Operation Desert Storm Conflict

[*DAMN Hazard]

Alright so im sitting watching Dogma enjoying the antics of Jay and Silent Bob when I see a commercial for this game where they have you taking down Saddam's forces and even assasinating him and something about people being patriotic or something. Is it just me or does this sound and look like some weak propaganda?

[Jeb]

I doubt the video game will persuade people to join the army and ralley for war.
More often actions, like pearl harbor or 9/11 give better reasons to go to war. If you look at the situation in iraq, its just the threat that he might leak nukes to terrorists.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the north korea situation. They agreed to stop nuclear weapons research in exchange for aid from the united states, but now they revealed that they didn't stop their nuclear weapons program.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It seems that the video games that revolve around war always center around the current conflict.  The USSR was a big target for games (like the old Hunt for Red October or Red Storm Rising games that I used to have) North Korea comes and goes out of vogue.  The middle east as well.

It sells games.  That's really the bottom line, isn't it?

[Bondo]

I'd like to point out that the game sucks ass apparently.  The America's Army game is supposed to be good though (fucking Army and it not porting to Mac).  AA is "propoganda" to join the Army, they admit it freely only they don't use propoganda as it has negative connotations.

[WeaSelFlinK]

I've heard of this game (of which I don't remember the name, unfortunately) where you play as Mohammed, and fight the Holy War (Jihad) in Isra?l, and the West Bank.  I've seen screens from this game on CNN, and basically, what it's about, is an ex Army military that fights for his life, killing whatever opposes him.  In this case, Israeli military forces.  What do you guys think about this?

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I dont really care what the game is but war with Iraq Is pointless. Whatever happend to the thing that kept us out of fighting badly in the Cold War, Like collateral or something, we both had nukes and both knew we could kill each other thus, we didnt. Why is saddam any different, he may be a bad bad man but you guys havent even heard about things like the highway of death in which we bombed both sides of a packed high way then strafed for 20 times over. If we go in, US lives will be lost and so will inocennt Civilians. 300,000 Iraqi kids killed, stop genocide, stop sanctions.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Zaitsev, I really have to ask this.  How old are you?

Stop sanctions?  Why in the fucking world should we stop sacntions?  I've heard of many many deaths of innocents.  Some caused by UN troops, some by US troops, and more by Iraq troops.  

I can understand a pacifict not wanting war.  But why should sanctions be halted?

First of all, what kept us from nuking each other in the cold war was assured mutual destruction.  Neither side could win, and both knew it.  If one side attacked, that would just end the world, because the other sides nukes would be on the way before the first sides hit.  This was one of the arguments against Star Wars at the time.  If we had the ability to stop them, it shifted the balance of peace, and scared the Soviet Union shitless.  And you don't want someone scared shitless when they have their finger on the button.  

But the cold war is over.  I'm not sure if Russia has enough working nukes left (many platforms were ruined through neglect over the years) to scare the US anymore.  And even if they did, they aren't really pointed our way anymore.  That's one reason that Star Wars is being talked about again (that with the fact that some much smaller countries are developing nukes, and while not being able to destroy our country or world, we don't want them killing milliions either).  

Sanctions are being imposed, and rightfully so, on Iraq.  The country has comitted crimes against other nations, and is now being punished.  War isn't punishment.  War is the cops beating down the door and shooting the bad guys with guns (and, now and then, an innocent bystander.  Sad, but true).  Sanctions are punishment.  If the people of Iraq don't like that they can't sell their oil, or that we wont sell them food, guess they shouldn't back a government that a) backs terrorists and b) invades countries that have treaties with the US.  

The gulf war was a long time ago now.  And while I don't see any true need to go kick Iraq's butt yet again, I also don't see any reason to lift sanctions.  

Take a history lession from WW2.  Germany was punished, and punished hard for WW1.  Punished too hard in many ways.  But, then everyone stopped watching (partly the US's fault for not signing the treaty in the fist place).  Nobody was paying attention until they started invading.  Even then, too many people turned a blind eye to it.  

And before anyone says it, I'm not saying he's another Hitler.  I'm saying that we all have to learn from our mistakes.  

[Cossack]

Sanctions are a mixed thing. They keep Sadaam from getting money, but they make the people hate the west. Any how I saw the game and it sucks ass. Also the storyline isnt that original. Its very jingoistic. When something is so overly patriotic it seems so corny and unreal. Not entertaining in the least.

[WeaSelFlinK]

Bucc's got a point.  I say continue sanctions.  It is up to the people of Iraq to rid themselves of the most evil dictator in recent times and then get back into the twenty-first century.  Period.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cossack has a good point too.  I let Zaitsev drag me  .  Best to let it drop.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

I dont really care what the game is but war with Iraq Is pointless.

Why is war pointless he could be selling nukes to tangos as we speak.....

If we go in, US lives will be lost and so will inocennt Civilians. 300,000 Iraqi kids killed, stop genocide, stop sanctions.

???how would this be genocide. Genocide would be for example hitler whiping out the jews, not us going into a country and killing there army because they are doing something wrong.

and 2nt 300,000 kids killed.....i dont think were going to nuke there country or just shoot every kid we see zait

Me and zait are both 14(im older) but my views on the world are more.....mature?

-SK owning zaits post =)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That question wasn't so much about his view on war, as it was to his knowledge of history.  

Zaitsev, where do you get your information that you form these opinions upon?

[(SiX)Ben]

LOL... SK says his points are more mature! LOL!

Ben

[KoS Ultimo]

I found his post to be more mature... why is that funny ?

[EUR_Zaitsev]

IN answer to your question I am 14 yet I have one thing you clearly dont have that works to my advantage in debates. I have empathy

For those on the lesser knowledge side ?(mp-th)
n. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

Thus you look at the Bush Administration outlook which is 100% based on getting re-elected. Any thing you every put down including myself will be circumstantial to ones beliefs thus where are you getting your information? A statiastic taken by a man who was completly Partial? THATS what I thought.

You say the enemy? Whos is Iraq's enemy? I mean hell at least thier leader won by the popular vote. Thats another story though, I see you point in that Saddam is a horrible man But where in the Constitution does "All men created eqaul" mean we discriminate against other countries, especially other religons. When I first heard of the sniper I prayed 1. that it wasnt an arab and 2. It wasnt a black. Both which are now proved true (well I suppose not, innocent until proven guilty) and I did this because you KNOW its gonna feul bush to speaches and ignorent Conservatives will put 2 and 2 together and conclude it is 5, attack Iraq. To Iraqis America is the enemy, they have good reason to hate us besides destroying thier country. Well we have bombed and killed in thier country what have they done to us? absolutely nothing? So Iraq wants nukes, WAKE UP CALL: ***EVERYONE DOES*** We watched the Pakistanis get them and didnt bomb them did we? Did we fly F-16's over civilian terroritories in Korea? NO we didnt. This is clearly a re-election campaign to finish daddies dirty work and I pray bush is commiting political suicide. (Which if he did commit suicide politcally id be With guns meaning check our old Maryland Sniper post youll learn all about guns)

The fact remains we have killed and attacked them but they have done nothing to us. Many countries infringe on thier peoples "unalienable rights" which is against our constitution however we cant apply the constituttion when we want, IF we apply unalianable rights we have to apply "All men are created equal" and this is certainly not true of the arab man in US foriegn affairs and not even the Black man in America. So what are we defending now? We are fighting un equal rights while accepting unequal rights at home and in allied countries abroad or those that supply natural resources to the US. Attacking Iraq would A- finish daddies work B-perhaps win him re-election and C- get us cheaper oil prices which Bush would most likely use as a campaign slogan.

They dont have troops stationed in D.C. with Machine guns and guards and radar and all other offensive equipment do they? well why do we have the right to? are we policing the world? No because we turn our back to violence, rape,murder, and drug dealing unless it benefits us.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

SORRY FOR DOUBLE POST

Sincerley,
               Zaitsev

P.S. directed to Buckeye dont even get me started on equality of the black man in america

[Deadeye]

ok, i'll field this one.

IN answer to your question I am 14 yet I have one thing you clearly dont have that works to my advantage in debates. I have empathy

a couple interesting conclusions there.  both wrong.  but interesting.

buccaneer has plenty of empathy.  he isn't in favor of killing anyone, and he always sees the other side.  also, the abillity to see the other side is important in a debate, that's not the same as empathy.  i haven't seen you get an advantage in a debate yet.

For those on the lesser knowledge side  (mp-th)
n. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

who said that zaitsev wasn't insulting?  who said that?

Thus you look at the Bush Administration outlook which is 100% based on getting re-elected. Any thing you every put down including myself will be circumstantial to ones beliefs thus where are you getting your information? A statiastic taken by a man who was completly Partial? THATS what I thought.

does that make any sense to anybody?  back off on using the big words that you obviously don't know how to use correctly zaitsev.  it would help your argument if a) you didn't make yourself look so stupid with them and b) people could actually understand your point.

i'm guessing that you are saying that we get our information from bush, the bush administration, or the government in general.  and that you are tyring to mock it.  this is only a guess, because it is very hard to read that.  

if that's what you are saying, you are wrong.  but you never answered bucc's question on where you get your information from.

When I first heard of the sniper I prayed 1. that it wasnt an arab and 2. It wasnt a black. Both which are now proved true (well I suppose not, innocent until proven guilty)

well, a nut is a nut, no matter what his race or religeon.  one not here.  the suspects are american, not arab's.  if you are talking about the fact that he's of the islamic faith, that doesn't make him an arab.  he is an american, was an american soldier, not an arab.  oh, and he's a follower of not real islam, but of a nutty splinter group of the nation of islam, a wholy american institution.  the nation of islam is a church founded in detroit, michigan, usa.

To Iraqis America is the enemy, they have good reason to hate us besides destroying thier country. Well we have bombed and killed in thier country what have they done to us? absolutely nothing?

laughing my ass off at that one.  that was really pretty funny.  first, we didn't destroy their country.  it's still there.  we didn't come close to destroying it.  we destroyed thier ability to attack our allies, we destroyed their army, and airforce.

what did they do to us?  to start with why we went there in the first place, they were killing hundreds of thousands, and eventually attacked a country that we had a treaty with.  and threatened another that we had a treaty with.  do you understand what a treaty is?  do you understand the importance of honoring a treaty?  did you even know that we had them?  once they invaded kuwait, it was our duty to go in, that's our responsibility after signing a treaty.

oh, so besides "destroying their country" what are all these other reasons they have to hate us?

[Deadeye]

The fact remains we have killed and attacked them but they have done nothing to us.

still laughing.  that's not a fact.  also, you aren't mentioning that they have supported terrorists against the usa in the past, and are suspected to still be doing it.  it's that proof or not that people like me are waiting to judge.

They dont have troops stationed in D.C. with Machine guns and guards and radar and all other offensive equipment do they? well why do we have the right to? are we policing the world?

i'll skip all the anti bush crap.  i don't like him much either, and i didn't vote for him.  but you can't blame everything on him either.  the democrats did the same thing.  and while they are almost all blood sucking leeches, that's not the point.

why do we have the right?  we have the responsibliity!  if iraq is (big if yet) supplying terrorists, or supplying them with nukes, or even attempting any of these, it's our governments job to protect us from them.  period.  it all has to be proven, but if it is true, they have to be stoped before they have the chance to use them.  

zaitsev, if you really did look at both sides, you'd at least know some of this, and not just blame it on bush like he's a blood thirsty war monger.  you don't have to identify with them, but you should be able to see them coming.  this sounds to me like you are parroting conversations of your parents that you overhear at dinner.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

1But where in the Constitution does "All men created eqaul" mean we discriminate against other countries, especially other religons.

2When I first heard of the sniper I prayed 1. that it wasnt an arab and 2. It wasnt a black. Both which are now proved true (well I suppose not, innocent until proven guilty) and I did this because you KNOW its gonna feul bush to speaches and 3ignorent Conservatives will put 2 and 2 together and conclude it is 5, attack Iraq.

4To Iraqis America is the enemy, they have good reason to hate us besides destroying thier country. 5Well we have bombed and killed in thier country what have they done to us? absolutely nothing?

6So Iraq wants nukes, WAKE UP CALL: ***EVERYONE DOES*** We watched the Pakistanis get them and didnt bomb them did we? Did we fly F-16's over civilian terroritories in Korea? NO we didnt.

7This is clearly a re-election campaign to finish daddies dirty work and I pray bush is commiting political suicide. (Which if he did commit suicide politcally id be With guns meaning check our old Maryland Sniper post youll learn all about guns)

Where to start, where to start.

1) Our Constitution applies to the United States of America, not the rest of the fucking world. We do not have to extend the courtesies given to us by this document to the likes of other non-American Asians, Africans, Hispanics, Arabs, etc.

2) The sniper was a black man with a Muslim background, not a black Arab like you implied.

3) Liberals  are just as "ignorant" as Conservatives - sorry, your shit doesn't smell any sweeter than anyone elses. By thinking that only one side is ignorant, you are the most ignorant.

4) Exactly which Iraqi's are you talking about? Do you actually believe the Iraqi's you see on TV praising Saddam? They say wonderful stuff about him in front of the cameras when an officer has a gun pointed at them nearby, but off the cameras they despise him or have been brainwashed by his propaganda.

5) Look up pre-emptive and re-apply it to the situation. If he were to gain access to a nuclear weapon, odds are that it would have our names on it. Better to stop him now before he aquires one.

6) This is where I call you an ignoramus using flawed logic. Let's take a look...

Pakistan: We let them get Nuclear weapons (even though we weren't thrilled by it) because they had a friendly Government towards us and because it stabilized the region. If you look back, India had recently aquired Nuclear arms and controlled the region.

North Korea: We recently found out about this and flying F-16's over the 38th parallel (if you don't know what this is, pick up a history book) would have disrupted the peace process between the North and the South and angered China. If you take a look at what is happening now, we are working with China to disarm the Communist North.

7)Barring something major, Bush will be re-elected because the Dems can't put someone strong enough to take him down - at least for right now.

[OoA Rob]

hehe, i thought i should just say well handled you two.  does Zaitsev fully understand english, or know much about the U.S. constitution? seeing how he is in a eur clan...