Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2006, 04:50 PM   #41
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

On TV today, Bob Woodhead, a well-known American journalist, of Watergate fame, has been reporting on the situation in Iraq for quite a while, & he was saying that there is an attack against allied forces, & others every 15 minutes, & casuaties there, has now topped those killed on 9/11.
He has just written his third book on the Bush administration titled "State of Denial",
__________________

Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 05:28 PM   #42
Golden Master
 
mark thorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,366
Send a message via MSN to mark thorpe Send a message via Yahoo to mark thorpe
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik00117
Ok, lets compare him to Hitler or even worse Stalin, he wasnt too bad.
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html

Quote:
":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
not too bad?? what exactly are you smoking?
__________________

__________________
'I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.'

Winston Churchill, 11/30/1874 - 01/24/1965
mark thorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 06:03 AM   #43
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,001
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

everything between the doten lines is actually not my opinion, it's my dads opinion... I just though I'd share it...

----------------------------
The problem with Iraq, is that it's not irans neighbour so much as a little while ago, (before some of you were born) there was this thing called the Gulf war, it centered around the fact that Iraq invaded Iran, so the UN + NATO went to help out Iran...

(quite how Nato countries that have mostly all built empires around invading other countries get off onj divctating the borders in other continents below the north atlantic line I don't know... but that's probably another discussion).

Anyway... so there was thins thing called the Gulf war, there were terrible things that happened, a lot of people that were solidierswere exposed to chemical weapons, and eventually a peace traty was signed,
Saddam stayed in power and everyone went home...
G Bush (Snr) had won effectivly... but somewhat like the vietnam war there was a certain amount of loss involved as well. and no real political change at all...

anyway... some decade or so later G Bush (Jnr) come along and without any real reason goes to war with Iraq...

finishing his daddys business...

----------------------------

Now for my points of view...

Nik... if you've lost anyone to war then I reall am sorry for your loss, but you have to realise that when people join the army they are paid to fight, they are not paid to think politics, that what politicians are for... soldiers are for fighting, for whatever the people in charge see fit... (be that Oil, Votes, Honour, Magic beans whatever)

if they don't like that then perhaps they should not have joined... or maybe they should even consider deserting?
since you're growning up in an army family, perhaps you should consider that seriously before following in your fathers, (possibly fathers, fathers) footsteps.

regardless of the cause or reason for the war... the soldiers are out there because they were told to go... not cause they though it'd be a nice sandy beach holiday in the sunshine...

so far as the contractors go... do any of you even have any idea about the amount of money these people are earning as private services contractors?
everyone who is currently in Iraq, (besides the people who were born there), has made a consious decision that led them there.
be it a finincail decision made by contractors. or the decision to join the army... (and I am sorry, but when you join the army you don't get to pick and choose what battles you fight!).

I think it's great how people in western countries, (both britain and america) tend to try to offest the cost of civillian lives in forign countries against the economic spend taken to defend people who can't otherwise defend themselves...

it's like your sitting there say ing who gives a f*** if some arab dies so long as I don't have to pay for them to stay alive or have the same rights and oppertunities that I feel I'm entitled too.

child rapists in prison probably get a more comfortable secure life than the average Iraq civillian...


Still what with americans being the most capitalist people in the world, that whole share the wealth philosophy is lost...



re: fuel cell cars.... it is a bit pie in the sky... but it's better to think like that now than in the future when it's too late!
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 07:07 AM   #44
Fully Optimized
 
Nik00117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,025
Send a message via AIM to Nik00117 Send a message via MSN to Nik00117 Send a message via Yahoo to Nik00117
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
not too bad?? what exactly are you smoking?
Saddam kiled thousands, hilter killed millions, stalin too. China has a reported 50,000,000 killed since the start of the communist government. If we are so damn self righteous why not take down china?

We never took down stalin either, we aren't that moral.

This war has even caused a other nation to become a nation with a nuke warefare capabilites, Now Japan is making nukes.
__________________
Main Rig: I7 920 CPU, 6 Gigs ram 5870 GPU
M17X Laptop 2.8 Ghz Dual Core, 4870 Radeon
Nik00117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 07:39 AM   #45
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Guys, are you aware that the underlined word "deserters" in root's post [43] is a link to another link that is a real eye-opener, you must all take a look, not all is what it seems!!
Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 07:45 AM   #46
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik00117
Now Japan is making nukes.
And North Korea, today they carried out their first underground nuclear test, & it won't be the last, believe me!!
Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 08:18 AM   #47
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,001
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

IMO worldwide nuclear standoff wouldn't be all that bad...

Noth Korea knows that it can't nuke lest if be nuked.
russia knows the same,
america knows the same,
france knows the same
britain knows th same
Iran knows (or will know) the same...


the thing that peopleare failing to recognise is that war is different depending on who you are looking at... (it's only us in the west that seem to get involved in wars seemingly just for the sake of being there).
as I said, the first gulf war was about Iraq expanding it's borders.
the war in isreal and palestine is about isreal expanding it's borders into neighbouring palestine.
the war in north and south korea is about borders and teritory...

the thing about nuclear weapons is that they are very effective. but bloody useless if you are trying to capture land!

share the nuclear love cause it's not like anyone will ever use them...

and if anyone ever did... they'd be nuked themselves...

I mean why would you use weapons to gain land if not only was it the case that the land you gained was irradiated, but also the land that you started in!

besides... it' inevitable... everyone will get some technology some day...
it was only 100 years ago that the wright brothers were building the first plane... out of wood...

now we have planes that fly themselves. missiles and shells that are effectivly small planes that blow themselves up...

it's insane to think that these smaller countries are not going to develop nuclear weapons... especially when there are such detailed explenations of nuclear physics on the internet already!!


A (very) clever man once said...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 08:21 AM   #48
Fully Optimized
 
UK31337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,776
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
A (very) clever man once said...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
I think that was Einstein. Sadly, he's probably right
__________________
Master of common sense. If you don't like it, stop reading.
UK31337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 08:41 AM   #49
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
IMO worldwide nuclear standoff wouldn't be all that bad...

Noth Korea knows that it can't nuke lest if be nuked.
russia knows the same,
america knows the same,
france knows the same
britain knows th same
Iran knows (or will know) the same...


the thing that peopleare failing to recognise is that war is different depending on who you are looking at... (it's only us in the west that seem to get involved in wars seemingly just for the sake of being there).
as I said, the first gulf war was about Iraq expanding it's borders.
the war in isreal and palestine is about isreal expanding it's borders into neighbouring palestine.
the war in north and south korea is about borders and teritory...

the thing about nuclear weapons is that they are very effective. but bloody useless if you are trying to capture land!

share the nuclear love cause it's not like anyone will ever use them...

and if anyone ever did... they'd be nuked themselves...

I mean why would you use weapons to gain land if not only was it the case that the land you gained was irradiated, but also the land that you started in!

besides... it' inevitable... everyone will get some technology some day...
it was only 100 years ago that the wright brothers were building the first plane... out of wood...

now we have planes that fly themselves. missiles and shells that are effectivly small planes that blow themselves up...

it's insane to think that these smaller countries are not going to develop nuclear weapons... especially when there are such detailed explenations of nuclear physics on the internet already!!


A (very) clever man once said...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
It'd be the cold war,with Russia all over again then, with North Korea, France & Iran added, can't wait!

Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2006, 08:54 AM   #50
Golden Master
 
mammikoura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,459
Send a message via MSN to mammikoura
Default Re: Sadaam was bad, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik00117
If we are so damn self righteous why not take down china?
why not attack China? Thats really quite a stupid question and I think that u already know the answer but u just didn't think about it. They have nukes! Bush/the whole US government are not probably the smartest guys there is, but they are not going to attack a country like China. They attack China, it's 100% certain that China will defend, which would probably mean hundreds of nukes going of around USA in a matter of days. And I don't think I need to explain how much damage that would do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik00117
Saddam kiled thousands, hilter killed millions, stalin too. China has a reported 50,000,000 killed since the start of the communist government.
Yes, it's true that Saddam hasn't killed the most people. But just because there are a few people who have killed more means that Saddams was ok?
All of the numbers are ofcourse estimates, but I think we can all agree that Saddam killed more than one million people. (well his actions led to the death of over a million people).

I just don't know what u are thinking when u say that he wasn't that bad. Maybe u should try thinking clearly for a moment.
__________________

mammikoura is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0