Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: WAR on IRAQ
Thread: WAR on IRAQ This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
silx87
silx87


Supreme Hero
posted April 02, 2003 02:38 PM

hmm...some quite long posts...I haven't taken the time to read them all!
Snogard,I just noticed ur post.
I say:No,don't nuke Iraq!WWII was a slightly different scenario than now,and besides I thought they weren't allowed to nuke anyone anymore!So the nuke is totally out of the question!

Peacemaker,I read ur post.I'm not an expert on WWII,I'm not sure if Hitler was a threat back when he first got to power.However,I think its quite possible that when Saddam is not removed now,in 8 or so years,he will be a much worse man!Actually I think he should have been removed back in the first Gulf war,if it was possible.I don't know much about the gulf war either so I wouldn't know if they actually did have a chance for that!Also I think that it would have been a lot easier to take him out before the war,because when he is sitting in his bunker its quite hard to hit him!

One friend of mine actually said:Iraq has already won the war!He didn't mean that the Iraqui army has defeated the UUSSA or UK army,he meant that most of the world is supporting Iraq rather than UUSSA!He meant that even if UUSSA removes Saddam and his regime,the whole world will hate them for even starting the war!What do you think of his theory?I'm not sure about it.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 02, 2003 07:48 PM

I'm going to have to respond in two posts because I haven't figured out how to switch pages without destroying my post yet.

So first Laelth.  First, you must not hesitate to take issue with me.  If no issue is taken, no discussion is had, and nothing is learned, my lad.  You and some others have an enormous wealth of information, on which front I frequently run pathetically thin.  This is why your responses are so valuable to people like me.  My skill is comparative analysis of that information from a geographical /demological standpoint, and hopefully I make some contribution in giving that perspective to the analysis.

I was not aware that Russia remained forefront in nuclear capability; I thought they had disarmed suggiciently to place themselves second.  It is interesting and a little unsettling to learn that this is not the case.  Your statistics on our conventional expenditures are also staggering!  (Any suggestions for a good source on this information??)

In addition, good point on the numeric majority issue in Iraq.  I actually was aware of this.  But Americans have a nasty habit of thinking that a majority should always dictate the outcome and this is only the case if democracy has already meen established.  I guess my point is that the MOST LIKELY CANDIDATE for takeover in the void left by Saddan's downfall is, as you suggested, the Shi'ite minority, out of sheer will, determination, and willingness/capability to impose control due to support from surrounding influences.  

The dynamic in the Middle East is the most complex on earth.  Americans are in Wally land on this issue as far as I can tell.  They (Iraq) can have all the democratic numeric majority they want, but if they are surrounded by nations who will bring the usual Pan-Islamic pressures to bear on them, the numeric majority will probably be oppressed by the administation most favored and assisted by the most influential nations in the region. (as you suggest.

The most real, most complicating factor in the Middle East is the superimposition of national boundaries, imposed mostly over the course of the last century, which capture feuding tribes inside them.  The nation-state system was born and grew up in Europe and England, where internal homogeneity, economies and nationalism (loyalty to one's own state) had a chance to grow up with it.  The farther forward into the historical development of the now global nation-state system we go, the more you find distinct, frequently warring tribes (what are true, organic nations with their own sence of loyalty)arbitrarily drawn inside national boundaries.  These nations are like little powderkegs whose internal demographics and dynamics tend to almost require dictatorships to force the peace among these tribes.  The tribes continue to resent having to bear allegiance to the same nation, continue to resent one another, and continue to present a no-win situation when it comes to what type of government they end up with.  As of 1986, 67% of the world's wars were being fought by organic, indigenous nations who had either been drawn into somebody else's nation and government, or had been drawn outside their own homelands, or both.  The global obliviousness to the real force of this dilemma continues to baffle me.

So, the upshot of this is that it is the problem in Iraq.  There are three primary regions, and three distinct interests, each now vying for control over the others.  Afghanistan is another example of this same dilemma.  Add to that the bitterness in the region's history and you have a formula for failure every time.  It seems to me that it is this type of de-facto divisivness that leads to the rise of dictators such as Saddam.

So, anyway, as you suggest, any givern culture is an internally consistent system.  One simply cannot take an unfamiliar governmental form, or economic structure, and superimpose it on an existing culture without disrupting the internal consistency of the organic animal.  It would be a little like taking the heart ouf a hippopotamus and transplanting it into a giraffe.  This is what first-contact phenomenon is all about.  It is why so many cultures have disintergrated under colonization.

Oddly, many people think I am some sort of flaming liberal when I make these arguments.  All they need to is look at the anthropoligal history of the world.  The phenomenon of which you and I are speaking is not only present, it is UNIVERSALLY CONSISTENT.

Perhaps the only exception is the United States. This is frequently pointed out to me as an example of how incorrect my argument is.  Apparently, one can take cultural elements and plug them into the uUnited States and cause only minor disruption.  But the basic structure of the county was thus st up from the beginning, and is already arranged to absorb conflict through the demoratic process, throught the mechanism of compromise through majority vote and minority protections.  

Yet still, we unarguably have the phenomena here of racism, and other ethical conflict, still clearly exhibiting symptoms of the natural human craving of -- you guessed it -- homogeneity.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 02, 2003 07:56 PM

Silx87, you've just concisely stated what it took me three times the writing to say.  Yes, this is precisly my worry as well. We may "win" this land war, but if our goal was to battle terrorism, we will probably have failed miserably.  

Terrorism lives in the minds of men who hate America for being the colonialist infidel who threatens to overrun Islam.  Accurate or not, the war is making more think of us as colonialist infidels trying to impose additonal secular governments in the Middle east, and therefore more hating us.  Where we may see liberation of oppressed people, many in the Middle East merely see us gaining yet another secular foothold right in the middle of their sacred lands, posing more threat of control and anhilation.

Actually I think you just said it better.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
goodpig
goodpig


Adventuring Hero
The King of Pork!!!
posted April 02, 2003 11:21 PM

Quote:
Quote:
He captured members of the allied forces, killed them, then he showed the murders on Iraqi TV.


I hate to be a fly in the ointment here, but most of these early accusations of executions and torture have yet to be even remotely proved. To take an example, Tony Blair stated at the conference in america that Hussain's army had captured and executed 2 british soldiers and the evidence for this assumption was a broadcast by Al Jazera. When said broadcast was investigated it showed no executions, merely the bodies being kicked and punched*. Pretty soon after when questions were asked to ministers below the PM none of them would discuss whether it was an execution or not, none would even say if it was being investigated. So what we have is Britian's PM making a blatantly emotional statement that smacks frankly of propaganda based on absolutely nothing at all, then hastily retracting the statement or refusing to confirm it later when questioned...

Or take the recent report coming from outside Basra that an American/British column had met over 100 Iraqui tanks abbandoning the city. Britain's own Defence Minister was shocked to hear this news report as his own MOD hadn't even told him! When it was investigated later it was discovered the true figure was 3 Iraqui tanks.....

What happened to the notion that this would be a war without either misinformation or propaganda?

*A note here, I do not add that sentence in terms of justifying the actions of the mob in the broadcast. Unfortunately mobs fuelled with hatred from their years of bombing and sanctions will nearly always react with violence when an enemy is present that they can harm, as seems to have happened in this clip. Imagine if you will if it was 10th september 2002 and someone put and announced 2 members (confirmed) of the Al Queada terrorist network in the middle of an american city, the reaction would be pretty much the same IMO, they would have been beaten also, even beyond death.... Mobs are the same the world over unfortunately.



Yes,Yes
but read this...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82923,00.html

This a story about a girl who was saved, Jessica Lynch.

Though they haven't quite proven if the execution took place in the POW camp, but they showed the Iraqi asking them questions.

Now let me ask you this?
What type of sick man capture a harmless supply truck,I realize attacking the supply truck that belongs to the enemy is techically okay, but torturing and killing 11 people isn't. Americans don't torture or kill POWs. This guy is violating the Geneva Convetion and you know it.
And how could they capture this woman who didn't do anything? Read this quote:
"Lynch was treated for undisclosed injuries. U.S. officials in Kuwait said on condition of anonymity that she is believed to have broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound"

Thank goodness for U.S. Special forces... that's all I can say.

____________
Qui n'a plus qu'un moment a vivre N'a plus rien a dissimuler.
Atys

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 03, 2003 12:02 AM

Quote:
Though they haven't quite proven if the execution took place in the POW camp, but they showed the Iraqi asking them questions.



OMG! How terrible of them, to question POW's! *rolls eyes*

Quote:
What type of sick man capture a harmless supply truck,I realize attacking the supply truck that belongs to the enemy is techically okay, but torturing and killing 11 people isn't.


Please direct me to exactly where in that document it says they have proved the prisoners were tortured and executed. They don't even know if they're american for crying out loud!

Quote:
Americans don't torture or kill POWs


I beg to differ, I could dig up pleanty of accounts of american and british units killing or abbandoning to death POW's if you want me to go back to vietnam or WWII. As for torture....... nah you just do that to "terrorists".

Quote:
This guy is violating the Geneva Convetion and you know it.



And? You're telling me the Anglo/Americans don't? Please open your eyes to the real world, not the one you want it to be.

Quote:
And how could they capture this woman who didn't do anything? Read this quote:
"Lynch was treated for undisclosed injuries. U.S. officials in Kuwait said on condition of anonymity that she is believed to have broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound"



She is a member of the enemy's armed forces, simple as that, that's why they captured her. She's part of a force invading someone else's country, she's therefore part of an army that's done pleanty.


____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Sandro
Sandro


Known Hero
amongs The Undead
posted April 03, 2003 12:17 AM

Go US-Army! Hunt Saddam!

I am maybe the only one Indonesian that says this!
So what?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
goodpig
goodpig


Adventuring Hero
The King of Pork!!!
posted April 03, 2003 06:25 PM


Quote:
Americans don't torture or kill POWs


I beg to differ, I could dig up pleanty of accounts of american and british units killing or abbandoning to death POW's if you want me to go back to vietnam or WWII. As for torture....... nah you just do that to "terrorists".

Quote:
This guy is violating the Geneva Convetion and you know it.



And? You're telling me the Anglo/Americans don't? Please open your eyes to the real world, not the one you want it to be.

Quote:
And how could they capture this woman who didn't do anything? Read this quote:
"Lynch was treated for undisclosed injuries. U.S. officials in Kuwait said on condition of anonymity that she is believed to have broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound"



She is a member of the enemy's armed forces, simple as that, that's why they captured her. She's part of a force invading someone else's country, she's therefore part of an army that's done pleanty.




Support your claim.

Will you argue that Americans or British capture female officers, shoot them, and break their legs and arms?

____________
Qui n'a plus qu'un moment a vivre N'a plus rien a dissimuler.
Atys

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 03, 2003 07:17 PM

Can you explain what proof you have those injuries were influcted after she surrendered?

Or can't you prove it? There you go then, blatantly twisting the article to show what you WANT it to show.

As for the other bits, give me a day or two and I'll look around for it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
goodpig
goodpig


Adventuring Hero
The King of Pork!!!
posted April 03, 2003 07:24 PM

Quote:
Can you explain what proof you have those injuries were influcted after she surrendered?

Or can't you prove it? There you go then, blatantly twisting the article to show what you WANT it to show.

As for the other bits, give me a day or two and I'll look around for it.


Can you explain what proof you have that the injuries weren't.
No offense but you don't just get shot accidentaly, and her men wouldn't shoot her. So that means the Iraqis shot her.
Also it is common sense she wouldn't fight back because she is a freakin' supply officer.
She was surrounded by Iraqis who probably pointed AKs at her.
Do you really think she fought back?

As for proof... I'll give you time if you give me time...
____________
Qui n'a plus qu'un moment a vivre N'a plus rien a dissimuler.
Atys

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 03, 2003 09:06 PM

Hi guys, just checking in here.

I've heard two things on this story from CNN; however, they are relaying information from her, she did not get on and speak herself, so this may be unreliable hersay.  

First, the broken bones supposedly resulted from being shot numerous times.

Second, she was shot numerous times because she fought back -- brutally -- to defend herslef and hold her captors off.  The report suggested she emptied every clip in the place, and they finally rushed her when she ran out of ammo and ended up stabbing her with a knife.

As a woman, absolutely nothing else makes sense to me but that he should have fought back viciously to avoid capture.  Of COURSE she fought back viciously.  A woman's worst nightmare is to be captured by a bunch of guy enemies who are foreign and unpredictable to you.  Women are susceptible to certain types of really gross bad things when captured by guy enemies.  Fortunately, from the looks of her face, which showed no signs of beating, she may have been mistaken about this particular bunch of guy enemies.  We'll hope this suggests her wounds were limited to the battle, but she'll probably be telling us herself in short order here.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 03, 2003 10:37 PM

Thank you peacemaker

Typical you see, usually goodpig, we operate this system of innocent until PROVEN guilty. You might wish to remember that the next time you jump to conclusions about injuries not uncommon on a battlefield.

Even if peacemakers/cnn's comments are wrong the fact is the USA have to prove it was a war crime, not assume. Assumption and bigotry simply leads to injustice and hatred against the US/UK and will not do anyone any good if we rush round executing Irauqis we SUSPECT of crimes rather than actually finding out the facts first.

Perhaps next time you'd like to wait for her version of events before jumping in with your assumption of them.......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 03, 2003 11:17 PM

Well. back into the twilight zone we go...

Jessica Lynch's parents JUST made a live statement on CNN, in which they announced that they had spoken with her both before and after surgery to her back today, and that she is in good spirits.  There was no explanation for how her back came into this.  They further announced that the doctor found NO evidence of bullet entry wounds, and they did not mention knife wounds.  Very mysteriously, when asked what caused the broken bones, the parents said the doctors did not provide any explanation for this.  Even more mysteriosuly in my book, the press did not ask further questions on whether Lynch herself had provided any explanation for this.

What's the big mystery here???? Just what exactly is going on????  Why doesn't anybody know what happened to this girl if she is lucid, in good spirits and talking with her parents on the phone???

This is getting a little frustrating.  
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 03, 2003 11:21 PM

By the way, since one of these reports HAS to be wrong,  I apologize in advance for forwarding whichever one that is, if we ever get to find out.  Both were from CNN, however.  So maybe I could just blame them instead.

*exasperated sigh*
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 03, 2003 11:53 PM

Well, my point would be whichever is right, it's much better to find out the facts than assume guilt. It's against our whole democratic legal system to blame someone without all the evidence, and try them then and there.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted April 04, 2003 01:05 AM

Quote:
Well. back into the twilight zone we go...

Jessica Lynch's parents JUST made a live statement on CNN, in which they announced that they had spoken with her both before and after surgery to her back today, and that she is in good spirits.  There was no explanation for how her back came into this.  They further announced that the doctor found NO evidence of bullet entry wounds, and they did not mention knife wounds.  Very mysteriously, when asked what caused the broken bones, the parents said the doctors did not provide any explanation for this.  Even more mysteriosuly in my book, the press did not ask further questions on whether Lynch herself had provided any explanation for this.

What's the big mystery here???? Just what exactly is going on????  Why doesn't anybody know what happened to this girl if she is lucid, in good spirits and talking with her parents on the phone???

This is getting a little frustrating.  


The big question is why does anybody besides her, her family and her doctors have any right to know anything at all about her condition.  Give the poor girl some privacy, for cryin' out loud.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
peacemaker
peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted April 04, 2003 01:52 AM

LOL!!

Right bort!  We are treating this poor girl as though she's somewhat of a celebrity.  I doubt she counted on all this attention when she enlisted!!!

(Shame on me -- I STILL want to know what the hey happened...)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
goodpig
goodpig


Adventuring Hero
The King of Pork!!!
posted April 04, 2003 06:21 PM

AHEM! who was jumping to conclusions!?
You use this story to try to prove your point and it's wrong.
Then PH is over there saying how I was making assumptions when the fact is we all are...

But your right I'd kill to know what was going on.
____________
Qui n'a plus qu'un moment a vivre N'a plus rien a dissimuler.
Atys

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 05, 2003 01:44 AM

Both of you. It would do good to wait until some form of offical account is released than this constant speculation that sways in the wind every time a new news item comes up....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Sir_Stiven
Sir_Stiven


Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
posted April 05, 2003 06:12 AM

lol just the poll options shows how serious this thread is to be taken i guess

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mad_Unicorn
Mad_Unicorn


Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
posted April 05, 2003 07:11 AM

Its a shame to see all this intelligence goin to waste here

War and Violence are bad yes but are both justifiable... by plain idiocy.

Take this for example...(time to make it simple)

If you ever saw a bar fight... what started it? He was talkin mean to my girl hey that was my drink or hey lets fight are things that come to mind. pretty pathetic no?(well i didn't think so at the time but in retrospect )

extreme justification of all wars is this "Your doing something I don't like."
Name 1 war when this wasn't the case and you earn a cookie.

so we got moronic drunk number 1 and moronic drunk number 2. Now; add their cronies okay we got a brawl on our hands now most of em know why they are fight however. Then you get the spectators joining in just because they want to fight... do they know why ? no. So I will call them pawns.

Now we are playing a game of chess. Pawns(military) rooks(your intelligence team), bishops (hierarchy generals... basically the ones that dont fight really) your king/queen (moronic drunk number 1 and his media)

The world would be perfect if moronic drunk number 1 and moronic drunk number 2 could just settle it without incorporating the rest of the idiocy...

Wars and Violence are justifiliably idiotic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0635 seconds