Spring RTS Engine

WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ!

ever heard about the iran-iraq war? ~~

guess where the iraqis bought the poisons ;)

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose.

ofcourse youll find wmds in a country where you sold them to

haha foxnews and freerepublic, reliable stuff! i'm not even going to touch most of those links but fe the bbc link has nothing to do with anything; owning aircraft does not prove your evil us killing intentions

Forboding Angel wrote:There were WMD's Found in Iraq btw, and CNN reported it as silently as they could.
[...]
I've done my research. It's obvious that your haven't done yours.

Well I'm sorry but it actually is the other way round. Apart from that lot of the links you gave us lead to articles that have nothing to do with WMDs at all (like those buried aged fighters and some rumors about the weapons now being in Syria)...

You also should read all those articles to the end because most articles with a "WMDs found in Iraq" were quite backpaddling later on and if you still don't believe me please watch this which is quite some time later after all those "hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq" reports...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs

seron gas... nerve agents... Did you miss that portion?

Forboding Angel wrote: @manored... They tried! And Saddam promptly used chemical WMD's on his own people.

No, Saddam promptly ordered some of his people to use chemicals in another some of his people, what means not everone was unhappy...

Forboding Angel wrote:seron gas... nerve agents... Did you miss that portion?

Can you please try to cut the links down to the appropriate ones and source the two bottom quotes? Currently it's a bit confusing!

manored wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote: @manored... They tried! And Saddam promptly used chemical WMD's on his own people.

No, Saddam promptly ordered some of his people to use chemicals in another some of his people, what means not everone was unhappy...

GAS ALL REPUBLICANS!

manored wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote: @manored... They tried! And Saddam promptly used chemical WMD's on his own people.

No, Saddam promptly ordered some of his people to use chemicals in another some of his people, what means not everone was unhappy...

Kurds... == Blarg, I am ded.

@SS...

/in b4 Republican Space Patrol (Those of you with GTA4 will know what I'm talking about, irreverent, but funny as all hell).

*Fart* "That's a message from Fort Ass, Major Shit's on the way!"

Forboding Angel wrote:seron gas... nerve agents... Did you miss that portion?

You really should read those reports to the end (although there should be no more doubt after that Bush interview)...

Here for example some excerpts from that "omg we found 500 WMDs" article:

[...]pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
[...]
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump,"

Everything that was found is ancient ammunition / weapons not capable of working nowadays. In some other reports it also sounds like they make sarin gas grenades (you might even know from games like Jagged Alliance) into WMDs...

But well if even a speach of your (?) president doesn't satisfiy it's hardly possible to convince you despite all facts anyway (ok it wouldn't convince me too but it also didn't start a wave of attacks on him when considering those reports of found WMDs - which just were not)...

SwiftSpear wrote:

manored wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote: @manored... They tried! And Saddam promptly used chemical WMD's on his own people.

No, Saddam promptly ordered some of his people to use chemicals in another some of his people, what means not everone was unhappy...

GAS ALL REPUBLICANS!

Im not claiming that we should start killing each other, but that if the arm is still siding with the dictador then there is not enough unsatisfaction around yet.

manored wrote:Im not claiming that we should start killing each other, but that if the arm is still siding with the dictador then there is not enough unsatisfaction around yet.

5 guys with nukes and tanks can kill a million without weapons. The armed populace is ethically irrelevant in a culture where armaments aren't unilateral, the armed populace should never rightfully be allowed to side with leadership over the population when they aren't unilateral.

SwiftSpear wrote:

manored wrote:Im not claiming that we should start killing each other, but that if the arm is still siding with the dictador then there is not enough unsatisfaction around yet.

5 guys with nukes and tanks can kill a million without weapons. The armed populace is ethically irrelevant in a culture where armaments aren't unilateral, the armed populace should never rightfully be allowed to side with leadership over the population when they aren't unilateral.

The 5 guys could indeed kill all those people, but they wouldnt (Unleash they went homicidal insane, but thats another story) because a country is nothing winhout its population. You can shot someone to scary others to work for you, but if you are hated enough that wont work and you will have to abdicate, make reforms or... go homicidal insane. Also the armies arent a separate population, their families are civil, so they will only side with the government to a certain point.

This discussion about the morality of a populace turning on itself relies on the assumption that the country is composed of a relatively united society, as opposed to a greatly varied ethnic/social/economic demographic, arbritrarily grouped into a country by Britain when they were carving up the middle east into nation states to claim oil wealth in 1926.

Project for a new american century (the closest thing I think you will have found (they changed the public face of it a lot post 9/11) to a clear statement of intent by the current power mongers sitting in the white house) clearly stated the strategic and economic interests in destabilising Saddam's regime, the invasion was definitely not altruistic and I really don't believe you are dumb enough to actually believe it was Forb.

Yes, Saddam was a BAD MAN, he needed removal.
No, bombing water purification facilities in a desert country, power plants, hospitals, schools, independant media outlets etc etc et fucking cetera, is not a liberation campaign. It was a systematic dismantling of a country's civil infrastructure, which (possibly disregarding power generation) had nothing to do with their military capabilities.

Why is there a massive guerilla resistance to the occupation forces? Because western military action in the area was and is perceived of as an attack on the population, not the government.


/loony lefty rant

/me puts on tinfoil hat and goes back being a "goddam liberal socialist" sitting on my ass and not doing anything about the problems in the world that i love to complain about so vehemently

Well if there are 2 diferent populations clashing against each other in a country thats different, the government being evil towards one is a consequence of one being stronger, and in that cause I dont think a change of government would solve it since the rivality would remain.

pintle wrote: Project for a new american century (the closest thing I think you will have found (they changed the public face of it a lot post 9/11) to a clear statement of intent by the current power mongers sitting in the white house) clearly stated the strategic and economic interests in destabilising Saddam's regime, the invasion was definitely not altruistic and I really don't believe you are dumb enough to actually believe it was Forb.

/loony lefty rant

/me puts on tinfoil hat and goes back being a "goddam liberal socialist" sitting on my ass and not doing anything about the problems in the world that i love to complain about so vehemently

Well I think you're taking it a bit to far here, but lets be honest... Almost everyone in congress is obsessed with power, democrats, repubicans (refer to my earlier explaination of this word). This is bad, and it is definitely a cause for concern for everyone in the US regardless of where your political persuasions lie.

I'm not sure why you refer to the white house as power mongers... He's already on his second term, he can't get reelected. I believe that you are mainly speaking of congress here, because that actually makes sense and is quite true.

Actually whether the invasion was altruistic or not would actually depend on who you asked imo. Do I personally believe that it was? No, not particularly, but it was something that needed to be done, and 50 years down the line I believe that we will see a much better middle east because of it. Things take time to come back to normalicy, this is a fact of life. Regardless of which idiot in the white house tells you that they can fix an entire world in 8 years, they can't. Stability takes time (As we are seeing in Iraq), and to establish stability by extension needs patience.

There is no way you could possibly know this, but there are a lot of Iraqis that come through this office, and when I can I always try to get their assessments and opinions (in a way as not to disrespect them or their families), and to be honest, the large majority of them are happy about it. They understand that it takes time, but it all comes back to one of the most basic principles of life. People need to be free. And that to me, is worth fighting a war.

Edit: A true socialist liberal would never admit that Saddam was a bad man (That is unless the polls indicated that the public would like to hear it).

I dont think war is a proper manner to bring about liberation tough.

The proper manner would be to encourage the people to overthrow their government... off course thats something hard to do then the government is trying to keep you OUT, but not impossible I would say :)

manored wrote:I dont think war is a proper manner to bring about liberation tough.

The proper manner would be to encourage the people to overthrow their government... off course thats something hard to do then the government is trying to keep you OUT, but not impossible I would say :)

We did that in the early 90's, and then hung them out to dry. 12 some odd years later we actually do what we said we would in the first place. Course this is after saddam gassed the kurds. But hell, better late than never right?

/Sarcasm

Forboding Angel wrote:Edit: A true socialist liberal would never admit that Saddam was a bad man (That is unless the polls indicated that the public would like to hear it).

That's not funny. It's a load of bollocks.

tombom wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:Edit: A true socialist liberal would never admit that Saddam was a bad man (That is unless the polls indicated that the public would like to hear it).

That's not funny. It's a load of bollocks.

It is funny, and it's partially true.

Forboding Angel wrote:

tombom wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:Edit: A true socialist liberal would never admit that Saddam was a bad man (That is unless the polls indicated that the public would like to hear it).

That's not funny. It's a load of bollocks.

It is funny, and it's partially true.

A true conservative would never admit that global warming existed (That is unless the CEO of General Motors said he would like to hear it)

See? Hilarious!