8 Forum Posts by "GSB"
How's about this one ?
I´m going do a lil´slideshow with "Less used warning signs" as my sig, methinks. Feedback welcome.
Execution by paper cuts - that´d take a while.
At 4/2/03 10:08 PM, Jiperly wrote: damnit! they should really keep it in quotes!!!now i made an ass of myself!!
No, sir Jiperly, it is I, the Gin Soaked Boy, who has made an ass of myself by trying to edit a quote to which I was responding, thereby making it unquoted and appearing as my own words.
I apologise. :-(
As for pro-war / anti-war, I´m trying hard to be objective. I guess we can all agree that a world without Saddam is a safer world indeed - I just don´t like the way it´s done.
I thought the US had the most advanced intelligence service in the world - and the most well-trained elite soldiers. Not to mention intelligent bombs with less than a 30m error margin. Doesn´t it seem odd to have to start a full-scale invasion when all it really takes to remove Saddam is one well-placed bomb or bullet ? I know he´s notorious for his security measures - but the US is supposed to command the very cream of the crop in the intelligence field.
As for Saddam´s personal bunker, though - those within would survive a direct hit from a tactical nuclear weapon - and have supplies for 25 days. The German creator says it can be breached by bazookas and explosive charges up close and personal, though.
And then there´s this ;
--
"The engineer who helped build Saddam's bunker believes that the new weapons might have a chance of breaking through the 16-foot concrete shell and destroying what is inside. "Three laser-guided bombs, one after another? Case closed. Kaput," he says. "
Source : -http://abcnews.go.com/sections...saddam_bunker_030108.html#plan
--
Three (3!) laser-guided bombs ? Don´t tell me the US can´t afford that kind of firepower. A full-scale invasion is far more expensive. It makes me wonder if getting to Saddam is really the primary motive - and I´m probably not the only one.
Any enlightened thoughts ?
What has he done in afganistan? freed the people. what is he doing in Iraq now? FREEING the people, and better still, making the world safer to live in,
If "freeing" a country involves forcibly removing its' present culture and destroying what little infrastructure and commerce it may have, then yes.
"Making the world safer to live in" - For whom ?
Does anyone actually believe that this war will bring an end to conflict ? Or the next one ? Or the one after that ?
On the contrary, this war is aggravating those who were infavorably disposed towards the US already - and giving martyrs of all kinds a legitimate reason to slay the "Western Imperialists".
We do NOT need any further conflict between the US and those who do not agree with their views. Bush is helping to widen the gap between western and eastern culture.
At 4/2/03 11:56 AM, DIshiyama wrote: None of the dead or the people that love them will win... In the US and Iraq
Of course. Actually, if American sources are correct and Iraq is such a heavily oppressed country, how many Iraqi soldiers die fighting for a cause they believe in ? Do they have any option ? If Saddam´s regime is such a frightening one, do they honestly believe they can get away with laying down their arms ?
Even the loss of Iraqi soldiers is tragic - like in WWII, young people are shipped off to die for a cause that is not theirs. They do not have a choice.
Tragic.
At 4/1/03 07:44 PM, Jiperly wrote: the USA will massacre Iraq.
and i'm not saying that in a good way.
I concur. Who will win this war ? The weapons industry - finally they get to produce a new stock of bombs, bombers, and tanks. The oil industry - new trade agreements can be made after the removal of Saddam Hussein, new profitable agreements. The patriots - the pride of America was wounded on 9/11 - a successful war will reestablish the image of American invincibility.
Who will lose this war ? Every soldier who dies in Iraq. Every American citizen killed in the terror attacks this is bound to unleash. Every Iraqi civilian killed by the invasion forces. Every Iraqi civilian killed indirectly by lack of humanitarian aid. This is not a war without innocent casualties - Take a look at "www.iraqbodycount.net". This site lists the amount of Iraqi civilians killed directly by coalition forces. Note "Directly" - they were shot, bombed, shelled, or otherwise directly killed by coalition forces.
... And this war is far from over ...
2. The US is a sovereign nation, is it not?
-
Yes, the US is a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation who has agreed with several other sovereign nations to abide by the decisions made by the UN through democratic procedures. How does one propose to introduce democracy into a country by violating the democratic procedures of the UN ?
President Bush has effectively chosen to override the rules and regulations of the UN by declaring war without a valid charter. How can you violate democracy and claim you´re doing it in order to let others have democracy ?
This war IS illegal. The UN was established in order to AVOID "sovereign nations" from starting wars on their own. The tragedy is that Bush could probably have gone through the proper diplomatic channels - and started this war with massive global backing - instead of causing massive global protest.
The power of the UN has been compromised. Not by Saddam or bomb-wielding-terrorists, but by the arrogance of President Bush. International politics should not be based on macho bravado or on reestablishing the wounded pride of a nation in shock following 9/11.
Bush has managed to remove the authority of the UN and to give Islamic Fundamentalists around the world a valid reason for hating the USA. I fail to see the brilliance of his political decisions.
Nice...but it kind of stalled after the Asswarp-song.
Absolutely solid,though - we need more FDA !!
