ARMA2 put you off the Army ?

[TangoRomeo 10]

That is a question for any war, past or present, what is the reason behind them sending troops, it is not just a modern dilemma,

During the nuremburg trials defendants where charged with crimes against peace, by planning and conducting a war of aggression, and crimes against humanity, by violating the most basic human rights. I´ll leave out war crimes here, as they are a natural part of any armed conflict, occuring on either side.

The victors write history, and today a different meassure seems to apply, where yesterdays wrongdoings become socially acceptable again, at least for some people.

Of coarse, the mechanics being almost the same over the centuries, with the flag following profit, and the troops following the flag. But there are also rules applying, which serve no purpose if they get ignored by those who, in the first place installed-, and expect others to live by them.

[weegee_101 0]

In my experiences, the best soldiers were the ones who believed in what they were doing, not what the Government said we were doing. Protecting your buddies back, helping civilians, and completing one's mission. There are wars where you make a difference, and there are wars where you don't, and while I don't necessarily agree with some of the recent wars, I don't agree that we haven't at least done some bit of good. We've seen good come out of this; little things, but still good. (Although with the mass media you'd never know it. Attacking the Army and Marines to get to G.W. Bush has to be the shittiest "collateral damage" that the mass-media has done in ages. Now they're doing it with Obama, which pisses me off even more. Leave the soldiers alone and let them do their jobs.)

We have seen some really bad things too (Abu Gharib), but most soldiers are ashamed that even happened on what many consider to be their watch.

Become a soldier because you want to, not because you believe in some silly thing your government has told you. Do it because you believe you can make a difference, even if it is just a small one.

[TangoRomeo 10]

That video is titled "Why We Fight." Maybe it states the motives of those who would use the military as a tool to effect political agendas through force... But it definately is not the motive of a true soldier. At least none I've ever met or served with.

Sometimes one needs geographical and temporal distance, to rethink the circumstances and what made him do the things he did. Self-preservation and selfless acting, to save the person next to you, are a result, seldom the cause for a war. In germany we call it "Schicksalsgemeinschaft", which literally translates into a group of soldiers being bound by common destiny, and the dynamics that evolve around it.

We had pre-deployment training before being deployed to Rajlovac. Can't say i was very interested, or even affected, by that countries history, and the events that led to war. Of more importance to me, at that time, was bonus payment for being abroad, hanging out with the guys and making new contacts in the military community. If you`re onboard a sinking ship, you don't think about who build it on what budget, and the circumsstances that led to the disaster, you're just trying to stay alive somehow.

[An Fiach 10]

Saddam gassed the Kurds anfiach, in the North of Iraq, how does that explain deformities in children born in other parts of the country? Vietnam has a lot to do with Iraq, two wars started on false pretenses. Friendly Fire incidents I guess don't always have to do with Civilian deaths, because civilians are more likely to be killed intentionally (like Saddam gassing the Kurds). My comments about Powell show how I have a bias based on media representation? How is that? That's a very serious accusation and you are going to have to be more detailed if you are going to accuse me of that because you are being downright insulting and I don't think I've leveled any personal attacks your way.

See. there is no point arguing with you. For someone who calls himself enlightened, your grasp of the 'facts' is frighteningly naive and uninformed or perhaps even wearing a politically motivated blindfold.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

Sometimes one needs geographical and temporal distance, to rethink the circumstances and what made him do the things he did. Self-preservation and selfless acting, to save the person next to you, are a result, seldom the cause for a war. In germany we call it "Schicksalsgemeinschaft", which literally translates into a group of soldiers being bound by common destiny, and the dynamics that evolve around it.

We had pre-deployment training before being deployed to Rajlovac. Can't say i was very interested, or even affected, by that countries history, and the events that led to war. Of more importance to me, at that time, was bonus payment for being abroad, hanging out with the guys and making new contacts in the military community. If you`re onboard a sinking ship, you don't think about who build it on what budget, and the circumsstances that led to the disaster, you're just trying to stay alive somehow.

That video is a political hack job. Why do they hate us? Simply because we exist. Certainly we know there have been many things that governments do in secrecy that have caused conflict but that video is based upon a false pretext, implying that terrorist attacks come as a result of our government's interference in world affairs.

[jakerod 254]

Thank you for posting that video (which also linked to the next 11). I don't really agree with everything said in it but I did learn a few things.

That video is a political hack job. Why do they hate us? Simply because we exist. Certainly we know there have been many things that governments do in secrecy that have caused conflict but that video is based upon a false pretext, implying that terrorist attacks come as a result of our government's interference in world affairs.

I bet a lot of them do. They may not hate us based on that but they may influence individuals to join the fight against us.

See. there is no point arguing with you. For someone who calls himself enlightened, your grasp of the 'facts' is frighteningly naive and uninformed or perhaps even wearing a politically motivated blindfold.

Please explain why his grasp of facts are naive. In addition to that I am curious. Where do you get your facts from?

Edited July 21, 2009 by Jakerod
im a moron who keeps skipping words... as I type them

[Brainmagnet 10]

See. there is no point arguing with you. For someone who calls himself enlightened, your grasp of the 'facts' is frighteningly naive and uninformed or perhaps even wearing a politically motivated blindfold.

[

There is no point in having a discussion with me if you aren't going to back up any of your assertions. Politically motivated blindfold, please explain? When did I call myself enlightened? If I made that claim anywhere I apologize for being pompous. Once again you fail to cite anything when saying I'm misinformed. I think I SEEK to enlighten myself and that is why I am having this discussion with you and asking for you to bring your facts to the table but you have not done so and instead resorted to insulting me and my character.

gassing of kurds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

U.S. involvement in Vietnam being started on false pretenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

if you disagree with these wikipedia articles I suggest you join the discussion's for them and see if you can edit them

Edited July 21, 2009 by Brainmagnet
to add a citation because I haven't done so myself

[granQ 293]

That video is a political hack job. Why do they hate us? Simply because we exist. Certainly we know there have been many things that governments do in secrecy that have caused conflict but that video is based upon a false pretext, implying that terrorist attacks come as a result of our government's interference in world affairs.

omg, i didn't want this thread to turn into this but seems no way out and now I have to reply.. seriously.

You are obiviously an american trying to say you know why terrorist hates your goverment.

I can almost promise you here and now, that america is much safer from terrorist threat the day Obama entered office compared to before and after all the homeland security stuff. Your goverment have been very much hated..

i am not at all saying this belongs to bush/obama or something.. but Bush was the peak in "arrogorant american President" that we hopefully we ever see. This is how it looked when he came to Europe after being elected.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Bushnotwelcome.jpg

compared to when Obama came.

http://www.president-obama.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-czech.jpeg

America has and is being hated thru out the world because of your goverment, current (to some degree) but mostly passed. Be it warcrimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or any other place.

There is some thing that makes it different to Russia/Soviet/China.

1) There is /been less media attention

2) Its more "internal conflicts" situations. (tibet, chechyna)

3) from Western viewpoint we don't consider soviet to be "allies" but enemy.

this was about that you infact wrong about why people hate US. It isn't "freedom" or "the american lifestyle" people disapprove, its the "freedom over others", "and american lifestyle with no respect for others".

Why you guys fight? I dont know, i come from Sweden.. a country that been at peace for 200 years, but still got troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan, one great weapon exporter (the M136 is well used among american troops in hot spots all over), had terrorist attacks during the 70's, got bombed by Soviet during the WWII, had a soviet submarine running aground on our shores 1981.. and yet this year I got 4 new russian friends, and I meet exchange students from all over the world and travel is my biggest "hobby" and most people get happy when they meet a Swede.. why don't they as happy when they meet an american.. partly culture but its also stuff like when did the americans admit doing wrong.. think its time you start ask for forgiveness regarding 9/11 before your country ask for the worlds sympathy and understanding.. i am refering to 9/11 1973 of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état#U.S._Role

some regarding swedish stuff i mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_German_embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363

Edited July 21, 2009 by granQ
can't fix them all but some spelling error at least..

[Baff1 0]

implying that terrorist attacks come as a result of our government's interference in world affairs.

That's pretty much the root of all terrorism right there in a nutshell mate.

That's the price of Empire.

You either have the balls big enough to pay it, or you don't.

[granQ 293]

baff1, +1 for you summarize what I wanted to say with just three lines compared to my mumbo dumbo.... sometimes I just over react on stupidity.

[Brainmagnet 10]

"mumbo dumbo" LOL! I love that, definitely going to use it from now on.

[Dyne 0]

omg, i didn't want this thread to turn into this but seems no way out and now I have to reply.. seriously.

You are obiviously an american trying to say you know why terrorist hates your goverment.

I can almost promise you here and now, that america is much safer from terrorist threat the day Obama entered office compared to before and after all the homeland security stuff. Your goverment have been very much hated..

i am not at all saying this belongs to bush/obama or something.. but Bush was the peak in "arrogorant american President" that we hopefully we ever see. This is how it looked when he came to Europe after being elected.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Bushnotwelcome.jpg

compared to when Obama came.

http://www.president-obama.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-czech.jpeg

America has and is being hated thru out the world because of your goverment, current (to some degree) but mostly passed. Be it warcrimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or any other place.

There is some thing that makes it different to Russia/Soviet/China.

1) There is /been less media attention

2) Its more "internal conflicts" situations. (tibet, chechyna)

3) from Western viewpoint we don't consider soviet to be "allies" but enemy.

this was about that you infact wrong about why people hate US. It isn't "freedom" or "the american lifestyle" people disapprove, its the "freedom over others", "and american lifestyle with no respect for others".

some regarding swedish stuff i mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_German_embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363

How can you promise that America is safer under Obama than under Bush? You don't live here for one, you live in Europe. You don't know what life is like in the United States. Our Homeland Security and other security measures enacted under Bush HAVE and continue to disrupt terrorist planning and acts of violence. That is FACT.

What war crimes has the United States committed in any of the conflicts you mentioned? Our country abides by the Geneva Conventions, unlike the terrorists we are currently battling. The United States also doesn't round up its citizens and throw them in prisons, execute them, etc, like many OTHER nations do in this world.

The United States has plenty of respect for another nations. IF ANYTHING, the world treats the United States with disrespect. The American people are some of the most generous in the world, in any kind of catastrophe, Americans are always giving money to charity to help those displaced, and the American military is always first on the scene to provide aid. Not to mention the massive amounts of foreign aid our country throws out to the nations of the world. And for what? Lots of these nations scoff at us, and still take our money.

You sound like you think the rest of the world is saintly compared to the United States, with nothing to forgive. Well I have news for you, NO ONE is perfect, even countries.

I am proud to be an American, and of what my nation stands for, and every nation has a past. All of Europe, Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany among others, did as they pleased in the previous centuries of the world, with no regard for its inhabitants, i.e, the spread of slavery, colonization, etc, all for power and politics. You could say that they imposed themselves on other nations, with, well, no respect for others!

President Bush is no where near being a horrible leader as many others have been in history. He served his nation, and made the decisions he thought necessary, with Congressional approval I might add. If that cost us diplomatically with some nations, so be it, but he still showed them respect in how he dealt with them. Just because some of our European allies disagreed with the president, doesn't mean he is wrong, and they are right.

The United States owes the world an apology? PLEASE.

As for your insistence that terrorism has to do with American diplomacy and meddling, I think you are wrong. It just isn't an American problem, it is a world problem. Terrorism has existed since the dawn of man, it didn't just magically appear because of the American government.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Dyne
Couldn't see it.

[maturin 12]

Our Homeland Security and other security measures enacted under Bush HAVE and continue to disrupt terrorist planning and acts of violence. That is FACT.

With all the billions spent, I should hope so. But the proportion of real security measures to draconian, porous posturing is laughable. An effort equal to 9/11 could easily hit us again, in any of the massive gaps left by HS. No politician has the nerve to admit that no amount of security measures will make the country completely safe, and that the lack of attacks is partially a lack of trying. Killing .0001% of the population of the Great Satan isn't going to make much of a dent in the Great Satan. The goal is provoke some reaction and change in policy.

What war crimes has the United States committed in any of the conflicts you mentioned? Our country abides by the Geneva Conventions, unlike the terrorists we are currently battling. The United States also doesn't round up its citizens and throw them in prisons, execute them, etc, like many OTHER nations do in this world.

I'm not sure what conflicts he was mentioning (haven't read the thread) but we have done some apalling things in the last hundred years on occasion, and we follow the Geneva Conventions when we feel like it. Actually, I'm not sure how much we follow Geneva precisely, but we break International Law all the time.

The United States has plenty of respect for another nations. IF ANYTHING, the world treats the United States with disrespect. The American people are some of the most generous in the world, in any kind of catastrophe, Americans are always giving money to charity to help those displaced, and the American military is always first on the scene to provide aid. Not to mention the massive amounts of foreign aid our country throws out to the nations of the world. And for what? Lots of these nations scoff at us, and take our money.

The amount of money our government gives is pathetic relative to what postage stamp European nations and Japan give. We use foreign aid and military assistance as a political tool, just like all countries, yet more so because we're so powerful. In terms of world attitudes towards to U.S, there are extremes on both ends and circumstances where both extremes have some justification.

but he still showed them respect in how he dealt with them. Just because some of our European allies disagreed with the president, doesn't mean he is wrong, and they are right.

Besides the occasional unsolicited backrub he wasn't often rude, but his foreign policy was heavy-handed and dismissive of allies. Lying to the U.N. and refusing to allow non-Coalition allies to help reconstruct Iraq is not respectful.

As for your insistence that terrorism has to do with American diplomacy and meddling, I think you are wrong. It just isn't an American problem, it is a world problem. Terrorism has existed since the dawn of man, it didn't just magically appear because of the American government.

That's fair. America has had plenty of homegrown terrorists in its time. But governments inflame terrorism very easily, and escalate the problem. Casting parasitic murderers as legitimate warriors in a global struggle between civilizations is a damn good way to do it.

[Dyne 0]

I'm not sure what conflicts he was mentioning (haven't read the thread) but we have done some apalling things in the last hundred years on occasion, and we follow the Geneva Conventions when we feel like it. Actually, I'm not sure how much we follow Geneva precisely, but we break International Law all the time.

Every nation does most likely, but even if the United States does break international law, it isn't for some heinous crime.

The amount of money our government gives is pathetic relative to what postage stamp European nations and Japan give. We use foreign aid and military assistance as a political tool, just like all countries, yet more so because we're so powerful. In terms of world attitudes towards to U.S, there are extremes on both ends and circumstances where both extremes have some justification.

Every nation uses foreign aid as a political tool, and when it is in their national interest I agree. But we are still the world's only country with global reach (militarily, etc), and with that comes greater responsibilities and justifications.

Besides the occasional unsolicited backrub he wasn't often rude, but his foreign policy was heavy-handed and dismissive of allies. Lying to the U.N. and refusing to allow non-Coalition allies to help reconstruct Iraq is not respectful.

Every country can be guilty of this at some point or another. Nations don't do things for others without an incentive for doing so.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Dyne

[maturin 12]

Eek, sneaky editing confusing me.

Every country can be guilty of this at some point or another. Nations don't do things for others without an incentive for doing so.

Those instances I mentioned were examples of arrogance and blundering policy rather than self-serving realpolitik, I think. And when talking about the missteps of nations, someone always points out that governments act in their own interests. And then I have to hope that they're not implicitly suggesting that that makes crime and oppression justified.

Edited July 22, 2009 by maturin

[Dyne 0]

I edited my point

[maturin 12]

That's pretty much the root of all terrorism right there in a nutshell mate.

That's the price of Empire.

You either have the balls big enough to pay it, or you don't.

Balls to pay it? We don't even have to balls to admit it.

[An Fiach 10]

Thank you for posting that video (which also linked to the next 11). I don't really agree with everything said in it but I did learn a few things.

I bet a lot of them do. They may not hate us based on that but they may influence individuals to join the fight against us.

Please explain why his grasp of facts are naive. In addition to that I am curious. Where do you get your facts from?

Well, I get a lot of my facts by having been to places and in situations being discussed as well as paying attention to the world around me rather than sitting with my head in a hole taking spoon fed info from liberal or conservative lunatics. I'm leading off from what he is saying and the logical conclusion which can be reached following his lead.

[Dyne 0]

Eek, sneaky editing confusing me.

Those instances I mentioned were examples of arrogance and blundering policy rather than self-serving realpolitik, I think. And when talking about the missteps of nations, someone always points out that governments act in their own interests. And then I have to hope that they're not implicitly suggesting that that makes crime and oppression justified.

No, I agree. I don't think it justifies crime and oppression, I just think that is how nations operate.

[somebloke 0]

How the hell, have we gone from ArmA putting people off joining the army, to the US Presidency?

Edited July 22, 2009 by somebloke
Missed a word out

[An Fiach 10]

There is no point in having a discussion with me if you aren't going to back up any of your assertions. Politically motivated blindfold, please explain? When did I call myself enlightened? If I made that claim anywhere I apologize for being pompous. Once again you fail to cite anything when saying I'm misinformed. I think I SEEK to enlighten myself and that is why I am having this discussion with you and asking for you to bring your facts to the table but you have not done so and instead resorted to insulting me and my character.

gassing of kurds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

U.S. involvement in Vietnam being started on false pretenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

if you disagree with these wikipedia articles I suggest you join the discussion's for them and see if you can edit them

WHy would I bother with Wikipedia? It is rare that you find anything accurate there but that doesn't matter. Did I say you were wrong that Saddam gassed the Kurds? No. You can point to the Gulf of Tonkin incident as if that is the definitive moment. If you isolate any one event then you are being intentionally ignorant of the bigger picture and the many other events that occurred in order to bring things about.

Do we have to go into specifics? Want to talk about WMDs and how we knew they were there and how we know where they went? Before I'll discuss any of that with you you will have to explain to me how the UN inspectors had so much listed WMDs that Saddam had for all those years since the first Gulf War and how they suddenly all disappeared prior to the US invasion, and explain where all of that brand new manufacturing equipment came from that was found buried in the desert (things not accounted for by UN inspectors). Then also explain to me how now that the British, Americans, Canadians and Australians are all occupying the country they are still able to smuggle in all sorts of weapons into the country but people think it is a stretch that an insane dictator with full control over his country and borders could possibly transport such things in and out of the country at a time when we weren't even looking that close?

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

omg, i didn't want this thread to turn into this but seems no way out and now I have to reply.. seriously.

You are obiviously an american trying to say you know why terrorist hates your goverment.

I can almost promise you here and now, that america is much safer from terrorist threat the day Obama entered office compared to before and after all the homeland security stuff. Your goverment have been very much hated..

i am not at all saying this belongs to bush/obama or something.. but Bush was the peak in "arrogorant american President" that we hopefully we ever see. This is how it looked when he came to Europe after being elected.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Bushnotwelcome.jpg

compared to when Obama came.

http://www.president-obama.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-czech.jpeg

America has and is being hated thru out the world because of your goverment, current (to some degree) but mostly passed. Be it warcrimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or any other place.

There is some thing that makes it different to Russia/Soviet/China.

1) There is /been less media attention

2) Its more "internal conflicts" situations. (tibet, chechyna)

3) from Western viewpoint we don't consider soviet to be "allies" but enemy.

this was about that you infact wrong about why people hate US. It isn't "freedom" or "the american lifestyle" people disapprove, its the "freedom over others", "and american lifestyle with no respect for others".

Why you guys fight? I dont know, i come from Sweden.. a country that been at peace for 200 years, but still got troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan, one great weapon exporter (the M136 is well used among american troops in hot spots all over), had terrorist attacks during the 70's, got bombed by Soviet during the WWII, had a soviet submarine running aground on our shores 1981.. and yet this year I got 4 new russian friends, and I meet exchange students from all over the world and travel is my biggest "hobby" and most people get happy when they meet a Swede.. why don't they as happy when they meet an american.. partly culture but its also stuff like when did the americans admit doing wrong.. think its time you start ask for forgiveness regarding 9/11 before your country ask for the worlds sympathy and understanding.. i am refering to 9/11 1973 of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état#U.S._Role

some regarding swedish stuff i mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_German_embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363

I Think your brain is frost bitten

---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

That's pretty much the root of all terrorism right there in a nutshell mate.

That's the price of Empire.

You either have the balls big enough to pay it, or you don't.

Not true at all. I would say it is in the tiniest minority of attacks caused by this against ANY country.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

Lying to the U.N. and refusing to allow non-Coalition allies to help reconstruct Iraq is not respectful.

The UN is inconsequential and outright useless. Nobody lied to them either. Allow others to reconstruct Iraq? Why would they want to do that? Why would they want to assist in the reconstruction? They wanted oil, oil for nothing. It was a ploy for power. The Coalition did what had to be done and began to rebuild and then they want to step in as if they are heroes? I think not.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

How the hell, have we gone from ArmA putting people off joining the army, to the US Presidency?

Because I'm bored and cannot resist a good argument :P

[maturin 12]

WHy would I bother with Wikipedia? It is rare that you find anything accurate there

Give me a break.

The current thinking is that Saddam got rid of most if not all of his WMD (so he wouldn't, you know, get invaded by the U.S. or something), but refused to allow inspectors in because he feared an attack from Iran more and wanted to maintain a healthy doubt. If he did have any, they were for use against the Iranians, because he probably could have gotten away with pouring weedkiller on invading Revolutionary Guard.

Wikipedia does have its moments. Like sources besides the ponderings of an Israeli general at the dinner table.

Anyways, fun fact time: The U.S. helped create Al Qaeda, Israel worked hard to ensure the foundation of Hamas, and the British supported the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Edited July 22, 2009 by maturin

[Brainmagnet 10]

Even if Saddam had WMD....SO WHAT?!?!?! If that is the case, he was sitting on WMD ever since he gassed the Kurds (He can thank us for the WMD btw) and we decide to invade him after 9/11, because before that it wouldn't have been possible to invade because there would have been no excuse (although we continued to bomb Iraq all through the Clinton Administration). I mean seriously, you say I swallow the media's lies? All those years Saddam was supposedly sitting on WMD and the media barely talked about it, except for the few times UN inspectors went over there and Operation Desert Fox, then after 9/11 they won't shut up about how we have to go into Afghanistan and then into Iraq which we managed to invade in early 2003. Do you seriously think Saddam would have attacked Israel? Israel has around 600 nukes at its disposal not to mention 100's of f-16's, Bradley's and what not. Saddam was never suicidal, I think he thought we'd look the other way when he invaded Kuwait. Also Saddam hated Terrorists as much as anyone else, if he'd given WMD to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists they would have turned around and used the WMD on him because the Baathist government was a secular government that even had a woman as a member. Anfiach don't you also remember how OSAMA bin Laden told Bush Sr. to let him fight the gulf war with his own personal army of 30,000 Mujahedeen?

[pmc foxhound 10]

no this does not put me off the army, mostly because this game is about the marines...

[An Fiach 10]

Even if Saddam had WMD....SO WHAT?!?!?! If that is the case, he was sitting on WMD ever since he gassed the Kurds (He can thank us for the WMD btw) and we decide to invade him after 9/11, because before that it wouldn't have been possible to invade because there would have been no excuse (although we continued to bomb Iraq all through the Clinton Administration). I mean seriously, you say I swallow the media's lies? All those years Saddam was supposedly sitting on WMD and the media barely talked about it, except for the few times UN inspectors went over there and Operation Desert Fox, then after 9/11 they won't shut up about how we have to go into Afghanistan and then into Iraq which we managed to invade in early 2003. Do you seriously think Saddam would have attacked Israel? Israel has around 600 nukes at its disposal not to mention 100's of f-16's, Bradley's and what not. Saddam was never suicidal, I think he thought we'd look the other way when he invaded Kuwait. Also Saddam hated Terrorists as much as anyone else, if he'd given WMD to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists they would have turned around and used the WMD on him because the Baathist government was a secular government that even had a woman as a member. Anfiach don't you also remember how OSAMA bin Laden told Bush Sr. to let him fight the gulf war with his own personal army of 30,000 Mujahedeen?

Few times inspectors went over there? Oy vey. Let me just say this, WMD pale compared to the knowledge that countries like France were still selling things to Iraq, weapons. Nothing like watching your friends blown to bits by weapons sold to your enemies by your allies AFTER sanctions were in place. But then, maybe they were just stolen :rolleyes: Saddam attack Israel? WHo the hell ever mentioned that?

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 AM ----------

Give me a break.

The current thinking is that Saddam got rid of most if not all of his WMD (so he wouldn't, you know, get invaded by the U.S. or something), but refused to allow inspectors in because he feared an attack from Iran more and wanted to maintain a healthy doubt. If he did have any, they were for use against the Iranians, because he probably could have gotten away with pouring weedkiller on invading Revolutionary Guard.

Wikipedia does have its moments. Like sources besides the ponderings of an Israeli general at the dinner table.

Anyways, fun fact time: The U.S. helped create Al Qaeda, Israel worked hard to ensure the foundation of Hamas, and the British supported the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Everything went to Syria.

Yea wiki is great, I was looking for some data on the .50 BMG a few months ago and there was a nice article there about 1337 pwnzers getting headshots with the .50 killing all the noobs. Gotta love the internet.

[neokika 62]

ARMA2 for world peace ;)

=D, yes, yes.....Shut down all armies, or dont you even understand, if there is no ARMY, there is no War!