Go back
War has started... [n/t]

War has started... [n/t]

General

Vote Up
Vote Down

War has started... [n/t]

Vote Up
Vote Down

its a shame, lets just hope there are no civilian casulties :'(

David

Vote Up
Vote Down

There's no such thing as a war without civilian casualties. Even if they weren't planning to go into Baghdad where civilians will certainly get caught up in it & killed, what about the guys who work in the factory that "might" be making bullets that is bombed. Or the children in the school next door that was bombed first because the pilot was holding the map upside down?

And why not worry about the Iraqi soldiers - how many of them do you think want to fight & die? Even if he's not being physically forced to fight, how much do you think he knows about this war? He'll have been told that his country is being invaded, he'll see that this is true when the US & UK armies advance, and he'll fight and die to protect his family and home like any human would. Should we not care about him or the thousands of his kin who'll share the same fate?

Vote Up
Vote Down

I want to play more games?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by copy cat
I want to play more games?
???

and the ground troops are, apparently, now invading...

Vote Up
Vote Down

do you hear other arab nations adamantly against the usa on this war, or do you think they want hussein out of power too and delighted that the usa is supplying the muscle?


😞

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Jacko007
its a shame, lets just hope there are no civilian casulties :'(

David
Yes, like there were on Sept. 11.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

?????

Edit:
Sorry, to clarify: I think kirksey's comment was really stupid for two reasons:
Iraq is not responsible for Sept 11. If it was, we would be told about it and we haven't. So mentioning Sept 11 was a non-sequiter.
"Eye for an eye" mentality has no place in todays world. And the deaths of civilians of Iraq is not desired to "get them back" for Sept 11. Even GWB says the civilians are not targets.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kirksey957
Yes, like there were on Sept. 11.
Kirksey, I know you are not hoping for the deaths of innocent Iraqis; you're too compassionate for that. So you must be making some point or other, but what is it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kirksey957
Yes, like there were on Sept. 11.
It depresses me that someone of your obvious intelligence and level-headedness can say things like that. If the Iraqi government had any hand in the tragic events of 11 September 2001, I'm sure retaliatory action would have been taken sooner, and rightfully so. However, the fact that the current aggressive actions of the US were apparently planned as far back as 1999, and maybe inspired by Paul Wolfowitz's 1991 writing (rewritten by Richard Cheney for general consumption), seems to mitigate any possibility that the current attack is retaliation for past events. Even if there WERE a connection, does that justify revenge of that nature?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kirksey957
Yes, like there were on Sept. 11.
and in afghanistan... though the number has been less publicised. how many civilian deaths? try asking a politician - they will claim not to know (3000+ if you care, and i hope you do)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Any news on the downed APACHE chopper?

Kirksey i iundestood what you meant? and i know it is not eye for an eye...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Varg
GWB
Until the news media stops referring to Mr. Hussein as "Saddam" and everyone else as "Mr." or "President" or "Prime Minister" + "last name", I will refer to the US president as "George".

Vote Up
Vote Down


[b]Until the news media stops referring to Mr. Hussein as "Saddam" and everyone else as "Mr." or "President" or "Prime Minister" + "last name", I will refer to the US president as "George
I agree...Saddam has certainly proven that we should show him respect by calling him Mr. Hussein.....like what planet are you from ??

Vote Up
Vote Down

Oh. I'm sure he's a nutcase, but it seems that heads of state tend to at least be called by their surname. I mean, even given his record, we still say "Stalin" and not "Joe" when referring to him, so let's have some logical consistency.