Anathema Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 That's true, Djcid, and Sadam is a very sick person to do such a thing. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die as soon as a US plane drops a bomb on a hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjCiD Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Nor is the fact changed that it was Saddam that put the SAM site up there to try and kill American or which ever countries flyboys. So do we (which ever country) send planes over and let them go down or do we take out the site? But then that is getting into the issue of is one life more important than the lives of others....Who is, pardon me if this sounds harsh, stupid to walk into a hosptial with a SAM site on top? It would be like walking into a hospital knowing there is a timebomb inside that is going to go off, you just dont know when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Most likely America will just insert troops during the black night, with superior night vision technology and machinery, and fight then. Less bloodshed on our side there, and less civilian deaths - as there would be few to none civilians outside.I want the war, without the bloodshed, so since that is what is not likely going to happen, bloodshed is accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlord Ripskar Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Judging by experience with the NHS you'd be glad to get into any hospital regardless of what was on the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Most likely America will just insert troops during the black night, with superior night vision technology and machinery, and fight then. Less bloodshed on our side there, and less civilian deaths - as there would be few to none civilians outside.I want the war, without the bloodshed, so since that is what is not likely going to happen, bloodshed is accepted.hmmmm....you know i think Acriku has a good point here. I hand' thought of this tactic. I was wondering how in the world we could disarm a munitions cannon on the roof of a hospital and i think this would do it (first knock out communictions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjCiD Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 But that EMP bomb would do it too... call me sick if the shoe fits, but I think the EMP bomb was a good idea and wold like to see it used. Would it not force Saddam to fight or surrender. The only weapons usable would be ballistic right, that and sticks and stones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 But that EMP bomb would do it too... call me sick if the shoe fits, but I think the EMP bomb was a good idea and wold like to see it used. Would it not force Saddam to fight or surrender. The only weapons usable would be ballistic right, that and sticks and stones...but DJ think about this, as EX said once: you cannot detonate an EMP bomb near a hospital!!! If Bush did that, he would have my utter contempt. I would not come in this forum and defend the US if it did that. The US MUST obey the Geneva conventions governing warfare. However, using an EMP bomb on targets that have no hospitals in range would be fine with me.also, knocking out a civillian neighborhood of power is no problem either. its the hospitals we cannot knock out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Technicly, they are not obliged to the convention of Geneva because I can already predict no official declaration of war will follow.I sincerely hope that bloodshed will be limited, and if the US leaves it to the UN to keep the peace afterwards and let them set up a new government then Bush would earn my respect for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Technicly, they are not obliged to the convention of Geneva because I can already predict no official declaration of war will follow.u sure about that? I ddin't know the geneva convention only applied to declared wars. the country being attacked doesn't get a say? I would think that if you attack a country, whether or not you declare a war, that country being attacked is protected. i could be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjCiD Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I didn't mean EMP the hospital... i just meant used in the war. I thought it was said they can calculate the effected area of bomb and change it as not to interfere with important structures that need to stay powered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Wel they never issued a declaration of war on Vietnam, or Afghanistan. They didn't recongnise those governments.But wait, there is no peace between the US and Iraq, only a ceace fire. Was there a declaration for the Gulf War? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 "ddin't know the geneva convention only applied to declared wars"Yep. Ever heard of Camp X-Ray?The Al-Qaeda members there are not Prisoners of War, nor US citizens, so the US government can legally treat them worse than criminals."Most likely America will just insert troops during the black night"Militarily the best decision (maximum enemy troop losses, minimise own losses) - but the pandaemonium would mean major accidents could happen if the Iraqi soldiers start using all sorts of weapons all over the place. It might work, though depending on the context of the military operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 "ddin't know the geneva convention only applied to declared wars"Yep. Ever heard of Camp X-Ray?The Al-Qaeda members there are not Prisoners of War, nor US citizens, so the US government can legally treat them worse than criminals. no, Nema. The geneva convention applies to militia in the uniform of their nation. alquaeda are militia dressed as civillians. the geneva convention does not protect them. this is not the same as a declaration of war. but still there are US laws that prevent treatment of certain kinds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I heard a retired military expert and a veteren of the gulf war on the radio a couple of weeks ago. He was saying that Bush will probably push for the war at the very latest of mid-March because of the effect the moon will have on the Arab world at that time. There would be much less light than normal, and the coalition could send in troops without as much danger because of their superior nightvision equipment and most recently, infrared equipment. He predicted that Bush won't push because he's growing impatient, rather to avoid loss of life on both sides. He said that March would be the ideal time to attack, from a strategic perspective. Attacking at other times would be hazardous to the coalition troops, and attacking from the sky would be hazardous to the civillians. BTW he said all this like a week BEFORE Bush set the March 17th deadline. Guess he was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 wow, i hadnt thought of phases of the moon, but i'll be!! that makes a lot of sense, ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 looks like my belief is heartily accepted by many people. here is one, for example : HATEMONGERS HOPING FOR DEATH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Many people? That's one post and one person, who knows if it's a joke or the guy has been brainwashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 i BELIEVE that many people hold this belief. obviously i can't prove it and feel no need to. that is one post, yes, but I didn't feel like linking up the dozens...upon dozens...upon dozens more of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayer05 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 '100th monkey' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 As Earthnuker, Nyar, Edrico I am also somehow insulted with such an statment.But comming from you, no sourprise really. Following you twisted logic, you expect and wish a terrorist atack with great damage to support Bush administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 WOW. Some of you guys are really, really frail. Did he say he thought any of you were like this? No...Did he say he thought anyone on this board was like this? No...Did he even SUGGEST that all of the anti-war activists were like this? No...Yeesh. This isn't even the kind of stuff that makes traditional old ladies go, "Well, I never!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Touche ACE, I am not offended but it is rather interesting (sometimes laughable) that some people wish that upon the US innocent citizens, and soldiers alike. Scary if they have any influence, but if not it is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 WOW. Some of you guys are really, really frail. Did he say he thought any of you were like this? No...Did he say he thought anyone on this board was like this? No...Did he even SUGGEST that all of the anti-war activists were like this? No...Yeesh. This isn't even the kind of stuff that makes traditional old ladies go, "Well, I never!"yea, a bunch of whining to me. these same people (zamboe for example) hold back no punches when it comes to America....and me personally (zam calling me a racist in another thread with other personal names numerous times)...and here they can't even handle the belief I have (and I belive it to be a fact) that many people secretly hope in a bloody war simply to prove Bush wrong. Now, I'm going to use some logic here:Follow along:EMPRWORM: I believe that there are many people out there who hope for a bloody war to make Bush look bad.EMPRWORM: People who hold this view are despicable.why would someone be offended at this? I am trying...desperately trying to find a logical reason why. The ONLY reason I can think of is that they are offended that I am calling them despicable. But I am only calling people despicable who hold that view!!.....UNLESS.....but I wouldn't accuse anyone personally of holding that view. Its just that I am looking for a rational, psychological reason why soemone would take offense to that OTHER than them actually having such a view.someone care to fill me in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 you dorks are just going to get my thread locked. i think I'm raising a good point. Can a mod not lock the thread and just delete the irrelevant posts? I'll start with mine.Listen, by starting this thread you risked the chance of it getting locked, as many feel offended by it. Unfortunately, people don't want to see you punished they way others were, which is a flaw if you'd ask me. And stop whining about others calling you names, the above shows you do the same.i BELIEVE that many people hold this belief. obviously i can't prove it and feel no need to. that is one post, yes, but I didn't feel like linking up the dozens...upon dozens...upon dozens more of them.So others need to proof everything, but when it comes down to you, we all need to take your word for it ? Bit of a weird twist don't you think ?You above post doesn't make sense either, you still stated the same, but in a different format. I'm not going to discuss this in here any further, cause you'll not accept anything I say anyway. It's just to let you know I'll be pointing out the mistakes and errors you make.Good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 Listen, by starting this thread you risked the chance of it getting locked, as many feel offended by it. Unfortunately, people don't want to see you punished they way others were, which is a flaw if you'd ask me. And stop whining about others calling you names, the above shows you do the same.oooh, you caught me calling ppl dorks! Way to go. FInally caught calling a name :D GOod job. THis is a celebratory moment. I could have guessed you'd be showing up in flamboyant fashion after that. But indeed, I should not have said "you dorks", so I apologize to anyone who was offended over that particular comment. Now, here's an idea. whenever you feel like saying this (which usually comes with all your responses to me), just say "STANDARD RESPONSE". It will save you typing and save forum space, as to reduce spam.For example: When I post an opinion that you dont like and someone says "that offends me", all you need to do is say to me: "STANDARD RESPONSE" and I will know that you are actually saying something about me deserving punishment, being a hypocrite, having a double standard, and calling ppl names. :) Its really a better deal for all of us. At least consider it and give my proposal some thought, thanks! :D So others need to proof everything, but when it comes down to you, we all need to take your word for it ? Bit of a weird twist don't you think ?no one needs to prove anything. this is an opinion forum, and i state when I declare something as fact, and something as my opinion. However, I cited one reference(I could do more) that turned my opinion into fact- at least that somme hold it. I do believe that many people hold it, and that is my opinion. You don't like it? My opinion making you angry? Well, I remind you the official caption for the Politics & Religion forum: "Pull the fence post out of your arse and take a side. Not for the weak minded."and now, to get back on topic, I will restate my opinion:I believe there are many people out there who secretly hope for a bloody war just so that Bush can be wrong and humiliated.I believe people that harbor that secret wish are reprehensible human beings deserving to be pitied above all men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.