The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
Page:
Light wrote:
> One other thing; do you really think he'd be hiding in a hole in the
> ground if Special Forces had been sent in prior to any war? Cos,
> y'know, we knew enough about his whereabouts to fire a cruise missile
> at him at the very beginning of the war. So why not a special forces
> team?
Numerous problems with that theory.
For starters a cruise missile (in this case launched from the air) is nigh on unstoppable by all but anti-missile defence or a very lucky shot. It is now clear from released information freely available that before the night in question the US knew that Iraqi airforce was not making much preparations for war other than hiding their equipment and planes. This could be told by teh fact that sat images showed no heat blooms strong enough to be fighter jets at known airbases or signs of anything other than normal activity. The other benefit of a cruise missile is that you can fire it and it'll wipe out what it hits. Say someone is underground. Maybe the explosion does not get them, but odds are the masonry and debris will, or subsequent fires. Finally a cruise missile, worst case scenario, malfunctions and fails to explode, and the worst that happens is you get a few Iraqi's waving bits of cruise missile in front of CNN cameras.
In short a cruise missile, that night, faced little opposition, little negative consequences of the action, and could be done quickly.
Now, a Special Forces team. How do you insert them in the time required? References to that night suggest that the Pentagon had found out early that morning Saddam would be there. So, assuming best case scenario that the Pentagon knew at 00:01 on that day you have to get teams (forget about just one team) into Baghdad, bearing in mind it is ringed with the Republican Guard and under curfew. How? Bear in mind also that the method must get the teams in with little disturbance or else Saddam more than likely moves his location.
Second problem, how do you get to Saddam once the teams are on the ground. This is going to be lightly armoured foot troops against armoured vehicles and superior numbers. Granted the US special forces night vision goggles and superior training gets rid of the numbers issue, but not the armoured vehicles. You could probably get around the vehicles issue by having C130 Spectres (Hercules transports modified with 2 gatling cannons and 2 cannons linked to a single fire control) on station at high altitude for the special forces to call upon.
Third problem, extraction. Baghdad was ringed with anti air defences which too coalition aircraft - if the Pentagon is to be believed - around one week to fully disable. No chance that the special forces could just tab it all the way out into the desert because that means they have to break through an outer cordon of Republican Guard units at the edge of the city and evade pursuit.
So, in summary, the problems would be insertion and extraction.
Not to mention the fact that Saddam was never actually at the place the Cruise Missile hit that night.
> Mm, I agree. A pity that you have to ruin it by slithering up to the
> moral high ground. 'This kind of regime'? Oh please; if moral
> repugnance and regime removal was the reason, how come the west
> supports the dictators of Uzbekistan? And Burma? And Indonesia? Oh,
> that's right; cos those dictators know to supply oil at good rates to
> the US, don't they?
I fear you've misunderstood. I was simply saying that with that kind of regime - anywhere - pinpoint strikes will not solve anything other than to promote people to new positions. By the same way, say MI6 conspired to remove Mugabe by assassination (by proxy of course) it would make little difference. Mugabe's right hand man becomes top man, gets even more popular.
By contrast, launch a full scale invasion of Zimbabwe by land air and sea, bring food, water and construction equipment behind advancing forces, and procede to capture or kill every person in the regime who does not surrender. Except that'd never happen because no politician I can think of could sell the idea to today's public unless some reason could be found by which Mugabe threatened the publics way of life.
And, back to oil, are you saying that oil is not important or not worth protecting, or what? You're an intelligent person, you shouldn't need to ask why the West supports those countries but I'd assume you also know it is more intricate than just oil rates. For starters all three are in very strategic positions. Secondly it is fine to point to other regimes you feel compare to the former Iraqi one, but look at the fuss you and others like you made about Iraq. How come it is wrong by your reckoning to remove one regime, but damning that other regimes do not face removal? It seems contradictory.
Ah, and the Hutton enquiry this week as well. Odds are Mr Gilligan is being set up to take a fall after Panorama, alongside Mr Hoon. Blair'll survive though. And just how does the BBC "forget" it has footage of Kelly saying Iraq has WMD in his belief...maybe it "lost" it when Gilligan's (almost certainly creatively written) piece was shown by them ?
> One other thing; do you really think he'd be hiding in a hole in the
> ground if Special Forces had been sent in prior to any war? Cos,
> y'know, we knew enough about his whereabouts to fire a cruise missile
> at him at the very beginning of the war. So why not a special forces
> team?
Numerous problems with that theory.
For starters a cruise missile (in this case launched from the air) is nigh on unstoppable by all but anti-missile defence or a very lucky shot. It is now clear from released information freely available that before the night in question the US knew that Iraqi airforce was not making much preparations for war other than hiding their equipment and planes. This could be told by teh fact that sat images showed no heat blooms strong enough to be fighter jets at known airbases or signs of anything other than normal activity. The other benefit of a cruise missile is that you can fire it and it'll wipe out what it hits. Say someone is underground. Maybe the explosion does not get them, but odds are the masonry and debris will, or subsequent fires. Finally a cruise missile, worst case scenario, malfunctions and fails to explode, and the worst that happens is you get a few Iraqi's waving bits of cruise missile in front of CNN cameras.
In short a cruise missile, that night, faced little opposition, little negative consequences of the action, and could be done quickly.
Now, a Special Forces team. How do you insert them in the time required? References to that night suggest that the Pentagon had found out early that morning Saddam would be there. So, assuming best case scenario that the Pentagon knew at 00:01 on that day you have to get teams (forget about just one team) into Baghdad, bearing in mind it is ringed with the Republican Guard and under curfew. How? Bear in mind also that the method must get the teams in with little disturbance or else Saddam more than likely moves his location.
Second problem, how do you get to Saddam once the teams are on the ground. This is going to be lightly armoured foot troops against armoured vehicles and superior numbers. Granted the US special forces night vision goggles and superior training gets rid of the numbers issue, but not the armoured vehicles. You could probably get around the vehicles issue by having C130 Spectres (Hercules transports modified with 2 gatling cannons and 2 cannons linked to a single fire control) on station at high altitude for the special forces to call upon.
Third problem, extraction. Baghdad was ringed with anti air defences which too coalition aircraft - if the Pentagon is to be believed - around one week to fully disable. No chance that the special forces could just tab it all the way out into the desert because that means they have to break through an outer cordon of Republican Guard units at the edge of the city and evade pursuit.
So, in summary, the problems would be insertion and extraction.
Not to mention the fact that Saddam was never actually at the place the Cruise Missile hit that night.
> Mm, I agree. A pity that you have to ruin it by slithering up to the
> moral high ground. 'This kind of regime'? Oh please; if moral
> repugnance and regime removal was the reason, how come the west
> supports the dictators of Uzbekistan? And Burma? And Indonesia? Oh,
> that's right; cos those dictators know to supply oil at good rates to
> the US, don't they?
I fear you've misunderstood. I was simply saying that with that kind of regime - anywhere - pinpoint strikes will not solve anything other than to promote people to new positions. By the same way, say MI6 conspired to remove Mugabe by assassination (by proxy of course) it would make little difference. Mugabe's right hand man becomes top man, gets even more popular.
By contrast, launch a full scale invasion of Zimbabwe by land air and sea, bring food, water and construction equipment behind advancing forces, and procede to capture or kill every person in the regime who does not surrender. Except that'd never happen because no politician I can think of could sell the idea to today's public unless some reason could be found by which Mugabe threatened the publics way of life.
And, back to oil, are you saying that oil is not important or not worth protecting, or what? You're an intelligent person, you shouldn't need to ask why the West supports those countries but I'd assume you also know it is more intricate than just oil rates. For starters all three are in very strategic positions. Secondly it is fine to point to other regimes you feel compare to the former Iraqi one, but look at the fuss you and others like you made about Iraq. How come it is wrong by your reckoning to remove one regime, but damning that other regimes do not face removal? It seems contradictory.
Ah, and the Hutton enquiry this week as well. Odds are Mr Gilligan is being set up to take a fall after Panorama, alongside Mr Hoon. Blair'll survive though. And just how does the BBC "forget" it has footage of Kelly saying Iraq has WMD in his belief...maybe it "lost" it when Gilligan's (almost certainly creatively written) piece was shown by them ?
Light wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
>
> No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
>
> Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Now then; which of the two of us posted
> something saying "I only go to the Life and Everything forum to
> annoy people"? Was it me? Or was it you? Why...I think it was
> you!
>
> To clarify; I'm not trolling dear boy. You however are still avoiding
> answering the two questions. Which is odd, cos last time I
> demonstrated how odious your evasiveness is, you stamped your feet
> and ran off.
>
>
> Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when
> prompted.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Does that mean that every apology
> you've ever posted doesn't count? Cos you have apologised before (for
> misunderstand the Rush Limbaugh post; remember that?), but only after
> about 20 posts prompting you to do so. Am I to understand that you
> didn't mean it?
>
> Aw Bell, you do make me giggle. But hey, seeing as you're the only
> one who actually seems to have been offended, does that mean you
> don't accept my apology? Or was your calling me a "whining
> little pr!ck" (showing all the originality I've come to expect
> from you) your way of balancing out the offensive comments?
>
>
> Anyway, back on topic; answer the two questions I asked you please.
Remove your forehead from the H and A keys for a few days and that just might happen.
And I can honestly say that no apology to you has ever ever ever (repeat ad infinitum) meant more than, hmmm, any really insignificant thing. Just shuts you up for a bit is all.
> Yukikaze wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
>
> No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
>
> Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Now then; which of the two of us posted
> something saying "I only go to the Life and Everything forum to
> annoy people"? Was it me? Or was it you? Why...I think it was
> you!
>
> To clarify; I'm not trolling dear boy. You however are still avoiding
> answering the two questions. Which is odd, cos last time I
> demonstrated how odious your evasiveness is, you stamped your feet
> and ran off.
>
>
> Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when
> prompted.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Does that mean that every apology
> you've ever posted doesn't count? Cos you have apologised before (for
> misunderstand the Rush Limbaugh post; remember that?), but only after
> about 20 posts prompting you to do so. Am I to understand that you
> didn't mean it?
>
> Aw Bell, you do make me giggle. But hey, seeing as you're the only
> one who actually seems to have been offended, does that mean you
> don't accept my apology? Or was your calling me a "whining
> little pr!ck" (showing all the originality I've come to expect
> from you) your way of balancing out the offensive comments?
>
>
> Anyway, back on topic; answer the two questions I asked you please.
Remove your forehead from the H and A keys for a few days and that just might happen.
And I can honestly say that no apology to you has ever ever ever (repeat ad infinitum) meant more than, hmmm, any really insignificant thing. Just shuts you up for a bit is all.
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> Who do you think organised the failed ones? Us. Special forces were a
> no go unless war was declared because of the risk of capture, even
> then you would have to locate Saddam and get the guys in, and take
> him out and everyone around him, with special forces. It took a small
> army to ferret out Saddams 2 sons, imagine what it would have taken
> for him? Sorry, it just would not work.
As opposed to the approach that was taken, which is reaping the US all sorts of...oh, no hang on; they're actually being forced to declare early elections due to the majority of Iraqi's wanting out, aren't they? Funny that.
One other thing; do you really think he'd be hiding in a hole in the ground if Special Forces had been sent in prior to any war? Cos, y'know, we knew enough about his whereabouts to fire a cruise missile at him at the very beginning of the war. So why not a special forces team?
>
> This is the trouble, by nature you cannot have a controlled war.
> Things will and can go wrong despite everything. As it was the
> objective was never to control the country but to remove the regime
> and install some semblance of law. With this kind of regime you
> cannot do pinpoint strikes and have it turn out okay. You have to go
> in, stay in, and sort it out until the people can safely do without
> you there.
Mm, I agree. A pity that you have to ruin it by slithering up to the moral high ground. 'This kind of regime'? Oh please; if moral repugnance and regime removal was the reason, how come the west supports the dictators of Uzbekistan? And Burma? And Indonesia? Oh, that's right; cos those dictators know to supply oil at good rates to the US, don't they?
>
> Who do you think organised the failed ones? Us. Special forces were a
> no go unless war was declared because of the risk of capture, even
> then you would have to locate Saddam and get the guys in, and take
> him out and everyone around him, with special forces. It took a small
> army to ferret out Saddams 2 sons, imagine what it would have taken
> for him? Sorry, it just would not work.
As opposed to the approach that was taken, which is reaping the US all sorts of...oh, no hang on; they're actually being forced to declare early elections due to the majority of Iraqi's wanting out, aren't they? Funny that.
One other thing; do you really think he'd be hiding in a hole in the ground if Special Forces had been sent in prior to any war? Cos, y'know, we knew enough about his whereabouts to fire a cruise missile at him at the very beginning of the war. So why not a special forces team?
>
> This is the trouble, by nature you cannot have a controlled war.
> Things will and can go wrong despite everything. As it was the
> objective was never to control the country but to remove the regime
> and install some semblance of law. With this kind of regime you
> cannot do pinpoint strikes and have it turn out okay. You have to go
> in, stay in, and sort it out until the people can safely do without
> you there.
Mm, I agree. A pity that you have to ruin it by slithering up to the moral high ground. 'This kind of regime'? Oh please; if moral repugnance and regime removal was the reason, how come the west supports the dictators of Uzbekistan? And Burma? And Indonesia? Oh, that's right; cos those dictators know to supply oil at good rates to the US, don't they?
Yukikaze wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
>
> No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Now then; which of the two of us posted something saying "I only go to the Life and Everything forum to annoy people"? Was it me? Or was it you? Why...I think it was you!
To clarify; I'm not trolling dear boy. You however are still avoiding answering the two questions. Which is odd, cos last time I demonstrated how odious your evasiveness is, you stamped your feet and ran off.
>
> Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when prompted.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Does that mean that every apology you've ever posted doesn't count? Cos you have apologised before (for misunderstand the Rush Limbaugh post; remember that?), but only after about 20 posts prompting you to do so. Am I to understand that you didn't mean it?
Aw Bell, you do make me giggle. But hey, seeing as you're the only one who actually seems to have been offended, does that mean you don't accept my apology? Or was your calling me a "whining little pr!ck" (showing all the originality I've come to expect from you) your way of balancing out the offensive comments?
Anyway, back on topic; answer the two questions I asked you please.
> Light wrote:
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
>
> No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Now then; which of the two of us posted something saying "I only go to the Life and Everything forum to annoy people"? Was it me? Or was it you? Why...I think it was you!
To clarify; I'm not trolling dear boy. You however are still avoiding answering the two questions. Which is odd, cos last time I demonstrated how odious your evasiveness is, you stamped your feet and ran off.
>
> Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when prompted.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Does that mean that every apology you've ever posted doesn't count? Cos you have apologised before (for misunderstand the Rush Limbaugh post; remember that?), but only after about 20 posts prompting you to do so. Am I to understand that you didn't mean it?
Aw Bell, you do make me giggle. But hey, seeing as you're the only one who actually seems to have been offended, does that mean you don't accept my apology? Or was your calling me a "whining little pr!ck" (showing all the originality I've come to expect from you) your way of balancing out the offensive comments?
Anyway, back on topic; answer the two questions I asked you please.
Light wrote:
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
> There; apologising is easy you know Bell. Grownups do it all the time
> when they make mistakes. You might want to make a note of that.
Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when prompted.
> Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous?
No trolling now either under the SR Rules Light.
> There; apologising is easy you know Bell. Grownups do it all the time
> when they make mistakes. You might want to make a note of that.
Don't think so, it's not apologising if you only do so when prompted.
Strafio wrote:
> So an internal revolution wouldn't work WITHOUT outside support.
>
> But if the allied secret service/special forces had organised it
> properly then it could've worked.
Who do you think organised the failed ones? Us. Special forces were a no go unless war was declared because of the risk of capture, even then you would have to locate Saddam and get the guys in, and take him out and everyone around him, with special forces. It took a small army to ferret out Saddams 2 sons, imagine what it would have taken for him? Sorry, it just would not work.
> Yeah it would take a fair bit of military action, but more controlled
> and directed actions rather than trying to thinly sweep and control
> such a giant country.
This is the trouble, by nature you cannot have a controlled war. Things will and can go wrong despite everything. As it was the objective was never to control the country but to remove the regime and install some semblance of law. With this kind of regime you cannot do pinpoint strikes and have it turn out okay. You have to go in, stay in, and sort it out until the people can safely do without you there.
> So an internal revolution wouldn't work WITHOUT outside support.
>
> But if the allied secret service/special forces had organised it
> properly then it could've worked.
Who do you think organised the failed ones? Us. Special forces were a no go unless war was declared because of the risk of capture, even then you would have to locate Saddam and get the guys in, and take him out and everyone around him, with special forces. It took a small army to ferret out Saddams 2 sons, imagine what it would have taken for him? Sorry, it just would not work.
> Yeah it would take a fair bit of military action, but more controlled
> and directed actions rather than trying to thinly sweep and control
> such a giant country.
This is the trouble, by nature you cannot have a controlled war. Things will and can go wrong despite everything. As it was the objective was never to control the country but to remove the regime and install some semblance of law. With this kind of regime you cannot do pinpoint strikes and have it turn out okay. You have to go in, stay in, and sort it out until the people can safely do without you there.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does
> this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to
> make glib comments about people rising up. Ever tried that in a
> totalitarian regime without the military on your side? Slaughter is
> what you get. Not some fancy peaceful uprising, slaughter. The Iraqis
> tried it in 1991 when they thought the US was going to help them
> (which it was prevented from doing so by the UN) and they were all
> slaughtered, along with their entire families. Not just the men who
> took part, but all their families, in some cases kids as young as 2
> were executed by Saddam's troops.
So an internal revolution wouldn't work WITHOUT outside support.
But if the allied secret service/special forces had organised it properly then it could've worked.
Yeah it would take a fair bit of military action, but more controlled and directed actions rather than trying to thinly sweep and control such a giant country.
That way, the forces would've worked WITH the people of Iraq, rather than trampling all over them on their way to get that guy who tried to kill GW's daddy!
> Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does
> this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to
> make glib comments about people rising up. Ever tried that in a
> totalitarian regime without the military on your side? Slaughter is
> what you get. Not some fancy peaceful uprising, slaughter. The Iraqis
> tried it in 1991 when they thought the US was going to help them
> (which it was prevented from doing so by the UN) and they were all
> slaughtered, along with their entire families. Not just the men who
> took part, but all their families, in some cases kids as young as 2
> were executed by Saddam's troops.
So an internal revolution wouldn't work WITHOUT outside support.
But if the allied secret service/special forces had organised it properly then it could've worked.
Yeah it would take a fair bit of military action, but more controlled and directed actions rather than trying to thinly sweep and control such a giant country.
That way, the forces would've worked WITH the people of Iraq, rather than trampling all over them on their way to get that guy who tried to kill GW's daddy!
Yukikaze wrote:
> So, same old same old.
>
> Light, saying someone is getting assraped most certainly breaks at
> least one of the new SR rules -
>
> Do not post offensive material.
Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous? Or have you been reborn since your little swath of offensive material posted by yourself immediately prior to your last "Wah! I'm leaving and never coming back!" post?
For the record; I apologise to anyone offended by that statement.
There; apologising is easy you know Bell. Grownups do it all the time when they make mistakes. You might want to make a note of that.
Oh, and you're still avoiding addressing 2 points;
- How does the denial that Dubya had advance plans for Iraq detract from the initial statement that he's a blind man in a room full of deaf people?
- How come you'll believe him unquestioningly when he defends Dubya, but slate him thoughtlessly when he attacks?
One last point; mindlessly copying Goaty and I's verbal quirks (the "Heh", the "~sigh~", the "same old same old" that you've suddenly become enamoured of) doesn't actually mean that you'll suddenly become better at debate. But hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; it's nice to know that you think so highly of us.
> So, same old same old.
>
> Light, saying someone is getting assraped most certainly breaks at
> least one of the new SR rules -
>
> Do not post offensive material.
Why? Do you find it offensive and possibly slanderous? Or have you been reborn since your little swath of offensive material posted by yourself immediately prior to your last "Wah! I'm leaving and never coming back!" post?
For the record; I apologise to anyone offended by that statement.
There; apologising is easy you know Bell. Grownups do it all the time when they make mistakes. You might want to make a note of that.
Oh, and you're still avoiding addressing 2 points;
- How does the denial that Dubya had advance plans for Iraq detract from the initial statement that he's a blind man in a room full of deaf people?
- How come you'll believe him unquestioningly when he defends Dubya, but slate him thoughtlessly when he attacks?
One last point; mindlessly copying Goaty and I's verbal quirks (the "Heh", the "~sigh~", the "same old same old" that you've suddenly become enamoured of) doesn't actually mean that you'll suddenly become better at debate. But hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; it's nice to know that you think so highly of us.
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> What gives you the right to decide the same, because inaction was
> causing the above? Inaction perpetuates the above, whereas action
> brings an eventual end to the above. Inaction brought 12 years of
> poorly implemented UN sanctions which harmed ordinary people and
> allowed the regime to gather wealth and rebuild a military whilst
> pursuing WMD and new weapons systems. Action ended that in little
> more than a month and began the rebuilding of the country. Post war
> Germany took years to rebuild and return to anything normal because
> it is not possible to rebuild a nation after it has suffered years of
> such regimes in a matter of a year.
On the other hand, that inaction gave the US 12 years of very cheap oil. Admittedly, not as cheap as now, but hey.
As to rebuilding WMD; where are they then? You would have thought that, with Saddam's capture, they would have shown up. Have they? No. Funny that...almost as if you're simply repeating verbatim the lies we were told whilst ignoring entirely the facts.
>
> As far as people needing to die, it is a badly framed question. Most
> certainly it was inevitable that, if they resisted, members of the
> Iraqi armed forces would not be killed. The Iraqi airforce, sensibly,
> confined itself to barracks and as a consequence the only airforce
> personnel killed were those manning anti-aircraft defences and
> intelligence centres/ammo dumps. I would defy you to find any
> literature which at any point mentions that Iraqi civilians needed to
> die.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaa! Any literature that says they need to die? How about the simple fact that, if you bomb a civilian city then civilians are going to die? I'm guessing that kernel isn't talking about literature, he's talking about common sense. Something your increasingly frenzied "Me! I'M right!!!" posts are drifting further and further away from.
>
> Because you cannot.
No, but we can very easily point to the fact that you cannot bomb the hell out of a city and expect no civilian casualties.
>
> The fact is I remember, at the very least, Light, Goatboy, Blank and
> unknown kernel, all stating at some point that the US would never
> ever catch Saddam.
There's a surprise; Bell lying through his teeth to support his argument. You never change, do you Bell?
>
> What gives you the right to decide the same, because inaction was
> causing the above? Inaction perpetuates the above, whereas action
> brings an eventual end to the above. Inaction brought 12 years of
> poorly implemented UN sanctions which harmed ordinary people and
> allowed the regime to gather wealth and rebuild a military whilst
> pursuing WMD and new weapons systems. Action ended that in little
> more than a month and began the rebuilding of the country. Post war
> Germany took years to rebuild and return to anything normal because
> it is not possible to rebuild a nation after it has suffered years of
> such regimes in a matter of a year.
On the other hand, that inaction gave the US 12 years of very cheap oil. Admittedly, not as cheap as now, but hey.
As to rebuilding WMD; where are they then? You would have thought that, with Saddam's capture, they would have shown up. Have they? No. Funny that...almost as if you're simply repeating verbatim the lies we were told whilst ignoring entirely the facts.
>
> As far as people needing to die, it is a badly framed question. Most
> certainly it was inevitable that, if they resisted, members of the
> Iraqi armed forces would not be killed. The Iraqi airforce, sensibly,
> confined itself to barracks and as a consequence the only airforce
> personnel killed were those manning anti-aircraft defences and
> intelligence centres/ammo dumps. I would defy you to find any
> literature which at any point mentions that Iraqi civilians needed to
> die.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaa! Any literature that says they need to die? How about the simple fact that, if you bomb a civilian city then civilians are going to die? I'm guessing that kernel isn't talking about literature, he's talking about common sense. Something your increasingly frenzied "Me! I'M right!!!" posts are drifting further and further away from.
>
> Because you cannot.
No, but we can very easily point to the fact that you cannot bomb the hell out of a city and expect no civilian casualties.
>
> The fact is I remember, at the very least, Light, Goatboy, Blank and
> unknown kernel, all stating at some point that the US would never
> ever catch Saddam.
There's a surprise; Bell lying through his teeth to support his argument. You never change, do you Bell?
"I would defy you to find any literature which at any point mentions that Iraqi civilians needed to die."
What on earth are you talking about? Are you aware of some new kind of non-civilian-killing warfare?
Anyway, stick the words 'blair civilian casualties' into google, go to the first link:
"We must realise that no matter how hard we try to avoid them, there will be civilian casualties," the Prime Minister said.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you aware of some new kind of non-civilian-killing warfare?
Anyway, stick the words 'blair civilian casualties' into google, go to the first link:
"We must realise that no matter how hard we try to avoid them, there will be civilian casualties," the Prime Minister said.
Page: