long, Adrian.

Number04 · 2003-03-29 12:53:14

FOX is now reporting that US troops have seized a 100-acre chemical weapons facility.

Well your first problem is that you are watching FOX. I am sorry, but how can you trust any US station to provide you with the truth? And as far as i know, they have found no weapons yet.

This war will bring the world downhill. This is one of those moments that history books will say the world to a nasty turn. What ever happens, don't fool yourself that this is anywhere near the end. The war will be long and bloody.

I don't remember who or where, but i read a post that said if you were an Iraqi and were up against the US, you would not fight. I cannot disagree more. They are not fighting for Saddam. They are fighting because there is an army in there back yard. They have no choice.

If the US thinks they are winning hearts of the people by bombing their schools... there is a problem. and 75 Million dollars for the first month. Not including a whack load of costs.

soph · 2003-03-29 13:04:54

Don't blame us for bombing the schools, blame Saddam for using them as fortresses and trying to manipulate civilian buildings. If he fires and we don't retaliate, we're screwed, if we do, we're blamed for "massacring civilians." Let's blame the real guilty party here.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-29 15:57:13

::shakes his head::

dickbill · 2003-03-29 21:22:38

I've already stated that I don't particularly want war discussions here. I *definitely* don't want war discussions that are filled with messages in bad taste that do not reflect well on the Mars community here, or discussions that are filled with comments such as 'Shut up'. If things don't improve here, this topic will be locked, as will other topics relating to the war.

I understand your point Adrian, but there is a war right now, And it's gonna afftect any future space project. Some projects might be cancel, a Mars mission might never be set up, because of the war, this one or the next.
So war matters. I say it again: mars society members gonna look like clowns or selfish geeks if they dare to ask money for their projects while the rest of the world is in blood.
No peace, no Mars.
I suggest the bad guys here to use an "embedded" language as much as possible, take example on me !

Palomar · 2003-03-29 23:28:52

I've already stated that I don't particularly want war discussions here. I *definitely* don't want war discussions that are filled with messages in bad taste that do not reflect well on the Mars community here, or discussions that are filled with comments such as 'Shut up'. If things don't improve here, this topic will be locked, as will other topics relating to the war.
I understand your point Adrian, but there is a war right now, And it's gonna afftect any future space project. Some projects might be cancel, a Mars mission might never be set up, because of the war, this one or the next.
So war matters. I say it again: mars society members gonna look like clowns or selfish geeks if they dare to ask money for their projects while the rest of the world is in blood.
No peace, no Mars.
I suggest the bad guys here to use an "embedded" language as much as possible, take example on me !

*You make good points, dickbill...but how many of the war-related posts here are dealing directly with this war's impact on Mars? Not many...mostly not at all.

I participated in the war-related thread(s) in the past but, IMO, I'd be surprised if most of us -don't- already know where other folks here stand on the issue. I could be wrong, but my guess is -- barring an absolute newcomer -- much of what has already been said will simply be regurgitated regarding this topic.

No disrespect intended toward anyone, of course.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-03-30 09:01:10

yes Cindy, we have a tendancy to repeat ourself, right ?

About the topic of war, if the free chat is a free chat, it is then difficult to see why the particular topic of war should be avoided. I don't think that Adrian is against the topic actually, he probably just doesn't agree with the rough language, which no forum administrator like in any forum.

Also, while the Free Mars forum seems majoritally populated by american people, there is a minority of foreigners here, which implies different point of views and obviously more energetic exchanges than if everybody here were good republicans, everybody watch FOX, everybody was in the same age. Our forum is international isn't it ?
I just beg politely Adrian to put no censure even in what looks like an out off topic subject with rude language, no "embedded" forum.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-30 17:27:11

I had posted a long dissertation regarding my view on the war, and a call for all space advocates to pull together. I deleted it out of fear it would just incite more friction with those holding differing views, and those asking to end all war discussions. I would like to see all members of all space advocacy societies pull together. In this time of strife it is all the more important to maintain unity. I have encountered an amazing number of individuals who don't care or just don't want to hear about international politics or world affairs. The people on this board tend to be informed and actually hold an opinion. The level of knowledge is quite impressive. I could repost the detailed message if you want, but the jist is to pull together: United we stand, Divided we fall.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-03-20 22:10:39

Re: a war - a war

#52 2003-03-20 22:22:22

Re: a war - a war

#53 2003-03-20 22:24:48

Re: a war - a war

#54 2003-03-20 22:25:13

Re: a war - a war

#55 2003-03-20 22:29:07

Re: a war - a war

#56 2003-03-20 22:29:13

Re: a war - a war

#57 2003-03-20 22:30:34

Re: a war - a war

#58 2003-03-21 11:01:11

Re: a war - a war

#59 2003-03-21 11:26:04

Re: a war - a war

#60 2003-03-21 12:05:51

Re: a war - a war

#61 2003-03-21 12:20:39

Re: a war - a war

#62 2003-03-21 12:28:37

Re: a war - a war

#63 2003-03-21 16:44:06

Re: a war - a war

#64 2003-03-22 14:11:25

Re: a war - a war

#65 2003-03-22 15:16:46

Re: a war - a war

#66 2003-03-22 15:30:24

Re: a war - a war

#67 2003-03-22 15:49:05

Re: a war - a war

#68 2003-03-23 19:58:23

Re: a war - a war

#69 2003-03-29 12:53:14

Re: a war - a war

#70 2003-03-29 13:04:54

Re: a war - a war

#71 2003-03-29 15:57:13

Re: a war - a war

#72 2003-03-29 21:22:38

Re: a war - a war

#73 2003-03-29 23:28:52

Re: a war - a war

#74 2003-03-30 09:01:10

Re: a war - a war

#75 2003-03-30 17:27:11

Re: a war - a war

Board footer