Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

War on Iraq


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Should there be a war with Iraq? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Should there be a war with Iraq?

  1. Yes (20 votes [35.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.71%

  2. No (34 votes [60.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.71%

  3. Don't Know (2 votes [3.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.57%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 01:33 PM

Yes or No?
  • 0

#2 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 02:24 PM

Congratulations!!!:rolleyes:
  • 0

#3 CrazyIvan

CrazyIvan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:08 PM

I do not understand half of this forum...

..what is vB code? I voted no..and I do believe I broke a tie. I would only vote yes if Iraq had new russian technology like Smerch MLRS...

http://www.army.lv/V...erch/smerch.wmv

..and Su-30MK's or Ka-50 attack helicopters...

http://www.army.lv/V.../Ka-50/ka50.wmv
  • 0

#4 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:26 PM

Hello Ivan. Great video clips. :rolleyes:

vB code. I'm not sure what it is either. There is a 'description' there, but hat it actually means I'm not sure.

http://engforum.prav...=&action=bbcode
  • 0

#5 CrazyIvan

CrazyIvan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 05:35 PM

Or the T-80U....

http://www.army.lv/V.../T-80U/t80u.wmv
  • 0

#6 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 05:47 PM

Another cool pic of the T-80U.:eek:

http://bbs.newsfromr...g in midair.jpg
  • 0

#7 Scout

Scout

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 05:47 PM

Only if americans are on the menu.
  • 0

#8 Adrian

Adrian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1895 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 07:43 PM

No war in Iraq, at least for the moment.
  • 0

#9 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 08:58 PM

if the war in iraq happens it's because of a preordained act of this current adminstration and thats the problem. just think a bunch of bullys got away with stealing the higest office in the country and guess what it worked. so here we got a back table war in iraq because of soddam not producing any news worthy events since the gulf war. sure he demonstrated the ability to keep his country solventry but here goes the bully country of america again using it fabrcated current adminstration in pushing for more holistalties in an illegal act on another countries soil.
  • 0

#10 Scout

Scout

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 09:51 PM

"One of the reasons the US wants to control the oil is because profits flow back, and they flow in a lot of ways. Its not just oil profits, it's also military sales. The biggest purchaser of US arms and probably British arms is either Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates, one of the rich oil producers. They take most of the arms and that's profits for hi- tech industry in the Unites States. The money goes right back to the US treasury and treasury securities. In various ways, this helps prop up primarily the US and British economies." ---Noam Chomsky



State of the Union... Not Good


http://****itall.com/bsh/
  • 0

#11 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:41 PM

Well, 22 votes in and the Doves of peace are in the lead, closely trailed by the Hawks of War, with a Budgie of indecision bringing up the rear. :D

But will it stay that way??? :confused:
  • 0

#12 Adrian

Adrian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1895 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:47 PM

At this moment 54% are against, and 40% in favour.
This resembles the opinion out in the real world (You know, the world outside Pravda), so maybe we are more normal in here, than we usually think.
  • 0

#13 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:59 PM

A war on or within Iraq will occur most likely by June. This will happen either from external forces entering the country or forces within the country provisioned by other nations.

It is not just about oil but world stability because the fear is not that Iraq has or will have weapons of mass destruction. The concern is not if they will use them themselves, but who they would give them to.

Key allies of the west such as Japan for instance are 100% dependent on external supplies of oil and raw materials for their very existence. The manipulation of oil supplies by the cartel is disruptive to all nations who procure it from them. The USA, Britain and other nations do have oil reserves and supplies they themselves produce.

The problem with oil supplies today is that the South American sources are no longer dependable as the democratic nations of South America are all in termoil. Russia does have vast reserves but needs a new infrastructure to supply the type of volume to offset any problems of oil supply from the middle east or south America.

However oil in and of itself is not the great fear to world peace or national security it is that terroist who threaten the west and even russia may obtain weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. The same applies for the North Koreans. From Iraq the fear is more one of chemical warfare substances being provided to terroist. One the genie is out of the bottle it can never be put back in. The same has been seen for atomic weapons since that genie was taken out of the bottle.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on peoples within his own country and could also use it on other nations directly such as Israel using scudd missle technology. The delivery systems for chemicals is simple compared to that of any atomic delivery system both in cost and the technology needed.

The UN and their efforts are political without any teeth or backbone with respect to Iraq this has been seen over and over.

Should a coalition enter Iraq and control it and the oill supplies while destroying any and all weapons of mass destruction it would be eventually manned by the UN forces once the threat is removed by that weaponry. Saddam has been offered a opportunity to leave for a safe haven without any threat of punishment even though he has committed genocide on his own people and should stand trial for war crimes.

However it is my opinion any coalition that enters Iraq should have a Russian contingent as a part of it. Russia is owed billlions of dollars by Iraq so they should be given the opportunity to service the market for goods and services so they can recieve a return on monies that they are owed.

It would also make a lot of sense if a Oil Line infrastructure was put into place from Russia through Iraq to the Irag seaports this would enhance the flow or Russian oil, stabilize oil flow from the middle east and lessen the strength of the oil cartel from controlling the price of oil to the rest of the world.

So yes I think war within Iraq will happen or saddam will leave the country with aminesty and the UN then will work within the country to help establish a democracy of some form that the Iraqi people could live with....

The world cannot depend on the saduis as forces within that country for a long time have been the underbelly of financial support for fundamentalists within the Middle East and elsewhere.

I will give Bush credit at least for taking on the hard and less popular political issues such as this. It should have been done long ago but politicos usually sniff at the wind to see which way the wind is blowing before making decisions. Even as a American I am many others within our country have the upmost respect for Putin even more interesting is that we trust him more than any previous russian leader.

We think that the future of world stability is tied to the relationships between the western powers and their working association with Putin and Russia long term where the interest of both is served, not just the interest of the west. They are linked together now and in the future. Nato in and of itself is meaningless to events in the world overall compared to the relations with Russia.

Russia needs to lessen the difficulties for visitors and investments from the west. The visa process is a major stumbling block that limits the flow of currency and tourism to the country from the west. It will take time but we can only hope for the best as the closer russian and the west become with investments, imports and exports that provide needed western currency to russia the better it will be for their people to enhace the infrastructure increase employment and provide a wider range of choices for goods.
  • 0

#14 Spock

Spock

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:01 PM

Well, another dove just joined the club. The problem is, doves don`t rule the world and war is good for business.:D
  • 0

#15 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:38 PM

A dove most travelled is one that lived through war and understands No One Wins in war there is not but suffering.

War is not good for business, because after every way a biull comes due to pay for it and it is not the ruling class that pay the bills, nor is it the international businesses that pay for it.

It takes the wealth from the many to line the pockets of the few.

I am not a Dove because in the case of Iraq the hawk needs to fly so that later doves can live in peace.
  • 0

#16 grimack

grimack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:49 PM

No
  • 0

#17 grimack

grimack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:50 PM

War
  • 0

#18 grimack

grimack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:51 PM

In
  • 0

#19 grimack

grimack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 11:55 PM

Iraq
  • 0

#20 grimack

grimack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 12:39 AM

Uncle Sam is pleased to make the following announcements:

Afghan I "death to the Taliban" is now officially closed. T-shirts and memorabilia are still available on line, from all good retail stores and gift shops.

We've now officially signed up the sponsors for "Iraq 2 - A family Affair" which is due to begin at 6.00am on March 1 2003. The opening ceremony will be short but the main event will be a gruelling murderous affair. Fortunately the good guys will be safe and sound at 20,000 feets. The towelheads of course will be lying flat in their faces sucking sand, getting fried, blasted and vapourized. It promises to be compelling viewing. Uncle sam accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage to any third parties including US troops, human shields, media, etc.


Please be aware that betting for this war has now closed as odds had risen to 10,000 to 1 in favour of Uncle Sam.


Uncle Sam is now asking for submissions for the next war in 2004. Please be aware of the following criteria:

Third world countries only
Countries with assets that can be easily sold for war payments (Gold, diamonds, oil, uranium, etc)
Dictatorships only (contact the pentagon for the latest list)
Countries with obsolete equipment and untrained troops desired
Reasonable levels of infrastructure that can be destroyed desired (Roads, Bridges, water treatment and sewerage plants, power stations, Post offices. government building, etc
Reasonable pretexts for beginning war

Please Note No countries will be accepted if the Pentagon deems that US battle dead is likely to exceed 200. This ruling is final and NOT subject to negotiation.

Ya all have a nice day and GoD Bless America
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru