Saddam Hussian Captured

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:17 pm

Oz wrote:i think tht america shouldn't have been so bomb-happy on iraq. now look at the mess... and i bet they won't contribute proportiately.

That mess your referring to was cause back in 1991 gulf war and never fixed. You might remember there were Jets from many nations bombing the electrical grid. I dont think any infrastructure was targeted during the last fighting, mostly just bombing places the government was hanging out in and military sights.

And as far as contributing the US has already spent billions in fixing things compared to a few hundred million promissed by everybody else.

Ro@m · Post by **Ro@m** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

oh.... 1990,recently i had nothing to do so i decided to go to my friends place so we played delta force:black hawk down,the game is great except you have all the civs running around and when you are on the hummwee(don't know how to write it correctly)shooting at the bad guys you can't miss some civs,when i am in battle they just run in crossfire,in front of my 50 cal.Damn civ AI.Do some of you encounter same problems?So maybe was with saddam(mass killing,they just ran in front of his gun?)?

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 3:00 am

Huh?

I just hope the US actually cleans up Iraq after what they did.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 3:11 am

Splodginator wrote:Huh?

I just hope the US actually cleans up Iraq after what they did.

After what they did? Poor Iraqis invade their neighbors and wont leave so we bomb them and we are the bad guys? The fact that sadam spent most of his peoples money on himself instead of rebuilding his country is the problem. How many palaces were constructed there since 1990? I feel sorry for the Kurds he gassed, the Iranians he gassed, and the 100's of thousands of his own people who died to support his wars with Iran and Kuweit.

So far every country the US defeated in war in the 20th to 21st century has come out in better shape then before they went to war (with the exception of vietnam which we lost so didnt spend money to fix up after) but even there we upgraded the port facilities and road networks during the war. Unless the new iraqi government turns out to be run by a dictator I think they will end up ok.

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:45 am

I'm not trying to make the US look like the bad guys, they just have the responsibility to clean up Iraq. Look at it this way, if you get something, say, cable TV installed, you don't want the technician to leave behind drills and useless empty wires, do you?

And what about Germany after being defeated by the Allies, with the US in WW1? The Treaty of Versailles? 1,000,000 Deutschmark notes were worthless, children were using them as toy blocks. Their economy was crippled.

Iraqis were forced to attack Kuwait by Saddam, and guess who provided funds for the invasion of Iran? Thats right, the US did. It was Saddam's fault, not Iraq's.

I also realise there may be a few spelling mistakes in this post

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:38 pm

Splodginator wrote:I'm not trying to make the US look like the bad guys, they just have the responsibility to clean up Iraq. Look at it this way, if you get something, say, cable TV installed, you don't want the technician to leave behind drills and useless empty wires, do you?

And what about Germany after being defeated by the Allies, with the US in WW1? The Treaty of Versailles? 1,000,000 Deutschmark notes were worthless, children were using them as toy blocks. Their economy was crippled.

Iraqis were forced to attack Kuwait by Saddam, and guess who provided funds for the invasion of Iran? Thats right, the US did. It was Saddam's fault, not Iraq's.

I also realise there may be a few spelling mistakes in this post

I dont see how a homeowner paying for a repair has much to do with a country having to clean up an enemy nation they just faught. After WWI france and england wanted to maker germany and austia hungary pay for their war damages and split those 2 countries land up also. All this did was cause a crushing debt , bad feelings, and isolated alot of germans in the borders of other countries. Germany didnt really start WWI, it was drawn into war because of treaties it had with austra hungary just like england and france had treaties making them enter the war. After WW2 the US took it apon itself to help rebuild Germany, Italy, and Japan (along with helping the rest of europe rebuild) because it didnt want to have to refight the same war for a 3rd time. It would also get rid of the possibility of andother dictator coming to power because of national anger from the defeated countries.

Germanys money became worthless during the peace after the war as a way for the governement to not have to repay the money owed to the allies for the war. They just kept printing more money to cause inflation so their money would be worthless.

As far as the Iran connection. We didnt tell sadam to invade anybody. But since we were not too happy with Iran at the time we gave him intelligence so that he wouldnt lose the war, and unfortunatly gave Iran arms for hostages at the same time. Sadam seen a chance to steal Irans oil wells because the country was a mess after the revilution and might be an easy war. He didnt get his oil and lost alot of people in the fight. The second the war was over he picked on a smaller border country with oil and no military (Kuweit). Had he just packed his bags and moved his army back to Iraq there would never have been a war with the US (who was worried he would drive into Saudi Arabia next).

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:41 pm

Um... The US wasn't involved in WWI. (I think they wern't). If they were, Germany declared war, so its their fault their economy died.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:49 pm

Kazer0 wrote:Um... The US wasn't involved in WWI. (I think they wern't). If they were, Germany declared war, so its their fault their economy died.

I guess you do not know your history. The US declaired war on germany because of unrestricted submarine warfare and because the germans were trying to get the mexican government to attack the US in exchange for land they lost to the US in the mexican war of later 1800's.

http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfel ... t.ww1.html

Shows the events of WWI

Post by **Dogbreath** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:30 pm

Ro@m wrote:oh.... 1990,recently i had nothing to do so i decided to go to my friends place so we played delta force:black hawk down,the game is great except you have all the civs running around and when you are on the hummwee(don't know how to write it correctly)shooting at the bad guys you can't miss some civs,when i am in battle they just run in crossfire,in front of my 50 cal.Damn civ AI.Do some of you encounter same problems?

This is a very intentional part of Black Hawk Down-in reality the U.S. butchered over 3,000 people in Somalia (many women and children) in the intense crossfire. Thumbs up for a war videogame showing the darker side of conflict that you don't usually hear about.

So maybe was with saddam(mass killing,they just ran in front of his gun?)?

If by "gun" you mean nerve agent and "run in front of" meaning being part of the unfortunate race of the day during his ethnic cleansings, than yes.

Um... The US wasn't involved in WWI.

*cough* Then explain the 100,000 dead American men buried in the WWI memorial site in France? The U.S. declared war on Germany in 1917 in a. response to the sinking of civilian vessels by their submarine force and b. the discovery they were making deals with Mexico to invade the U.S. In the year and a half we had we saved Belgium and Frances respective asses and turned the war around and, with the exception of a few British (and Canadian) victories, pretty much won WWI single handedly. Try not to fall asleep during history class.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:48 pm

Not this again... The US wouldn't have won the war without the UK and Canada.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:21 pm

Well talking about WW1 here I have to say that the allies would not have won without US help.

The germans in WW1 did end up taking out russia who sighned a peace treaty and allowed germany and austria/hungary to concentrate on the western front with alot of success. It was the million plus US men sent to the front that gave the allies enough troops to win. France was bleed white during the war and had mutinees in the ranks during the last year or so. Canada had been in the fight from the start because it was part of the british empire.

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:09 pm

Not this again... The US wouldn't have won the war without the UK and Canada.

There wouldn't be a war without the UK.

Australia was in there too, and we fought in the Western Front and Gallipoli. Gallipoli was a loss, but I think we won the Western Front.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:52 pm

Gallipoli was a waste of lives (canadian sent by the brits to die for nothing)

Post by **Dogbreath** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 2:12 pm

Kazer0 wrote:Not this again... The US wouldn't have won the war without the UK and Canada.

Without the UK or Canada, we wouldn't've even had to fight that war. Remember, it was the UK that declared war on Germany-not the other way around. If the great powers of Europe had taken a second to pull their heads out of their asses it's quite likely that WWI would've never started. It's insane to think that any country would start a war over an assassination. (The Archduke in this case) Imagine if the U.S.A. started a war that killed 25 million people because of Kennedy's assassination!

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 4:17 pm

The US entered into WWI for its own reasons (loss of ships with US citizens and Germany asking Mexico to start a war with the US). Those reasons are legitimate enough to go to war over.

The European powers went to war because of the complex treaties they had with each other. These treaties were setup to keep the large powers from grabbing up the smller countries and making themselves more powerfull, basically a status quo. If you do not honor your treaties then your country is not to be trusted again EVER, everything you buy will have to be paid in gold because your currency will become worthless to the rest of the world, large repercussions.

Its like taiwan having a defense agreement with the USA, if China tries to invade Taiwan we have to go help with our military which is something we really dont want to have to do. But this agreement pretty much keeps china out of taiwan because they really dont need a war with their #1 trading partner.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 2:48 pm

Yes, but had France or England or Austro-Hungary or Germany or Serbia or any country involved for that matter had stopped to think about the consequences of their actions or had an open peace conferance (not the ones they were having where bull headed diplomates sat around shouting their opinions and not agreeing to any compromises but instead an open discussion where *real* progress would've been made) WWI could've been limited to a small war in the Balkiens between Austro-Hungary and Serbia where the latter got crushed. If this happened-there would be no need for the U.K. to join the war and thus no need to attack trans-Atlantic shipping. The treaties shouldn't have been "we'll fight if you fight" but "we won't fight if you won't." I.e, Germany, Belgium, England, and France would've gotten together and agreed *not* to aid or hinder Austro-Hungary rather than *to* aid or hinder should any other power become involved.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:44 pm

Sure and the palestinian problem could be solved over dinner and drinks.

Europe has always had tangled up aliances, its the way things were for 100's of years. Your saying Austria-Hungary (a very large nation) had the right to destroy a small nation because somebody in that nation killed a royal family member.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 9:04 pm

*sigh* no, but I'm saying that throwing half the world into the mix wasn't a bright idea. Then again, you're right-the political situations of that day wouldn't really allow for a peaceful ending unless you could change the bigotry and foolishness of the past 100 years in Europe.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:09 am

The people running each country also didnt think the war would be that long or kill 25,000,000 people in the process. Most wars in europe up to that point were short and relitively clean because the armies were small and nobody had machine guns. Thats one of the reasons France and England were not in a big hurry to get into WW2, they learned how bloody modern war would be (hitler didnt care).

kittie · Post by **kittie** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:49 pm

why are we fighting with iraq though all are history with germeny and its nazis to cuba and its commies why dont we start a war with cuba. we would have hadnt jfk been assanated. down with hitler down with castro down with hussin down with musslini and down with f*** bin laden

usa all the way