It better not be just a bunch of lameass green blobs either. TV has been crap lately, I need something good to watch.

Most of the fighting, I think, will be done at night. That means, yeah, a bunch of green globs. But fuck it!! I still find it entertaining! (and yes, I know, plenty of you out there will be all aghast at me finding war entertaining. I'm not about to lie! War is terrible and disturbing, but I still damn well find it entertaining!)

Just imagine if Stalingrad had been televised. But they won't let TV get that brutal, lamerz.

It almost certainly is going to be on every major news station with interviews and the like but most of the fighting will be seen from the air.

The televising of the "war" in the UK is a subject of amusement in this household with reporters from Sky TV stating who is going to go where, when, in what strength etc. Yesterday, a reporter even told us that the 101st Airborne Division is going to fly direct to Baghdad and take out strategic locations!

I believe that the reporters and news media out there should only report AFTER the fact and not speculate as to who is doing what! Asking a reporter what is going on is like asking for next weeks lottery numbers, they have the same chance of getting it right!

Also stated by the same reporter was the plans for securing the southern Iraqi oilfields before moving on to Basra!!

I was so disgusted just now, there was a commercial break and a screen the said "WAR ON IRAQ" and underneath that, in slightly smaller letters, "brought to you by your friendly Toyota dealers". :eek: The only thing worse would be a Britney Spears Pepi commercial a la Superbowl.:rolleyes:

so this war is going to be televised?
Looks like it, and it looks like its gonna really kick ass as soon as it gets going. Its about time really.
Its absolutely awesome tv if you ask me, its filled with suspense and excitement, this is what reality tv should be.
Plus its a part of history, I can't see how anyone could argue against televising this. Future generations will be jealous that we got to see it.
Its the fall of saddam hussein, thats pretty big time:cool:

Actually I find it very boring. They keep repeating the same shit over and over and try to keep you interested with big banners across your screen and useless correspondents & so called military analysts predicting what should, would, could happen. It's also going to have your healthy dose of emotional BS interviewing a soldier whos wife just had a baby. Definetly not news. It's basically aimed to satisfy the shallow minded majority.

It hasn't started yet.
We've had a tiny taste.
Its going to be good.

It would be REALLY good if they somehow televised the ground attacks when they happen. Of course they won't because they couldn't safely do it and above all because the general public would cry. :mad:

"This is what reality TV should be."

Its a real shame you can't be there Doc . It beats the hell out of watching TV.

I doubt we'll see footage that has the same impact as some Vietnam reports. The definitive one would have to be where a reporter is actually intervieweing the soilder as he reloads his weapon. The soilder finishes loading, stands up and starts shooting again. I'm wondering what the hell was going through that reporters head.

most probably a bullet

I'd like to see the reporter get shot. Now that I would find very entertaining!

Now I have seen some really sad remarks in my time but...........

Entertainment? See A reporter Get Shot! Good Fun!

Get real, get a life............

My roomates and I were just talking about how cool it would be to see a reporter get shot during a report.

But its the American way. Just like watching a sporting event. Would any of these kids posting volunteer to go to Iraq? Hell no. They woud shit in thier pants and cry for mommy.

That would be pretty cool.
Not because I hate reporters or anything but just because it would be something different. You don't see that everyday.

You just don't hang out in the right places doc

Originally posted by justiceusa
But its the American way. Just like watching a sporting event. Would any of these kids posting volunteer to go to Iraq? Hell no. They woud shit in thier pants and cry for mommy.
I don't like that. I wouldn't volunteer to go to iraq because I don't give a fuck either way. It would be hot and gay over their. I have no fear of death, but while I'm alive I like to be comfortable, and I can just watch this shit on tv. Its all funny to me, i'm not angry at iraq but I don't care about them either. I don't care about people, there is alot of them, who gives a shit.
Don't force your morality and fears on to me.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Now I have seen some really sad remarks in my time but...........

Entertainment? See A reporter Get Shot! Good Fun!

Get real, get a life............

reporters have no business being near the action. what's there to report? people are shooting, people are dying. That's all there is to know. When it's over, you count the bodies and report that. Anything more is sensationalism crap.

although, there should be some type of police with cameras making sure no war crimes are being commited but no reporters.

But wait a minute! the war on iraq itself is a war crime!

If we have to keep 200,000 occuping troops there for the 2 years minimum that is be predicted, we will bring back the draft and you "will" go.

Thats not true, I'm a classified human being. I have no identification and the government doesn't know I exist.
I will just have lots of girls to knock up while everyone else is at war:cool:

Originally posted by dsdsds
But wait a minute! the war on iraq itself is a war crime!

So you would rather be under his threat of world wide terrorism would you? Tell that to the NY dead! Check out what this guy has done to his country before making such pathetic statements.

The rape rooms, the torture chambers etc - his people deserve a chance, the Allies are going to give them it.

Dream on little man

Originally posted by Red Devil
So you would rather be under his threat of world wide terrorism would you? Tell that to the NY dead! Check out what this guy has done to his country before making such pathetic statements.

The rape rooms, the torture chambers etc - his people deserve a chance, the Allies are going to give them it.

You're talking about Bush and the USA, right?

Originally posted by justiceusa
If we have to keep 200,000 occuping troops there for the 2 years minimum that is be predicted, we will bring back the draft and you "will" go.

I do not see that happening. The people of Iraq, once freed, will soon sort themselves out. It is their leaders who are barbarians, not the general populace. Once Iraq is secure, the UN will move in, then elections, then a pull out. 12 months tops.

We have had troops in Korea continuously since 1953. American troops are still in Bosnia, Afganistan, and to a limited extent The Phillipines.

Even General Tommy Franks is predicting 200,000 troops for 2 years. But what the hell does he know ?

Originally posted by justiceusa
We have had troops in Korea continuously since 1953. American troops are still in Bosnia.

Even General Tommy Franks is predicting 200,000 troops for 2 years. But what the hell does he know ?

Fair comment but call it a gut feeling if you like?

Actually, the germans shot a lot of footage in the Stalingrad battle, it was supposed to be used in cinemas to glorify the german army, however the movie turned out a little different than the director expected.

I've seen a pretty detailed documentary about the gruesome hand to hand battle in the urban ashes...

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
It better not be just a bunch of lameass green blobs either. TV has been crap lately, I need something good to watch.

is it just me or does do the "peaceniks" kick the shit out of the "war-mongers" every time they post a thread? It appears that the "thinking minorirty" seems to agree that the war is unjust. So one should do a poll just to see how many are on each side among the sciforumins.

Originally posted by Mrhero54
...is it just me or does do the "peaceniks" kick the shit out of the "war-mongers" every time they post a thread? Must be you. ;)

When the posts are rational, I have seen excellent arguments presented by both sides.
The problem is that the discussions seldom remain coherant for more than a post or two.

:m: Peace.

Actually, no, Mrhero, the "peaceniks" have not defeated the "warmongers" in all debates here, not by a long shot.

In the very rare case that sciforums Political section gets two relatively intelligent folk to debate without racism or anger getting in the way - we generally always stall on the same point. Usually it gets down to morals. The 'peaceniks' of this situation feel either that it is about oil (to which they are hypocritical for supporting France, Germany and Russia - plus they have no actual proof - not to say I doubt oil has it's part), are generally against war (in which case you eliminate any possibility of disarming Saddam) or think more peaceful resolutions would work (in which case I really have trouble believing 12 years isn't long enough to give him). Then there's the odd peacenik who thinks Saddam has no weapons (in which case he should read what Hans Blix has to say) or thinks the war is not a smart choice simply because it's not completely necessary.

The last point is, in my opinion, the simplest and best. If we were back in around June of last year I would have agreed with you and said the economy should have been the main focus. However, the UN passed a resolution stating that Saddam must give up all weapons or face "serious consequences". To pass a second resolution is to say that "serious consequences" = another chance. Furthermore, in terms of thinking in terms of reality, any second resolution would have to threaten war. Saddam has not bowed to the threat of war and I (though Tiassa sees differently) feel there's absolutely no reason to believe he would bow to anything else. If you don't say "okay" to a gun aimed at your head, what do you say "okay" to?

The best offer of a second resolution we had, I believe, was the one Canada put forward (and a number of other nations suggested similar res.). The idea was for Saddam to have around 2-3 weeks to meet demands and then the UN would 'talk again'. The French said "four months" and outright rejected teh Canadian offer as well because it left room for war. The US rejected the offer because it didn't leave enough room for war. I agree with the US on this. We threatened war and Saddam wouldn't hand over weapons. So now we threaten "talking amongst each other" and we think he'll give it up? Oh, yeah, that's great logic.

The best route would have been to say Saddam had 2-3 weeks or he faced war. But the French would veto it (as any nation with billions of dollars invested in Iraq would). So there was no reason to persue it any further. It was like in Bosnia. Clinton could have allowed the slaughter to go on to appease the French, but there was no point. The funny thing is, the 'peaceniks' now are largely praising the French - despite the French involvement in the Ivory Coast and despite wanting to kill him after dropping a nuke in the ocean.

At this point to pull out of Iraq would be the worst imaginable action. It would make Saddam so ridiculously powerful.

Pretending we were back, oh, four days ago - even then we had gone too far to pull back. To get that close to threatening war with Saddam and then showing that it will never happen is to show that he really can do anything.

It's like a little kid with his parent. Imagine the kid eats too many cookies. And the parent scolds the kid and then says "you can not have more than 3 cookies a day from now on". For the next two weeks the kid has 5, 6, 7 cookies a day. Then the parent says "if you do this for one more day I'll remove all cookies from the house". At this point the other parent steps in and says "no, leave the cookie jar out, he's done nothing wrong". The first parent takes the cookie jar away, and the next day the other one puts it back and tells the kid he's on the honour system.

Think that kid is about to stop eating cookies?

And finally, with "inspections" having worked at all in Iraq......
Inspectors needed to give (I think it was) 3 days notice before visiting a site. Before flying a spy plane they needed to give 2 days notice.

Let me guess, Saddam. So you can pot some flowers and make it all pretty for the inspectors?? Surely it's not so that you can move anything that might anger the inspectors!

Even Blix said Iraq was still not helping and had not complied. He's been given since November. Well, since around 1992, actually. I really see no reason anything but war would make him give up the weapons.

i'll reply soon but i've got to go now... hate to leave when i have a worthy adversary....:D

Originally posted by goofyfish
Must be you. ;)

When the posts are rational, I have seen excellent arguments presented by both sides.
The problem is that the discussions seldom remain coherant for more than a post or two.

:m: Peace.

Good point goofy. I think my arguements are based on logic and reasonably thought out, but then again, they are mainly only MY opinions. The fact that I am in favour of this "war" brings me into direct conflict, pardon the pun, with those who do not want this war but cannot seem to give coherent reasons apart from "they only want the oil" which, of course, has nothing at all to do with this conflict.

I am a Brit, who served for 17 years in my country's armed forces and therefore I believe that I am reasonably well qualified to give an "educated" opinion. Furthermore, I believe that this is a right and justified cause that should have been sorted 12 years ago. At that time, the British Prime Minister wanted to continue the push and eradicate the world of this evil evil person for good, but the American powers that were said no, we are stopping now, with the very obvious consequences which we are witnessing now.

Only yesterday two vials of a deadly poison were found in a Paris railway station. What was their target? Was it downtown Los Angeles, downtown London, Manhattan or Paris? We may never know, but this is one of the very real reasons that we have to rid the world of people like Saddam. He thinks nothing of perpetrating this kind of attack on anyone, anywhere on this globe. He has already done it to his own people countless times and got away with it - up to now.

Originally posted by Tyler

In the very rare case that sciforums Political section gets two relatively intelligent folk to debate without racism or anger getting in the way - we generally always stall on the same point. Usually it gets down to morals. The 'peaceniks' of this situation feel either that it is about oil (to which they are hypocritical for supporting France, Germany and Russia - plus they have no actual proof - not to say I doubt oil has it's part), are generally against war (in which case you eliminate any possibility of disarming Saddam) or think more peaceful resolutions would work (in which case I really have trouble believing 12 years isn't long enough to give him). Then there's the odd peacenik who thinks Saddam has no weapons (in which case he should read what Hans Blix has to say) or thinks the war is not a smart choice simply because it's not completely necessary.
I don't fit into any of these little categories.
you keep talking about hans blix...have you heard what scott ritter has to say?