If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC) NewsFlash Helicopters collide over Gulf   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 510
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

39 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2003 at 1:15 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

510 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-22 04:45:20 AM
Really i wouldn't complain about the pictures. I know making fun of the quality is a joke, but it really is amazing. For the first time in history, civilians are seeing real time views of the front line. If you complain that they are censoring the heavy battle, remember they didn't have to allow ANY pictures of the front line. Something is better than nothing. Also, it's going to be hard to hide the eating of babies that some say the marines are so fond of with so many journalists in the ranks.
 
2003-03-22 04:46:42 AM
LiamWake
I have no TV... someone help me...

What are you a godless commie bastard?
 
2003-03-22 04:47:33 AM
Hey, I never named names, did I? Yeah, I know about the secret arms deals, and secret oil deals, and whatnot. I never pointed the finger at the US alone, did I?

If you want to look at it that way, you could say the whole of Western Civilisation is responsible. And maybe it is. And maybe this really is a clash of civilisations.

Yay, we're doomed!
 
2003-03-22 04:47:44 AM
By the way Mosul is going to be taken by Turkey... funny how I say Iraq's second largest city is going to be liberated in a few hours... but meaning the third largest Basra.

Although Turkey taking Mosul... I'm not sure that's liberation.
 
2003-03-22 04:49:22 AM
Impaler
All they do is make sure and eat the babies off camera. Besides I think he's with some British marines right now. They only drink the blood of innocents at tea-time.
 
2003-03-22 04:49:48 AM
Ok I was just kidding that Mosul is going to be taken by Turkey... I can't see the future.
 
2003-03-22 04:49:48 AM
yeah but at least we will go out W style.

Yeah the meek shall inherit the Earth, but only when us Assholes are done W it.
 
2003-03-22 04:51:13 AM
"What are you a godless commie bastard?"

I sold my TV for a handjob... *sob*
 
2003-03-22 04:51:30 AM
It seems odd that the three nations who've fought us the hardest in the Security Council also have the most lucrative arms contracts with Iraq, as well as multi-billion dollar oil contracts and are owed large sums of money by Saddam Hussein.

I would have more respect for Russia, France, and Germany if they just straight-up admitted they opposed us because it was against their national interests to do so. Of course that would make them extremely unpopular with the home crowd, so it will never happen. Instead we just get this silly hypocratic moral posturing. Ah well, we know who won out in the end.
 
2003-03-22 04:51:49 AM
Thales Thanks. Times like this I wish I still had cable. Then again, I never watch broadcast TV either... must be a godless commie bastard or something.
 
2003-03-22 04:53:15 AM
LiamWake, oh Jesus. You scared the shiat out of me. I actually thought Turkey was moving in in full force and taking an Iraqi city. No way in hell I want the Turks involved in this, farking oppressive little shiats who are almost as bad to the Kurds as Saddam is.
 
2003-03-22 04:53:27 AM
LiamWake
That must have been one hell of a handjob or one craptacular TV.
 
2003-03-22 04:53:28 AM
I have little to compare it with Impaler. From everything I was told yall saw this stuff last war. I was in the Gulf then and missed it. Ironically enough I was in the war so I saw little of it while you folks thousands of miles away had intelligence like CIA anaylysts dream of.
 
2003-03-22 04:54:10 AM
Bbcrackmonkey, you think America's position is based on anything but national interest? Or you think we're taking on Iraq at massive personal expense as a favor to the Iraqi people?
 
2003-03-22 04:56:04 AM
You were right about that Bill Hicks quote, HomestarJunior.
 
2003-03-22 04:56:17 AM
Funny, if someone protests against the war, the war lovers call them "baby killers." If the U.S. drops bombs on Iraq and kills a few babies, the war lovers applaud the "freedom fighters."

In Saudi Arabia women who get raped are executed by their male relatives. We should get rid of that oppressive regime next. And let's invade Mexico while we're at it, they've massacred their Indians for decades.
 
2003-03-22 04:56:48 AM
Bbcrackmonkey to late. Turks have sent 1000 across the border already according to CNN.
 
2003-03-22 04:56:59 AM
Saddam and Bush have signed peace!! Now joining forces to attack Saudi Arabia!!! Kurds still undesired in milk! shiat majority launching Scud cocks at Sunnimesohornee faction!! OMG ROFL!

Hey my CNN radio webcast died... I had to make up some news ok...
 
2003-03-22 04:58:24 AM
We saw a lot in the first gulf war HomestarJunior, but not in real time. At least not the moving part. Fixed postitions in Bagdad (spelling nazis will be the next oppresive dictators to meet a decapitation attack by the way) showed real time images, but there wasn't anything with front line troops.
 
2003-03-22 04:58:32 AM
LiamWake, you're enjoying this war, aren't you?

Gotta wonder about someone who gets off on people dying.
 
2003-03-22 04:58:40 AM
M00t

the difference is that were assholes according to you liberal whiners for having monetary motivations while France, etc are just fine for having monetary stakes in the whole thing. And yes America does do things for general principle, or do the Serbians have oil wells and we Americans just havent been told?
 
2003-03-22 04:59:07 AM
Skeezix
We already got all the good parts of Mexico.
 
2003-03-22 05:00:40 AM
On that note, I think it's interesting how people deny that the war is in large part about the Bush energy policy, as though that made it somehow less honorable or moral than the reasons they do espouse. I've been tempted, when people say the war is definitely not about oil, to ask why not. After all, Wilson said, and Bush definitely seems to agree, "The business of America is business." The power that control, even indirectly, of that oil producing capacity would grant us leverage against OPEC, Europe as a general entity, etc. As a matter of protecting American freedoms (and, implicitly, interests), a war for oil is just what the doctor ordered.

I simultaneously oppose and support the war- I think it's an unfortunate development away from the ideal of diplomatic resolution of issues and a dangerous precedent, but at the same time I think it's the easiest way to get the region out from under Saddam and our own tremendously destructive sanctions.

I don't feel like reading over what I just wrote, and can only hope I actually said something coherent.
 
2003-03-22 05:01:00 AM
I'll take Cancun and Puerto Vallarta over Baja any day.
 
2003-03-22 05:02:00 AM
HomestarJunior
We're assholes for having monetary motivations, clothing them in "silly hypocritical moral posturing," as BBCrackMonkey calls it, and then proceeding to SET CITIES ON FIRE.
 
2003-03-22 05:02:30 AM
M00t, its a multi-faceted issue. I think the people in America support this war mainly because of patriotism and because it will free the Iraqi people. Americans are getting used to the whole 'world's policeman' type of thing. The administration is doing it for more strategic interests. Some they've said, others they've kept quiet about. There's the fact Saddam tried to off our current president's father. He's violating shiatloads of UN sanctions and defying the US, so we want to make an example out of him. Then there's the WMD, which everyone knows Iraq still has and there is a legitimate concern that Iraq, based on its past support of terrorism, could try to hand those off to terrorists.

I think the main reason that GWB's advisors support it is because it is step one in bringing Democracy in the Middle East, which is in our best interests, and also because it will give us all the military bases we need to launch operations against the largest supporters of terrorism on earth; Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran in the future. Before we take Iraq, nobody would have given us bases anywhere had we suggested a military operation against Saudi Arabia or Syria, but now we don't need to ask because we got one smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. This war will also dramatically increase our global influence and it will be a great economic booster as well, since OPEC will now have to compete with Iraq and global oil prices will lower. I have a feeling that America will be buying much more oil from Iraq than it does now, and a strategic benefit of that is that the money won't go to support terrorism like it would if we bought oil from Saudi Arabia or Iran.
 
2003-03-22 05:03:07 AM
"Gotta wonder about someone who gets off on people dying."

I get off on a sadistic regime coming to an end. This war won't have many causualties, not including fighting inside cities.

Frig, lots of soldiers may die in these cities.


Cnn radio webcast is up again... and this is the first thing I hear: "Its like creating an elephant in the room, you can't do that"

WTF?! Was it hacked or something?? weird... not its back to British people and cocking newspersons.
 
2003-03-22 05:04:29 AM
We don't buy oil from Iran. And we only get something like 10 to 15% of our oil from the Middle East.
 
2003-03-22 05:04:43 AM
OK Impaler Ill sign up for that war too if you ammend it to "Spelling and Grammar Nazis" ( My spelling is fine mostly but my punctuation is horrible )

See folk, diplomacy in action!
 
2003-03-22 05:05:09 AM
I can't create an elephant indoors or outdoors. Damn journalists get all the cool stuff.

But really, explain what they meant by that as soon as you figure it out, wouldya? Not a phrase I've ever heard before...
 
2003-03-22 05:05:39 AM
Well you have to give the dogs a bone or two. After all we did get about a 1/3 of the country from them. Besides if we take Cancun and Puerto Vallarta then you loose the exchange rate. And the hot drunken teenage Spring Breakers. Do you have something against hot drunken teenage Spring Breakers?
 
2003-03-22 05:06:18 AM
OK, OK, I'll just settle for Mazatlan.
 
2003-03-22 05:07:12 AM
Yeah, Tiajuana and Cancun are vital to the Mexico's sense of being our two bit whore. I'd hate to take that away from them.
 
2003-03-22 05:07:32 AM
how ironic that I mispell a word at the end. thanks Anheiser-Bush
 
2003-03-22 05:07:48 AM
Oh it was an ad talking about telling your kids about the war, if you don't tell your kids about the war "Its like creating an elephant in the room, you can't do that"

Well I'm not sure if that makes more or less sence.
 
2003-03-22 05:07:50 AM
Bbcrackmonkey The administration is doing it for more strategic interests. Some they've said, others they've kept quiet about.

I agree that they are not telling us all their reasons -- and that is what scares me most over the whole thing. Our elected officials are conducting a (mostly) unprovoked invasion of another nation, and they are OBVIOUSLY not telling us their reasons for doing so.
 
2003-03-22 05:08:36 AM
GAH!! stupit html tags. i lose.
 
2003-03-22 05:09:06 AM
Copenhagen It's coherent, and it I largely agree.

It's sad though. Sad that he's there in the first place, sad that we armed the shiat out of him, sad that we have to go back and clean up the whole sorry mess.

The corporate take over of the world must march on.
 
2003-03-22 05:09:09 AM
Skeezix, well in the future hopefully all of our middle-eastern oil will come from Iraq. That way we can be no longer influenced by Saudi Arabia and we can stop pretending to be friends with them. Saudi Arabia will instead export its oil to Asia and thus also its influence.

Of course this could have a dramatic impact as the demand for oil in China as it grows into a competing superpower. Maybe some day America will have to wage a war with China because Saudi Arabian terrorists have gone too damn far and we want to attack it, but China wants to protect its oil markets and has the muscle to back up its talk.
 
2003-03-22 05:10:24 AM
More important Copenhagen Tijuana is vitaly important to our sailors in San Diego getting drunk and laid before deployments (yes I was stationed there)It is a vital US military interest
 
2003-03-22 05:10:58 AM
The "elephant" remark was a 'how do we explain this to the children? /whine' thing that they do... "Don't try to hide that the US is at war, because they already have heard at school.


That said, some beans can make convincing kids of elephants in the room amusing (/cosby)
 
2003-03-22 05:11:39 AM
This is why we should focus on developing more electric & solar powered vehicles.
 
2003-03-22 05:12:31 AM
Nothing like secrets to keep the machinery of democracy running, huh? Honestly, they help. I don't think we'd be so fickle with our overseas policies if we could trace the webs of commerce that allow us to be who we are...remember, oppression there keeps things cheap here!

During the droughts of the 1840's, millions of Indians died of starvation because England exported their flour to keep the price of bread low in the British Isles. Well, England proper. They let the Irish starve too.
 
2003-03-22 05:12:42 AM
Anyone else here listening to the CNN radio webcast and getting tired of the constant repeats? (water system protection, saddam's history, how to explain to children, etc.)


It's almost as annoying as hearing "Shock and Awe".
 
2003-03-22 05:13:03 AM
how ironic that I mispell a word at the end. thanks Anheiser-Bush

I'm drunk off the beer I brewed, so i have no one to thank but myself :(

wait, I mean :)
 
2003-03-22 05:13:06 AM
Giant pneumatic habitrail. It's the future.
 
2003-03-22 05:13:50 AM
M00t, it is also hoped that, with a functional Democracy in Iraq, it will force regime changes or at least human rights concessions in other Middle Eastern countries due to social and political unrest as well as US military pressure. Once Iran's autocratic regime is off-line then the 2nd largest sponsor of world terrorism is gone. If a Democratic gov't ever were elected in Iran it would most definitely be pro-western and pro-US, which might just give us enough influence to finally break out the beat-down stick on Saudi Arabia and end her massive support of terrorism once and for all.

Of course all this careful planning will be lost the moment a Democrat steps into the Whitehouse :-) Sorry but its so true.
 
2003-03-22 05:14:04 AM
HomestarJunior said much earlier...

"...get on your knees tonight and thank whatever God you pray to (or fate if you pray to none) that you are only fighting it on Fark.com.

I'm don't believe in faith based religions, but this summed it up perfectly.

Those that say "Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!" are simpletons. As are those that say that "More discussion is the answer!"


I've yet to see a solid answer...

I mean, what you got to lose? You know, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing! What have you lost?
 
2003-03-22 05:14:39 AM
Bbcrackmonkey as long as they don't bring those damn Dragon Tanks. I'd think we're more likely to go to war with China over Taiwan or if we expand our Middle East activities to far into their "sphere of influence".
 
2003-03-22 05:15:25 AM
"If a Democratic gov't ever were elected in Iran it would most definitely be pro-western and pro-US"

We tried that already, we put the Shah there in the 1960's, and remember how that turned out???
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report