Planetarion Forums

Texan · 4 Mar 2003, 18:59

London Daily Telegraph
March 4, 2003

Opening Shots Are Fired By RAF Patrols, Say Tories

By George Jones, Political Editor

A more aggressive strategy by American and British aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq amounted to the "opening shots" in a new Gulf war, Bernard Jenkin, Tory defence spokesman, told the Commons yesterday.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, acknowledged that allied aircraft were undertaking more frequent patrols and were attacking targets on the ground that could threaten British and American troops in Kuwait.

But he insisted that no decision to begin military action had yet been taken and that there had been "no substantial change" in the operation of the no-fly zones.

Mr Jenkin, who has just returned from visiting British troops in Kuwait, challenged the Defence Secretary's assertion. He said US and British aircraft were now pre-empting threats to allied ground forces massing in Kuwait to invade Iraq.

"While we still hope diplomacy will avoid the need for the last resort of war, we have already seen the opening shots of the second Gulf war," Mr Jenkin said.

He urged the Government to be more open and honest about what was really going on because "we are on the cusp of great events". Mr Hoon said the RAF was undertaking more frequent patrols with a broader range of aircraft.

The allied aircraft had always been entitled to deal with direct threats to themselves or to forces on the ground in places such as Kuwait. "They act entirely in self-defence and in accordance with international law," Mr Hoon said.

The Tory belief that an undeclared war was now under way was shared by Labour opponents of military action. Alice Mahon, Labour MP for Halifax, said: "Some of us think the war has already started."

Bob Marshall-Andrews, a leading anti-war Labour MP, said he feared "what we are seeing now is war by escalation rather than war by declaration".

Downing Street reacted sceptically to reports that Saddam Hussein was ready to make further concessions on disarmament, citing his history of "deception, cheating and lies".

Mr Blair's official spokesman said it was "important to remember some of the unanswered questions" about Iraq's stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

"In 15 weeks, the inspectors have not been able to close a single outstanding issue," he said.

Diplomatic efforts to secure a second United Nations resolution will be stepped up today when Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has talks in Downing Street with Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister.

Mr Blair will attend the meeting for 10-15 minutes.

Russia wields a Security Council veto and has so far been sceptical that the case for military action has been made.

Texan · 4 Mar 2003, 19:01

Oops. Posted the wrong article. Also, 4000 U.S. and British special forces troops are currently in Iraq.

4 Mar 2003, 22:58

me too

Aryn · 4 Mar 2003, 23:02

ASE!!

you are the ase from r6 right? :P

pablissimo · 4 Mar 2003, 23:22

Well, 50% of the current posts on this thread managed to stay on topic.

40% now like.

MrPeach · 5 Mar 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by pablissimo
Well, 50% of the current posts on this thread managed to stay on topic.

40% now like.

I want a sandwich.

Mirai · 5 Mar 2003, 02:17

4000? You're off by a couple digits.

acropolis · 5 Mar 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
4000? You're off by a couple digits.

'inside iraq'

i am of the impression that we have a few hundred thousand right on the border and that we just have a couple K special forces inside.

Ruler · 5 Mar 2003, 17:18

erm.. he was talking about special forces!

Cynical Oracle · 5 Mar 2003, 17:27

We only know the truth the media has given us. Stop discussing this like you know anything what so ever.

Marilyn Manson · 5 Mar 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
We only know the truth the media has given us. Stop discussing this like you know anything what so ever.

Only politically ignorant people say that as a way of assuring themselves they know what's going on as much as everyone else.

Cynical Oracle · 5 Mar 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Only politically ignorant people say that as a way of assuring themselves they know what's going on as much as everyone else.

I'm so sorry. I don't understand bull****.

Marilyn Manson · 5 Mar 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I'm so sorry. I don't understand bull****.

Okay. I'll phrase it in peonspeak.

You = silly twat.

Comprendé?

Judge · 5 Mar 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I'm so sorry. I don't understand bull****.

Doubtful, given that you are an expert

MrMilli · 5 Mar 2003, 21:41

iirc the SAS consists of four squadrons going to around 240 men, plus 21 and 23 weekend SAS.
the allegation is that two squadrons of 300 men are in Iraq.
Maths isn't my strong point, but I'm not too convinced

Texan · 5 Mar 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MrMilli
iirc the SAS consists of four squadrons going to around 240 men, plus 21 and 23 weekend SAS.
the allegation is that two squadrons of 300 men are in Iraq.
Maths isn't my strong point, but I'm not too convinced

What I read was 400 SAS. The rest were U.S. special forces. Math still does not work out, but information comes from the media, so what do you expect?

6 Mar 2003, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Only politically ignorant people say that as a way of assuring themselves they know what's going on as much as everyone else.

I've seldom seen a more ignorant post than this one. He's actually right. Media is the only view you got into issues at hand. For better or worse, he said something that is entirly true, while you post second hand information.

I could offcourse be wrong, and you are infact employed by the British government/Large Media Cooperation to review the current situation at hand.

6 Mar 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
Oops. Posted the wrong article. Also, 4000 U.S. and British special forces troops are currently in Iraq.

I see you cant wait for the bloodshed to begin.

Texan · 6 Mar 2003, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
I see you cant wait for the bloodshed to begin.

I can't wait for it to end, but I know that you don't recognize that the bloodshed has been ongoing since before you and I were born.

I already know that you think it is perfectly fine for an authoritarian military dictator to kill millions of Arab Muslims, but it is not fine for the United States to kill a few thousand Arab Muslims in order to stop the deaths of those millions.

You are allowed your opinion. I hope you will forgive me for not agreeing with you. I believe that I have the same right to an opinion as do you.

6 Mar 2003, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
.

I already know that you think it is perfectly fine for an authoritarian military dictator to kill millions of Arab Muslims

where and when did i ever say that?
you think i appose a war or slaughtering only when the US does it??
well i´v got news for you. I dont

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
. ,but it is not fine for the United States to kill a few thousand Arab Muslims in order to stop the deaths of those millions.

A country that allows its soldiers to write : "EAT THIS TOWELHEAD"
on the bombs they are dropping on cities is certainly not trying to stop the death of people. Its causing the death of people

Tactitus · 6 Mar 2003, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
A country that allows its soldiers to write : "EAT THIS TOWELHEAD"
on the bombs they are dropping on cities is certainly not trying to stop the death of people. Its causing the death of people

So if the bombs had "WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE" written on them you'd feel a lot better about them then?

Sandsnake · 6 Mar 2003, 04:55

and who said words weren't deadly?

Oh and we don't drop THOSE bombs on cities..the ones that get sent into cities are precision and someone would have a cow.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
A country that allows its soldiers to write : "EAT THIS TOWELHEAD"
on the bombs they are dropping on cities is certainly not trying to stop the death of people. Its causing the death of people

The soldiers are there to cause the deaths of people.

Contradiction I think not.

W · 6 Mar 2003, 05:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The soldiers are there to cause the deaths of people.

Contradiction I think not.

The context was the motivation behind causing those deaths. Whether it was truly to save other lives, or just some macho act.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 05:58

Quote:

Originally posted by W
The context was the motivation behind causing those deaths. Whether it was truly to save other lives, or just some macho act.

Why would they send soldiers to invade a country if not to kill people?

W · 6 Mar 2003, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why would they send soldiers to invade a country if not to kill people?

Well, several reasons, but that's off topic. They are sending those soldiers to kill people. M.ar.d questioned Texas' justification that those deaths would save other lives, by pointing out the mindset of the americans. Neither m.ar.d nor me said those soldiers would not be sendt to kill people.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 06:09

Quote:

Originally posted by W
Neither m.ar.d nor me said those soldiers would not be sendt to kill people.

And who's writing on the bombs?

W · 6 Mar 2003, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
And who's writing on the bombs?

I'm guessing the soldiers?

Am I close?

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by W
I'm guessing the soldiers?

Am I close?

And what are the soldiers going there to do, regardless of the motive of the government?

s|k · 6 Mar 2003, 07:40

Do they have cows in Iraq? Will they shoot them? :/

Teh poor cows, have they no mercy?

Cynical Oracle · 6 Mar 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
And what are the soldiers going there to do, regardless of the motive of the government?

Once again, a childish rethoric question.

And don't delete my posts just because they make you look silly.

Texan · 7 Mar 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
And what are the soldiers going there to do, regardless of the motive of the government?

The soldiers are going there to sit in tents while the world argues about whether Saddam Hussein should be allowed to piss on the United Nations.

7 Mar 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
The soldiers are going there to sit in tents while the world argues about whether Saddam Hussein should be allowed to piss on the United Nations.

The fun thing about this is that it is democracy on a large scale, the same concept the US of A thinks it has copyrighted now works against it.

Funny. If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh.

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why would they send soldiers to invade a country if not to kill people?

Okay, scenario. You see a man with a machine gun about to kill dozens of people. You grab a gun (who cares where you get it from) and kill the man before he can fire. Did you kill him because you wanted to kill somebody, or did you kill him to save lives?
Seems to be the same scenario as Iraq to me.

7 Mar 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
Okay, scenario. You see a man with a machine gun about to kill dozens of people. You grab a gun (who cares where you get it from) and kill the man before he can fire. Did you kill him because you wanted to kill somebody, or did you kill him to save lives?
Seems to be the same scenario as Iraq to me.

Apart from the fact that the man does not have a gun, or not proven, nor does he is pointing at a dozen of people with even a fist, while he does know that the whole world is watching him and that if he made one stupid move he would be a 'goner'.

Those few lines should make you think a lot, but don't worry, in a few years also you can call yourself 'a sentient being'.

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by ~ ~

Those few lines should make you think a lot, but don't worry, in a few years also you can call yourself 'a sentient being'.

Which is something you will never be able to call yourself.

I predict you will be banned by tomorrow.

7 Mar 2003, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
Which is something you will never be able to call yourself.

I predict you will be banned by tomorrow.

Wanna bet?

Judge · 7 Mar 2003, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by ~ ~
Apart from the fact that the man does not have a gun, or not proven, nor does he is pointing at a dozen of people with even a fist, while he does know that the whole world is watching him and that if he made one stupid move he would be a 'goner'.

Those few lines should make you think a lot, but don't worry, in a few years also you can call yourself 'a sentient being'.

Dyslexic?

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by ~ ~
Wanna bet?

That you will never be able to call yourself a sentient being? Of course, I can't lose.

That you will be banned tomorrow is only a prediction, you can stretch your stay out a bit longer by behaving yourself, but you won't last long the way you are going.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Mar 2003, 05:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
Okay, scenario. You see a man with a machine gun about to kill dozens of people. You grab a gun (who cares where you get it from) and kill the man before he can fire. Did you kill him because you wanted to kill somebody, or did you kill him to save lives?
Seems to be the same scenario as Iraq to me.

The soldiers are the gun in that example. What's the gun for? Killing.

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The soldiers are the gun in that example. What's the gun for? Killing.

No, that is a common falacy. Guns are not made to kill, guns are made to keep their owners alive. Big distinction there. A gun can preserve your life without firing a shot if it's presence alone deters trouble. Guns are not, and never have been, for killing.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Mar 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
Guns are not, and never have been, for killing.

You appear to be confused.

The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Any other effect is derived from that.

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You appear to be confused.

The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Any other effect is derived from that.

No no, the confusion is yours. The purpose of a gun is to protect and preserve it's owners life. That this involves killing on occasion is true, but it is not true in every instance. Many lives have been saved by the simple showing of a gun, many lives have been saved by simply wounding an agressor instead of killing them.
You are confusing a possible result of protection with a main purpose.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Mar 2003, 05:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim

Please stop being stupid.

The purpose of rapidly expelling a metal shard is to wound or kill.

That is what a gun DOES

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Please stop being stupid.

The purpose of rapidly expelling a metal shard is to wound or kill.

That is what a gun DOES

God you are ignorant.
Is it intentional or are you just extremly bored and I'm the only one on right now.
I would explain it to you again but you lack the mental maturity to comprehend anything more complex than "See Spot Run", so I leave you with your delusions. I shall say a prayer tonight that the light of reason touches you, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Mar 2003, 05:43

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

THE PURPOSE OF A GUN

IS TO WOUND OR KILL

THE PURPOSE OF THE USE OF A GUN

MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IS DERIVED FROM THE ABOVE.

STOP

IGNORING

FACT

Scoot951 · 7 Mar 2003, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
No no, the confusion is yours. The purpose of a gun is to protect and preserve it's owners life. That this involves killing on occasion is true, but it is not true in every instance. Many lives have been saved by the simple showing of a gun, many lives have been saved by simply wounding an agressor instead of killing them.
You are confusing a possible result of protection with a main purpose.

I gotta agree with the dog guy. You're just a tad off here. According to your logic most guns would not even need to be loaded, even in the middle of a war.

The times a gun has been used to just frighten is not nearly as much as a gun as been used to kill & maim.

Judge · 7 Mar 2003, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
No, that is a common falacy. Guns are not made to kill, guns are made to keep their owners alive. Big distinction there. A gun can preserve your life without firing a shot if it's presence alone deters trouble. Guns are not, and never have been, for killing.

Absolute rubbish.

GUNS are made for killing, otherwise they are pretty useless as guns.

Nixjim · 7 Mar 2003, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
Absolute rubbish.

GUNS are made for killing, otherwise they are pretty useless as guns.

If that were true then every gun owner would be a killer, and that is absurd. Their purpose is to protect the user, but I'm done arguing. The level of ignorance on this Forum is really starting to overwhelm me. I've asked JammyJim to remove my account, you all can continue talking circles until you get dizzy and collapse.
I'm through arguing with brick walls.

wu_trax · 7 Mar 2003, 09:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Nixjim
If that were true then every gun owner would be a killer, and that is absurd. Their purpose is to protect the user, but I'm done arguing. The level of ignorance on this Forum is really starting to overwhelm me. I've asked JammyJim to remove my account, you all can continue talking circles until you get dizzy and collapse.
I'm through arguing with brick walls.

yes, its right, people kill people, but people use guns to do so. remove the guns and less people will get killed.
(i hope this turned into a discussion about gun-alws yet, i didnt read it all )