BlameThePixel!

After watching limited news coverage of this 'war', tho' in my opinion a 'war' should consist of 2 relatively equal sides where there is doubt as to the outcome, I've come to several conclusions.

#1 I'm well fuckin' glad I never joined up, which I considered in my late teens.

#2 Presidents/Prime Ministers are quite happy to wage war just for the sake of justifying their over-inflated Defence Budgets.

#3 Defence Budget should be renamed Offence Budget as we do all the fuckin' attacking.

#4 The day a leading political figure conveys true remorse is when they get booted out of power. NOT when pretending to be upset about sending troops to die for profit.

#5 Rules apply in whole or not at all, the 'Geneva' conventions were happily quoted by the US when their soldiers were paraded on Iraqi TV, yet they were happily ignored when the US chose to venture out on this operation AGAINST the said conventions.

#6 If Tony Blair made a decision in the best interest of the UK it would be his first.

#7 There is nothing 'friendly' about being fired on by your own allies. In conflict I'd be more scared of my US allies than ANY threat the opposition posed.

#8 The first move by Iraqi troops was to set fire to oil fields. Suprise suprise the first move by coalition forces is to secure oil fields. Military motive or profit based motive?



And EXHALE...

Definitley better out than in.

Thoughts?

a slightly flawed arguement there, in the point that you view every issue as cynically as possible - not neccesarily a bad thing tho.

Iraqi dictator is about to be ousted, so what does he do? he attempts to destroy his own nation's biggest source of income, hmm. It's up to the coalition forces to secure these vital assets of the country that are incredibly important to it's rebuilding.

If this war is purely about profit then why use very expensive weaponary such as satelite guided bombs and cruise missles which are accurate to within 100 ft? The same objectives could be easily achieved by using cheap and simple carpet bombing of iraq.

However much you dislike the ideals behind this war, the iraqi regime is much more evil than the Coalition leadership that is trying to oust it. If they only cared about profits they would not have invested billions into the development of precision bombs and allocated funds for the rebuilding of a country that has been under the stranglehold of a dictator for over 20 years.

If Saddam had the money to develop precision weaponary, do you think he would?

You can be as cynical as you like, and normally I'd join you - but this time, I agree with the government's stance.

Edit:

Whoops missed one of your points. I am in complete agreement with you on this friendsly fire issue. No matter how good the weaponary is, if you put an idiot in charge of the gun, there's gonna be problems. To me, friendly fire would be lending someone a match, or a bit of tinder. Shooting someone who is supposed to be on your side by accident should be reffered to by what it is "A bad shot"

Why use the expensive weaponary? See point #2.
With Bush coming to power, albeit by a questionable vote count, he had to satisfy his voters, most of who were pro-military. Now what does he do? Does he reduce his 'Defense' budget in an effort to improve other areas of his country? Or does he continue to pump billions into it keeping his voters in what should be, in this century, redundant jobs?

Carpet bombing? Yeah, right. As wrong as the coalition forces were to start this war, they will still try to stick to the ideals of the 'Good Guy'. Carpet bombing kills as many innocents as it does combatants.




Ok, no arguement, but does being wrong justify this attack? And if he is so evil why are Iraqi civilians in their masses trying to cross back from Jordan to Iraq to defend their parent nation under the leadership of S H.




So you think, if profit-orientated, they would carpetbomb the country, move in, strip the country of it's oil and leave them in the state they found them?
No, wrong the US may be, but stupid they are not.
A clever thief gets what he wants without causing disruption, in this case kicking out the current leader, 'rebuilding' what they destroyed in the first place then replacing S H with a grateful 'democrat' who will happily deal oil with them. No complaints from the UN or the masses.




Probably, but to what point? Do you think he would attack someone knowing full well that the reciprocations of said attack would leave him alone with a united opposition and no hope of resurfacing?
Again, S H isn't stupid, wrong yes, stupid no.




Isn't it coincidental that so far in 2 campaigns in the Gulf the only unfriendly fire has come from the US. This to me demonstrates the trigger happy attitude that the US leadership displays in starting these conflicts. They're happy to be out there firing at anything, they couldn't give a fuck what's in front of them so long as it doesn't have the Stars & Stripes on it's uniform.





I'm so fucking glad 'Bowling for Columbine' won an Oscar this year. Anyone that hasn't seen it should see it, it's worth the rental.

#1 i have isues

#2 politicians stink

#3 im only 12 what do u care?

This one i completely agree with, altho the Royal Scots Dragoons managed to get extremely unlucky and have a DU shell riccochet off an enemy tank and hit an allied tank killing 2 ppl.

if this war was about profits, they would've made a deal with Saddam...
only reason Saddam hates the US is cause they didn't