Archive for Galactic Chronicles Putting the RP back into MMORPG
 


       Galactic Chronicles Forum Index -> GC General
gishlee

saddams death...

I know it's political, but its major news.
KeaheTriste

It's very political considering the situation of his capture which came from the invasion of Iraq (not trying to get a debate on that started).

I think despite the politics around his capture that it's about time he was brought to justice for some of the things he did against his own people. Funny though, because many would argue our own president is responsible for sending citizens to their death without proper reason... but then so would any other president who sent their citizens to war for controversial reasons.
xyryn

Every war is controversial. Both World Wars were controversial. The Revolutionary War was controversial.

Even the Crusades were controversial.
Jaminos

The war for Tickle me Elmo was very controversial.
The war for PS3 well...many people were slew by my hand but I have it now...

I know, I know totaly off topic Rinna somewhere is getting a blunt object ready to hit me with...
Malis

Saddam was no saint, that's for sure. However, this execution is merely a media spectacle to satisfy bloodlust. Saddam has always been a tool of distraction for this administration, the bigger problems are still out there (*cough* Bin Laden)...hopefully most people haven't been tricked into forgetting about them. Iran, Iraq, terrorism, MTV...it's all still there. I think another 9/11 is coming, or at least some nasty reprisals from Saddam loyalists.

Hey, I sound pretty good for someone who hates politics, neh?
Dew

xyryn wrote:
Every war is controversial. Both World Wars were controversial. The Revolutionary War was controversial.

Even the Crusades were controversial.


Even the Replicant Wars
Degwin

Malis wrote:
Saddam was no saint, that's for sure. However, this execution is merely a media spectacle to satisfy bloodlust. Saddam has always been a tool of distraction for this administration, the bigger problems are still out there (*cough* Bin Laden)...hopefully most people haven't been tricked into forgetting about them. Iran, Iraq, terrorism, MTV...it's all still there. I think another 9/11 is coming, or at least some nasty reprisals from Saddam loyalists.

Hey, I sound pretty good for someone who hates politics, neh?
Last I heard Bin Laden's not in that great of health, so I doubt he'll be around much longer anyway.
Dew

Bah, some other ass will be there to replace em, kinda like politicians always another dumb ass ready to take office wink
Cryil

Degwin wrote:
Malis wrote:
Saddam was no saint, that's for sure. However, this execution is merely a media spectacle to satisfy bloodlust. Saddam has always been a tool of distraction for this administration, the bigger problems are still out there (*cough* Bin Laden)...hopefully most people haven't been tricked into forgetting about them. Iran, Iraq, terrorism, MTV...it's all still there. I think another 9/11 is coming, or at least some nasty reprisals from Saddam loyalists.

Hey, I sound pretty good for someone who hates politics, neh?
Last I heard Bin Laden's not in that great of health, so I doubt he'll be around much longer anyway.



From what ive heard, even if we killed Bin laden, his organization will continue to go on
Griven

Cryil's quite correct. Osama Bin Laden, however evil western civilization may consider him to be, is far from being an idiot. I doubt he micromanages every aspect of the Taliban regime--in fact, I'm sure that most of it operates with relative autonomy.

If you cut off the head of an organization and the body falls, then obviously you didn't have enough heads.
Dew

Ya people....watch the History channel and you would know this smile

Bin Laden's death would do more to help than hinder any terrorist groups, he would be a martyr
xyryn

/agree Dew.
Jaminos

There is a simple rule for dictators. For every one that dies two new ones pop up. Today is Saddam tomarrow is someone ells. It will happen till the end of the world happens.
Fedaykin

xyryn wrote:
Every war is controversial. Both World Wars were controversial. The Revolutionary War was controversial.

Even the Crusades were controversial.


You know KS, i love how true that is. I mean, its kinda rediculous...People were saying we (the US) should NEVER get into the European theater of WWII. Same reasons as well strangely....Its none of our business...And when I see no large difference between Hitler and Saddam, well, I just have to think..."oh well, its none of our business"

((for those of you that are glad we helped out our European Allies, but still believe we have no business in Iraq, just think about the realism...Saddam may have lacked the "killing 6 million Jews" part, but that just means he didnt get to it yet, you know he wanted to.))
Dew

Fedaykin wrote:
xyryn wrote:
Every war is controversial. Both World Wars were controversial. The Revolutionary War was controversial.

Even the Crusades were controversial.


You know KS, i love how true that is. I mean, its kinda rediculous...People were saying we (the US) should NEVER get into the European theater of WWII. Same reasons as well strangely....Its none of our business...And when I see no large difference between Hitler and Saddam, well, I just have to think..."oh well, its none of our business"

((for those of you that are glad we helped out our European Allies, but still believe we have no business in Iraq, just think about the realism...Saddam may have lacked the "killing 6 million Jews" part, but that just means he didnt get to it yet, you know he wanted to.))


The joy of preemptive strikes, it makes you look like the aggressor, even if you were trying to prevent a larger mess, that larger mess isn't there to justify your actions.

That said, it was a piss poor plan going in and continues to flounder and kill military and civilians alike, that idea was just, the execution (of that war not saddam) was poorly planned.
Iafeu

Dew wrote:
Fedaykin wrote:
xyryn wrote:
Every war is controversial. Both World Wars were controversial. The Revolutionary War was controversial.

Even the Crusades were controversial.


You know KS, i love how true that is. I mean, its kinda rediculous...People were saying we (the US) should NEVER get into the European theater of WWII. Same reasons as well strangely....Its none of our business...And when I see no large difference between Hitler and Saddam, well, I just have to think..."oh well, its none of our business"

((for those of you that are glad we helped out our European Allies, but still believe we have no business in Iraq, just think about the realism...Saddam may have lacked the "killing 6 million Jews" part, but that just means he didnt get to it yet, you know he wanted to.))


The joy of preemptive strikes, it makes you look like the aggressor, even if you were trying to prevent a larger mess, that larger mess isn't there to justify your actions.

That said, it was a piss poor plan going in and continues to flounder and kill military and civilians alike, that idea was just, the execution (of that war not saddam) was poorly planned.


You can thank rummy for that. He ignored the recommendations of his field commanders and generals in regards to force size and placement thus allowing the current insurgency to gain too many footholds.
Loztone

Untill warfare goes back to making the WHOLE country capitulate then wars that are surgical will fail. If you dont make the people of the country want to stop fighting (ie any of the major wars before the korean one) insurgency will always be there.

Cutting off killing the leader of a pack doesnt mean the rest of the pack cant hunt alone.

Killing the pack or making it not want to hunt anymore is what needs to happen.
oporim

Well, I'm European, I can't tell you what to do with your soldiers or foreign policy ... anyway I will say out loud what I think about it.

Saddam was a bitch, and a big one. He deserved what he got. Normally I would oppose to death penalty because a person can truly repent and there is allways a danger of juidicial errors, but in such flagrant cases like Saddam or Miloshevich, there is no such danger and not punishing such scumbags is just wrong.

A lot of people here in Europe say it is wrong US went into Iraq and even to clash with terrorists in other parts of the world. It is typicall leftist distortion, where they will point out how US first embraced Saddam in the early 80s and then they decide to throw him down. They will distort it to a degree to say US installed Saddam and bin Laden, which are outright lies. Of course, as I see in longer term, this has an effect to Americans also, and they are starting to adopt such views, because of the guilt over the death and destruction for example in Iraq, which you ARE NOT causing.

When you start to ponder about wether to go to Iraq or not, wether to go to Afghanistan or not, wether to help Europe in WWII or not, wether to help Korea in the 50s, ... there are only two choices to be made. Embrace isolationism, or get involved. There is no middle way. Well, arguably middle way is what the UN does - debate things for a few years while 10,000s get slaughtered.

Looking back it is easy to say, well the planning was bad and we could do it otherwise. The planning could be better but most probably there would hardly be a difference with more soldiers over in Iraq. Remember, you can only choose to:
- allow it to happen (allow a dictatorhip to exist)
- fight it
- go to a shopping mall and buy stuff until you pass out, forgetting what's going on around the world

When US invaded Iraq for the second time and your troops advanced 100 miles inlands, I was asking myself 'omg, Iraqis have slipped into civilian clothes and are letting US frontline pass by, later when the supply line gets stretched they will just start attacking voulnerable points'.
US did ok from the perspective of a large war machine, and Iraqis did just about the only thing they could with their forces - evade open fighting and let it slip by. US forces are best in open warfare, while they normally suck (like any other force) when they start the garrisoning role. And that is what Iraqis have been waiting for - for US troops to take on daily routine, when they are dispersed on patrols, when they can be struck in an isolated manner.

And you can't prevent that from happening. No matter if US sent over 10 or 20 or 30 divisions, the result is the same. It is a war of attrition. You cant send a large force in and expect to end it in a month or half a year. You need to stick by it and hold on longer than your enemy can. You can't hunt down your enemy, you can turn the local population against it on longer term.

All intended (or very large part of it) casualties in Iraq are caused by Iraqis. It is not US's fault for it to be happening, even though US did enable it by overthrowing previous regime (as you could say, it is French or US fault for WWII because they destroyed the old Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI).
Iraqis are fighting themselves on ethnic basis. It is what G.B. senior was affraid of in 1991 and because of it he did not overthrow Saddam at that stage (also remember that Soviet Union was in a process of a breakdown then, with all their nuclear weapons, crazy generals and overthrowing Saddam might just look like taking over the control of the Gulf, sparking a reaction from USSR).

Was not overthrowing Saddam in 1991 a good decision? Yes and no. Was overthrowing Saddam in 2003 a good decision. Yes and no. Depending what you care for. If you care for people he opressed, then yes. If you care for world stability then no. In both cases there is a greater eemy behind that threatens to destabilize a large portition of the World exploting the consequences of US overthrowing actions. in 1991 USSR, in 2003 radical islamism.
In both cases Iraq must remain united. Allowing Kurds to break off would encourage Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Armenia and other neighboring countries to try to break off too and rejoin the Iraqi Kurds - thus triggering a regional conflict. Allowing the Shii to decide for themselves could bring them to try join the Iran, Iraq breakes apart - same result.

And destabilisation of Iraq is precisely what the terrorist groups there want right now. US troops are blocking their way, but the target is destabilisation. Be it because of ethnic hatred or radicalism. And people with clouded vision over here, who don't discriminate between intended target and unintended victim, and who would rather see the tirant to keep control and stability through oppression and mass executions rather than trying to give another possibility to that part of the world, don't really help anyone with their self-accusatory ways.

I really don't care if the prime motivation for Iraqi war was to cut off the Chinese from oil supplies and hinder their progress to be a world power -Chinese allready have Iran-, or to secure Iraq in order to have free hands later to try to bring Saudis to their sences -Saudis who are a much bigger long term threat in regard to their vahabism-, or just to try to bring Democracy to the middle east as an example for other countries there - I still see more positives in US actions than I see if they (you) would choose a path of inaction, if there is a possibility of a better life for those people there on a longer term.

Here is a video that was played on one of our commercioal TV stations, regarding our countryman who was a construction worker on bunkers in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. He was accused of being a spy, apprehended and imprisoned for 6 months. They were beaten on reagular basis, left in the sun until uncionsciousness, cigarettes were put out on their testicles, they were electroshocking them on their genitals, cutting off bodyparts, beating, killing, women with infants were imprisoned ... look at the the link, I'm sure there should be lots of such movies on the web.

http://24ur.com/bin/video_show.ph...167649200&show_media=16157362 - (Turn over to 23:00)

And people still say it is wrong to kill the bastard. I really wonder why.
Jmac

Dew wrote:
Ya people....watch the History channel and you would know this smile

Bin Laden's death would do more to help than hinder any terrorist groups, he would be a martyr


He'd only be a Martyr if he was killed. If he dies of illness it would actually be better for the West.
Dew

Jmac wrote:
Dew wrote:
Ya people....watch the History channel and you would know this smile

Bin Laden's death would do more to help than hinder any terrorist groups, he would be a martyr


He'd only be a Martyr if he was killed. If he dies of illness it would actually be better for the West.


Sure him gone will be better for the world, but it wont end with him either, he is more of a poster boy for them anymore....
Fedaykin

oporim wrote:
Well, I'm European, I can't tell you what to do with your soldiers or foreign policy ... anyway I will say out loud what I think about it.

Saddam was a bitch, and a big one. He deserved what he got. Normally I would oppose to death penalty because a person can truly repent and there is allways a danger of juidicial errors, but in such flagrant cases like Saddam or Miloshevich, there is no such danger and not punishing such scumbags is just wrong.

A lot of people here in Europe say it is wrong US went into Iraq and even to clash with terrorists in other parts of the world. It is typicall leftist distortion, where they will point out how US first embraced Saddam in the early 80s and then they decide to throw him down. They will distort it to a degree to say US installed Saddam and bin Laden, which are outright lies. Of course, as I see in longer term, this has an effect to Americans also, and they are starting to adopt such views, because of the guilt over the death and destruction for example in Iraq, which you ARE NOT causing.

When you start to ponder about wether to go to Iraq or not, wether to go to Afghanistan or not, wether to help Europe in WWII or not, wether to help Korea in the 50s, ... there are only two choices to be made. Embrace isolationism, or get involved. There is no middle way. Well, arguably middle way is what the UN does - debate things for a few years while 10,000s get slaughtered.

Looking back it is easy to say, well the planning was bad and we could do it otherwise. The planning could be better but most probably there would hardly be a difference with more soldiers over in Iraq. Remember, you can only choose to:
- allow it to happen (allow a dictatorhip to exist)
- fight it
- go to a shopping mall and buy stuff until you pass out, forgetting what's going on around the world

When US invaded Iraq for the second time and your troops advanced 100 miles inlands, I was asking myself 'omg, Iraqis have slipped into civilian clothes and are letting US frontline pass by, later when the supply line gets stretched they will just start attacking voulnerable points'.
US did ok from the perspective of a large war machine, and Iraqis did just about the only thing they could with their forces - evade open fighting and let it slip by. US forces are best in open warfare, while they normally suck (like any other force) when they start the garrisoning role. And that is what Iraqis have been waiting for - for US troops to take on daily routine, when they are dispersed on patrols, when they can be struck in an isolated manner.

And you can't prevent that from happening. No matter if US sent over 10 or 20 or 30 divisions, the result is the same. It is a war of attrition. You cant send a large force in and expect to end it in a month or half a year. You need to stick by it and hold on longer than your enemy can. You can't hunt down your enemy, you can turn the local population against it on longer term.

All intended (or very large part of it) casualties in Iraq are caused by Iraqis. It is not US's fault for it to be happening, even though US did enable it by overthrowing previous regime (as you could say, it is French or US fault for WWII because they destroyed the old Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI).
Iraqis are fighting themselves on ethnic basis. It is what G.B. senior was affraid of in 1991 and because of it he did not overthrow Saddam at that stage (also remember that Soviet Union was in a process of a breakdown then, with all their nuclear weapons, crazy generals and overthrowing Saddam might just look like taking over the control of the Gulf, sparking a reaction from USSR).

Was not overthrowing Saddam in 1991 a good decision? Yes and no. Was overthrowing Saddam in 2003 a good decision. Yes and no. Depending what you care for. If you care for people he opressed, then yes. If you care for world stability then no. In both cases there is a greater eemy behind that threatens to destabilize a large portition of the World exploting the consequences of US overthrowing actions. in 1991 USSR, in 2003 radical islamism.
In both cases Iraq must remain united. Allowing Kurds to break off would encourage Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Armenia and other neighboring countries to try to break off too and rejoin the Iraqi Kurds - thus triggering a regional conflict. Allowing the Shii to decide for themselves could bring them to try join the Iran, Iraq breakes apart - same result.

And destabilisation of Iraq is precisely what the terrorist groups there want right now. US troops are blocking their way, but the target is destabilisation. Be it because of ethnic hatred or radicalism. And people with clouded vision over here, who don't discriminate between intended target and unintended victim, and who would rather see the tirant to keep control and stability through oppression and mass executions rather than trying to give another possibility to that part of the world, don't really help anyone with their self-accusatory ways.

I really don't care if the prime motivation for Iraqi war was to cut off the Chinese from oil supplies and hinder their progress to be a world power -Chinese allready have Iran-, or to secure Iraq in order to have free hands later to try to bring Saudis to their sences -Saudis who are a much bigger long term threat in regard to their vahabism-, or just to try to bring Democracy to the middle east as an example for other countries there - I still see more positives in US actions than I see if they (you) would choose a path of inaction, if there is a possibility of a better life for those people there on a longer term.

Here is a video that was played on one of our commercioal TV stations, regarding our countryman who was a construction worker on bunkers in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. He was accused of being a spy, apprehended and imprisoned for 6 months. They were beaten on reagular basis, left in the sun until uncionsciousness, cigarettes were put out on their testicles, they were electroshocking them on their genitals, cutting off bodyparts, beating, killing, women with infants were imprisoned ... look at the the link, I'm sure there should be lots of such movies on the web.

http://24ur.com/bin/video_show.ph...167649200&show_media=16157362 - (Turn over to 23:00)

And people still say it is wrong to kill the bastard. I really wonder why.


Someone did their homework! lol. Oporim, I dont really know you, but, you're awsome and I agree with you. Just another thing that I have thought about in regards to what you said.

If the war really was for Oil....what is wrong with ths?

Oil is THE most powerful thing on this planet right now. If all the oil suddenly stopped flowing...The would would fall into...well...Anarchy. Oil controls almost everything we drive. Almost everything we opperate. Ships, cars, airplanes. The oil industry employs millions of jobs around the world. trillions of dollars every year depend on it.

If there is one thing left to fight for on this planet, oil is probably it.

Was this war for oil? maybe.

Is a war to control the most powerful and influental driving force on the planet completely absurd? In my opinion, No.

Did Sadam's body count get up to 5 million yet? Not quite that close...Should we maybe have waited till then to take action when organizations like the UN occupy themselves by writing nasty letters?

Add the political forum Shen! salut
oporim

Fedaykin wrote:
If the war really was for Oil....what is wrong with ths?

Oil is THE most powerful thing on this planet right now. If all the oil suddenly stopped flowing...The would would fall into...well...Anarchy. Oil controls almost everything we drive. Almost everything we opperate. Ships, cars, airplanes. The oil industry employs millions of jobs around the world. trillions of dollars every year depend on it.

If there is one thing left to fight for on this planet, oil is probably it.

Was this war for oil? maybe.

Is a war to control the most powerful and influental driving force on the planet completely absurd? In my opinion, No.

Did Sadam's body count get up to 5 million yet? Not quite that close...Should we maybe have waited till then to take action when organizations like the UN occupy themselves by writing nasty letters?

Add the political forum Shen! salut


War was most probably because of numerous reasons.

People forget oil drives our lives. Not just cars, but lives literally. Beside all the plastics and other chemical products, all the health care in Europe is funded out of oil tax. At one time I was checking how much added price gasoline has; it is like +50% tax for US but as much as +220% (or was it perhaps +120%, dont remember really, but I lean more to the +220% if my memory is not failing me) for Great Britain (and a bit less for other European countries). In the 90s a barrel of oil was something like 15 USD, then the price jumped to 32 USD at the end of Clinton administration. At that time I was reading a review which was basically saying that in world economics, every time oil price jumps over something like 25 USD/barrel industrial recession starts 1 1/2 years after. When Bush was elected they blamed him for throwing US industry into recession, but based on that article it was the OPEC oil price that was responsible for it.
Increased oil price in Europe also means that if the state does not want the market price to jump too drastically, they need to lessen the taxes a bit, thus less social care or they need to fund it from other taxes.

Next thing to know is, that in the Gulf, expenses of the oil company to pump out a barrel of oil are 2-4 USD/barrel (and I think minimum some 25/barrel for oil in Canada/Russia). The rest takes the OPEC with their price engineering. OPEC becomes greedy, prices go high and US and Europe drop into recession.

Currently I work in mechanical engineering business and for the last years I can say material prices skyrocketed too (+100% and more) for stainless steel, Titanium etc. Why? Manly because of China needing a lot of it (and some other mishaps). Same as with material is happening with oil. If there is more demand, OPEC will get greedy and today we have 60-70 USD/barrel prices against 12-15 a decade ago.

Having more and more people in Asia turning radical (Hugo Chavez may just be seeing an opportunity to bandwagon with the oil producing countries, helping to cause tention to keep oil prices beneficial to them) and seeing China become an industrial superpower and military regional power taking interest in the Gulf by investing into Iranian oil fields, one has to start thinking for the future. US, having their own oil, is in a much better situation here as Europe is.
Look at the Middle east from year 2001 perspective.
1) Israeli-Palestinian conflict still unresolved (actually it started boiling over with the Intifada again) and taken advantage of as an excuse for US hatred by growing number of islamic militant groups
2) having an entire country turned radical (Afghanistan) with the help of Pakistani secret service ISI (Pakistan really cannot be counted as a US ally, even though Musharaf says so, a large part of his intelligence service are radicals striving for a pupet radical regime over the border) ... and having nuclear weapons
3) Iran ... bandwaggoning with China, N.Korea, Pakistan for long range missile developement, having the ability to close off the Gulf
4) Saudi Arabia ... on a brink of a revolution, poor population very unsatisfied with their (the only existing) despotic king, is a breeding place for radicals, prooves to be highly unreliable oil supplier for the west if something goes wrong
5) Iraq ... with Saddam still in power after 10 years of sanctions and military actions, Iraq started to not-complying with UN resolutions on weapon inspections (I think that started in 1998) ... US and other intelligence services have no control over what is happening there for the last few years (can be nothing, can be something)

According to CIA factbook, the GDP percentage of Iraq Iran and Saudi Arabia coming from oil sales is something like 95% 95% and 98% (I remember these numbers from a few years back, but generally they are over 90%and just below 100% for Saudis), indicating that the poorest county of these three is living off of selling resources which are running, spending money on everything else but securing an alternative source of income, has a growing young population with no perspective and as such is very prone to be very unstabile if oil runs out or oil demand diminishes. Iran was the best looking of all these 3 countries.

With everything in view, in case someone does start extorting the west with oil prices and oil supply, US has its own reserves, Europe doesn't. Europe is trying to secure energy supply from Russia now, but it seems a growing number of countries there want to screw us. US is looking forward to secure the future to stay on top and not be overrun, Europe is doing nothing. US is stripping its fighter jets and other military hardware of sensitive high tech components before they are sold to 3rd world countries (although even US is not being cautious enough with Saudis and Pakistan), Europe is selling its best military hardware directly to China. US is bandwagoning with India and their nuclear program to balance things in the region.
Europe has a problem, a problem with our past, feeling guilty about it (rightfully) but overy guilty so it started to cloud our vision and many nowadays are affraid to say it is a turd when they see a turd.

So, war in the gulf 2003. A rumor was Bush planned to bring down Saddam before the 9/11 attacks, and that Afghanistan intervention stalled the plans for Iraq. I could belive it to be true in the light of trying to secure Iraq as a stabile oil supplier before the grave matters with Saudi Arabia are being taken care of. I also remember some reportes stated (when Bush was elected) that we may see a turn in US foreign policy, away from interventionist ways of Bill Clinton to a more isolationist ways of pre WWII presidents, which would contadict claims of some that Bush had plans for war all along. I really cant decide which is true here.

Why all this dribble? It is only indirectly tied to Saddam.
If I return to the first sentence I made: this war could be waged for many purposes. I think Bush administration saw an opportunity to kill many flies with one stroke. Secure the US future regarding energy, try to take care of things in the gulf with population rebelling against their governments and US, bringing democracy as an alternative to what they now have and as an example for other unsatisfied people. All this can fit together. But the anti-US (and anti west) hatred was (and is) indeed stronger than US anticipated and that is not something you can predict.

Having Saddam killed or not? He deserved it, that's one thing. As does bin Laden and Zawahiri etc. Is it good to kill him? Probably. Depending how much people who are prone to be recruited into terorist organisations know their subordinates. If you kill all the most known figures of one organisation, it may loose its reputation and appeal if there are no known field operatives who could serve as a row model for the mob. If bin Laden survives and before his death sends out a tape: "Im dying of old age, USA could not kill me, they are a bunch of incompetents, Allahu Ekhber ..." that would be a hard blow to US propaganda and a boost to what radiacals are saying.
xyryn

Well put, Oporim. You make good points and what you said requires some thinking to integrate it into what I know...much of which already supports your statements.

One lesson learned from the first Bush president is that whatever a man's intentions may be before he takes office, the information he learns after he takes office can force a change in his thinking. So, speculation as to what any person about to become president/prime minister/tyrant/king, of any country, intended is fruitless. Only actions count. Not even intensely meant words, if they lead to no action, count.
       Galactic Chronicles Forum Index -> GC General
Page 1 of 1