Do you agree with the War in Iraq? [Archive] - 1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord : Official Game Forums

xplosiv

03-15-2007, 06:35 PM

Nice to see a political section in the forums, now let the battle.. er.. um discussion commence! :D

I'm gonna try my very very best to not repeat the same stuff you've heard a thousand times about our current situation (although it is hard not to). Personally I'm stuck in the middle with the whole subject, there are some things/facts that I personally stand by, others that I'm not so sure about. I back the war in a way, but I'm also the complete opposite in some cases.

One thing I stand by though. I'm just gonna say that (On Britain) I think it was wrong for us to join in. We have a spineless prime minster who is too scared to say no to Dubya... now we're essentially 'in the merde' and we, as well as the Americans will be in 'eyerack' (and Afghanistan) for the next 40,000 years :p, I stand by the fact that occupation never works. Forget all the rubbish about pulling out, 'Bliar' sets a date and when it finally comes he says there is still work to do . He then proposes another date (rinse and repeat). With respect to the Americans on this forum - over the years I've come to the conclusion that America likes a good old war.. but why the heck do we always have to join in? Meddling with other peoples issues methinks.

Don't get me wrong though, Iraq is a fecked up mess of a country, and pulling out entirely would be a big disaster. We're (Coalition's) in the mess and we've now got to stabalise it. One things for sure, Saddam was a very bad man! lol :( Him and his fellow tyrant cronies very rather nasty too. Secret police and torturing isn't a nice way to make friends, someone had to get rid of him. BUT imo the Middle East is like the wild west (well.. alot worse..), when Saddam was in power, naughty people were kept in line! They knew their place. Now that he is gone, things are going t*ts up and various factions can do what they want.

One thing I never understood though was why was this left up until now? Forgive my lack of knowledge on the first gulf war but.. why didn't we go for him back then? Was someone waiting for the right opportunity or what? To use him as an excuse for something else - to break international law perhaps? (Fact) Just like individual people, countries look after themselves first and others after, perhaps there was something else that the occupiers wanted... *Dons Tin Foil Hat*

I understand that one of the aims is the introduction of Democracy to the country, one thing that needs to be understood is that Democracy isn't the be all and end all, it doesn't always work. Just because the Western world has democracy doesn't mean that other areas will take to it, Iraq is new to this form of government, will they take to it? Consider the fact that the country is a lawless mess at the moment.. it's gonna be some time before they will. Doesn't democracy also conflict with their traditions anyway? There'll be no more of the ol' hand for a stolen TV business! :D Immediately introducing die hard democracy could easily create more anti-western folk too.

Edit - *Awaits Incoming!* :D

biggles

03-15-2007, 07:02 PM

As a swede, I know noone that think it's a good thing that the U.S is in Iraq. This might be because we're not there ourselves......granted, we have troops in Afghanistan....
(actually, it was a little "incident" some days ago when a man got killed by swedish troops. He was not alone, and the man and his comrades was fireing at the swedish troops so I peronally think they were in their right to shoot back).

I guess it's just the fact that everybody "knows" that Iraq is all about oil. If it is? Boy I don't know, but I do belive so.

But now I see no resolution to all this. I know perfectly well that the United States can't just leave Iraq without disaster,but how can they stop the people from revolting with bombs etc?

Also......wonder if anything what will happen with Iran in the coming years.....should prove interesting to see if Bush was seious with his threats....

[FFTF]Eurofighter

03-15-2007, 07:05 PM

omg you did not start the political forumz.... THIS IS GONNA BE MADNESS I TELL YOU!

its gonna be like:
BUSH SUX
IRAQIS SUCK
YOU SUCK
ZOMG!!!

biggles

03-15-2007, 07:08 PM

Eurofighter;60603']omg you did not start the political forumz.... THIS IS GONNA BE MADNESS I TELL YOU!

its gonna be like:
BUSH SUX
IRAQIS SUCK
YOU SUCK
ZOMG!!!

Let's hope we can just be cool about these sort of things. Most of us here are intelligent people who knows when the line is crossed. Let's just hope that the "Name and Shame" thread remains unedited for a while....

|Crimson|

03-15-2007, 07:50 PM

I'm not particularly knowledgable about all this, and so im sure most of my arguments will be pretty much destroyed. But this is what I think and if I am wrong please change my mind.

The way I look at what is currently happening in Iraq is this:

The majority of countries in the world, or at least successful countries, all had to go through a civil war. i.e. America, England, Spain...i don't know anymore because im not clever, but i'm sure there are more.

And these civil wars put one group of people in their place and one group on top. Thus creating some form of stability in the country (emphasis on the SOME)
This is what I believe is happening in Iraq at the moment. And I believe that though it is often shocking, horrific and a tragic waste of life, it cannot be stopped. No matter how hard the Americans and the British try it cannot be stopped and it will continue until either the Shiite's (spelling? :D) or the Sunni's (spelling? :D :D) win.

And as for the invasion? Yes, they removed a tyrant from power. But what about all the other tyrants around the world? What is going to be done about them? I believe it is a good thing that the world no longer has to worry about Saddam, but the fact that both the American governments and the British government lied blatantly in front of the world is something that cannot be excused and will probably bring me to the brink of anger until I die.

And one last point, the USA and Britain undermined the authority of the U.N. by ignoring them, going to war and breaking international law. This is something which I believe will have long lasting repurcussions and will come back to bite both of these nations very hard in the near or far future.

And do you know who will pay for these repurcussions? This undermining of international law? It will be us. The younger generation. Drawn into something that we had no part of.

That's what I believe. I have little knowledge, but that is what I feel. Please change my mind with some facts or something.

lazlazlaz1

03-15-2007, 07:55 PM

The thing is, even if we did go in for oil or whatever reason, why does it matter?
A 130 or so years ago when the British Empire was going strong we would have invaded purely because we felt like it and they were not part of our empire. It is a modern thing that you have to have a real reason to go to war.
Back in the colonial and napoleonic days you went to war because another country threatened you dominance of a certain area of land or aspect of your economy, or because they were a small nation of spearmen with no guns.

Now everyone got angry because we went in and we haven't yet found any wmd's (yes, i did mean yet). It is highly likely there are some out there in the desert. But that doesnt even matter.
The Iraqi people are actually rather fortunate that it was a coalition force that went in and have given back their country. If it had been a single nation then it is possible this nation would have just made it a protectorate or puppet state. Or even just taken full control of it.

Now I'm not saying that we should have just taken control of their country indefinitely, no. But a nations population should always be behind their armed forces in any endeavour whatever the reason.
Whats more suprising for me is that if you actually look at it, the casualty rate of this war has been rather good. Its been 4 or so years and there have been something like 3-4000 coalition deaths. And even more amazing is that we can't even see the enemy, he is hidden amongst the crowd. He doesn't appear to care who gets caught in the explosion, so there is so few ways to stop him.
I agree, perhaps the civilian casualty rate is not great, but consider that many innocent civilians were dying under Saddam's regime and there was going to be no end to that. Now with our forces in Iraq, while it may not seem like it will happen anytime soon, we will eventually stabilise the country.

One last point, I would say however that Iraq was not the best choice of country to invade. If we had to invade one it should have been one that posed slightly more of a threat to us, like Iran. Saddams regime also wasnt the worst genocidal regime in the world, places like Lybia and some other African country are totally unstable and there are some long lasting civil wars going on.

lazlazlaz1

03-15-2007, 07:58 PM

enigma

03-15-2007, 08:44 PM

2 things,

When was a withdrawl date confirmed for British troops? Last i heard the top brass saidour boys would come home when there job was done.

2nd

undermined the authority of the U.N. by ignoring them
great joke!

MyFingerHurts

03-15-2007, 09:01 PM

Any American opinions out there? I'm working up the nerve to toss in my 2 cents

Moseman872{White Tiger}

03-15-2007, 09:33 PM

I will always support The War on Terror (World War 4, The Cold was WW3).
Should we wait for our enemies to walk up to our doorsteps, ring the doorbell, and blow themselves up as we open the door? Hell no! We should fight them on their own ground and eraticate them from the face of the Earth.
(I'm a Conservative if you didn't notice.)

Any American opinions out there? I'm working up the nerve to toss in my 2 cents

I'm an American, and that's how I feel on the matter. Though some Americans feel we should turn tail and get out. Though I feel this will only bring about a more evil enemy force to take over the country, and we'd have to do the job all over again.

(sorry about the rant.)

enigma

03-15-2007, 09:38 PM

How was the Cold War .... World War 3 ? :confused: :p

|Crimson|

03-15-2007, 09:49 PM

great joke!

Sorry Enigma, im don't know many special things and I don't closely follow world politics. So I suppose you can kind of look at me as your average ignorant person on the street. :)

typhaon

03-15-2007, 10:27 PM

The main problem is, that you can mess up all good intentions of anybody with just a few people...
But I don't think that Bush only had good intentions. I find it quite disturbing that he seems to see the USA as a world police... he's quite impatient with discussions and fast with threatening countries. The desaster in Iraq should have told him that nobody is invincible no matter how advanced the warfare-tech is. You can't kill anybody who is anyways willing to die.
Small groups of resistance have always been a problem that almost cannot be solved... at least not with weapons... and especially when the attackers are willing to die anyways.
Bush has pushed deeply into a hornet-nest and is, in my oppinion now stuck.
He can't leave the Iraq anymore because the country would collapse and he would lose his face... and the oil... you can say what you want, but I think one factor which led to the attack were the oil-reserves of the Iraq.
But the time of Bush is almost up... I wonder what his successor will do with all the mess he created... that guy will be poor for sure.

I think the Iraq is not yet ready for democracy... in fact I think the Iraq is not ready for any form of government... I can't imagine how it could be possible to stop the attacks of resistance fighters and suicide-attacks... even if all troops will retreat because those people do not seem to care about their own people, too...

Sgt So and So

03-15-2007, 10:29 PM

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-15-2007, 10:34 PM

I'm gonna ramble big time later tonight. As for us being "world-police" they attacked us, we're not gonna wait for them to do it again. Iraq supported Taliban financially. I sure ass hope this thread isn't like a speed trap to ban for breaking the no politics rule.

|Crimson|

03-15-2007, 10:37 PM

Iraq supported Taliban financially.

Can you back that up please?

Because I've never seen any evidence for this claim. Maybe everyone knows and I just had my head in the sand, so to speak. That's very possible.

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-15-2007, 10:41 PM

I can try to look it up for you. It's one of those underground stuff, don't ask me why.

Well the politics rule is lifted, but this is current affairs. Shit... here comes the mighty hand of Ronan... AAAHHHHH!!!!

Josh_HLB

03-15-2007, 10:42 PM

Any American opinions out there? I'm working up the nerve to toss in my 2 cents

I'm staying out of this, my views are somewhat :eek: to people.

typhaon

03-15-2007, 10:44 PM

I think we made a mistake going in there, but now that we're in the shit, we can't get out. We should just bring in the cavalry- any and all troops- to make sure our Iraqi buddies can grow up without constant violence.

Well if I switch on the news I see news about attacks in Iraq almost every day... I think that is constant violence... but I also think it would be worse without troops...

As for us being "world-police" they attacked us, we're not gonna wait for them to do it again. Iraq supported Taliban financially.

The Iraq attacked the US... that's news to me... must have missed the invasion of Saddams tanks and Airforce in the USA in the news... sry for that... well wait... had the Iraq an airforce? Not sure about that.

The only thing I can find are the crimes that Saddam (and some of his staff) commited... but was it worth all those lives?

There's a list of casualties of all sides in that war in the internet for sure... I haven't looked for one yet, but I bet the resistance-fighters have the lowest casualty-count... one dead suicide-bomber, 5 dead US-soldiers (or soldiers of other countries) and 40 dead Iraq people...

343Guiltyspark

03-15-2007, 11:05 PM

typhaon

03-15-2007, 11:18 PM

It's all about wrong interpretation of the religion...

The muslim religion is normally a peacefull one like most others, but somebody always wants to twist the interpretations for his own purpose... the christian religion caused the crusades in the middleage... It was equally bloody and evil... and they really thought they fought for their religion... well and muslims have this problem now with their fundamentalists... really pitty that some people don't seem to have evolved since the middleages...

Cias

03-15-2007, 11:23 PM

www.liveleak.com has some disturbing stuff on it, and typhaon, Ronan has clearly stated do not talk about religion on this forum.

343Guiltyspark

03-15-2007, 11:24 PM

it really is not that simple anymore

everyday on the news

"10 soldiers were killed in a suicide bombing"

not
"10 soldiers rescued from burning helicopter by iraqi civillians"

Its more widespread then you thing , IN THE QUARAN it says it is okay to kill in the name of god........ that does not show up in the bible

343Guiltyspark

03-15-2007, 11:25 PM

www.liveleak.com has some disturbing stuff on it, and typhaon, Ronan has clearly stated do not talk about religion on this forum.
o snap , my bad
:(

Sgt So and So

03-15-2007, 11:26 PM

I support our troops all the way

But i dont understand where the insurgents are coming from , if they are just civilians and all of this suicide bombing is from them ..........

I really think somthing should be done with 3rd world muslims , there religion is corrupt and .............. well just watch this

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f46e_4207

Iraq has basically become a place where the main attraction is "You wanna shoot American infidels? Come here!" for the Muslim population. There have been reports of ID cards from Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran found on dead terrorists, so we're not just fighting Iraqis in Iraq. We're fighting a cultural war against Islam.

JonasDahlin

03-15-2007, 11:40 PM

I've heard that if you are a terrorist in american you don't have any legal rights? Is that that true?

And another thing. Overweight and poverty kills more americans then terrorists, so when will you start a war against that? ;)

|Crimson|

03-15-2007, 11:46 PM

Please tell me that the people in here realise that the War isn't against Islam in general.

You do know that all the of the violence is down to an unbelievable minority in the Islamic community?

For example, it is like saying that ALL Germans are Nazis...and that's just ridiculous.

typhaon

03-15-2007, 11:50 PM

The poor thing is:

one bad deed weights more than thousand good deeds... you see many news about people beeing killed... but not about people beeing saved (no matter if it is war or not)
So one person can destroy all good efforts of many others...

NicholasJohnson

03-15-2007, 11:52 PM

I've heard that if you are a terrorist in american you don't have any legal rights? Is that that true?

It depends on if you are a US citizen or not and how you were picked up (battlefield is different than say if you were found in your apartment (in the US), look at the "20th hijacker," he got tried in the court system with lawyers and everything). And what legal rights do you mean? For instance you can't apply US civilian law to a guy picked up with an RPG in Kirkuk, it doesn't work that way (and never has during any American war.

The Iraq attacked the US... that's news to me...

Look up the 1991 ceasefire and the use of AA against Coalition aircraft (before Bush was elected)

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 12:11 AM

NicholasJohnson

03-16-2007, 12:19 AM

Sounds a bit like standard practice during wartime, if you ask me. People caught during wartime are not tried in court in their home countries, at least on this planet. POWs are not charged with crimes, look at WWII or any other war, you don't charge prisoners in court (except in War Crime cases). Civilian jurisdiction does not apply in military matters and never has. Again, the U.S. legal system applies to American Civilians, not POWs, terrorists, or even US military personnel (who go through the military justice system). Gitmo is only used for a few hundred prisoners, most of the captured do not even go to Club Gitmo.

And the USMC (who run Gitmo) are not equivlent to the Gestapo, that is utter bullshit and frankly insulting. Stop comparing my family and friends to mass murderers if you want your views taken seriously. Why is the US military's malevolence assumed until proven otherwise?

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 12:22 AM

"And what legal rights do you mean?" That everone has the right to a fair trial, and if the person isn't american he or she should be trial in their home country. But It's funny how terrorist suspects are being held at guantanamo without trial or charge. Sounds a bit like gestapo tactics if you ask me.
those terrorist "suspects" who threaten my countries women children and civillians can rot in that shit hole for all eternity for all i care , they are lucky they are not executed

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-16-2007, 12:30 AM

If Haji picks up an AK-47 right infront of my eyes, either he's gonna have holes in him or he will be taken to prison. Innocent until proven guilty in a war? If I just saw him threaten the lives of me and my mates then he better damn be guilty.

Josh_HLB

03-16-2007, 12:41 AM

those terrorist "suspects" who threaten my countries women children and civillians can rot in that shit hole for all eternity for all i care , they are lucky they are not executed

Exactly the attitude that makes other countries hate America...

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 12:51 AM

Exactly the attitude that makes other countries hate America...
And thats exactly the non patriotic attitude that makes me sick

These people threaten OUR FAMILIES WITH DEATH AND DID SO ON 9/11

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 12:58 AM

But, you have seen no proof that these people had anything to do with 9/11 or have ever threatened you or your country. You are taking the word of your government. What makes you think you can trust them?

As soon as a government is given the power to imprison people without any trial or evidence (or anything!) That government becomes dangerous, un-democratic (a bad word really) and is verging on being totalitarian.

Guiltyspark, do you know who the men in Guantanamo Bay are? And can you tell me why they are there?

I doubt you, or the American people, have much of an idea. Your government could lock anyone up in there! No questions asked. They could storm into your house and lock you up without any evidence. Don't you think that is wrong?

And going back to my previous question, you do realise that the religion of Islam isn't some sort of breeding ground for terrorists and they don't all want to destroy America?

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 12:58 AM

"those terrorist "suspects" who threaten my countries women children and civillians can rot in that shit hole for all eternity for all i care , they are lucky they are not executed"

You sound like a bad american action movie. It must be hard living in country where there's a terrorist hiding in every corner just waiting to kill you and your whole family.

"Again, the U.S. legal system applies to American Civilians, not POWs, terrorists, or even US military personnel"

You said it yourself, If you are a terrorist you don't have any rights.
But what makes a man a terrorist? His skin color? His country? His religion?
Well if you treat people like animals and take away there rights, that makes you no better then the terrorists. And yes your country havn't done anynthing bad...ever? I don't want to break it too you but you're country are a bunch of mass murderers to, remember vietnam?
Btw soldiers have rights to it's called the genevekonvention.

xplosiv

03-16-2007, 01:00 AM

Iraq supported Taliban financially.
Ironically, the Taliban was funded and trained by US personel to fight the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s.

As soon as a government is given the power to imprison people without any trial or evidence (or anything!) That government becomes dangerous, un-democratic (a bad word really) and is verging on being totalitarian.With the power of mass-fear, the government can do whatever they want and the people will mostly turn a blind eye, believing it's for the greater good. In my personal opinion it's always been like that, especially with America, whether it be the Commies, the Drug barons (?), the terrorists. One thing to note is that without the Soviet Union up their backsides, the US of A can spread their influence and construct Mcdonalds restaurants wherever they please!! :O

Edit - Easy there.. Zynthetikk

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:03 AM

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 01:06 AM

Guiltyspark, would you be kind enough to answer my question?
This is a debate and I have asked you something.

Can you please give a reply?

Bosa-Nova

03-16-2007, 01:08 AM

This whole problem wouldn't have happened if Coalition troops went all the way in Gulf War 1. Failing that, Rumsfeld was essentially an idiot for not putting a respectable number of boots on the ground in the first place. In essence, the mission would have been a lot better if the US Administration thought about the long term. Thankfully, the gong show hasn't moved through to Afghanistan yet, so there's still some hope here.

I support the troops (I am one (CDN)), I support the mission, but my problems are with the way it was planned.

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 01:10 AM

Ey 343Guiltyspark arn't you the lucky one who will be able to have kids without fearing that they might be born without eyes or limbs.

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 01:11 AM

I don't think we should get personal.

But I do want to hear guiltysparks views on some of the things raised in this thread.

NicholasJohnson

03-16-2007, 01:16 AM

You said it yourself, If you are a terrorist you don't have any rights.
But what makes a man a terrorist? His skin color? His country? His religion?
Well if you treat people like animals and take away there rights, that makes you no better then the terrorists. And yes your country havn't done anynthing bad...ever? I don't want to break it too you but you're country are a bunch of mass murderers to, remember vietnam?
Btw soldiers have rights to it's called the genevekonvention.

1. You aren't reading my posts , US Civilian law does not apply to Terrorists.

2. What makes a guy a terrorist? WTF??! We aren't throwing people who read Marx into Gitmo, if that is what you are implying.

3. I never said my country never did anything bad. You are the one making wild assertions about Nazis and comparing the Vietnam war with genocides. I'll talk about the mass murder in Vietnam and Cambodia, i.e. the killing fields of Pol Pot which are still ignored by people today.

4. Again, actually read my posts instead of coming up with blind, arrogant emotion and rage about random "sins of the GREAT SATAN" while ignoring any facts provided.

EDIT: You want me to drag in the old A-bomb cancer/deformity casualty numbers again? Yeah, the ones that were "millions" and turned out to be several thousand :rolleyes:

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:17 AM

Ey 343Guiltyspark arn't you the lucky one who will be able to have kids without fearing that they might be born without eyes or limbs.what?:confused:

NicholasJohnson

03-16-2007, 01:21 AM

Ey 343Guiltyspark arn't you the lucky one who will be able to have kids without fearing that they might be born without eyes or limbs.

And unless you have certain medical issues, you won't either. That is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Bosa-Nova

03-16-2007, 01:25 AM

I might also add that that personal attacks show your high standard of maturity. Be respectful lads.

Minicow

03-16-2007, 01:31 AM

Ey 343Guiltyspark arn't you the lucky one who will be able to have kids without fearing that they might be born without eyes or limbs.

I'm going to just take a guess at what you're talking about and remind you that DU shells aren't radioactive, they're just heavy metals. Lead ammunition would have the same effect.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:34 AM

I'm going to just take a guess at what you're talking about and remind you that DU shells aren't radioactive, they're just heavy metals. Lead ammunition would have the same effect.
he is not talking about depleted uranium :D

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:42 AM

Guiltyspark, would you be kind enough to answer my question?
This is a debate and I have asked you something.

Can you please give a reply?

"Slay the pagans wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place...

O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make "jihad") against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them...

O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him

Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully"

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 01:45 AM

1. If US civilian laws and rights doesn't apply to terrorist what laws and rights do?

2. No but if you don't know the characteristics of a terrorist how can you be sure he is? Or is he a terrorist because the goverment says so?

3. No but the damage USA caused against the vietnamis people should be consided as a crime against humanity, you know that there are still people being borned without eyes and fingers in vietnam thanks to agent orange. Yes I was wrong about the A-bomb but I know for a fact that over 2 milions have died thanks to agent orange poisoning.

4. I did read your post. However I think you missunderstood me.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:50 AM

1. If US civilian laws and rights doesn't apply to terrorist what laws and rights do? gitmo is in cuba , us rights do not apply

2. No but if you don't know the characteristics of a terrorist how can you be sure he is? Or is he a terrorist because the goverment says so? yes the evil american government is abducting innocent people and sending them to cuba

3. No but the damage USA caused against the vietnamis people should be consided as a crime against humanity, you know that there are still people being borned without eyes and fingers in vietnam thanks to agent orange. Yes I was wrong about the A-bomb but I know for a fact that over 2 milions have died thanks to agent orange poisoning. Too bad agent orange was not used as a weapon , you almost had a argument

4. I did read your post. However I think you missunderstood me.fixed

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 01:52 AM

And unless you have certain medical issues, you won't either. That is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's no irrelevant becaus people in vietnam is still being borned like that. And it's all thanks USA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article354940.ece

"There were 454 babies with congenital defects born in the hospital last year, out of 36,000 deliveries. "Those are just the visible ones. We do not know about defects to internal organs, or those that only emerge years later," Professor Phuong said. The Vietnamese government estimates 500,000 children have been born with birth defects caused by contamination with Agent Orange and two million suffered cancers and other ill effects - innocent victims of a chemical intended to harm plant life, not humans. But unlike the American soldiers who sprayed the defoliant, they have never received compensation."

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 01:54 AM

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 02:06 AM

aag567

03-16-2007, 02:56 AM

Sgt So and So

03-16-2007, 03:01 AM

"yes the evil american government is abducting innocent people and sending them to cuba"

No you are so right, the government is always right and so why should even give them a trial. Becuase the goverment can't be wrong, can they?

"again , agent orange was not a weapon
your agument means nothing , it was not intentional"

So that makes it okej?

-I just killed you're whole family but it wasn't intentional.
-Oh it wasn't? Well then it's okej, you're free to go :D

Please don't hate me for my sarcasam :P

First of all, I don't know about you, but I dislike our government as much (or maybe even more!) than you do. They have made mistakes in the past, under horrible leadership and with terrible results, and I hope that they can someday try and make better decisions (*cough* good president! *cough).

But all nations have made mistakes- look at Japan in World War Two, if you want to talk about atrocities! They purposely- no, not accidentally, without proper scientific knowledge, like Agent Orange (which the American government formally apologized for, I believe)- killed and raped an entire city, Nanking, playing sick games like throwing babies up into the air to see who can catch it on their bayonet first. Look at the armies of Soviet Russia, whose soldiers, in retribution, raped and pillaged unfortunate towns in Germany. And, yes, Vietnam was a terrible war with horrible management of drugs and stress-laden soldiers, but you also have to look at the other side of the conflict. Historians still don't know how many South Vietnamese were killed, raped, and murdered by the VietCong, or how many innocent civilians who stumbled upon the N. Vietnamese convoys in Cambodia were silenced, OR how many of the Cambodians during Pol Pot's regime were killed, mostly because the individual soldiers, not the government, killed these people.

America has no direct control over its soldiers, just like past nations, and thus they make terrible moral judgements that a non-military person, like you or me, would probably never carry out, like Abu Ghraib and other atrocities happening over there. But, like the other atrocities, they were the soldier's personal decisions, not the governments. If you're going to blame our government for something, blame it for corruption, scandal, and the bumbling of our domestic policies. If you want to put the blame of the killings of Iraqis at the hands of disturbed or shell-shocked soldiers, please, go blame these soldiers that have willingly sacrificed the rest of their youth; nay, their sanity, to fight for something they believe in, which comes crashing down on them with the most terrifying force.

This war is, as many doctors have observed, one of the most nerve-racking and mentally stressful for soldiers ever. More and more soldiers are coming back home, broken, wide-eyed. A friend down the street of me, by the name of Kyle, had his uncle come back from Iraq. He never comes to visit, and, since his return, he hasn't stopped by to play a single video game or come for a chat, like he did before he left. Those soldiers change, and they are respected by their comrades and relatives at home, but it gets to a point when you no longer demand respect. You demand revenge. And that's when the killings begin.

But, naturally, we don't understand this, because many of us have not been to war. Still, we should show our support for our soldiers (NOT the government) to further encourage them not to do something stupid that may make Western culture look even more bestial than it already is.

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-16-2007, 03:42 AM

Minicow

03-16-2007, 04:20 AM

I think it's a good thing Saddam was removed, although the military didn't enter with the resources to restore peace. And Donald should've supplied our soldiers with something more modern than Vietnam era equipment.
Now this, this is a new criticism for me. I've really never heard someone complain about outdated equipment before.

Anyway, just what's "Vietnam era" that's still in service, aside from small arms?

Fallschirmjäger

03-16-2007, 04:28 AM

I think they are losing to many soldiers there,try and train the iraq army up,leave a smaller force for help maybe in saudi arabia and pull most of the troops out and to afghanistan or home,but kill as many of the bad guys before they leave.
The iraqi govt needs to start dealing with the insurgents and bin laden followers themselves,The u.s would leave troops for there embassy,some troops for training and intel etc..,the u.n or some arab league should send troops there to police it for ahwile and to back up the iraq govt in its job,as the u.s is hated there so much it seems,taking out most of the troops might help.

aag567

03-16-2007, 04:36 AM

Now this, this is a new criticism for me. I've really never heard someone complain about outdated equipment before.

Anyway, just what's "Vietnam era" that's still in service, aside from small arms?

That's it. Soldiers are also complaining about having to armor their vehicles.

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-16-2007, 04:40 AM

Arab league? I think not. The increased troop amount is to do just what you said, train the IP and IA. Hopefully sometime later this year we can begin do decrease the amount of troop.

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-16-2007, 04:41 AM

That's it. Soldiers are also complaining about having to armor their vehicles.

Um, where did you hear that? What soldier in the right mind would complain about putting armor on vehicles?

Fallschirmjäger

03-16-2007, 04:51 AM

Arab league? I think not. The increased troop amount is to do just what you said, train the IP and IA. Hopefully sometime later this year we can begin do decrease the amount of troop.

Some arab u,n force that has sunni's and shi'ites,kurds in it,to patrol them areas they live,and even maybe them to train them and the u.s can go over to afghanistan where i think they should be so they can kick that taliban butt thats getting to strong there.

Minicow

03-16-2007, 05:25 AM

That's it. Soldiers are also complaining about having to armor their vehicles.

M16's aren't exceptional rifles, but they certainly aren't bad, either. And pretty much all assault rifles since WW2 have similar capabilities. The AK-47 is 60 years old, and it's still one of the best rifles ever built.

About the vehicles. You're thinking about the lack of the up armored humvees. It's a problem, yes, but the ones in service are being converted to the armored version, and it's a decidedly post-Vietnam vehicle.

aag567

03-16-2007, 05:34 AM

Um, where did you hear that? What soldier in the right mind would complain about putting armor on vehicles?

Because they weren't armored in the first place. Heard about it in a war memoir called Chasing Ghosts.

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 06:00 AM

Sorry |:XAS:| Bravo but it's hard to try anwsering your posts without the use of sarcasam. And with statements as

"those terrorist "suspects" who threaten my countries women children and civillians can rot in that shit hole for all eternity for all i care , they are lucky they are not executed"

makes it hard to take you seriously.

"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"
you know terrorist arn't evil, they are just as human as you and I.

I know that they didn't find out that agent orange was poisonius untill there own troops started to die. But maybe they should have done some research before even using agent orange.. don't you think?
(And off the record I think they knew, they just didn't care)

Btw I'm sick and tiered of all this terrorist bullshit. You are all so gullible, it seems as you're believing everthing that the news spoonfeeds you with. It's sad that we once saw the goverment with such critical eyes only to end up following them blindly.

Fallschirmjäger

03-16-2007, 09:00 AM

Those new american vehicles are even being blown up too,this article said how recently the unit of them was ambushed by insurgents,this stryker was blown up all wounded inside and one killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_under_fire_3

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 10:22 AM

Yeah, it shocks me quite a lot that some people on here don't have a problem with an extremely powerful nation in the world having the ability to lock anyone up for as long as they want, no questions asked.

I would like to have an American view-point on this.

enigma

03-16-2007, 11:51 AM

The UN

Sorry Enigma, im don't know many special things and I don't closely follow world politics. So I suppose you can kind of look at me as your average ignorant person on the street. :)

:) nothing to do with politics i think, i just dont believe the UN works and that there all a bunch of time wasters ... talking and debating when action is required.

I may be wrong when i state this as i cant fully remember the period, but to the best of my knowledge - Dafur, they sat around discussing weather it was genocide or not instead of getting troops in there to stop what was happening.

:(

The 1991 Gulf War

Dudes as far as i can remember the reasons for not ousting Saddam there and then after the defeat of his army and the liberation of Kuirwait was due to the fragile bonds which was holding together the allied forces.
An advance into Iraq then would have destroyed the colatation.

What that would have done, who knows, prehaps the same thing as what is happening now would have happened then or there may have been peace. Who knows am not an expert on the subject :p

Another reason iirc was that American trop brass ordered offensive operations to halt after the massacre of portions of the iraq army on hells highway as the country was looking bad in the eyes of the worlds press etc

US Marines admit the war is unwinable

Talking of increase troop numbers, there was a report earlier this year that a guy within the US Marines stated that the current level of troops cannot stop the insergency and they need more and more troops in the worse areas to weed out the guys blowing stuff up and to put an end to it.

Whats peoples opinions on that? Iirc the top brass sent in an extra bunch of troops but most went to the capital and not to back up the guys in the provinces away from the major population centres etc

Terrorists

Btw I'm sick and tiered of all this terrorist bullshit. You are all so gullible, it seems as you're believing everthing that the news spoonfeeds you with. It's sad that we once saw the goverment with such critical eyes only to end up following them blindly.

I dont watch much of the news, as stated in another thread i cant stand news programes. However back in 2005 i was watching the news after getting home after hearing about what happened in London.

Am only 20, but these sort of events ive heard about for a good chunk of my life. However I turn on to find out trains and buses have been bombed.

What do you call these people?

The people who blew a train in Madrid, the guys who set off bombs in Spain, the people who took hostages in Russia, the dude who took down that building in Oklahoma etc etc

What are these people .... freedom fighters, irate people who dont want to pay taxes, people unhappy with the current poltical situation etc etc ?

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 04:02 PM

enigma

Well I think these people seeks justis, maybe there whole family have been killed and no one gave a shit about it. What would you do? mourn or take actions? I do not think the things they done are rigth but I think that we should look at them at a diffrent perspectiv.
This whole terrorist thing is a evil circle of revenge. It will never end untill someone stops or untill there's no one left.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 04:15 PM

Oh, guys, all wars are feakin' terrible...Wars are never fought for altruistic reasons. They're usually fought for hegemony, for business, . PROPOGANDA, folks. Plain and simple. And we are victims. Our minds have been raped .
Zynthetikk
Respect, man. You sound like sane perosn...

Terrorists? Bravo, if your INDIPENDENT state is invaded, if your wife and children and relatives die because of "precise bombings" you are not terrorist.

But you don't care about WMD, real or fictional...You don't care about United Nations and international law that is appled to any country no matter how powerful or rich? Or maybe Americans are god-like creatures who can spit upon regulations wich were made after conflict(WW2) that nearly slaughtered entire planet?

You care that evil Sadam is conquered(at last) by Forces of Light and Good? you don't care about facts...

Debates of such things make me feel fucking depressed and sad. I wonder how many normal people here and in your home countires are simply cheated and say ugly things. We all are BRAIN-WASHED.
I can't read some of the posts without shudder...
ANALYZE the freakin' facts. Anylyze U.S. foriegn policy thoughout 20th century- it's a terrible line of deeds, millions of people have suffered- and I hardly think that you even ever know of those facts. Dark Jedi against Light Jedi knights, Orcs versus Elves, compassioante U.S Marines against heartless "terrosists"? No, this world is a little bit more complicated...
Think with your head, question authority, don't watch the news, don't watch T.v., don't belive your govermnet, it cheats. You don't belive me...?Well, you don't.

Generals in the armchairs-that's who we are- sitting in our warm cozy chairs and judging things wich are beyond our knowledge.

That's all very fucking sad.

enigma

03-16-2007, 04:37 PM

Generals in the armchairs-that's who we are- sitting in our warm cozy chairs

Mines a cold leather seat :(

and judging things wich are beyond our knowledge.

That's all very fucking sad.

Thats very sad that you have just formed an opinion from juding something beyong your knowledge .... very very sad :(

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 04:42 PM

Heh. We'll see, enigma.

My position - the whole policy of the Western European Culture is a history of terrible, brutal war for hegemony over third and developing world. Spain and Portugal were the greatest criminals of the 16-17 centures, Great Britain was the greatest criminal of the 19th centry. And U.S(alongside with Soviet Union,Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist China and Khemr Rouge's Cambodia) is the greatest criminal of the 20 century, becuse it's the strongest power in the world now. You don't belive me, don't you? You are the good guys, the rest are the bad guys? You will bring DEMOCRACY to torturd Iraqi people, hot water and television, you are liberators, not occupying force? Well...

Americans on the forums, please don't take any offense- I speak stricktly against foreign policy of the STATE and your GOVERMENT not American NATION, its culture or ordinary citizens. I love Americans.
I really do, it's not an irony.

So, war-supproters, please tell me, loud and clear- why did U.S attack Iraq?
Give me short or long reasons.

Give me several reasons if you woud like. Coherent and logical reasons. I'll try to answer each of you.

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 06:16 PM

I think Corporate Ignorance has said what i have been trying to say but failing.

Some people have to realise that you can't trust the government to tell you the truth.
Sure, they TELL you that the people they locked up in Guantanamo are the men who definately did bombings around the world, or planned to, but has any independant party (i.e. judges) ever seen any evidence for this?

No. But people take it for granted that their government is locking up the right people and always tells the truth.

THEY DONT.
WAKE UP.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 06:46 PM

xplosiv

03-16-2007, 06:50 PM

conspiracy theorists make me sick , the us government does not spend time and money to find and lock up random muslims

and then to feed them and keep them alive in gitmo

you people are OUT OF YOUR MINDS if you think these people are innocentSome of them were. There were a number of stories a while ago about (some British) innocent but 'suspected' muslims being sent to Guantanamo.. but nah that's not important is it.. :rolleyes:

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 06:54 PM

Conspiracy theory? Yah, they make me sick also...

You know, only morality, facts and logic are the main factors for me to make an assertion about this or that certain subject. Not to say about war.

Please, we are not speaking about prisons here, we speak about war, and our attitude towards it. Please stay let us stick to the topic, guys. This topic is VITAL.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 06:56 PM

Some of them were. There were a number of stories a while ago about (some British) innocent but 'suspected' muslims being sent to Guantanamo.. but nah that's not important is it.. :rolleyes:
and they were released .....

whats the problem

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 06:56 PM

Conspiracy theory? Yah, they make me sick also... You know, only morality, facts and logic are the main factors for me to make an assertion.
But it's not the point.

Please, we are not speaking about prisons here, we speak about war, and our attitude towards it. Please stay let us stick to the topic, guys.
This is on topic....

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 06:58 PM

No, I don't think so...I will ask the modertors to look into the matter, if you want.
I repeat-
war-supproters, please tell me, loud and clear- why did U.S attack Iraq?
Give me short or long reasons.

Give me several reasons if you woud like. Coherent and logical.

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 07:01 PM

Well, maybe not everyone in there is innocent.
But does it not worry you that they can lock anyone they want away?

If someone is getting in the governments way for something completely unrelated they can call him/her a "terrorist" and have them thrown in jail for as long as they want.

And Guiltyspark, what makes you think that "those" people in guantanamo aren't innocent?
Who told you that the people in guantanamo are guilty?
And why do you believe them?

Lol, there was like a billion posts while I was typing.
Ignore this if you think its off-topic.

enigma

03-16-2007, 07:06 PM

Corporate Ignorance

Why dont you tell us why the Coalition Forces invaded Iraq since you seem to know and we all dont?

Btw i think you should use the word "Coalition" and not American. Over 20 nations took part, it is true however that the majoirty of the ground personel were American it was not soley a US attack it was an allied one.

I also think your slander of the western world and how the empires of past were all crimanals and nothing else is apualing. Yes they did alot wrong, but you seem to forget ... like most people, the great achievements, the advances in quality of life, new step forwards in science etc they brought with them.
You dont just hold an empire together with force of power and brutality.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 07:19 PM

First of all I would like to tell everybody that I don't want that this discussion turn into a fight. I respect your opinon. Please say what you think. I try to prove my point of view. Then everybody will have the time to think and judge. Please don't be frustrated and try to stay calm. That includes me also.:)

Enigma, I won't to discuss here the direction towards this modern world is slowly going(it's going step by step into an dark ass.:) and it's not very funny), and let us not discuss "empire qualities" here...But you know, in Soveit times communist historians defended Stalin camps and millions of dead people because he build such great factories, he made an entire working industry built on people's suffering, repression, lies and crime.
But you won't defend Hitler...And he made Germany one of the greatest powers of the world, advanced in technology. Sience, industry, technological progress IS NOT worthy dead children, political lies, wars, interventions and dead planets. Where is the border, where is the fringe when you start to blame or praise the TYRANT wich is state? You approve the colonization but you denounce Third Riech and Stalin. Strange.

But we are discussing Iraq war.]

Coaliton---Oh, the Afghanistan was also in Coaltion...It's a very wise strategic move, to my mind-to present it as a colloaborative effort- to gather small client slave states(Such as Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia who are VERY glad to lick an arse to a powerful ally) Look at the countries apart from Great Britain- they almost have NO GROUND ARMIES. 250-100-500-or even 2 brave Iclandic soldiers...Yeah indeed a coaliton of 250(invasional) thousends of Americans and 27 of Khazakstan and 11 from Moldova...

Still, noone has asnwered me yet- I simply don't know what you know and think- WHY did U.s attacked Iraq?

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 07:22 PM

I totally agree with Corporate Ignorance and |Crimson|. The goverment can just point at someone and says "He's a terrorist". And like that the accused person gets all his rights taken from him and thrown in jail for an undetermined time. Is it only I who thinks this is madness?
343Guiltyspark how can you know someone is guilty or innocent if they don't get a fair trial or no trial at all?

enigma

03-16-2007, 07:28 PM

Actually i would point out the posatives of the Third Reich, a new era in rockerty which has eventually lead for one example satelites and now we have world wide TV.
British and German engineering lead us into the Jet age etc
I would point out how Stalin lead what some regard as a backwards nation into a world Superpower via his industrlisation programs and within a short space of time caught up with the "Modern World".

But as you said, we are discussing the Iraq War .... so why did the American lead Coalition Force invade?

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 08:21 PM

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 08:26 PM

"90% of the people in Gitmo are people that were activly killing or trying to kill coalition forces" Do you have any proof for that or are you just taking the goverments word for it :rolleyes:

enigma

03-16-2007, 08:39 PM

"90% of the people in Gitmo are people that were activly killing or trying to kill coalition forces" Do you have any proof for that or are you just taking the goverments word for it :rolleyes:

What happens then, if the US goverment turns around and says there all innocent?

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 08:42 PM

Moderators, please make explicit that this is a topic where we are discussing not the guilt or innocence of prisoners of a Gitmo prison, and not prison itself, but we are discussing our opinions and attitude towards entire operation "Iraqi Freedom". I think this topic is interesting and important so let us stick to it. Please! Noone still answered the question- WHY DID U.S FORCES ATTACKED IRAQ?

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 08:47 PM

"90% of the people in Gitmo are people that were activly killing or trying to kill coalition forces" Do you have any proof for that or are you just taking the goverments word for it :rolleyes:

:confused: People are this rediculous? They really think that the united states government is abducting innocent iraqies on purpose?

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 08:49 PM

and its a stupid question stop asking it , we invaded for the WMDs

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 08:50 PM

Was it only the only one reason, to your mind?

And if so, did U.S forces found any WMDs in Iraq?

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 08:52 PM

That was only one reason?please stop acting like a child

enigma

03-16-2007, 08:52 PM

Please! Noone still answered the question- WHY DID U.S FORCES ATTACKED IRAQ?

well ive asked you and you keep avoiding the question....

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 08:54 PM

2Guiltyspark
I'm simply asking you a question. No need to call your opponent in argue a "child", it dosen't prove anything to anyone.:)

Enigma, of course, I will give my view upon those reasons, but later... First of all, I want to hear logical points from war-supporters. I wonder what you belive.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 08:57 PM

I'm simply asking you a question. No need to call your opponent in argue a "child", it dosen't prove anything to anyone.:)

you have been begging people to answer the question , i answered it , you say " thats the only reason " like that reason is not good enough

its like arguing with a child

Zip

03-16-2007, 09:02 PM

I'm simply asking you a question. No need to call your opponent in argue a "child", it dosen't prove anything to anyone.:)

Enigma, of course, I will give my view upon those reasons, but later... First of all, I want to hear logical points from war-supporters. I wonder what you belive.

For me i do beleive they went in looking for WMD and Also they went in after Sadam and 50 of the most dangerous poeple in the world.
Im not sure how many they have caught but they have got Sadam and Quite a few of those guys and thats good enough for me.

BTW if you hadnt noticed but now that Saddam is gone, Iraq now has an Olympic team and a Soccer team that compete on the international stage with out the fear of being killed and having there families and coach's tortured if they didnt win for the first time in ages!

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 09:05 PM

Okie...So we've got two main reasnos now-
1.Iraq was a threat to U.S creating WMD
2.Okie. Second reason. Saddam was in the chart of the most dangerous people of the world, so U.S decided to caught him and prosecute becuase he was very bad...How nice.
Anyone can name more reasons? There is at least one wich is not named.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 09:11 PM

Okie...So we've got two main reasnos now-
1.Iraq was a threat to U.S creating WMD

Allright, what did you know about WMD in Iraq? Have they found anything?

2.Okie. Second reason. Saddam was in the chart-50 dangeruous people of the world...
Any more reasons?
i was hoping that you would say that , you really are living up to your name!

First of all , Iraq has WMDs proof = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

here is some more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Now why have we not found masses of it?

Iraq is a desert , you can bury somthing in the middle of the desert and chances are , it will never be found , thats just logic

any other arguments that fail?

Zip

03-16-2007, 09:13 PM

Also how about the fact that they have taken away alot of fear of free speech in the country?

The lines of people that were lineing up when they got to vote even though they knew the person behind them could go bang at any moment.

They only Reason the US cant control the People of Iraq is because they dont rule it with fear and Extreem Punishment and Torure like Saddam and his followers did.

If they were allowed to shoot protestors on the spot, Lock up anyone and there familys that they had any incling at all that were going to cause any trouble or speak badly of the govenment like sadam would have done then i bet the Coalition forces could run the country under perfect control in a mater of months.

But That wont happen because they do it different and allow people to protest if its not violent and allow them of free speach.

Now Corporate Ignorance Whats your reasons instead of asking us?

NicholasJohnson

03-16-2007, 09:13 PM

Ok here is one that hardly anyone talks about: Iraq shot at Coalition aircraft between the "two Gulf wars". There was a ceasefire signed after '91, I don't think any "peace treaty" was done though.

enigma

03-16-2007, 09:21 PM

Well the 1991 war never ended, it carried on for 10 years so it was about time they finished it off....

But to the quesiton, in the lead up to the war we were told that Saddam was a nutjob, that he had NBC weapons, he funded terrorists and that his people lived in fear under his evil regime.

I never believed in the terrorist one myself.

However i agreed that a person like him and his regime should be removed. Did he have NBC weapons, of course he did. He used them, inspectors iirc in the 90s found plants or factories - whatever and did there business.

As for did he have NBC weapons in 2003, in the lead up there was intel which had Iraqi officers bragging about how inspectors missed things.
Following the invasion there have been reports as 343Guiltyspark mentioned of shells popping up here and there which contained chems. However these are always dismissed. The last one i remember them stating "oh they must have found it in the desert from what it was fired and failed to go off in the 80s during the Iran-Iraq war"

There was reports of Migs being dug up ... now if they can bury a Mig ... how hard can it be to bury drums or whatever canister holds some chems or agents? (come on they even found Saddam in a hole!)
If you can pour all sorts of acids down the drain ... that leads a laymen to the opinion of what else can you pour down the drain.

All in all - yes i agreed that an evil regime should be removed.

Now for some comic answers which can be found on the net:

New kit needed testing. Shame someone forgot to buy and deploy said kit.

The village idiot couldn't spell 'Iran' yet.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 09:30 PM

So...1 offical reason- WmD -Have you ever heard of such reason as INTERNATIONAL LAW? First of all, U.N, the HIGHEST authority in international law GAVE NO RESOLUTION on use of the armed force on Iraq. Still, the invasion of iraq is ILLEGAL. It's an occupation. Fox news don't tell you that?
Because- Inspectors did not find ANYTHING exept the remains of old weapons built with American help. Didn't know this?

Your article states that a patrol found a balon of mustard gas. Indeed, Saddam killed Kurds with gas...but developed with Amercian money, while Amercians sponsored his production of this weapon in 1983. Did you know that fact? That Donald Rumsfielf himself gave golden spurs to Saddam Hussien and supported the program of "militarization of Iraq."

I think that you don't know what I will be saying now.. No wonder. American propoganda system is the best after the Soveit one.

The U.S. government says that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, a cruel military despot who has committed genocide against his own people. That's a fairly accurate description of the man. In 1988, Saddam Hussein razed hundreds of villages in northern Iraq, used chemical weapons and machine guns to kill thousands of Kurdish people. Today we know that that same year the U.S. government provided him with $500 million in subsidies to buy American farm products. The next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the U.S. government, perfectly aware of the genocide, doubled its subsidy to $1 billion. It also provided him with high quality germ seed for anthrax, and helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. So it turns out that while Saddam Hussein was carrying out his worst atrocities, the U.S. and the U.K. governments were his close allies.

How many people know that Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein money back in 1983? You don't know. Because goverment won't tell you. It's a FACT.
A little of that has begun to leak out, but how many people know that Colin Powell, the present administration moderate, was the National Security Advisor at the time of Halabja massacre, when the Reagan administration, responded by simply increasing aid to Saddam Hussein, as did the first Bush administration later.

They knew that this aid was used for chemical and biological warfare, and for developing missiles and nuclear weapons. But they did not care so the aid continued.

Nowadays, Powell moans about the graves in Halabja, but he didn't care at the time. They now claim this was because of the war with Iran, but it had nothing to do with the war in Iran. The war in Iran was over. They provided aid to their friend Saddam Hussein because of their duty to support US exporters, as they said on public record.

When Saddam Hussein was massacring the Kurds, he was also wiping out agricultural areas. They needed agricultural aid and US agro-business was delighted to have the US taxpayer pay them to send agricultural aid to Iraq. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney thought that was just fine.

So what changed? In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. His sin was not so much that he had committed an act of war, but that he had acted independently, without orders from his master. This display of independence was enough to upset the power equation in the Gulf. So it was decided that Saddam Hussein be exterminated, like a pet that has outlived its owner's affection.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 09:33 PM

keep changing the subject and blaming america for what iraq did , thats sad

NicholasJohnson

03-16-2007, 09:39 PM

So you assume anyone who dares to have an opinion other than yours must watch Fox News and is therefore ignorant. Sounds like stereotyping to me. Also, enigma himself says he doesn't watch the news. So if a supporter of the war must be brainwashed by Fox News, then an anti-war person would watch...what? Al-Jazeera? Or is that "bigoted"? :confused:

enigma

03-16-2007, 09:47 PM

I dont have Fox so i cant watch it! :p And yes its true, i hardly watch the news. My information of current affairs comes from glancing at the frontpages of the newspapers, people talking about said event, forums were people are discussing said events and the odd time i go onto the yahoo main page.
Id prefer to watch Scrubs or the Simpsons ....

One should also note that i know the Western World aided Iraq with development of NBC, ive read that the French and as you have stated the Americans gave his regime the weapons.
That he was funded by the west etc
(if we want to talk about funding, where did those Scud missiles come from?)

So how exactly is ranting about how evil the west is (you state we are brainwashed and full of propaganda lol) answering the question you asked us .... why did "America" invade Iraq?

Ah heres one for you, did you know...

To help fund the war agaisnt Iran, Saddam asked the people of his country to send in there gold ... watches, neckless etc
After the war ended, Saddam was out and about in his nice Gold Carrage....

hmmm wonder where that came from?

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 09:51 PM

Pfc.Jackson, I don't this Corporal Ignorance was saying that. As he said earlier, he respects other peoples opinion and is just trying to prove his.

But I would like to know Corporal Ignorance, why do you think the Americans (because that's effectively who we're talking about) invaded a second time?

And also Pfc.Jackson, why do you think they invaded?

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 09:53 PM

Every time i watch FOX or CCN I get paranoid. Thinking that there might be a terrorist hiding in my closet with an AK47 :eek:

Btw when are you going to invade north korea?

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 09:54 PM

Well the 1991 war never ended, it carried on for 10 years so it was about time they finished it off....

All in all - yes i agreed that an evil regime should be removed.

Hell, Enigma, Pfc.Jackson please don't be naive...The problem is that you are not ignorant. You are clever guys. That is the main problem.

...Are you really belive that human govements acts of humanism and sense of justice? They act only where they smell profit and geopolitical hegemony.
Why U.S dosen't help Eastern Congo nowadays? There are far more terrible massacres happening there at the VERY MOMENT. Why did U.S didn't do anything with Chinese tanks when they roll over democratic demonstrations in Teenamen sqaure in 1989? People are being prosecuted in commusit China even now...

Because Eastern Congo dosen't have anything. IT DOSEN"T HAVE OIL. It's a poor African country where dictators change with the speed of wind.
And China is too strong...
So THE MAIN REASON FOR ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS OIL.
They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course it was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question. Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. It has the second largest reserves and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years.

The invasion of Iraq had a number of motives, and one was to illustrate the new National Security Strategy, which declares that the United States will control the world permanently by force, DESPITE INTERNATIONAL LAW, if necessary and will eliminate any potential challenge to that domination. It is called pre-emptive war.

It is not a new policy, it's just never been announced so brazenly, which is why it caused such uproar, including among the foreign policy elite in the United States. They're appalled by it.
But having announced the doctrine, it needed an exemplary action, to show that the United States really meant it.

But if the United States is going to attack somebody, the action has to meet several criteria. The first and crucial criterion is that they must be completely defenseless. It's stupid to attack anyone who can shoot back(Like China). Anyone knows this.

They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely defenseless, the weakest country in the region. Its military expenditure was about a third of Kuwait, devastated by sanction, held together by Scotch tape. Mostly dis-armed, under complete surveillance, so Iraq met that condition.

Second criteria is that the place attacked has to be important enough to matter. There's no point taking over Eastern Congo, which is also defenseless, but Iraq matters. That's where the issue of oil comes up, since the United States will end up with military bases right in the heart of the oil producing region.

The third criteria is you have to somehow pretend it's a threat to your existence. While the people of Kuwait and Iran might be delighted to tear Saddam Hussein limb from limb, they still did not regard him as a threat. No-one thought he was a threat.

But in the United States the propaganda did succeed in moving the American population, and Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to defend the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. That's just laughable. Threat to U.S? Links to Ben Laden? Responsible for 9/11 attacks?NO. No weapons of mass destruction. No sanction from U.N. Illegal agression. Countless civillian causualty.

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 09:57 PM

ya oil , thats why oil prices skyrocketed after we invaded right?

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 09:59 PM

Why did U.S not help Eastern Congo to build a democracy? Answe me.:) Is it merely BY CHANCE( taking into veiw what I've mentioned above) that a country helps the other country out of mere compassion. In the world of politics compassion and empathy don't matter...

343Guiltyspark

03-16-2007, 10:00 PM

weakest country in the reigon!??!?!!??!?

LOL iraq had one of the largest tank armies in the world!

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 10:02 PM

2Guiltyspark
All Iraq tanks were outdated t-72...:) Their numbers were not many.:)
In 2003, did it have the largest tank army int the world? No! Iraq was drained by sanctions and DISARMED... It's a fantasy of Saddam, not facts.:)

For those 10 years war never end...

All in all - yes i agreed that an evil regime should be removed.

Quite true-war never ended.

Statistics-

The first Allied attack on Iraq took place on January '91. The world watched the prime-time war as it was played out on T.V. Tens of thousands of civillian people were killed in a month of devastating bombing. What many do not know is that the war never ended then. The initial fury simmered down into the longest sustained air attack on a country since the Vietman War. Over the last decade American and British forces have fired thousands of missiles and bombs on Iraq. In the decade of economic sanctions that followed the war, Iraqi civilians have been denied food, medicine, hospital equipment, ambulances, clean water - the basic essentials.
About half a million(!) Iraqi children have died as a result of the sanctions- Red Cross official statistics

Enigma, please say-are you seriosuly belives that modern goverments care for evil regimes?:) China is not very nice, Eastern Congo and even Russia- everywhere human right are despised in a most terrible manner...Why we have United States buidling democracy not in Africa but in the most oil-rich region of the world, Middle East?:) I think it's clear.

enigma

03-16-2007, 10:03 PM

Are you really belive that human govements acts of humanism and sense of justice?

Sometimes, as in the canceling of third world debt, decaling war on Germany in 1939, willing to send troops to Dafur, attempting to cut carbon emmissions and to recycle more, the START treaty etc etc

Basically, otherwise whats the point of them ... there, there because we put them there to represent us the people .... its how democarcy works. They do crap for us ... taxes, fixing drainpipes, helping people back into work and gloably what they think is best for our country etc

Why did U.S dosen't help Eastern Congo nowadays? There are far more terrible massacres happening there at the VERY MOMENT. Why did U.S didn't do anything when Chinese tanks when they roll over democratic demonstrations in Teenamen sqaure in 1989? People are being prosecuted in commusit China even now...?

Theres a simple reason for that, this is the 50s when the Chinese were using terrible tactics and we already had our troops in place to fight.

We would get our asses handed to us ... same reason one image why British, American and Germans tanks didnt role of the East German border.

They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely defenseless, the weakest country in the region. Its military expenditure was about a third of Kuwait, devastated by sanction, held together by Scotch tape. Mostly dis-armed, under complete surveillance, so Iraq met that condition.

That doesnt quite explain how in '91 the 4th largest army in the world was reduced to nothing in the matter of a few weeks.

There's no point taking over Eastern Congo, which is also defenseless,

Diamonds?

but Iraq matters. That's where the issue of oil comes up, since the United States will end up with military bases right in the heart of the oil producing region.
I dont see how taking control of Iraq = a hell load of oil for American and the west .... when we were getting that anyways.

I believe a comentaor stated it was bad to invade on the grounds of oil, keeping the region unstablised but not messed up as it is now was more beifical and encomical.
I.e. more oil for us.

I hate to ask this, but since you seem to be taking the moral high road.
Afganistan, Hungary, Chechnya to name a few.

first criteria : defencless ... yep
Second criteria: no ... dont see how they are important .... prehaps the Hungarian oilfields, Afganistan natural resouces, oil fields in baku?
third criteria: well i dont know ... i dont live there.....

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 10:07 PM

I hate my goverment too.:) I love my people, I don't like my state. I love English man and english culture(England is one of my favorite countries in the world, btw), I love American and american culture, I don't like foriegn policy of U.S and Europe and Soveit Union and Russia. Please notice the diffrence.

Chechenian war is one of the most bloodiest, terrrible and stupid wars that Russia was involved into. But it's a diffrent matter. We speak about Iraqi freedom.

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 10:08 PM

Here's another thing that you might not have thought of.

I think USA invaded iraq for the same reason like most other wars, too hide the countrys real problem. Poverty, crime and drugs.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 10:17 PM

quote-dont see how taking control of Iraq = a hell load of oil for American and the west .... when we were getting that anyways.-quote

Of course there's the business of war.
Protecting its control of the world's oil is fundamental to U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. government's recent military interventions in the Balkans and Central Asia ALL have to do with oil. Hamid Karzai, the puppet President of Afghanistan installed by the U.S., is said to be a former employee of Unocal, the American-based oil company. The U.S. government's paranoid patrolling of the Middle East(ONLY IT) is because it has two-thirds of the world's oil reserves. Oil keeps America's engines purring sweetly. Oil keeps the Free Market rolling. Whoever controls the world's oil, controls the world's market. And how do you control the oil?
Nobody puts it more elegantly than The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. In an article called, "Craziness Pays", he said, "The U.S. has to make it clear to Iraq and U.S. allies that...American will use force without negotiation, hesitation or U.N. approval." His advice was well taken.

Right now, since the weapons of mass destruction have not been found, there are other excuses being used for the invasion of Iraq. In article after article, Thomas Friedman of New York Times, as well as Colin Powell, both moan about the mass graves that have been discovered.

It is true they did not see them before, but of course they knew they were there. In 1991, after the Gulf War, the US had total control of the whole region, Saddam Hussein was effectively authorized to massacre the Shiites, and to put down the rebellion that could have overthrown him.

Today, Thomas Friedman is agonizing about the mass graves, but if you go back and read him in 1991, he knew about them. He was the New York Times' Chief Diplomatic Correspondent, and he said that the best of all worlds for the United States would be an iron fisted military junta that would rule Iraq the same as Saddam Hussein, but since Saddam is an embarrassment, lets try to get someone else. And if we cannot find someone else, we will have to settle for second best, Saddam Hussein himself. Well? Don't you see any logical contradiction in this?

The British are an interesting case. I US has pretty much the same government that was in office in 1991. But in Britain, today's government was in opposition in 1991. There were parliamentary protests in England about the gassing of the Kurds and so on, but try to find the names of Tony Blair, Jeff Hoon, Jack Straw, I think even Robin Cook. They're missing.

enigma

03-16-2007, 10:24 PM

Why didnt they invade Saudi which pours our more oil?

Kosavo, Bosnia ... the well know mass Euro oilfields....

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 10:30 PM

Balkans is important strategic point...In every time it was...
Saudi were and are far stronger then Iraq...They are fabously rich. They are powerful. They are the most powerful country in the Middle East. They are far more developed in every aspect.
Moreover they are the center of Islamic world(ruled by aboslute Islam Monarch), supported by ALL muslim countries.
Iraq was an ideal target- it has 2/3 of the world's oil reserves and it was weak. Moreover, Saddam was not popular among muslim countries-ask Kuwiet or Iran...

And there are no diamonds in Eastern Congo...Only daily massacre. Nobody cares.

enigma

03-16-2007, 10:36 PM

Strategic for what exactly? (seriously i have no idea on this and am intriegied)

So Saudi is friendly with America and the West ... is also strong.
Kuiwait is on good terms with the west.
The Western World also has its own oil and gas fields all over the show.
Russian oil etc is pumped west.
Azerbaijani is oil rich isnt she? i.e Baku

Are the Hungarian and Romanian oil fields still in use?

See this is where the oil question in my mind starts falling a little short. With so many places pumping oil towards the west and feeding everyones SUV .... why secure more when you already have access to an abundance of it and Iraq is selling theres.... (it would appear they were exporting more before the war then they are now)

|Crimson|

03-16-2007, 10:41 PM

Because if you own the oil you don't have to buy it off Iraq?

I don't know. Its a guess. :) Wait for Corporal Ignorance to answer. :)

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 10:48 PM

Heh...So we've come again to the question of statistics..

Balkans gave the oportunity to influence the Blakanian region-it's a nexus of major oil trade routes. Morover, it has more geopolitical meaning- remmeber First World War, Secornd World war- Balkanis are often called "Amuniton Basement of Europe", if you get my meaning.

So I think that you haven't heard about it- russian reserves are sufficient only for 30 years, then they will be over, because it's "pumping west" by our corporations with careless barbarity. European oil is almost over. It really is. There is a law in America not to tocuh natural resources of their own ground...Very clever.

They use the developing and the third world as a grand feeding beast.
The thing is that BUYING oil from countries are not satisfying and profitable for a goverment of a rational-thinking people wich is backed up by most powerful corporations in the world. And Amercian goverment was always very pragmatic and went hand-to-hand with "big buisness".
Do you think that it is a coincidence that entire Iraqi oil industry was IMMIEDEATLY privatized by most powerful American Oil Corporations?
If you control the biggest oil reserves(U.s reserves proper and Middle East oil) you control the free market...Nowadays economy determins politics. and the most terrible thing is that it determins a war...

Was it an essential step to Iraqi freedom and democracy?
Children keep dying but oil production was renewd. I found this suspecious and strange...And you?

Actually, I feel sorry for American soldiers who are sent there to fight for some freakin' man in suit whith clean-shaved cheeks, suit and tie who spends his life in the office of a skyscraper and never raise his own voice. I really feel sorry for killed or wounded U.S, British and any other Coalition soldiers. They simply follow orders but hell, that's an illegal, unjustifed war started by goverments. And I feel sorry for innocent civilians.

Minicow

03-16-2007, 11:06 PM

Here's another thing that you might not have thought of.

I think USA invaded iraq for the same reason like most other wars, too hide the countrys real problem. Poverty, crime and drugs.
You do know the US has an average crime rate (far lower than Britain's, at least), and very little poverty, right? It's not just a stereotype, we're still extremely prosperous.

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 11:09 PM

very little poverty? 1/3 of the american people are living in poverty, I wouldn't call that little.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 11:12 PM

Zynthetikk, America is indeed very strong and prosperous, despite internal problems, wich of course exist(drugs, criminal level etc.) but not in a overly large scale. At least, as far as I remmeber from my trip and from speaking with several American friends.

Strongest power in the entire world. And that makes it even more scary. Anyway, everybody, please stay on topic. As I've said, let us stay passionate but polite. We all have to respect each other. Only then we can find some truth.

JonasDahlin

03-16-2007, 11:48 PM

Corporate Ignorance

Are you sure you didn't go to canada? :p

Btw to all the people on this thread I would recommend you too see the Wag the dog if you already havn't seen it.

Corporate Ignorance

03-16-2007, 11:56 PM

2Zynthetikk

I'm sure- I was in Washington, Oregon and Calefornia...:DThough I greatly desire to visit Canada too...Anyway, it's offtopic.:)

So?

Minicow

03-17-2007, 12:57 AM

very little poverty? 1/3 of the american people are living in poverty, I wouldn't call that little.
Yes, technically, 20% of Americans live in poverty, however:

• 46% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over-crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

...

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

...

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year, the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year, the equivalent of one adult worker 40 hours per week throughout the year, nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

...

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

...
Source, "Understanding Poverty in America," by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.

Look it up if you want more.

It seems to me that the US doesn't have much real poverty. The average American living in "poverty" is far better off than the majority of the world, and in some ways better off than the average citizen of some first world countries.

PS: It's on topic-ish! It's kinda-sorta discussing the reason the US invaded.

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 01:16 AM

Well, it's again off-topic, although intersesting...
I don't want the things to get blurry...

I want to hear if there is any opinions?.

As I said, propoganda in America is one of the most subtle thing in the whole world.

With all my posts above, I'm not trying to show off and I don't even prove you my point of view.

I just stated above mere facts, thought-provoking information and tried to broke most terrible "myths" regarding Iraq war-
1.WMD- remmeber, that's VERY important(!)- Iraq ocupaton is still juridically illegal by all norms of international law, wich WAS BROKEN for a reason that turned to be FALSE.
No WMD was found by indiependent U.N. experts. WMD wich were were built with the help of U.S money. During massacre of Kurds, of wich U.S PERFECTLY knew they keep giving money for building those weapons.(!) and other goods to their Middle East ally Saddam until end of 80-where was the righteous wrath? Contradiction?

2.War started because U.S suddenly tunred good and caring for opressed people of the world. Building new democratic Iraq out of totally sudden empathy and compassion.(Just read the statistic of the civillians looses, or watch the video of some Iraqi cities with dead children. Nice compassion. Pre-emptive pragmatic agression, fueled by compassionate American Congress. Noone has answered me yet- Why not Eastern Congo? Again, contradiction)

3.Sadam was so evil that Bush decided to finish him because Iraq was a direct threat to U.S- it's again litereary FALSE.( Iraq was the weakest country in the region in 2003, wasted by sanctions and dis-arming. Again, look above for factual proves.)

So where is promised florishing democracy? We've been told not now, later...But what we have now, what is the direct consequence of "Iraqi freedom"-
Now Iraq is torn by bloody civil war and its people become more and more mad with hatred bacause of terrible civillian looses. U.S soldiers become more and more angry with Iraqi who kill them, iraqis insurgents and ordinary civilians(who are often openly supporting those "insurgents" who are actually their husbands, brothers and sons) become more and more frustrated with the "invaders". Misunderstanding is growing. And above all innocent blood is being shed.

And what about privatized oil industry immidieatly after Coalition troops took control over all strategic points over the country?
Heh, it looks very disturbing, but all mentoned above makes(for me) a coherent picture- WHY this war was started.

Just analyze the facts and use your sense of logic. Analyaze reactions of Collin Powell. Analyze reaction of most goverment pro-war journalists...Analyze the apparent CONTRADICTIONS of U.S policy towards Iraq. Analyze APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS in official media. Just look at how they show you the entire conflict- many people sincerly belive that U.S are Light Knights defeating evil Sauron in Mordor. In this world politics are far more complicated.
How subtly they create slogans like "Support our troops!" when they need a rise of war mood. How cynically they manipulate people's grief, when dead american soldiers come home in coffins...

The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.

All that I've written is for your consideration. Think for yourself. Know that this facts exist. And then decide.
I repeat I'm not Anti-American at all, I just hate U.S foriegn policy.
Intillegent people are being simply cheated.

JonasDahlin

03-17-2007, 01:36 AM

completly off-topic but it shows how much bush cares about the poor.. it's sad really

Zip

03-17-2007, 07:57 AM

Why did U.S not help Eastern Congo to build a democracy? Answe me.:)

Because they are no threat for us and only are disturbing there own area.

If we let Iraq go on its way saddam would have done something at some stage because hes a nut:eek:

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 08:19 AM

2Zip
So Easter Congo don't deserve compassion of the U.S and Democracy and Iraq does? As I've said, nobody cares for Eastern Congo where massacres happen at the very moment.

Modern period of Congo conflict(1996-present day) has been the bloodiest in history since World War II. Saddam is merely an angel in comparison to Congo warlords. Almost four million people have died as a result of the fighting.(U.N. statistics) The United Nations is concerned that 1000 people a day are still dying as a result of the conflict and have described 2006 as a "make or break point" for the continuing humanitarian crisis.

But nobody cares. Nobody.

I think I wrote about the notion that Saddam and Iraq was a "threat" to U.S, the most poweful country in the world, who has one of the most exeptionlal military forces.
Within weeks after September, 2002, a crucial moment in world affairs, within weeks even the mainstream U.S. press was compelled to report that the world now regards George Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein. T
hat fact is an understatement because much as Saddam Hussein was hated and reviled, he was not regarded as a threat. Even by the countries that he had attacked, Iran and Kuwait, both of which understood perfectly well that after a decade of sanctions that had devastated the society, and after having been effectively disarmed, however awful Saddam Hussein was, he wasn't going to threaten anybody. In fact, it was the weakest country in the region. One of the reasons why it was attacked, it met the primary conditions for target of attack, it was defenseless and known to be.

And then there was a massive government propaganda campaign in September of 2002 when the invasion was effectively announced and it did drive a large part of the U.S. population completely off the international spectrum. The United States was the only country where a large part of the population was genuinely afraid of Saddam Hussein, because of his weapons of mass destruction, and his links to terror. It turns out that the people who had those attitudes, those attitudes are strongly correlated with support for the war. Which is not in the least surprising. If I believed those things, I would support the war, too. I mean, if you believe that here is a murderous tyrant accumulating weapons of mass destruction, responsible for 9-11, linked to Al qaeda, planning new terror, we have to stop him in time, there's a rational decision to invade Iraq. Of course, there never was any reason to believe there was a particle of truth to that. As I say, the U.S. was alone in having any detectable part of the population even have those opinions. Even in places like Iran and Kuwait. The lying about that continues until the present. It doesn't matter that it was all debunked. So George Bush in his radio addresses , he continues to repeat that the U.S., I'm quoting him, "saved the world from a tyrant, who was developing weapons of mass destruction, and cultivating ties to terror." Well, you know, nobody believes that, including his speechwriter, but they know something else. They know that if you keep repeating a lie long and loud enough, and nobody takes you to account for it, it will become truth.

Bosa-Nova

03-17-2007, 09:09 AM

All this would have been avoided if we just glassed the Middle East in the first place *evil grin*

Zip

03-17-2007, 01:33 PM

Iraq was an ideal target- it has 2/3 of the world's oil reserves and it was weak.

Orly?:confused:

I think that your wrong here.

Top petroleum-producing countries

1 Saudi Arabia (OPEC)
2 Russia
3 United States
4 Iran (OPEC)
5 Mexico
6 China
7 Norway
8 Canada
9 Venezuela (OPEC)
10 United Arab Emirates (OPEC)
11 Kuwait (OPEC)
12 Nigeria (OPEC)
13 United Kingdom
14 Iraq (OPEC)

Hmm, Iraq seems a bit low on that chart dont you think considering it has 2/3 of the worlds oil?:confused:

Hmmm, Whats all this OPEC stuff on the end of Iraqs name?

Lets see.....

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an international organization made up of Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. OPEC's international headquarters (since 1965) is located in Vienna, Austria. The organization is considered a cartel by many observers

OPEC decisions have considerable influence on international oil prices. For example, in the 1973 energy crisis OPEC refused to ship oil to western countries that had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War or October War, which they fought against Egypt and Syria. This refusal caused a fourfold increase in the price of oil, which lasted five months, starting on October 17, 1973, and ending on March 18, 1974. OPEC nations then agreed, on January 7, 1975, to raise crude oil prices by 10%. At that time, OPEC nations — including many who had recently nationalized their oil industries — joined the call for a new international economic order to be initiated by coalitions of primary producers. Concluding the First OPEC Summit in Algiers they called for stable and just commodity prices, an international food and agriculture program, technology transfer from North to South, and the democratization of the economic system.

Right so OPEC is The Organsiation that controls the oil of the countrys in its Organiseation and ships it to people they want to.
So that means Iraq doesnt really get to choose where it oil goes and the USA cant take it off of OPEC and put it straight into the Western world.

So please state again how Iraq has 2/3 of the world oil and the Americans now get the oil from iraq?

Thats right you cant;)

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Please read more carefully what I've written, bro.:) There is a profound mistake in your objection.:)

The list above is stating the countries PRODUCING oil(!).... There was never a strong oil industry in Iraq, actually, Iraq WAS A POOR DEFENSELESS COUNTRY WITH TOTALLY MESSED UP ECONOMY WICH PRODUCED NOTHING. I've stated that several times already. No wonder that Iraq is down the list.
The problem is that the amount of producing oil dosen't coincide with natural RESERVES of any given country.
Who gives a damn about old Iraqi oil fields and towers?- Everything was privatized by strongest Oil American Corporations who will find a good way to suck the rich Iraqi oil resources dry with newest technology. They know the means.

Please read carefully ,then it will be possible to escape misunderstanding like this.
here is the quote from my posts above-

Iraq has the second largest (!)reserves(!) and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years.(!)

Guys, who were very active on the first page of this topic, who "supported the troops" and didn't belive that such thing as propoganda and political lies even exist- any objedctions to three "mythical" reasons and factual material wich I gave above? How can you explain all those facts?

I'll have something in store to prove to all of you that this war is not a Holy Crusade for Democracy but a slaughter and terrible tragedy caused by geopolitical greed and wish for hegemony.
I'm going a talk about a very terrible page in the history of the modern warfare, and U.S Army High Command...If you want I can start a new topic...Or can post my info here.

Zip

03-17-2007, 02:05 PM

Please read more carefully what I've written, bro.:) There is a profound mistake in your objection.:)

The list above is stating the countries PRODUCING oil(!).... There were never strong oil industry in Iraq, actually, Iraq WAS A POOR DEFENSELESS COUNTRY WITH TOTALLY MESSED UP ECONOMY. The problem is that the amount of producing oil dosen't coincide with natural RESERVES of any given country.
Who gives a damn about old Iraqi oil fields and towers?- Everything was privatized by strongest Oil American Corporations who will find a good way to suck the rich Iraqi oil resources dry with newest technology. They know the means.

Please read carefully ,then it will be possible to escape misunderstanding like this.
here is the quote from my posts above-

Iraq has the second largest (!)reserves(!) and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years.(!)

Any Oil extracted from Iraqs ground is owned by OPEC.
So your Sugestion is flawed and America cant take it home for them selves.
If oil Companys want the Oil they ahve to buy it off of OPEC;)

http://ocuk.blighter.net/imageuploader/files/9/Reserves.JPG

I can see a few countrys there with a higher reserve then Iraq btw

Why didnt the USA just go for Venezuela of they wanted oil? Its a much shorter walk

enigma

03-17-2007, 02:08 PM

it's a nexus of major oil trade routes. Morover, it has more geopolitical meaning- remmeber First World War, Secornd World war- Balkanis are often called "Amuniton Basement of Europe", if you get my meaning.

Second World War:
support for the partisans in Yugoslavia
a promise made to an ally - Greece and then liberating the country so the Ruskies wouldnt get there
via Italy theres the chance to sieze the Danube and threaten the southern flank
all of which tied down German forces. Its classic British strategy, with our naval power we can threaten we ever we want, which ties down forces and allows us to attack elsewhere agaisnt fewer numbers ... its divide and conqour.

From my readings it has got nothing to do with oil ... or "ammunition" whatever you are implying with that.

Children keep dying but oil production was renewd. I found this suspecious and strange...And you?

Its called Econemy ... just because people are dying doesnt mean you have to stop everything ....

I've know people who have had family die but have went into work/college the next day or soon after...

WITH TOTALLY MESSED UP ECONOMY WICH PRODUCED NOTHING
What about the 3 million barrels of oil they were shipping daily, iirc the stats ive read. A level which since the war has not been reached.

As for this weak army.
On paper it stood at as 2003 just before the invasion:
300 000 troops divided into 11 infantry divisions, 3 mech divisions and 3 armoured divisions

Sources put there armour strength at 2200 MBT (ranging from T72 to T55s), thousands of APCs and other AFV, thousands of different forms of Arty, nearly 400 planes and over 400 forms of helicoptors.

In 1991, iirc it was the 4th largest army and there tank force was double what it was in 2003. Practically everything was double what it was

Those figures, am not sure of they include the republican guard or not. At any rate it wasnt this defenceless country...

Guess where there infulences came from?
Regarding the ground forces in 1991:

We have British influnce in the Staff organisation and the layout of the Iraq army, the reliance on the Corps being the largest independent operational unit.
"Soviet influence, dating from the 1960s, was clearest in the heavy reliance on artillery and in a broad range of Warsaw Pact equipment and weapons. (i.e practically all the tanks, AFV and APCs fielded where Soviet built then and in 2003)"
Following the Iran-Iraq war, they started incorpating equipement from a varity of nations, stated as Italy, Yugoslavia, Austria, France, Romania, Switzerland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the People's Republic of China.

So see its not a clear cut case of:
A - America is bad and funded the entire Iraq Army providing them with everything
B - that there econmy sucked so badly that they were able to rebuild there army following the Iran-Iraq war and then somewhat following the Gulf War

Id also like to know the death figure you have for this "terrible slaughter"....

Zynthetikk, this purly a guess here but am guess that 0.41% of the American natioal budget for 2007 isnt going to be pimp change ... as in heres 5 bucks slove the problem.
Come on there one of the richest countries in the world ... whats that percentage in real money?

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 02:11 PM

Again, wrong...:) Opec dosen't OWN(!) any natural or produced resources...It's an international cartel with diffrent aim-

The principal aim of the organization, according to its Statute, is the determination of the best means for safeguarding interests of countries who own oil(!), individually and collectively(!); devising ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in international oil markets with a view to eliminating harmful and unnecessary fluctuations; giving due regard at all times to the interests of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to the producing countries; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations, and a fair return on their capital to those investing in the petroleum industry
And by the way-
Although Iraq remains formally a member of OPEC, Iraqi production has not been a part of any OPEC quota agreements since March 1998...And you seem to confuse the real functions of OPEC. It's an international organization created for CONTROL OF PRICES OF THE PRODUCED OIL AMONG INDIEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND STATES.:) End of story.
Americans should not buy anything from it, because OPEC is not a juridical holder. It's a council of indiependent states with totally diffrent aim.

Who do you think legally owns Iraq's oil presently, and who do you think gets the largest share of revenues from selling Iraqi crude oil to the world's refiners since the invasion?

Answer: The practical answer is that in May 2003 the UN terminated the oil-for-food program and decided that Iraqi oil sales would be made "consistent with prevailing international market best practices." Proceeds would go into the Development Fund for Iraq, to be controlled by the occupying authorities. (In practice, Iraq's state oil marketing company — overseen by U.S. administrators — became the controlling authority for oil sales.) The resolution also stated that all oil sales would be immune from legal proceedings through 2007. Bottom line: the CPA controls oil exports and the UN has granted legal immunity from title challenges to the oil they sell. That was close enough to "legal ownership" for ChevronTexaco, and within a month of the passage of the resolution (and the parallel Executive Order 13303 from the United States) they loaded up and exported the first postwar tankerful of Iraqi oil.

As for who's getting the lion's share of the revenue, it's impossible to say. The CPA keeps a very tight lid on their books, and I'm not sure anyone outside the government truly knows for sure where the oil revenue goes or what it's spent on. However, it is spent on reconstruction, and since the reconstruction contracts are mostly in the hands of large Anglo-American companies, and these companies appear to employ very few Iraqis, it's a pretty good guess that the bulk of the money is going to....Anglo-American companies and the citizens of their respective countries.

Any objections,Zip? This ARE facts, not specualtions.

Zip

03-17-2007, 02:29 PM

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 02:33 PM

Because the indipendent national corporations HAVE A DEAL in OPEC, Zip.:) It dosen't mean that OPEC itself was the owner of that oil. Please read carefully what I've written, it explains everything+ REAL FACTS about WHO owns current Iraqi oil.I repeat, OPEC dosen't OWN anything. It;s a council, a talking ground for indiependent entities- countires and national corporations...

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 02:53 PM

Enigma, again you seem to demonize Iraq.

T-72 and T-55 against AMERICAN(!) army in 1991 and 2003. Don't make me laugh-Let us look upon American army and their weaponry, the deadly new modern technologies, the powerful airforce. 400 Iraqi planes? Don't make me laugh again...Just compare Iraqi army to Sadi, for example, and then everything will become clear.

In 1991 it was a large army armed with OUTDATED Soviet weapons- Soveit Union activley sold outdated often broken tanks to the developing world.

Iraq was DISARMED, his oil productions were LOW in comparison to other Middle East Countires. Iraq was even weaker then Kuweit in 2003. His economy was a total mess due to SANCTIONS. See statistics. See the life level. I already stated it above. Iraq was not strong, it was weak and POOR.
In the decade of economic sanctions that followed the war, Iraqi civilians have been denied food, medicine, hospital equipment, ambulances, clean water - the basic essentials.
About half a million(!) Iraqi children have died as a result of the sanctions- Red Cross official statistics

I'm tired to repeat the things that I've stated already! It's a FACT.

Anyway, we discuss not the contradicitons of Amercian offical propoganda and policy but WHO nows own the oil and how poweful was Iraq. He was not a threat to U.S. Iran has a far more powerful army, and it hates America, so...Again please think about what I've already written.

Anyway, at the end of day, I haven't heard coherent objections of war-supporters to three main reasons of invasions of Iraq. Noone explained apparent contradictions in U.S policy.

just stated above mere facts, thought-provoking information and tried to broke most terrible "myths" regarding Iraq war-
1.WMD- remmeber, that's VERY important(!)- Iraq ocupaton is still juridically illegal by all norms of international law, wich WAS BROKEN for a reason that turned to be FALSE.
No WMD was found by indiependent U.N. experts. WMD wich were were built with the help of U.S money. During massacre of Kurds, of wich U.S PERFECTLY knew they keep giving money for building those weapons.(!) and other goods to their Middle East ally Saddam until end of 80-where was the righteous wrath? Contradiction?

2.War started because U.S suddenly tunred good and caring for opressed people of the world. Building new democratic Iraq out of totally sudden empathy and compassion.(Just read the statistic of the civillians looses, or watch the video of some Iraqi cities with dead children. Nice compassion. Pre-emptive pragmatic agression, fueled by compassionate American Congress. Noone has answered me yet- Why not Eastern Congo? Again, contradiction)

3.Sadam was so evil that Bush decided to finish him because Iraq was a direct threat to U.S- it's again litereary FALSE.( Iraq was the weakest country in the region in 2003, wasted by sanctions and dis-arming. Again, look above for factual proves.)

enigma

03-17-2007, 03:07 PM

Am not demonising Iraq .... am just showing that on paper there not the push overs you keep stating. If anyone is demonising anyone its you agaisnt America. All ive done is point out they were not the little sissys you keep making them out to be and that they were fully capable of defending themselves. Now if stating someone is able to defend themselves is demonising them ... then yes i am.

As stated before but you overlook, America was not the only one to supply or fund Iraq, money, weapons wise or even to do with NBC weapons.

It doesnt matter if a good deal of the Iraq tank force was out of date. The Americans and British were using tanks which had been newly developed (early to mid 80s)and fielded.
They were also outnumbered heavily by the Iraqi tank force.

That would appear to be a rather worrying arganment. Although you are right they oblitarated the Iraqi armour force. The British tanks for example scoring the longest ever tank to tank kill and taking out double the number of tanks the British army sent for no losses.

400 Iraqi planes? Don't make me laugh again
What you dont believe they exisisted either?

Why not Eastern Congo?
Id like to hear your opinions on (now these are wars ive never studied so it will intresting to read) why America got invlovled in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia etc.

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 03:19 PM

2Enigma,

I'm not demonzing America...

I repeat- Im not against Americans, as such.

All I'm trying to do is to bring forward some facts...It's up to you to judge and make assertions...You can think, of course, that everything that I've said is a lie. It's easier to belive everything that is told OFFICCIALY. But we should learn from history- how many times goverments used "dirty" political technologies to conceal terribe or "unconvinient" facts- Imperial Britain, U.S, Soveit Union, Spain, Nazi Germany, China etc. Why we should think that the war in Iraq is an expetion and we should belive what we've been told on T.V?
I dare to quote myself again-
Just analyze the facts and use your sense of logic. Analyaze reactions of Collin Powell. Analyze reaction of most goverment pro-war journalists...Analyze the apparent CONTRADICTIONS of U.S policy towards Iraq. Analyze APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS in official media. Just look at how they show you the entire conflict- many people sincerly belive that U.S are Light Knights defeating evil Sauron in Mordor. In this world politics are far more complicated.
History teaches us so.

Soveit Union sold weapons-that's a fact...And by the way, I don't like Soviet Union at all...It was the most terrible empire and his foriegn policy was VERY similiar to American in many aspects.

As for foriegn policy of the America throughout 20th century-well, it's a very long, complicated and interesting discussion. If you want I can start another topic ...:) Here we discuss Iraq.

D.O.A

03-17-2007, 03:41 PM

I agreed with going into Iraq at the start, I belived that our goverments would do the right thing for the people of Iraq and remove Saddam secure the country and build from there.

Big mistake.

Believing in my government and the goverment of the US to secure the country, well as I see it the US .

"Donald Rumsfeld we don't do prace only war"

My understanding of the above quote go's like this... Blair and Bush where hoping Rumsfeld had a plan for Iraq after the fighting had stopped, wrong apart for the UK sector which is small compared to the US sectors Rumsfeld have had no real security plans and was intrested in any, we took the counrty apart from the top down, all the army and police and any other security poeple where told to go home and wait and wait they did...to long imho...it started with looting which was not stopped by the US or UK forces and has ended in a total breakdown of the country, I just feel sorry for the poeple of Iraq.

|:XAS:| Bravo

03-17-2007, 07:13 PM

US forces (they're the ones I read about) attempted to stop the looting. Jack Coughlin of the 3/4 Bull was assigned to be a "Baghdad SWAT" when he wasn't hunting the remaining Republican Guard. He stopped multiple bank robberies, costing the lives of Iraqi civilians (the thieves). He even trained the Iraqi Police while he was with them.

Stop Bush bashing. The Bush administration isn't the only one who thought Iraq had WMDs. Even the Democratic Party solely believed Iraq had them, they just chose not to act, they would've waited till innocent American lives were lost, then start a small military operation in the Mid-East. Clinton (whom so many liberals love) failed to act upon the Taliban's first attack on the WTC, the intel was there, he knew Bin Laden was behind is somehow.

Another thing, if we aren't alive (say the Jihad were to kill us all, which could've happened if we didn't act) then how would we provide aid to the world? We take care of our first problem (death threats via Jihad) so we can take care of the next. Simple as that.

Corporate Ignorance please include sources for your "facts". Same goes for Zip. However Zip does provide believable and reliable facts.

Corporate Ignorance

03-17-2007, 07:43 PM

Bravo, any coherent objections to my "facts"?
Or all that you can do is to call Zip's fantastic statements that OIL IN IRAQ IS OWNED BY OPEC AND FIRST OF ALL US SHOULD BUY THAT OIL FROM OPEC B E L I V A B A L E and R E L I A B L E ?

That is strange. Or maybe they are belivable and reliable only because they coinside with the official U.S doctrine and your own war support?

Zip is a good guy, but he spoke just of mere speculating. He was guessing.

And maybe Zip's objection to the fact that Iraq had 2/3 of oil reserves(!) was RELIABLE when he posted a long list of a countries PRODUCING(!) oil.

Browse the net. Go to your library. Whatever. Object me, if you can. I would be REALLY glad( I really would) if you prove me that I'm getting all that I wrote out of my sick, "ant-american" head and simply want to bash Bush( If you carefully read my posts, I mentioned Bush only two times) alongside with caring, innocent and compassioanate U.S goverment.

I decided that I will unleash the final facts regaring Iraqi war- it's a bloody bath down there, countless lives slaughtered for oil and money, both U.S Soldiers and Iraqi people....

Oh, so the fact that Rumsfield gave money to Iraq, while and after Sadam was massacring Kurds seem not "belivable" to you? Read about 1983-1989 foriegn investments of U.S. They are published and are no secret.

That current massacres in Eastern Congo are not belivabe? Well... The fact that U.S attacked Iraq without U.N. resolution illegaly and occupied it illegaly despite the norms of international law, is not "belivable" ? It's in U.N offical records! The fact that WMD were not found? It's again there!

The fact that civillians are dying? The fact that Iraqi oil was immidieatly privatized? Search the net.

I've used a lots and lots of of sources- news footage(CNN, BBC, FOX, our own Russian news etc.), , Red Cross official statistics, U.N indipendent reviews, numerous articles in many many newspapers (New York Times, Washinghton post etc.) interviews with offical representives of U.S administration(Collin Powell, Rumsfield etc.) and even wikipedia wich is politically correct regarding Iraq war.
But there you will find proofs to all my "facts"...
TO ALL.

I used common sesne and my sense of good and evil, by the way too...All things stated as FACTS are indeed those FACTS.:)

Of course, you can disbelive me. I'm just sharing my view on the matter and show WHY I think this but not that.

Anyway, soon I will start another topic here...

enigma

03-17-2007, 08:01 PM

Zip

03-17-2007, 08:15 PM

Dude you are just repeating the same argument without addressing anyone elses points as they are not "facts".

Heres a question, i dont know much of the situation in the congo ... has anyone else sent troops .... ?

From what i know the Congo is Rebals Raiding Villages and Taking kids at young age, Killing the Men, Raping the Girls and Women and then training the young Boys as there own to fight against the Congo Govenment.

Well something weird like that.

Zip is a good guy, but he spoke just of mere speculating. He was guessing.

And maybe Zip's objection to the fact that Iraq had 2/3 of oil reserves(!) was RELIABLE when he posted a long list of a countries PRODUCING(!) oil.

Actually i was cut pasting them from Websites including OPEC and wikipedia

Ill just post the oil Reserves list so you can see Iraq isnt on top.:)

http://ocuk.blighter.net/imageuploader/files/9/Reserves.JPG

You will see there are few nations higher up then Iraq. Iraq is 5th to be Exact, So why not attack them if it was for oil?:)

css2d

03-18-2007, 01:37 AM

Heres a question, i dont know much of the situation in the congo ... has anyone else sent troops .... ?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/index.html

And at the election in 2006 Europe sent the Eufor over to help the Un-forces deployed there.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1091&lang=EN&mode=g

Corporate Ignorance

03-18-2007, 09:46 AM

2Zip

You see, it's very hard to calculate exact number of oil, so diffrent sources state diffrent numblers, although all agree that Iraq has LOTS of oil-
Over the past several months, news organizations and experts have regularly cited Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) figures claiming that the territory of Iraq contains over 112 billion barrels (bbl) of proven reserves—oil that has been definitively discovered and is expected to be economically producible. In addition, since Iraq is the LEAST EXPLORED(!) of the oil-rich countries, there have been numerous claims of huge undiscovered reserves there as well—oil thought to exist, and expected to become economically recoverable—to the tune of hundreds of billions of barrels. The respected Petroleum Economist Magazine estimates that there may be as many as 200 bbl of oil in Iraq; the Federation of American Scientists estimates 215 bbl; a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University claimed that Iraq has 220 bbl of undiscovered oil; and another study by the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates offered an even more optimistic estimate of 300 bbl—a number that would give Iraq reserves greater even than those of Saudi Arabia. In a Guardian interview before the war, Taha Hmud Moussa, Saddam's deputy oil minister, said that all of Iraq's oil reserves "will exceed 300bbl when all Iraq's regions are explored."

If true, this would mean that Iraq has roughly a quarter of all of the world's oil. These assessments have been repeatedly cited in news articles, conferences, think tank briefings, congressional testimonies, and academic works because they raise the prospect that America's energy security could significantly improve if Iraq were able to challenge Saudi Arabia's position as the world's preeminent oil producer.

2enigma
So, Eastern Congo? Well-Since 1994, the Congo has been rent by ethnic strife and civil war, touched off by a massive inflow of refugees fleeing the Rwandan Genocide. The government of Mobutu Sese Seko was toppled by a rebellion led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in May 1997; he changed the country's name back to Democratic Republic of The Congo-Kinshasa (the capital of Congo/Zaire). His former allies soon turned against him, however, and his regime was challenged by a Rwandan and Ugandan-backed rebellion in August 1998. Troops from Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Chad, and Sudan intervened to support the new regime in Kinshasa. It's a BLOODY war of wich content Europe and America KNOW NOTHING, although it's the most terrible massacre of the modern times since WW2(!)

A cease-fire was signed on July 10, 1999; nevertheless, fighting continued apace especially in the eastern part of the country, financed by revenues from the illegal extraction of minerals such as coltan, cassiterite and diamonds. Kabila was assassinated in January 2001 and his son Joseph Kabila was named head of state. The new president quickly began overtures to end the war and an accord was signed in South Africa in 2002. By late 2003, a fragile peace prevailed as the Transitional Government was formed. Kabila appointed four vice presidents, two of whom had been fighting to oust him until July 2003. Much of the east of the country remains insecure, primarily due to the Ituri conflict and the continued activity of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda in the Kivus.

This period of conflict has been the bloodiest in history since World War II. Almost four million people have died as a result of the fighting.[ The United Nations is concerned that 1000 people a day(!) (WHERE were U.S ? ) are still dying as a result of the conflict and have described 2006 as a "make or break point" for the continuing humanitarian crisis.

css2d

03-18-2007, 11:05 AM

Some "good" movies to watch for this topic (genecoide in africa) are "Hotel Rwanda (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395169/)" and "Sometimes in April" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400063/)

To the topic of Iraq, USA = evil and terrorists, I found this article interesting
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/al_qaedas_grand.html

Appleskates

03-20-2007, 01:01 AM

Mixed feelings on it. I look back and wonder if it was worth it, but as senator Norris did on WW1, I will support my country to the end.

Saden

03-24-2007, 06:32 AM

I'm not an anti-war guy, but it just annoys me when solders nowadays tell people that they are fighting for our freedom, that they are fighting for the right to wear the shirt that we're wearing. So, if you hadn't invaded Iraq for OIL our right to wear this shirt would be endangered?

sooch90

03-24-2007, 07:45 AM

Saden

03-24-2007, 03:20 PM

My shirt...

Crazythumbs

03-24-2007, 04:49 PM

I have to agree with Saden on that point, As much I as support the troops, saying they're defending our country and way of life, is well...kinda dumb. It's not like Iraq was going to take us over or anything.
I remember an argument one day, where some girl was saying she didn't like America, blah blah blah. And the other kid says my Dad fought so you could say things like that. Which made me think, If your Dad fought for that, then why are you yelling at her for saying things like that.

But enough of that. I'm not too sure if going into Iraq was a good idea or not, but I know that I'll support it until it's over. None of that pulling out crap that politicians keep saying, like they have any idea how anything involving the military works.

sooch90

03-24-2007, 10:48 PM

Colonel von Luger

06-06-2007, 04:03 AM

Do I agree with the war in Iraq? Uh, no.

Get the troops outta Iraq!

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-06-2007, 04:34 AM

Do I agree with the war in Iraq? Uh, no.

Get the troops outta Iraq!

...and do another Vietnam stunt? Fuck that.

No longer matter why we started the war in Iraq, it's now about finishing the job and securing freedom for the Iraqi's. Why isn't freedom secured right now? The Sunni's (according to 2ltben) keep blowing people up. For some reason they don't want education, or if they do it's the brain-washed stuff that you see on Iranian television programs.

Peace isn't here, that's why the peacemakers are there.

"We make war that we may live in peace." - Aristotle

I'm sure all that's been said countless times before.

2ltben

06-06-2007, 05:06 AM

Let's have a car wash for peace, there's trouble in the Middle East. There'll be no more wars. Or dirty cars. Car wash for peace.

Colonel von Luger

06-06-2007, 05:14 PM

SuperSoldier

06-06-2007, 10:20 PM

I don't cae about another Vietnam, or about securing peace for the Iraqi's. Let them solve their own problems. Unless we like seeing ou young men get killed for no decent reason let's work on solving our own problems before we go muddle in others.

If you were living in Iraq right now seeing news of people being blown up and getting killed everyday possibly friends and family, knowing there is nothing you could do about it, would you want help? Just put yourselves in their shoes.

Crazythumbs

06-06-2007, 11:34 PM

Keep in mind our young men signed up for this and most are willing and proud to fight and die, especially the ones that signed up in the past couple of years, they know damn well were they're gonna go.

2ltben

06-07-2007, 12:54 AM

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 03:13 AM

I think we're having another shift in party philosophies in American history, and, as usual, its for all the wrong reasons. The Democrats usually take the liberal stance, but what they suggest is to leave the 26 million citizens of Iraq open to holy war, suicide bombings, and death squads. The Republicans arn't much better. They think that what we're doing now is working, and that line of thought is just as dangerous.

I don't think we're left with any options left. If we leave, the world is screwed, if we don't change, the world is screwed. Drastic changes to the Iraqi Constitution, a complete redefining of the Rules of Engagement, a competant intelligence system, and a reason for the insurgents to come to the negotiation table are needed before anything positive can happen.

Oh there are many options, but most people dont know what they are, mainly because they have already subconsciously rejected them.

Most involve very "immoral" and "inhumane" acts (not even counting torture :eek: )

But before we get into all that, how about the U.S actually make a goal for itself. Ending the war on terror is not a goal, because it litterally cannot be done... now, removing islamic extremists, thats a more direct goal...

Suppression of Nuclear technology? Thats a goal, although in truth most nuclear capable world nations have done this since the start, its becoming harder to stop in the modern world.

and my favorite, World Peace? Ya, believe it or not, its more likely then the War on Terror ;)

Now... can anybody think of away to obtain any 1 of these goals without breaking moral/humane boundries? taking into account resistance and stupidity on all sides? Not just for the U.S either, any/all countries in the world? anybody? to save you some time, i'll tell you flat out. No it cannot be done. EVER.

....

Unless... we get really, really nasty (keep in mind i bear no ill will towards any specific groups of people... unless "everybody" counts)

Removal of Islamic Extremists? ya, not gonna put a nice face on it, its gonna look like a genocide, plain and simple... door to door, sweeping every square inch of... the whole damn middle east, grabbing citizens at random... shit, it might be easier to just kill them all off (safer to), oh yeah, this would throw at least a third of the world into heavy combat... and would be worse then Hilters Halocaust... ya you know its bad when your plan of attack makes the halocaust looks like childs play. A fundimental problem with this situation is the religion itself (the extremist side), as it directly clashes with western religions (whom i equally loathe) unfortunately only 1 will win out. Yes, that right, regardless of previous reasons and purposes, it would, in the eyes of history, become a religious war.

Now, the downsides to this? other then the total utter annihalation of an entire race of people and their common religion? Well, the middle east economy would no longer exist (for the next 5 years at the very least), oil would become a "government" only resource, used only for the most important necessities (doesnt take a genius to figure out oil+economic backlash, since we're experiencing it already... just x10... or 20). Btw thats not just the US, thats the world... period

Suppression of Nuclear technology? Compaired to the first, this is a cake walk... but we are talking mass assassinations, black ops, strategic bombing, government infiltration (nothing really new, just LOTS more of it, on a more aggressive scale) this will undoubtedly make any participating country look like shit in the eyes of the world, but lets face it, it will by at least 30years, until some dink makes a bigger badder dooms day weapon, then we're set for a little while longer, until the process begins again... on the upside, all this is pretty cost effective

Down side, well other then the loss of "face", and the "acts of war" against much weaker nations and their possible attempts at militaristic retaliation... your essentially limiting the growth of certain sections of humanity scientifically as well as drawing sides, and setting up for a possible world war (on the up side of that, it will be a very quick world war)

World Peace? Will take anything BUT peace to accomplish, fastest way would be for America, European, Asian Unions to join up, combine forces, and lay waste to everything else... not pretty, but it does narrow the playing field. From there Europe would expand all the way down to the ivory coast and probably to about Pakistan, North and South america would be one, and Asia would stretch down to Australia (no offence aussies, just making it simple)... doesnt that feel good? we just wiped out 40% of the worlds population in order to secure world peace... :D now granted, if the Americas, Euros, and Asias wanna slug it out? fine by me. I've always wanted the world to be united under one banner (even if it was one i wouldnt personally like, ideals or otherwise) as long as the human race survives i could care less about who wins and loses... but until that point, it will be one hell of a ride.

Oh well, im getting a headache thinking about all this stuff, this was NOT meant to be my views or that of what i wished will happen, but just a look at the dark side of things... helps give perspective, iraq not looking so bad at the moment compaired to the possiblities now, huh? ;)

If needed i could expand on my sociopathic babble, but i think i threw out enough crazy on the boards for one day.

JonasDahlin

06-07-2007, 04:38 AM

Well terrorism is one of our least problems. Maybe it's time to focus on something bigger? like the war on global warming or the war on AIDS? Did you know that AIDS is killing almost 8500 people every day in africa? So to me, the war in Iraq is just a waste of money, time and lives. If you wanna save the world, why not try something else than war for a change?

2ltben

06-07-2007, 04:51 AM

Car wash for peace....

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 05:20 AM

Car wash for peace....

make it a bikini car wash... and we might stand a chance :cool:

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 05:32 AM

...the war on AIDS? Did you know that AIDS is killing almost 8500 people every day in africa?

Continuing on the darkside of things, do you know if we did nothing at all, and i mean nothing, no pills, foreign aids "aid". specialty clinics in africa, the problem would solve itself in a matter of... i believe the estimate was 8 years.

Basically, it is the developed nations causing the epidemic in africa, we're the ones that developed the pills for aids that slow its spread, makes it docile, more manageable. Prolonging the life of those who have it, to spread it even more...

I wonder in the long run which will would have killed more people :confused:

creepy to think about, no?

If you wanna save the world, why not try something else than war for a change?

Hasnt that been what humanities tried all along? I think we should do the opposite, go full blown war... you know, get it out of our system, commit so much murder, pillaging and rape until we get our fill... and learn once and for all

/darkside

JonasDahlin

06-07-2007, 05:48 AM

Since you're the darkside I'll go with the lightside.

Why not just destroy all guns, tanks, planes, bomb etc etc. And sign one big peace treaty? And then we put all that money that we use for military research and war into medical research, world aid and cleaner air. No war, no diseases, no globalwarming. *sarcasam*

You say things could be worse? I say things could be a shit load better.

"Hasnt that been what humanities tried all along?"

Then why are we still fighting them?

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 06:28 AM

Why not just destroy all guns, tanks, planes, bomb etc etc. And sign one big peace treaty? And then we put all that money that we use for military research and war into medical research, world aid and cleaner air. No war, no diseases, no globalwarming.

Well as nice as that may seem, it really wouldnt work, we humans dont operate that way, our psyches havent evolved beyond such things, and with good reasons... war is (among other things) a by product of survival instincts, we just cannot put aside our lower brain tendencies, their hardwired. So getting every one to give up their weapons would be impossible, and as some of discussed in another topic, everytime to get rid of/deem illegal a weapon or form of it, an older version just takes its place.

Also, you might not want to get rid of war either, it has after all done some good, technologically speaking... such conflicts drive our species to further better itself from the competitor, remember the "arms races" of the past (not just the US+USSR nuclear races)... what would the world be like if war had not led to the need to make plate-mail? while this obviously effected european combat, it also allowed such advanced metalworking to be used in other area.... WW1+2 the lasers and radar concepts, products of war, just as good in times of peace.

Again, its dark, but does it not ring true?

who knows maybe one day in the far future, we'll lay down our arms, and abolish hatred.... then get roasted by some alien race, irony?

You say things could be worse? I say things could be a shit load better.

glass half empty, glass half full... but yeah, it could always be better. (for some body)

Then why are we still fighting them?

Misplaced ideals?

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-07-2007, 06:32 AM

scottdog

06-07-2007, 06:46 AM

Zynthetikk just please shut up. Don't even post anymore. Your logic is just a textbook dream. Reality is your lightside thing won't work.

No matter how many guns you destroy there will be more left, if not then people will make them.

We still fight because if we aren't alive to give aid then what's the point. First is get rid of those who try to kill us, then aid the poor, hungry, sick, and oppressed.

There will always be someone who wants something. If we signed a treaty now and everyone was peaceful then not less than 20 years later a madman will stir things up again. He will have guns, we will have sticks.

You seem to be in attacking mood today.

Zynthetikk post was abit irrational, but he has had great posts in the past, and to a degree i agree with his post. If america spent more money on social problems then on weapons it would have a far better outcome. This missile deffence thing the americans are paying companies absurd amounts of money to make is stupid,and to be honest i think it's next to immpossible to produce.

Another thing that really discouraged me from the iraq war and war itself, was at the beginning when countless missiles were getting launched into bagdad just to kill a few soldiers. It makes me think why they would spend so much money on taking lives insted of preserving it.

JonasDahlin

06-07-2007, 09:23 AM

Zynthetikk just please shut up. Don't even post anymore. Your logic is just a textbook dream. Reality is your lightside thing won't work.

No matter how many guns you destroy there will be more left, if not then people will make them.

We still fight because if we aren't alive to give aid then what's the point. First is get rid of those who try to kill us, then aid the poor, hungry, sick, and oppressed.

There will always be someone who wants something. If we signed a treaty now and everyone was peaceful then not less than 20 years later a madman will stir things up again. He will have guns, we will have sticks.

You should really learn what sarcasam is ;)

But you cannot blame war on survival instincts only, you're forgetting about emtions like hatred, greed and revenge. Those are the ones to blame. If we were put those things aside and show sympathy and forgivness, things would have a far better outcome. Sadly it's easier to hate someone than to forgive them.

Timblesink

06-07-2007, 01:20 PM

Some people... :rolleyes:

First time I've looked at the political forum in ages, and you lot sure can rant :p

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-07-2007, 01:49 PM

You seem to be in attacking mood today.

Zynthetikk post was abit irrational, but he has had great posts in the past, and to a degree i agree with his post. If america spent more money on social problems then on weapons it would have a far better outcome. This missile deffence thing the americans are paying companies absurd amounts of money to make is stupid,and to be honest i think it's next to immpossible to produce.

Another thing that really discouraged me from the iraq war and war itself, was at the beginning when countless missiles were getting launched into bagdad just to kill a few soldiers. It makes me think why they would spend so much money on taking lives insted of preserving it.

No amount of many can solve social problems. At least in the U.S. itself. If you mean places like Uganda and stuff then the government will not just send over a couple billion dollars in aid. Money alone will not solve the problem. Send in a peacemaking force then it would work. There's already tons of organizations that aid the region already. When the WOT is over then we will have the time and resources to fix Africa.

The missile defense system already has three tiers of defense. Two tiers have been operational for about 15 years if I remember correctly.

Countless missiles... you mean Tomahawk cruise missiles? Those have pin-point accuracy and were used against military targets in Baghdad. Many were launched at reported positions of Saddam and his minions.

We are preserving life, throw missiles in to destroy anything that would waste us if we did a straight charge to the city. Think of this, we would have had far more survivors of D-Day if we destroyed key pieces of artillery, anti-air, and bunkers. We don't want is another D-Day.

Zynthetikk hatred, greed, and revenge is indeed the causes. It may seem like I'm trying to make the U.S. look like the good guys (we are) but I'm just going to point this out. Hatred was Hitler and is now Muslim extremists, greed was Japan and Iraq (1991), revenge was the Crusades.

We took the fight to the enemy partly for revenge, but then it's also the fact that if we just kept letting them attack us then everyone would complain that we aren't doing anything to protect innocent people from getting killed. People can always find something to complain about when really they don't think that it could've been worse if the leaders made another decision.

JonasDahlin

06-07-2007, 05:20 PM

We took the fight to the enemy partly for revenge, but then it's also the fact that if we just kept letting them attack us then everyone would complain that we aren't doing anything to protect innocent people from getting killed. People can always find something to complain about when really they don't think that it could've been worse if the leaders made another decision.

This is why wars continue, revenge is an endless circle. It doesn't end untill everyone dies or someone has the guts to say we're sorry. Do you think they won't take revenge for the war in Iraq?

D.O.A

06-07-2007, 06:21 PM

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 07:26 PM

We took the fight for revenge....revenge for what?

pre-emptive revenge? :rolleyes:

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-07-2007, 08:13 PM

Revenge of 9-11... for the WOT I mean.

Total_Overkill

06-07-2007, 09:47 PM

Revenge of 9-11... for the WOT I mean.

i think i speak for the rest of the world when i say....
WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IRAQ? :D
(but you saw that coming, right? revenge for WOT in Afghan yes, Iraq.... plz pass the bong mr.president)

D.O.A

06-07-2007, 10:01 PM

I know 9/11 was a attack on your country, but why attack Saddam/ Iraq because of the WOT. I thought it was Bin Ladin and his group of militant Islamist
that planned and carried out the attack's.

Sorry I don't understand where these two things are linked.

enigma

06-07-2007, 10:03 PM

Wot?

Any rate we had been at war with Saddam since 1991, we just ended the dam thing ... no excuses needed :p

D.O.A

06-07-2007, 10:25 PM

The war in 1991 had wide spread support from around the world including the middle east.......no excuses needed to send our lads to war.

Hiding behind the war on terror is just the BS we have been feed.:eek:

dominicus

06-08-2007, 12:03 AM

Well I have only read a few posts in this thread, but it is my belief that anybody who supports the War in Iraq is ignorant. Really, everything points in the other direction. I think all we really need to look at is the fact that the Bush Administration told everyone that Al-Qaeda and Saddam were directly related, then denied every saying that. I can't find a link to a video of him saying that, but here's an article, just to show you what I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm .

enigma

06-08-2007, 12:12 AM

seriously, what is WOT?

The conenction between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was just one of the reasons to go to war, not the sole one.

But redardless we were already at war with Iraq. British and American planes had been patroling the No Fly Zone since 1991 and from what ive read bombing the shite out of Iraqi milatry forces during the course of that.
Iirc before the war began and it was only talk of it, there was a widly publised air attack on an Iraqi air base.
It would appear the tonnage of bombs being dropped increased throughout the 90s and it would also appear what theTurks recently did, they had been doing so on a much larger scale before the war started ... that is invading the country and shooting shit up...

SuperSoldier

06-08-2007, 12:21 AM

seriously, what is WOT?

WOT=War on Terror

enigma

06-08-2007, 12:43 AM

Cheers :)

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-08-2007, 03:53 AM

Hey they denied it. I won't say they didn't, but didn't Yassir Arafat (sp) also deny any connection with extremists? But then in a video of him talking to his citizens (translated by MEMRI) was chanting "death to America!"

Really.

I don't know how Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected, except for Saddam's financial support to them (for the last time it wasn't to widows).

If the Coalition were bombing the Iraqi military stuff since 1991 then wouldn't we have heard reports of planes being shot down, and nearly zero resistance in 2003? Even the occupation of Iraq's Green Zone is shaky to me.

Edub

06-08-2007, 07:22 AM

I want to know your views on the war in Iraq so im creating this thread to find out where you all stand.

Me personally agree with it. I dont care that they never found any WMD and if they are in it for oil i dont care either.
IMO they have gone in and removed almost 50 of the most dangerous people in the world including Saddam.
I support the war and Iraq being occupied.
One thing i hate is all the American bashing im always hearing on other forums and by my Girlfriends parents.

There has been good and bad in that war but the bad is always more Glorified then the good for some reason and i really hate that.

Well thats my opinion on the war, Whats yours? :)

100% agree with you.

enigma

06-08-2007, 09:32 AM

Bravo it has been on the news and we had been bombing Iraq since 1991, for example this BBC report from 2001, it also cites examples from several years.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm)

The Times, wouldnt take everything it says but it does report on the increase in the tonnage of bombs dropped (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece)

It was during this increase of bombing that there was a massive report on it on the news, a few weeks before the decission was made to "go to war" the air forces bombed the living crap out of an air base or a radar site or some such.

But why didnt we hear it all on TV alot more then it was? Because in truth no one gives a crap, its not news worthy. Now that we have people who dont support the more "popular" portion of the war and everything has gone up the shitter in places of course its all over the news...

2ltben

06-08-2007, 05:37 PM

If the Coalition were bombing the Iraqi military stuff since 1991 then wouldn't we have heard reports of planes being shot down, and nearly zero resistance in 2003? Even the occupation of Iraq's Green Zone is shaky to me.
I'm pretty sure we spent three days during the Clinton administration bombing the everloving hell out of Iraqi military installations.

enigma

06-08-2007, 06:12 PM

and nearly zero resistance in 2003
The campaign was over in near enough 5 weeks ... what else do you want?

Corporate Ignorance

06-08-2007, 07:23 PM

100% agree with you.

Actually, I'm teriffied to hear that from sane rational persons, who(I'm sure) are nice and good guys in reality but who simply don't get the real picture of how this world is working.

And not because they are dumb, naive or stupid- just because almost a half of very intreverted American general population is cheated and manipulated.

Again this thread is alive, I restrain myself from ranting ...))))))

I fear that I may return to my past plan to post a thread with a special year count- a count from 1945 to 2003-and analyze American foriegn policy.
Have you heard about post-war Greece? I doubt it. Regime of "Black colonels"? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Haiti, Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Congo, Angola etc.- yeah, you've heard about Vietnam, but you think probobaly that it was a glorious but tragic undertaking. We are allowed to discuss only what is allowed to discuss. Iraq is a TYPICAL way of expansion of American empire. It's nothing new, actually. But again it's based on terrible injustice, torture, distorted public morality, war hysteria, false reasons and countless unimaginable huamn looses alongside with endless UNSEEEN suffering. It's not just words.

We know much more about Paris Hilton underwear then about coups in Latin America. And it happens for a reason.

But I simply don't want to invoke another cycle of mutual misunderstanding.

enigma

06-08-2007, 07:33 PM

What does Greece have to do with the "American Empire"?

css2d

06-08-2007, 08:29 PM

I read America's Secret War a few weeks ago.

Interesting read, I am not much of a witty writer who can summarize the book in a few sentences that it fits the topic. That's why i just recommend reading the book, it gives a whole new set of thoughts to your discussion.

Nuclear terrorism,
How Al Qaeda underestimated the Us reaction on 9-11,
the "Saudi connection"

just to name a few.

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-08-2007, 08:59 PM

100% agree with you.

Same. I'm taking the same stance the veterans (and the ones who are still over there) are. They've been there so they know best.

What's this stuff about the Democrats making all these pull-out decisions when our military leaders are saying we should get the job done?

2ltben

06-08-2007, 09:27 PM

What does Greece have to do with the "American Empire"?
The Cold War. If we had Greece and Turkey on our side we had missle bases close to the Soviet Union.

What's this stuff about the Democrats making all these pull-out decisions when our military leaders are saying we should get the job done?
Mind you these people don't support the President's actions either, and there's a great deal of hypocracy among military leadership over Dragonskin.

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-09-2007, 12:46 AM

Army, not military, just the Army. That's another reason why I like the Marines.

I mean the guy who invented the Interceptor says he would wear DragonSkin into combat.

Then the Army is buying 100,000 more M4A1s to replace the M16A2... without even holding a new contest. I prefer the SCAR.

2ltben

06-09-2007, 01:36 AM

The people who use the equipment have no say in what equipment they use. Military contracts are just far too lucrative and profitable to go towards useful things. Its also why NASA is a sham, the government doesn't give money to things that work.

Hell, what reason is there to not upgrade to the SCAR system, or go with German weaponry? Its been proven in the field to be far more effective and durable.

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-09-2007, 03:58 AM

The government does give money, they just leave what they do with the money to the guys in charge.

Yeah the Army command is well... a bunch of nitwits.

I think the likely time to upgrade would be after the war when money starts to come in again. I'm thinking about 2-5 years after.

2ltben

06-09-2007, 04:58 AM

But if it was good enough during the war, then hell, let's keep those companies making those weapons!

Corporate Ignorance

06-09-2007, 12:26 PM

What does Greece have to do with the "American Empire"?

In Greece, the British army took over after the Nazis had withdrawn,
displacing the Greek guerrillas and imposing a brutal and corrupt
regime, which evoked renewed resistance that Britain was unable to
control in its postwar decline.
The US stepped into the breach under the
Truman Doctrine in 1947, launching a murderous counterinsurgency
war, complete with the full panoply of devices soon to be employed
elsewhere: massacre, torture, expulsion, reeducation camps, and so on.

The US-organized war was in support of such figures as King Paul and
Queen Frederika, whose background was in the fascist movements,
along with outright Nazi collaborators such as the Minister of Interior of
the US-backed regime. This was called a regime of "black colonels", it was fantasticly ruthless. But noone remmebers.

The US succeeded in crushing labor unions and
the former anti-Nazi resistance based , eliminating even mild socialists
with blatant interference in the political process, and creating a society
in which US corporations and the Greek business elites prospered while
much of the working population was forced to emigrate to survive. Look in the history of Greece.
Twenty years later, the US supported the first fascist restoration in
Europe (also, the first government headed by a CIA agent, Colonel
Papadopoulos, who was the liaison between the CIA and its Greek
counterpart, virtually a subsidiary). This was shortly after President
Lyndon Johnson had delivered an important lesson in political science,
more enlightening than many weighty tomes, to the Greek Ambassador.
When the Ambassador objected to US plans to partition the independent
Republic of Cyprus between Greece and Turkey, saying that “no Greek
parliament could accept such a plan,” Johnson responded:

Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an
elephant, Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fellows
continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the
elephant’s trunk, whacked good . . . If your Prime Minister gives
me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his
parliament and his constitution may not last very long."

For good measure, he added: “maybe Greece should rethink the
value of a parliament which could not take the right decision,” where
“right” has its usual meaning. Greece was “whacked good” shortly after
under the US-backed fascist regime, and the second flea, Cyprus,
received the same treatment a few years later, with US and British
support.
Much the same was true in Asia, including Vietnam, Thailand, the
Philippines, and Korea, while in Europe the US moved to abort steps
towards any form of “national capitalism” (let alone socialism) that
might have led to independence from the US-controlled global order. US
influence and control expanded, in part by design, in part as a reflection
of the objective power balance, at the expense of France and England
(not to speak of indigenous populations), in the Middle East and Latin
America

It's a total off-topic, but let's consider it an answer to Enigma's question.))) Anyway, Iraqi war have been already discussed in this topic, of course we can continue, but I'm afriad that mutual misunderstanding and frustration with each other will only grow. And we are community, after all, no matter how diffrent our political views are.:) Politics sucks badly, actually.

enigma

06-09-2007, 01:14 PM

Would this be the King and the nationalists who we had been supporting before the war, sent troops to aid when war came to them and made a promise to liberate them...

A country we saved after kicking up such a fuzz with our allies to do so ... a war you would be commenting on which had already been ongoing between Communist and Nationalist resistant movements... where both sides had butched one another and commited atrocities...

We went back in and put the rightful guys back in power and were able to, along with the greeks end the first portion of the civil war. But then thats all wrong?

Corporate Ignorance

06-09-2007, 01:47 PM

I'm not commenting on British foreign policy , actually.:) It's a seperate(very interesting) theme.

I spoke about regime that was established in Greece and by what means and what it brought to the people of Greece. And why we never hear about this or any other direct intervention in independent countries affairs. Because those themes are not convinient, they shoudn't be talked about.

Also Lyndon Johnson reaction is remarkable, don't you think?

2ltben

06-10-2007, 01:39 AM

I didn't know that much about the incidents with Greece and Turkey, but I've read the recently declassified CIA files for the coup in Guatemala. The entire purpose of the CIA-sponsored revolution there was to remove the government which was going socialist by providing an increase in social services to the farming poor, and eliminating the nationalization of the farming industry to make room for United Fruit. And the propaganda was aimed at convincing the same farming poor that their benefits were nothing but godless Communism, and that they should be glad to be subjugated by the mighty American fruit corporation that steamrolled across Central America.

Timblesink

06-10-2007, 03:27 AM

Y'know, Saddam may have been an evil man, but he definitely kept things in order in Iraq... Can't say the same for the Americans.

Kaos

06-10-2007, 03:46 AM

Now it appears the US is funding 'anti Al-Qaeda nationalist guerillas'. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/penhaul.iraq/index.html

How they differ from the 'insurgents' isn't exactly clear. Except for the fact that they're armed by the United States. You might think "Yay now the Iraqi's can stick up for themselves!" However I don't think it's going to work that way, there's a couple of historical parallels to prove it. America supported Ho Chi Minh in his bid to overthrow the French and the Japanese in Vietnam. When it became apparent his loyalties lay in the direction of Communism, they soon realised it was probably a mistake. Fast forward 20 years - Afghanistan. The CIA set up training camps in the United States to arm and fun the Mujahudin. They were supposed to fight the Soviets, which they did. But then they created the Taliban and one thing lead to another till we got to September 2001. Then there's the fact that the US armed Saddam Hussein himself for his war against Iran.

Here's some nice footage of Mr. Rumsfeld meeting Saddam around the same time he was selling him American engineering chemical weapons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8 Yes. The same "WMD's" which we accused Saddam of building up and then invaded because of.

And now the United States is going to fund and arm ex-Saddamn loyalists?! According the Major General Benjamin Mixon it's "A risk worth taking". Maybe for you, Ben. But in a few years when these guys are done suckling on the teet of the Great Satan and the shit hits the fan, it'll be me and my family that'll have to deal with it.

Please don't dismiss this as an irrational left-wing rant. I used a highly popular mainstream news service as my source and am merely stating what has happened in the past. I, like most of you, am sick of being lied to by our governments. Time we stopped swallowing propaganda and did our own reading.

enigma

06-10-2007, 04:00 AM

There were clauses as i understand it in the Marshal plan and possibly the lend lease plan specially for the British Empire ... we would be funded, aided in the fight and support rebuilding ... if we gave the empire up.

Which from the breif reading ive done on the subject and smalls discussions on the net(so this may not be 100% accuarte) lead to a quicker withdrawl from the colonies.

Which it would seem if that is all true, could explain why some are so disstablised as they are....

Although this policy of anti-empire seems to have been thrown out the window when it came down to things like the Flaklands where the yanks i believe worked behind the scenes aiding the war effort and when we displaced an islands worth of people and built an airfield on it for them .... :S

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-10-2007, 05:50 AM

Y'know, Saddam may have been an evil man, but he definitely kept things in order in Iraq... Can't say the same for the Americans.

Oi our mission isn't to keep order. We're just there now to keep the insurgents in check. The IP is supposed to keep order, as well as the government.

Kaos

06-10-2007, 06:05 AM

Oi our mission isn't to keep order. We're just there now to keep the insurgents in check. The IP is supposed to keep order, as well as the government.

Err. I don't think you can say "Well we ripped apart the old regime, army and police force and now it's up to the new government to look after the problems we created".

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-10-2007, 06:50 AM

Problems that resulted, not created.

Like I said, we keep the insurgents in check while the IP does the actual policing. Our soldiers aren't law enforcement, that's the job of the police whom we train. I don't see how you can get "law enforcement" out of "Iraqi Freedom"

We do our mission while the police do their's. Simple.

Kaos

06-10-2007, 07:18 AM

You keep talking about the 'IP'. You were aware of the fact that was a an Iraqi Police Force under Saddam Hussein? And during that time period how many suicide bombs went off? How many kidnappings were done by insurgents? Did 190 people die in 6 days (as in the first 6 days of June)? No, no and no.

The current Iraqi Police Force is under-resourced and under-staffed for two main reasons. Many generals, politicians and commentators are coming out and saying the 'de-Baathification' of the Iraqi political and military structure was the stupidest thing the US could have done. They got rid of generals, soldiers, police officers and bureaucrats just because they worked for the government under Saddam. What this did was create a huge vacuum in terms of staff. This vacuum was filled by Shiites and Kurds who had stifled under Saddam's rule. They got their revenge by being put in positions of power and forming death-squads to kill Sunni's. What about those thousands of disgruntled, un-employed and experienced members of the old regime? Well they weren't going to get help from the US so many joined the various rebel groups currently roaming around Baghdad causing mayhem.

So the current people in charge Policing and law-enforcement, both the people on the ground and the politicians are in experienced and pretty much focused on revenge. Couple this with extremely low numbers of recruitment due to the fact that the families of police officers are often threatened with kidnapping/execution. And the fact that Police Recruiting Stations are prime targets for insurgents.

I'm afraid the 'IP' won't be much help.

2ltben

06-10-2007, 07:50 AM

Y'know, Saddam may have been an evil man, but he definitely kept things in order in Iraq... Can't say the same for the Americans.
Admittedly he did this by execution and suppression of religion.

How they differ from the 'insurgents' isn't exactly clear. Except for the fact that they're armed by the United States.
That's because they are insurgents. Some insurgent groups were tired of the dogmatic fanaticism of al-Qaeda, enforcing Sharia at gunpoint, so they had something of a faction war between organizations. This has been going on for a while. Thing is, all of the factions involved in the faction war are still fighting against the foreign occupiers.

Problems that resulted, not created.

Like I said, we keep the insurgents in check while the IP does the actual policing. Our soldiers aren't law enforcement, that's the job of the police whom we train. I don't see how you can get "law enforcement" out of "Iraqi Freedom"

We do our mission while the police do their's. Simple.
Operation Iraqi Freedom's been over since May 2003.

You keep talking about the 'IP'. You were aware of the fact that was a an Iraqi Police Force under Saddam Hussein? And during that time period how many suicide bombs went off? How many kidnappings were done by insurgents? Did 190 people die in 6 days (as in the first 6 days of June)? No, no and no.
Don't leave out the time that 200 people were killed in a single market bombing. This was the same day as Virginia Tech, so this news was kept to the ticker at the bottom of the screen. And the days that immediately followed showed stories where two dozen or more being killed in market bombings. Overall I'd say that we're doing a pretty shitty job if our only job is to prevent this from happening.

enigma

06-10-2007, 12:37 PM

Also they have stated that a nice good chunk of the Iraq Police are corrupt and near enough useless ... sort like the police around by me ... dont do bugger all :D

Heres a nice one for you, earlier this yea the US Marines said the war is now unwinnable.

Total_Overkill

06-10-2007, 01:12 PM

Don't leave out the time that 200 people were killed in a single market bombing. This was the same day as Virginia Tech, so this news was kept to the ticker at the bottom of the screen. And the days that immediately followed showed stories where two dozen or more being killed in market bombings. Overall I'd say that we're doing a pretty shitty job if our only job is to prevent this from happening.

ok, that pisses me off... i never heard a single word about that

Granted... after i found out there was a school shooting, i didnt watch the news for a week :rolleyes:

Corporate Ignorance

06-10-2007, 02:18 PM

It's interesting to witness how this thread slowly turns into a "free" discussion, without any direct links to Iraq.

2Kaos, 2Itben
I'm glad that there are people with similiar beliefs. Actually, I noticed quite a while ago a very disturbing line of facts.

America has free media- given fact- indeed, the freedom of speech in the States has a long and powerful tradition wich dates back to 19th century, and nowadays it's probably hard to get prosecuted by the state. America is indeed one of the most free countries on the world, and the richest. But what is actually "free" media?

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

There are topcis that are simply not discussed. The historical facts are taken out of context. There is no study of coup de'tats by CIA and general line of foriegn policy of U.S.- for plain reasons, of course, but nevertheless average American citizen knows about Rambo and Saddam, but don't know anything about El Salvador or Nicaragua. Why so? This is a logical contradiction- the point of view of average citizen is distorted, the picture is not full. Some things are not called by their proper names, and some things are totally but artificially and with hidden intent- "forsaken" by the media and official historians. America was making a VERY active foriegn policy after Second Word War- and large majority of their citizens, the taxpayers, who's money being spent on huge army programs know nothing about foriegn policy of the state. That I found very disturbing. The same thing was here in the Soviet Union, when average citizen didn't know NOTHING about Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The term invasion was not even used. But the same thing is in the States- the invasion of South Vietnam, for example, is never called an "invasion".

Kaos

06-10-2007, 02:54 PM

Take that famous phrase: Whoever controls the wealth controls the media, whoever controls the media controls the ballot box.

It all comes back down to votes. And people vote based on their opinions. There opinions are formed by gaining knowledge about the country, the world etc. It's dangerous to put all this information in the hands of a few powerful, rich men. Eg Rupert Murdoch. I could go on about the relationship between money, the media and political power but this isn't really the place.

I think one point that needs to be made is that whilst people are unaware of the facts (I say facts because these are undisputable as opposed to conspiracy theories) regarding the history of America's Foreign Policy and what's really going on in Iraq right now, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

Corporate Ignorance

06-10-2007, 04:12 PM

2Kaos
Wise quotation, reminded me of George Orwell's.

And indeed there exist FACTS, observed and documented by international observers, direct witnesses, journalists, academic researchers. But again and again, we get artificial "Good vs Evil" crusade, Dark Jedi against Light Jedi..This world is far more complicated, especially in the case of politics.
The same brain-washing tactic was used in Soviet Union. And it worked.

It's striking how propoganda models may resemlbe each other in general method and conception.

2ltben

06-11-2007, 03:40 AM

America has a long and plentiful history of fucking about in Central America, ever since the Spanish-American War. And alot of the corruption in the Iraqi infrastructure kind of reflects that which happened in the Gilded Age. The policemen join the police not because they want to rebuild, but because they know they're going to make money.

To become a policeman in Iraq you have to bribe someone, there was an interview with a few of them who said this on the Discovery Times channel a while back.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Billy Bragg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknxIkLbn7E
"We can't defeat no Axis of Evil when put smart bombs in the hands of dumb people."

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-11-2007, 09:25 PM

Operation Iraqi Freedom's been over since May 2003.

The end of major combat operations, not OIF.

Heres a nice one for you, earlier this yea the US Marines said the war is now unwinnable.

Show me. The US Marines or a US Marine?

One of my favorite quotes comes from Billy Bragg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknxIkLbn7E
"We can't defeat no Axis of Evil when put smart bombs in the hands of dumb people."

This coming from a man who can't speak English correctly. When have you twits ever seen a smart bomb in the hand of a dumb person? How are you going to justify that statement? There is no fact in that.

"Oh George Bush is dumb!" Well aren't you glad we're fighting rather than him? Fuck off already!

EDIT: I like how these people put this together. It's a projection of how the media would report D-Day if it happened today.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=138217&page=2

enigma

06-12-2007, 01:06 AM

Marine Intel Report, as leaked to the Washington News...

A Forum with the story (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=020839#000000)

2ltben

06-12-2007, 04:06 AM

The end of major combat operations, not OIF.
Meaning OIF, the actual invasion of Iraq. Every source I can find labels OIF as the invasion, not the occupation as a whole. The battle of France didn't include fighting the Maquis.

This coming from a man who can't speak English correctly.
What are you talking about? That's Billy Bragg, he's been one of England's best rock musicians for nigh two decades.

When have you twits ever seen a smart bomb in the hand of a dumb person? How are you going to justify that statement? There is no fact in that.
I believe we have, Iraq has proven to be enough of a fiasco, and that the top commanders in the Executive Branch and the Pentagon have ignored warnings from just about everyone that it would turn out to be as such. Its not hindsight either, there are more than enough accounts of people making their predictions that the government's failure to listen to strategic advice will lead to disaster.

EDIT: I like how these people put this together. It's a projection of how the media would report D-Day if it happened today.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=138217&page=2
Yeah? So? I encourage you to read Richard Dawkins' views on the constant shift of the moral zeitgeist.

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-12-2007, 07:39 AM

Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.I've only read part of it but as of now it seems like you have all misread it.

Meaning OIF, the actual invasion of Iraq. Every source I can find labels OIF as the invasion, not the occupation as a whole. The battle of France didn't include fighting the Maquis.And your source is...? Every military man and woman I have spoken to still call it OIF.

What are you talking about? That's Billy Bragg, he's been one of England's best rock musicians for nigh two decades.That doesn't mean anything. It's ironic how he calls the soldiers dumb but he can't even speak proper English. Popularity means nothing, 50 Cent may be famous but he's still a twit.

I believe we have, Iraq has proven to be enough of a fiasco, and that the top commanders in the Executive Branch and the Pentagon have ignored warnings from just about everyone that it would turn out to be as such. Its not hindsight either, there are more than enough accounts of people making their predictions that the government's failure to listen to strategic advice will lead to disaster.There's only one commander in the Executive Branch. So what strategic advice do you suppose would've been better?

Yeah? So? I encourage you to read Richard Dawkins' views on the constant shift of the moral zeitgeist.WTF does that have to with the video? The video was pointing out how liberal the media's mindset is now and how they influence the viewers. For example, watch the news and see how the bad news in the war gets 5-15 minutes of show time, whilst the good news gets less than 5. You speak like Dawkins is a prophet of some sort.

Total_Overkill

06-12-2007, 07:53 AM

That doesn't mean anything. It's ironic how he calls the soldiers dumb but he can't even speak proper English. Popularity means nothing, 50 Cent may be famous but he's still a twit.

I do not think that the quote is reffering to soldiers at all, but to politicians...
but your definetly right about 50 cent.

WTF does that have to with the video? The video was pointing out how liberal the media's mindset is now and how they influence the viewers. For example, watch the news and see how the bad news in the war gets 5-15 minutes of show time, whilst the good news gets less than 5.

Actually i kinda thought the video was missing something... likely mindless banter and loud shouting morons... but i guess members of fox news was busy. Now, you do have a point, that was sooooo liberal media, because any DECENT republican news station would have spent 5-15minutes on bashing the liberal coverage, then maybe get around to the bad news.

(couldnt resist that :D )

dominicus

06-12-2007, 08:25 AM

I don't get why Bravo is screaming about Liberal media. I haven't watched the whole video, just parts of it, but really, why even compare WW2 with the War in Iraq?

The War in Iraq was started under false pretenses:
a) to 'get back' for 9/11 because of a supposed direct link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam
b) to take out Saddam because he was an 'immediate threat', because he had all those WMD's
c) to take out a bad man..

A and B are what made Americans and many countries of the world stand united with U.S. against Iraq. But they turned out to have been false and there have was plenty of evidence proving them wrong at the crucial time. Yet that evidence was hidden away or ignored.

As far as point C, it really isn't a good argument. There are many dictators in the world, why Saddam? I don't believe in the philanthropy, the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' for even one second.

WW2, on the other hand, could be considered by most as a battle of good vs. evil. There was no question in anyone's mind that Hitler was an imminent threat to everyone.

Anyways, I'm glad there are people here that are so much more eloquent than me, Corporate Ignorance, who can put things into context so well.

enigma

06-12-2007, 09:49 AM

It's ironic how he calls the soldiers dumb but he can't even speak proper English.

Its sad how people always fall back on the way someone uses there native language, if they cannot write correctly with it, poor use of grammar etc to attack them with ... it actually makes you look more like an idiot then anyone else...

Total_Overkill

06-12-2007, 09:58 AM

Careful Enigma, unless you wanna get blasted for speeling errorz ;)

Kaos

06-12-2007, 10:36 AM

For example, watch the news and see how the bad news in the war gets 5-15 minutes of show time, whilst the good news gets less than 5.

That probably has to do with the fact that there's a lot more "Bad news" in any war, particularly this one, than "good news". Just out of curiosity what counts as "good news" in Iraq?

css2d

06-12-2007, 12:05 PM

This perhaps? (http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-days.html)

Kaos

06-12-2007, 12:52 PM

This perhaps? (http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-days.html)

Yay, no roadside bombings for six whole days. Don't get me wrong, that sure is a good news story.

That blogger should count himself lucky himself he was in al-Anbar province. During those 6 days in which he recorded zero incidents of violence, elsewhere around Iraq 263 civilians were killed, not including 32 US soldiers. Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/11/iraq.main/)

So there's something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a report highlighting low levels of violence should be given the same time as one detailing a bombing because the latter is by far the more common trend.

Not to mention the fact that every night thousands of families all across the world who have relatives serving in Iraq are watching and reading news reports hoping that there son/daughter/husband/wife isn't going to be coming home in a coffin and adding to the list of Coalition dead which current stands at 3789.

I find it ridiculous that conservatives are upset about what they perceive as inherent left-wing bias in the media and/or government reports. There are currently conservative governments in power in the USA, Canada, Australia, France, Germany and Japan. Just to a name a few of the most influential countries around the world. Top this off with the fact that the most watched and read news sources in just about all of these countries (and more) don't even hide the fact that they're biased to a conservative viewpoint. Eg. Fox News in the US, the Nine network and Daily Telegraph in Australia, Sky News in Britain...

Damn bleeding heart liberals have taken over the world.

JonasDahlin

06-12-2007, 02:52 PM

When have you twits ever seen a smart bomb in the hand of a dumb person? How are you going to justify that statement? There is no fact in that

Well, the guy who dropped this smart bomb didn't seem to be that smart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3H3BPQU&mode=related&search=

2ltben

06-12-2007, 08:37 PM

I don't know why I bother, we're not going to convince Bravo that he's wrong because he has a century of cloak and dagger activity and propaganda to nest himself in. He can't even see the rhetoric in a Billy Bragg song, let alone be open to criticism.

There is a very good reason that bad news is reported more often than good news, that's because the bad news should be known to all so it can be stopped. Do you think anyone would give a damn about Darfur if everyone and his grandmother known to the public mind wasn't trying to do something to help?

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-12-2007, 09:44 PM

This perhaps? (http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-days.html)
Agreed. But I'm not talking mainly about that kind. What about the captures? What about Operation Al Fajr? See, how many of you know what OAF was before you look it up?

Well, the guy who dropped this smart bomb didn't seem to be that smart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3...elated&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3H3BPQU&mode=related&search=)What they didn't record is how there was a firefight on the ground at that time. The person on the ground wouldn't have been talking to the pilot unless he was calling for air support. Same goes for the other scenes, they don't show you when they got shot at, they only show them returning fire. The reason? Soldiers only hit the record button after the initial gunfire erupts, they can't waste battery.

I don't know why I bother, we're not going to convince Bravo that he's wrong because he has a century of cloak and dagger activity and propaganda to nest himself in. He can't even see the rhetoric in a Billy Bragg song, let alone be open to criticism.

There is a very good reason that bad news is reported more often than good news, that's because the bad news should be known to all so it can be stopped. Do you think anyone would give a damn about Darfur if everyone and his grandmother known to the public mind wasn't trying to do something to help?Am I that wrong? That none of you who have opposing views of me have not ever gotten your head out of your ass (figuratively speaking)? Have you been there? Are you part of the government so you know the cover-ups? I have not, but I have spent my entire conscious life studying all of this, not for research but as a hobby. I have spoken to countless numbers of these people. I am open to criticism but when it comes to this topic I won't let anything bring down the military men and women.

All news needs to be known, not just the bad has priority. It's like watching the first 15 minutes of a news broadcast, nothing good. Darfur obviously needs more attention, there is no good from there. Everyone believes something must be done about it. But do you think anyone would give a damn about Iraq if if everyone and his grandmother known to the public mind wasn't trying to do something to help? "Bring back the troops and let the Muslims kill each other, let them do what they want." Real hypocrisy. We finish the mission, no turning back.

enigma

06-12-2007, 10:12 PM

|:XAS:| Bravo

06-13-2007, 02:20 AM

I agree with that last sentance very much.

One also notes, as i stated early on the war in 91 never ended and we carried on attacking Iraqi targets, according to some sources the Turks also mounted massive cross border raids ala the other day but with more men and machines.
As Bravo rightly said as well, it isnt that well know ... why ... coz no one gave a shit.

So what changed, i think this is the real question which no one has ever answered. What changed to make people think oh its such a bad idea and to have mass protests.
Why are these protestors never complaining about the crap happening in some far away land with (before the war started) real problems?

As far as i can tell, but i dont know enough so this would be the wrong impression, everyone was protesting agaisnt the involvlment in Vietnam ... yet no one cared it would seem about the treatment the people of south vietnam suffered at the hands of the north and the VC nor did they care about other peoples sufferings in SE Asia to protest over them ... i.e. Burma etc

Selfishness as a whole? Thats the only thing I can think up. It wouldn't be to keep building up our country so we could be the undeniable super-power because it contradicts with the hippie doctrine (don't know if there is one).

The problem I see in most examples is that people only look at what's being covered by the media and not about everything as a big picture. I'm not saying to always look at the big picture but to look at all the other stuff as well. Taking a horse's blinders off if you will.

2ltben

06-13-2007, 05:08 AM

Am I that wrong? That none of you who have opposing views of me have not ever gotten your head out of your ass (figuratively speaking)? Have you been there? Are you part of the government so you know the cover-ups? I have not, but I have spent my entire conscious life studying all of this, not for research but as a hobby. I have spoken to countless numbers of these people. I am open to criticism but when it comes to this topic I won't let anything bring down the military men and women.
That's exactly my point, we're not talking about the military. The Executive Branch and the Pentagon are most assuredly not the military, they're the ones who tell the military what to do and when to do it. Bragg wasn't speaking of the people who actually fire the smart bombs, he was criticizing corrupt and incompetent government leadership.

All news needs to be known, not just the bad has priority. It's like watching the first 15 minutes of a news broadcast, nothing good. Darfur obviously needs more attention, there is no good from there. Everyone believes something must be done about it. But do you think anyone would give a damn about Iraq if if everyone and his grandmother known to the public mind wasn't trying to do something to help? "Bring back the troops and let the Muslims kill each other, let them do what they want." Real hypocrisy. We finish the mission, no turning back.
We're only exchanging one bloodbath for another, and at the end of the day I'd rather have the blood of an armed forces be spilled than that of innocent people. The Executive leadership is not open to reason, as was made perfectly clear after their response to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, or rather a lack of one combined with an antagonizing jab that was the troop surge.

And I think the stated comments of the media is why I prefer the Daily Show and Bill Maher. I still watch my NBC Nightly News, though.
*edit*

For that matter, why is George Bush calling the American government "his" government. The American government does not, nor will it ever belong to a single man or ideology. According to Locke, that line of thinking could and morally should be responded to by popular rebellion.

Kaos

06-13-2007, 05:12 AM

We finish the mission, no turning back.

Care to let us all in on what the mission actually is? First it was flushing out terrorists because of Saddam's apparent link to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which turned out to completely false and the invasion and subsequent occupation has actually lead to a increase in the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and around the world.

When Reason #1 turned out to be bullshit, we went to Reason #2: Weapon's of Mass Destruction. How many of those turned up? Zero. Next excuse... deposing Saddam and creating a democracy. Well Saddam was certainly deposed and the Iraqi's have voted for a new constitution, elected a new president and a new parliament. Mission accomplished? Well you'd think so but we're still there under the guise of 'security'.

If I didn't know better I'd say there was something damn important in Iraq that the US wants its hands on and that's why we as the public and constituency have been continually lied too. Oh wait, I do know better... it begins with 'O'.

And just in case you forgot: Mission Accomplished (http://youtube.com/watch?v=CFijzDyJnVE)

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Corporate Ignorance

06-13-2007, 09:12 AM

Eh, WHY oh WHY everybody's brusied pride tells them that war-protesters have something against FIGHTING men and women, for pity's sake?

I said countless times- soldiers are TOOLS. They have orders.
I have something against guys in ties who sent them there.

And by the way, one shoudn't to be a genious(or visit Iraq) to analzye the pretext of the Iraqi war- there is endless amount of undeniable facts. We can put them into single coherent picture without any difficultie. War are fought for power and hegemony. Always.
Of course, we, majestic rulers, can speculate about compassion, but there is no compassion in 20th century. There is pocitics, sly and cynical-when we need, we call upon saint anger and morality of the nation, when we don't need it, we simply say that it is our "national intrest". Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Old truth. Proven countless times.

U.S is not helping Eastern Congo or Darfur with troops. No. It dosen't help ANYONE. By mere chance, oil companies have been privatized by American companies and all money for some strange reason goes to U.S. No, it's just the way it should be. Oh those liberals!(I'm monarchist, actually.

And I'm really, really surpised that everyone still forget one VERY important thing, that I've again said countless times before- War in Iraq is against international law. Against UN order of things.
You may spit upon UN, but...that means that it's the second Leagure of Nation and U.S. dosen't give a damn about international law.
And that is very, very disturbing.

enigma

06-13-2007, 09:28 AM

The UN hasnt worked and never will ... it didnt sort Iraq out, it hasnt sorted any other war out.... (probably minus Korea).

And saying its agaisnt international law ... well thats BS and we know it.

Corporate Ignorance

06-13-2007, 05:27 PM

There was no final resolution of U.N. America attacked Iraq without U.N. approval. That is agaisnt the law. Or not?

enigma

06-13-2007, 06:38 PM

look at it realistically ... people try to justify war they never got and seek permission.

Crusades,
Pope: Right boys lets get those bastards

Napoleonic Wars
That small French guy whose name i forget: Right boys lets get those bastards

Zulu Wars
Some English Chap: Right chaps lets get those blighters

WW2
Small angry guy with terrible mustache: Right boys lets get those bastards, Ve attack now!

Since you seem to hold so much esteem for the word of the U.N. all those examples you mention why the Americans dont get involved in ... more importantly ... why hasnt the UN.
In one case they sat back and argued about if it was genocide or not ... screw the descriptions get on in there you tits!

Arguing weather war is legel or not makes me laugh...

Corporate Ignorance

06-13-2007, 06:52 PM

Laws appear because of bitter expirience. Laws exist to maintain order. No matter how screwed or beauracratic U.N. still is the only international organization to maintain balance and "justice". If any country can forget about laws in our times(and our times is unique, because of military crazy) technology) that it means that this world is standing on a brink.

Heh- I don't have much esteem for U.N. too for the very reason you pointed in your post above.
But don't forget why U.N. was created and after what.

International law exists. Period. If you break the King's law, you break the King's law, no matter how wicked and stupid the King is.
Humanity is crossing a very dangerous threshold, if they finally neglect international law..
Cause there may be no compassionate Soviet submarine commanders left this time.(If you take my meaning.)

P.S.
Btw, you simplify the reasons of mentioned wars.:)

enigma

06-13-2007, 07:12 PM

Since the UNs foundation (excluding all the aid and non milatary things they do ... like birckering) we have had the longest period in a hell of a long time without war between the main powers of the world*.

However....

Since the founding of the UN, 160 new warws have been fought, countless coups have taken place. It would appears that around 80 million people (more people then there is in the UK, more people killed then in the most destructive war ever fought) have died during the last 50 something years since its founding due to wars and genocicdes.

Where was the UN during all these...

It because there a bunch of usless knobs i find it very laughable when people sit crying because they were ignored when the Iraq one kicked off.

*Although that isnt really the UNs doing ...

*Live on TV, the UN has the Worlds main powers sitting around a table to discuss peace in our time*

Un Dude: Now Mr Britisher, German, American, Frenchy, Chinese guy and mr crazy Ivan i dont want you all killing each other for some time!

*They all nod nerviously*

*the world rejoices at the UNs charm and the peace*

*the camera pans down to show them all with hand hovering over there red buttons*