Peace in the Future?

Originally posted by crisko
If they were in the middle of a civil war
As far as suffering; thank the leader? Sanctions, thank the leader?

Who's telling anyone to thank Saddam?

There is a big chance of peace, people like you playing armchair general need to think back and remember that you were the reason thousands Died for nothing in Vietnam.

False information and ignorance is why hundreds of thousands died in Vietnam.

Untill you've fought in a war (I've been through two) you really need to keep your opinion to yourself as I dont think you deserve one.

Being in a war does not make you more knowledgeable on any subject, except maybe how to fight. Although I do commend you for risking your life and serving in the Armed forces, I fail to see why not doing so is reason to not exercise an opinion, especially here on ATS.

Better off in 2003? I want what your smoking, tell that to the troops.

Tell what to the troops? That they didn't need to be there in the first place? Not too sure they'd take that very well.

Originally posted by heelstone

Originally posted by crisko

Untill you've fought in a war (I've been through two) you really need to keep your opinion to yourself as I dont think you deserve one.

I'm sorry. I don't kill people. So you'll just have to discount me.

Thus you need to remove yourself from this conversation as any prudent judge would, you are clearly biased with that statement alone and cannot be taken seriously in any discussion moving forward.

Originally posted by crisko

At that time the USSR was collapsing, all we could afford was air power.

no. there were ground troops also - it wasnt just a war fought with bombs dropped from planes.

so again i ask, why was he not removed from power then as the crimes were the same then as they are now, only there was a real reason to remove him then?

Originally posted by justyc

Originally posted by crisko

At that time the USSR was collapsing, all we could afford was air power.

no. there were ground troops also - it wasnt just a war fought with bombs dropped from planes.

so again i ask, why was he not removed from power then as the crimes were the same then as they are now, only there was a real reason to remove him then?

I'm sorry, were you an officer with boots on the ground?

We did not commit troops to this as at the time we were expecting an explosion that make the Balkins look like a play ground.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

Originally posted by crisko
We could take out Syria and Iran at the same time and still counter China.

Take it to the bank.
[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

You take it to the bank. I'll just sit here and reap the end of the world thanks to your types.

Originally posted by FallenOne

Originally posted by crisko
We could take out Syria and Iran at the same time and still counter China.

Take it to the bank.
[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

You take it to the bank. I'll just sit here and reap the end of the world thanks to your types.

The end of the world would have begun 54 years ago if it wasnt for people like me. I will hold the line, I will question it, but I will hold it as I have in the past.

What have you done for you're country aside from complain?

Originally posted by FallenOne
Is peace in our near future?

I sincerely doubt it.

The reason that war is advocated by the "crazy old people" is twofold-- first, they've lived long enough and worked hard enough to achieve positions of power, and second, they don't have to actually go fight the wars themselves.

Wars are only secondarily fights between groups of people. Primarily, they're fights between power-drunk, mendacious scumbags who control governments and, thereby, nations. The people who actually fight the wars are only proxies for their leaders.

There's a relatively small group of people who are vying for control of Iraq, for instance. There are a few American power-mongers and a few Iraqi power-mongers who have allied themselves with the Americans on one side, and a few Iraqi power-mongers and a few non-Iraqi Muslim power-mongers who have allied themselves with them, and that's really it. All these power-drunk scumbags have worked and struggled to get to the top of their respective organizations, and they've got their sights set on control of Iraq. The struggle is really between them. But the way in which they fight each other is by convincing their respective followers that the other side's followers are a threat to them and thereby getting the followers to fight each other.

The reason that peace isn't coming soon, if at all, is that there's always a fresh supply of those sorts of mendacious, power-hungry control freaks climbing up through the ranks, ready to take positions of power and to then seek to expand that power by setting groups of people to fighting with each other. There are, among the youth of today, people who will grow to become the "crazy old people" of tomorrow.

Originally posted by crisko

I'm sorry, were you an officer with boots on the ground?

We did not commit troops to this as at the time we were expecting an explosion that make the Balkins look like a play ground.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

oh sorry, my mistake. i guess the soldiers in (for example) Operation Desert Sabre or Operation Desert Farewell (& that was 540,000 of them) must have been wearing hover boots to have not had their boots on the ground

Originally posted by crisko
The end of the world would have begun 54 years ago if it wasnt for people like me. I will hold the line, I will question it, but I will hold it as I have in the past.

What have you done for you're country aside from complain?

Your 'type'. People who like to fight to accomplish things. Yes you stop wars, but you also start them.

What have I done for my country? Since when do I need to do anything for my country? When the next election comes around, I can vote! That's what I'll do for my country. If that's done properly, that's all a normal citizen should have to do, aside from taxes.

Originally posted by justyc

Originally posted by crisko

I'm sorry, were you an officer with boots on the ground?

We did not commit troops to this as at the time we were expecting an explosion that make the Balkins look like a play ground.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

oh sorry, my mistake. i guess the soldiers in (for example) Operation Desert Sabre or Operation Desert Farewell (& that was 540,000 of them) must have been wearing hover boots to have not had their boots on the ground

98% of statistics are made up 35% of the time, 85% of the time on the fly. The Iraqies had 545,000 troops in the theatre, not the U.S. That number alone exceedes our combined forces.



[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

Originally posted by crisko
98% of statistics are made up 35% of the time, 85% of the time on the fly. The Iraqies had 545,000 troops in the theatre, not the U.S. That number alone exceedes our combined forces.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by crisko]

sigh. the ground offensive under the command of general norman schwarzkopf (remember him?) began on 23rd feb and the iraqis retreated from kuwait four days later which was pretty much the end of the gulf war.

so, with enough troops on the ground, why was saddam not captured and arrested there and then?

Why?

I told you why. The collapse of the USSR could have led to many nasty things.

so let me get this straight. saddam was guilty of gassing the kurds with chemicals sold to him by the US & UK and also guilty of invading kuwait because he wanted their oil, but he wasnt captured & tried for those crimes then because the worlds richest country, the US, was skint? and that was all russia and irans fault somehow?

so, when russia collapses, the US 'wins' the cold war and spends years saving its military money up just so it can 'finish the job' of 'liberating' iraq by invading it on false pretences for crimes saddam wasnt actually guilty of this time?

in the meantime they ignore other REAL attrocities like rwanda and darfur and can you give me 1 reason why?

if only they would put in so much time, effort, money and determination into tracking down and capturing osama bin forgotten or is that too much to ask of your president, who btw, has more links to the bin laden family than saddam ever had

Sorry to take this back to "Peace in the Future?"

No, there will be no peace. Mankind loves War. It must be somehow hard wired into his psyche, or else he would see the futility of it.

The way I see it, is that we are still a primitive, tribal, immature species that has developed technology [thru warlike persuits].

Perhaps WAR is a "rite of passage" that mankind must endure until either we destroy ourselves or wise up.

One bizarre theory is that there is an interdiminsional race that rellay gets off on watching human suffering.

Also how can we experience peace when we glorify war so. I'd like to think that this is ending but currently looks pretty grim!!

Originally posted by whaaa
Sorry to take this back to "Peace in the Future?"

No, there will be no peace. Mankind loves War. It must be somehow hard wired into his psyche, or else he would see the futility of it.

The way I see it, is that we are still a primitive, tribal, immature species that has developed technology [thru warlike persuits].

Perhaps WAR is a "rite of passage" that mankind must endure until either we destroy ourselves or wise up.

One bizarre theory is that there is an interdiminsional race that rellay gets off on watching human suffering.

Also how can we experience peace when we glorify war so. I'd like to think that this is ending but currently looks pretty grim!!

My thoughts as well. Except for maybe the alien fappers. I never thought of that, haha.

Do you think we'll EVER reach a peaceful state? maybe, in 100,000 years? If we don't kill ourselves in the meantime?

dont be mean to anyone for any reason except if u have to, to get them to be a nice person like urselves.if u can do this the world will slowly change around and eventually effect the world.try to influence the people in your life to never be mean.