Fallujah? Have you seen it on the news? I doubt it...

[Corporate Ignorance]

Do you know that this war holds DARK SECRETS? Each war has its own dark secrets. Why U.S Command is lying, if their intentions are so noble, as they state? Why it is lying?

Do you know that there are HUGE AMOUNT OF LIES surrounding operation "Iraqi freedom?" Do you sincerly belive that media is "indiependent" and "honest"?I doubt that we really understand what WAR really is, when we "support our troops"...
INTERNATIONALLY FORBIDDEN CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE USED. . AGAINST CIVIALLIANS TOO. IN A LARGE-SCALE OPERATION AND IN GREAT AMOUNTS.

The use of incendiary CHEMICAL weapons against civilians is ILLEGAL by Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980); Moreover, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (signed by the US) prohibit the use of the chemical properties of white phosphorus(napalm) against personnel.

But Napalm or substance similiar to napalm in effect was used. Moreover,US LIED to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war.

Do you know why chemical weapons and naplam especially is forbidden- because it's a TERRIBLE way to die.

Anyway, I really hope that you will re-consider some of your positions regarding the War in Iraq, after watching this movie. Everthing is not that simple, as our goverment told us. In this world everything is far more complicated.


WARNING

This video contains images that depict the reality and horror of war.

It should only be viewed by a mature audience


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8905191678365185391&q=The+Hidden+Massacre

[Corporate Ignorance]

Estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is based on study, published in Britain's most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate.

The study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and family members were able to show a death certificate to document 80% of the deaths they described. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. It's the same method used by the US Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the US and UK when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, or other situations anywhere in the world.

Based on the study's estimate of 654,965 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation, we have extended this rate of civilian deaths (16,374 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published..

Do you think this is a promised "reward"? This is long awaited "freedom"?
This is the war that is fought out of compassion towards opressed Iraqi population?

The reslut of this illegal invasion is LARGE-SCALED CIVIL WAR. People are dying daily.

And what is the most horrible thing- innocent children. Are they worse then Amercian, Russian, Swedish, Australian children? Or maybe you think that they don't deserve life? Don't they deserve to have their own children? To live this life, to see the sun, the sky and breath air?

Or they deserve "precise" bombs failling on their heads? Or they deserve surviving in constant fear, starving, without basic human essentials, in a war torn, devastated country with dying economy?
Who are the Judges? Pentagon?
Oh how compassionate! But we, people, sitting in our cozy homes and playing Battlefield 2, people who go to the cinema and eat hamburgers- we don't care...
Do we know anything about this war, exept those officcial reports from the news? How many clever, kind people all over the world geniunly belive that this war is fought in the name of Honesy and Justice by most human means- to destroy evil tyrant and bring freedom with precise bombings.

Heh, any comments on the video?

[Cias]

what point are you trying to make? im pretty sure anyone on this forum damn well knows you cant trust what the media says, are you just trying to make a anti-us thread or something?

[Corporate Ignorance]

No, no at all...I've stated several times before- I'm not ANTI-US.

I feel lots of respect for Americans.

I just can't accept the foreign policy of American STATE.

And I can't accept lies regarding wars in general.

I was kinda appaled when I read first three pages of "What do you think of Iraq war?" thread, that's why I decided to post this...Read them, I bet you'd understand...
And I promised Enigma to post my numebers regarding Iraqi causaulties.

[DavidUpton]

Ah, it's the Cold War reborn.

See, I refuse to comment on Iraq, simply because I haven't fought there. I can't trust the media, I can't trust the government, I haven't been there so therefore I do not know the full story and do not comment.

Hence why I have little patience for anti-US threads like this...

[Cias]

believe me, i think the whole war is pointless, i wish they would have pulled every single troop out of that shithole years ago. but then again, every single country lies about wars. you cant just call out the US on that

[Corporate Ignorance]

2Cias
I'm glad that you think that way, Cias.:)
But read some forums on the net, and even in this forum listen to active war-supporters, even 15-years old kids are among them...It's terrible to witness how many people, even on this forum, sincerly SUPPORT the war because there is a deliberate media campaign. But if we try to think and analyze, try to gather information, we can figure out truth. That's my main point.

And by the way, I've mentioned already elsewhere that I have no love for Soviet Union(or modern Russia) in itself and especially their foriegn policy. I'm not a patriot of my goverment. I love my people and my land, not a bunch of corrput officials who steal and lie.


The problem is-
Soviet Union had fallen, there is only one empire left in this world.


No, David, Cold war is over.:)
You can speak with those who WAS in Iraq.
You can gather info from indiependent sources. You can check OFICCIAL records. And the things I'm telling you about here are EVEN in wikipedia.
Ordinary people simply don't know that , because T.V dosen't tell them. Newspapers don't tell them that.

All that I'm telling is not my deliberatly created fake, made with only one purpose- bash United States. Actually, I feel very sorry for U.S, British and other soldiers out there.

I'm just trying to show that if you start carefully analyze our modern world, you can often come to interesting conclusions wich will be diffrent from what our states are trying to show us. You can always get a picture if you try to think- not entirely objective(that is impossible), but nevetheless you can find truth.

[ShaunCowdell]

I made a promise to myself not to get involved with this part of the forum, but when you take that much effort and put it so coherently how could I not?

I am ignorant of what's going on over there, but to be honest I don't want to get involved. It scares me what's happening. Those people live day after day in fear. Those "precision bombings" arn't precise at all. They hit schools and markets. What does the American military think? "Oops"

People are willing to kill themselves to get the occupying forces out of their countries.
It's wrong, disgusting and shouldn't be happening.

I'm sorry I can't view the video just yet but I promise I will be tomorrow.

[Cias]

the only time i actually supported the war was back when it first started, everyone was like WMD'S! 9/11! they must pay! then... uhh nothing was found... yet we are still there... pull out let them have there shitty patch of dirt back. ethenol gas 4tw!

[biggles]

I guess media was darn happy that the U.S invaded Iraq....finally they had something to write about now when 9/11 was to old to dig up.....

I honestly can't see a real solution to this. They shouldn't be there, but if you ask me, if they leave, then something worse might happen. Sure Saddam is dead, but.....there is always someone new......

[Cias]

I guess media was darn happy that the U.S invaded Iraq....finally they had something to write about now when 9/11 was to old to dig up.....

i havent believed a thing the media has said since i was like 13. i even think the weatherman is full of it!

[Corporate Ignorance]

2Cias, see, you also thought that Iraq has something to do with 9/11...And biggles even now thinks that U.S were trying to bring justice and overthrow evil tyrant Saddam, because they simply decided to "make things right"...

[Cias]

there is no point in argueing about this, personally i hate the fact that the us gov thinks our troops are "world police" but niether you or i will change anything that goes on over there. and i dont know if iraq had anything to do with 9/11, theres no way i could be sure about that

[Corporate Ignorance]

I think that if more people knew the truth the better... Why there are so much efforts to conceal the real history with fables about the awesome nobility of govermnets intentions, flawed only by blunders arising from our naivete and simpleminded goodness, which is unique in history? I think there’s a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore, it’s important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them. Correspondingly, the other side of the coin is that it’s extremely important to try to bring out the truth about these matters, as best we can.

[biggles]

2Cias, see, you also thought that Iraq has something to do with 9/11...And biggles even now thinks that U.S were trying to bring justice and overthrow evil tyrant Saddam, because they simply decided to "make things right"...

eeh....no, I never said I belived that was the americans intention. I just said that is what they DID, but if that was just part of the plan or just something to do on the way, I don't know. My honest guess: Bush wants oil. Simple as that. But I don't know really......noone really knows.....except him maybe....

AND I never claimed that I think that 9/11 has something to do with Iraq.

[Corporate Ignorance]

2biggles
No offense meant with my post,bro.

In "Iraq discussion" thread Pfc.Jackson and Enigma said that I'm trying to label all people ignorant...
That is, definetly, not the case.
What is the most appaling and disturbing thing that the most clever guys are cheated. Lies are very sophisticated.
But proporganda system can't hide everything. Soon or later, all hidden will become exposed. Facts will come out.
That's why I don't think that we shoud "guess" in case of "Iraqi freedom" We should learn to analyze the situation.


We've got a lot of information, we should carefully filter it and rely on indiependent sources. And if we use logic and facts we can not guess, we can find undeniable video/audio, factual etc. material. We should judge only after we know, and using our hearts, our sense of good and evil...At least, that's how I try to make assertions...


Any comments on the video, though?

[enigma]

In "Iraq discussion" thread Pfc.Jackson and Enigma said that I'm trying to label all people ignorant...

I dont recall stating that. I just dont buy into it was all for oil or that the Iraqi army at any point in time was non-existant.


But you were the one who posted this:

we are- sitting in our warm cozy chairs and judging things wich are beyond our knowledge.

That's all very fucking sad.




You do raise a good point in your OP, i dont believe it has been reported that Napalm has been used in Iraq.
However i do remember the WP being reported and that was a bit of a fuss over its use.

[Corporate Ignorance]

2enigma
Maybe I misunderstood you both. Sorry.

Regarding WP and Napalm-
Yeah, it was an article in Washinghton post regarding the issue, but it has gone almost unnoticed.
The problem is that it's almost impossible to divide Napalm from WP- it has exactly the same effect but a little bit diffrent chemical consistency. In military ranks, WP is often called "napalm" due to exactly the same purpose and effect.




Regarding oil and Iraqi army
Well, of course, it was not ONLY for oil. It has several geopolitical aspects, as well. But oil was one of the main reasons.

And If you remmeber, I never claimed that Iraq had not any armed forces...Iraq army resisted and fought back.
But their chances for victory were impossible from the beginning if we compare Iraq army to those of America and Britain. Especially in 2003, after disarming and international economic sanctions.

[sooch90]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre

This article brings up points that undermine the validity of this video. I suggest you read it.

[enigma]

In the opening of that video ... wasnt it techically an ARVN air strike which napalmed that village and not a US one?

From the article Sooch has just linked to and other articles ... some intresting stuff appears ....


point out that white phosphorus may not be considered a "chemical weapon" under the Chemical Weapons Convention but just an incendiary weapon banned under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, making the distinction that WP does not poison but burns its subject


White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent, and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns. White Phosphorus (WP) bombs and shells are essentially incendiary devices, and can be used in an offensive anti-personnel role against enemy troop concentrations. It is used in bombs, artillery shells, and mortar shells which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White phosphorus has been described as a chemical weapon, but because it can be used as a multi-purpose device to mark targets, provide a smoke screen, or signal to friendly troops, it is not covered by UN protocols on incendiary weapons.


On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace defended use of WP, declaring that WP munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military", used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, adding: "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening". Peter Pace argued that conventional weapons can be more dangerous than non-conventional weapons: "A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does".


Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Because its effects are physical and not chemical, WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification. However, some opponents have argued that white phosphorus interactions with human physiology could still provide a basis for its prohibition under the CWC.


Army sources: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

[Corporate Ignorance]

2scooch
Heh, I 've read that criticizing article BEFORE posting this movie here...
From wikipedia-
The U.S. attacks were taking a great toll on civilians as well as the insurgents however, and faced growing criticism from within the Iraqi Governing Council , where Adnan Pachachi said, "these operations by the Americans are unacceptable and illegal."

But read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vigilant_Resolve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury

So you doubt the so to speak "historical" value of this video? I mean, you think that this is made of lies and purpously bash United States wich is clear of any guilt?

Well, let us logically analyze the movie.

You doubt what former U.S Marines Jeff Englheart and Garret Reppenhagen are saying? Well, indeed you have a full right to not belive them. Even if you don't belive what they are saying(though it coresponds to video images and offically recorded statistics as well as to the info, provided by several indiependent journalists) it dosen't mean that the whole movie is not valid.

Englheart and Garret Reppenhagen comments are simply comments, no more, no less. You can belive them and you can desbelive them. But...

1. Was WP used ?
It was.
2.Fallujah is LITERARY raised to the ground?
It is. Fallujah's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines.
3.Consult civillian looses-
they are many(the exact number is really hard to determin(something around 1000 is named), - U.S military officially claimed that it did not count civillain casualties-) many among the bodies are burnt and melted. There is interview with a doctor in the movie also regarding civillian looses.
4.WP is a CHEMICAL weapon when it's used AS A WEAPON?
Yeah, it's used on a marking and screening missions , but in Fellujah it was used as a weapon.
5.Is it banned throught the civilized world as a military attacking weapon?
Hell yeah, it's banned as a weapon in almost all European countries, exept America, because it's incredibly cruel. Worse then grenades and bullets, cause it's much more painful and long death. It's banned in 1993 Convention Against Chemical weapons and 1980's Geneva Convention. U.S did not sign 3 and 4 protocol of 1980's convention, though tried on public not to violate it.
6.Did U.S State Department and High Military Command tried to conceal the fact of using WP in Fallujah? Did it led to diplomatical scandal with UK,where WP is banned under 1980 convention, when U.S tried to hide the fact of its use?
Yes, and Yes.
7.Have we seen burnt, melted bodies of women and children?
Yes.
So, of course, you can disbelive this movie, as you can disbelive those facts and assertions that I made in "Do you support the war in Iraq thread?". It's totally up to you.

[Crazythumbs]

Whats the big deal with WP, there are dozens of more painful deaths that can, and do happen in war.
The whole argument is hypocritical, mutilating people with grenades, 155mm He shells vaporizing people is fair game, but once someone gets lit on fire we're inhumane.

And stop typing random words in caps for emphasis, it's annoying

[Corporate Ignorance]

It's forbidden by international law to use WP as a weapon. And it was used. It's simple as that...And ineed it's a really terrible weapon.Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group said that "it's most unpleasent way to die"...And civillains were hit with it in Fallujah.

And allright- I'll try not to use caps...I just want to underline most important moments, but if it's annoying I won't use it.

[xtc-alec]

Ah, it's the Cold War reborn.

See, I refuse to comment on Iraq, simply because I haven't fought there. I can't trust the media, I can't trust the government, I haven't been there so therefore I do not know the full story and do not comment.

Hence why I have little patience for anti-US threads like this...


QFT

[enigma]

It's forbidden by international law to use WP as a weapon. It's simple as that...

Do you have a link, everything seems to state that its ok to use :confused:

[Corporate Ignorance]

The US State Department initially denied using white phosphorus as a munition, a claim later contradicted by the Department of Defense when bloggers discovered a US Army magazine had run a story detailing its use in Fallujah.(!) The US government maintains its denial(!) of use against civilians, while trying to justify the offensive use of WP against enemy combatants.(!) However, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted by the RAI documentary, WP is allowed as an illumination device,(!) not as an offensive weapon, for which its chemical properties are put to use.

See the diffrence- it can be used as an illumination device but it's forbidden to use it in civillain districs even against military targets.

[enigma]

Link please, because everything ive looked at so far states that for all its uses as an is incendary weapon.
The articles which cover this story also state that the article the US signed states:

prohibits its use against civilians and military targets located within a concentration of civilians

In defence most of the articles run with the Americans had told all civies to get out of the areas they were going to use them days before.

[Corporate Ignorance]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury

Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian populations, including against military targets in civilian areas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III.(Signed by Britain) The US however, has only signed Articles I and II, not Protocols III, IV, And V.

That's why it seems U.S lied to Britain regarding the use of WP in Iraq. Cause this weapon is banned in UK.

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.
However, facts that were revealed recently regarding Operation Phantom Fury contradict this statement.

The use of incendiary weapons against civilians is illegal by Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980); however, the US is not a signatory.

But the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (signed by the US) prohibit the use of the chemical properties of white phosphorus against personnel.

[Appleskates]

Ah, it's the Cold War reborn.

See, I refuse to comment on Iraq, simply because I haven't fought there. I can't trust the media, I can't trust the government, I haven't been there so therefore I do not know the full story and do not comment.

Hence why I have little patience for anti-US threads like this...

I agree. The press is so crooked nowadays, I never touch it.

[Fallschirmjäger]

The u.s can leave a small force there for now in iraq and help train the forces there, but pull most of it out and go deal with the taliban and bin laden in afghanistan and pakistan the true bad guys i think

[CBowling]

My dad is a Commander in the Navy, a Cardiologist(Heart Doc)


He was deployed out there in 2003, with Fleet Hospital 3, one of the first Hospital units to be deployed out into Iraq. I think my dad has a greater perspective of things thats going on then most people do, especially since he was a doc and looked at the wounded and dying.


My dad saw many patients a day, sometimes over 100 a day, and over half these patients were of the Iraq people, and even a few of them were Iraqi soldiers. While over there, my dad had to help many patients..I'll tell you 3 cases he remembers vividly


1) There was a boy and his father who were brought in. The boy was fine, but the father had been hit in the ribs and was unconscious for most of the night. As my dad and other medical personal worked on him, the boy would sit in the corner watching them work on his dad, crying. He would pray, and continually ask them about his condition. The father eventually was helped and stabalized, and after a few days they were released.

2) Two brothers, both late 40's, were shot. The two were put 3 beds down from each other. The first brother was the worst off, but was starting to get better. But as he was getting better, the 2nd brother caught a sickness and began to decline, and it wasn't long before they knew he would die. The 1st brother then asked to be taken and moved next to his other brother. They did so, and the two remained together until the 2nd brother died. My dad said you could hear the brother's wails throughout the hospital, and the sound would always remain with him.

3) This is probably the hardest one for my dad. Another boy and his father were brought in, this time the boy was hurt. The boy was around 13(my age at the time, my dad said the boy reminded him alot of me), and had been caught in crossfire on the way to get bread from the store. The boy slipped out of consciousness, and the father remained by his side. But unlike the first story, this boy was not to make it and died. The cries of the father also remain with my dad, and seeing a 13 year old that reminds him of his own son dying is a picture he cant get rid of.


These are only 3 of hundreds of cases my dad saw. He will never be the same in the 6th months he stayed out there. Yes, he only stayed for 6 months, which isn't anything compared to other soldiers time over there. But in that time, my dad saw some of the worst things you could ever imagine.


When I asked him his opinion on the war, he merely says "I just do my job."

If I press him about it, he will finally say "I would LIKE to think that there is some other intentions behind this war other then oil."

So he isn't even sure. He believes its good Saddam is no longer in power, but he isn't sure if it was worth all the death and destruction that is going on now.


My opinion on the war is that I believe we should have just continued going for Osama Bin Laden, and that's it. Iraq was not a war which we needed to get involved in. But, I also don't think we should just pull out now. We have gone in and basically left the country in a fragile state. If we pulled out now, it would be even worse then if we continued to stay.

First we need to stabalize their economy, and while doing that, we should slowly pull troops out. Maybe 100 or so a month, until we are all finally out of the country.

[Corporate Ignorance]

I've always had a deep respect and admiration to medics and doctors, especially military doctors in hot zones.

Actually, your story only makes a good addition to what I'm trying to say here to everbody with my not-pefect English.
I just feel bitter when I imagine how many lives are broken, how many tears have been shed in vain, especially on civilian side...

And for what?
For illegal invasion, based on false,unbelivable lies and corporate lust for money... Yah, it's just make me mad.

[Crazythumbs]

Unbeleivable lies like WMD's? Keep in mind Russia, Britain, US, French, (and I think a few other countries) all had intelligence that pointed to Iraq having WMD's.

And since Iraq I haven't noticed any increase in the amount of gas here, in fact the prices went up. They're back down now though.

[Corporate Ignorance]

2Crazythumbs...

Guys, I'm tired of saying all over and over again the same things.
I won't post anything regarding WMD in Iraq ...I've stated my position in a diffrent thread(Do you support the war in Iraq) and I hope it's quite clear and logical, backed up by real facts. If you don't agree with it, please if you want we can talk about it there.
So far, there were no coherent objections.
Anyway, I won't discuss it here. No more wicked off-top from me.:)

[sooch90]

2Crazythumbs...

Guys, I'm tired of saying all over and over again the same things.
I won't post anything regarding WMD in Iraq ...I've stated my position in a diffrent thread(Do you support the war in Iraq) and I hope it's quite clear and logical, backed up by real facts. If you don't agree with it, please if you want we can talk about it there.
So far, there were no coherent objections.
Anyway, I won't discuss it here. No more wicked off-top from me.:)


He was simply replying to your previous statement. If you don't want to back it up here, then don't say those things here. :thumbs up:

[aag567]

The civilians should've left in the first place, unlike the men of military age they could actually leave the city. But anyway the coalition troops couldn't tell who was a civilian or not, insurgents would drop their weapons to walk around the ROE then grab a weapon at another weapon cache, and civilians were even used as human shields. But despite that they should've just sorted through all the military age men instead of shoving them back into the city so they wouldn't have to bother telling who's who.

[Saden]

Aag567 These people have lived there all of their lives, you cannot just tell them or make them 'leave'.

[Edub]

Most people on this forum will probably grill me for having this opinion, but I support the war and I support the troops fighting in it. However, I do not have much trust in the media. They will say whatever they want to make their own interests successful.

Cbowling posted Earlier:

My opinion on the war is that I believe we should have just continued going for Osama Bin Laden, and that's it. Iraq was not a war which we needed to get involved in. But, I also don't think we should just pull out now. We have gone in and basically left the country in a fragile state. If we pulled out now, it would be even worse then if we continued to stay.

If have nothing but respesct for this opinion. It's obvious he thinks the war is a bad idea, but he understands the threat that pulling out to fast. I wish all Anti-war people could understand that. If the US and its allies pull out without establishing an Iraqi security force that is capable of sustaining order than the radical islamic ideology will gain momentum, and Terrorism will flourish in Iraq and all over the world. One of the major reasons Bin Laden attacked the us on 9/11 was because of What happened in Somalia in '93. We lost I think 18 soldiers and then we pulled out. He said the US would never be able to fight a war because they will just give up when things get bad. Retreat in Somalia was a factor in the cause of 9/11, and I dont want to even imagine what Retreat in Iraq would lead to.
People make the argument that this is a war that will never end and cant be won. So to them I always ask, what should be done then? Diplomacy wont work because the Radical Islamists dont want to be diplomatic with infidels and zionists. This is not war like WWI or WWII with organized armies where one side surrenders and then there's peace in a matter of years. This war will go on Years to come, but I think, and I hope some day things will be better.

This just my opinion on what's going on. Either way I dont really care if people support the war or not, they are entitled to their opinions, but I just hope they support the troops.

[aag567]

Aag567 These people have lived there all of their lives, you cannot just tell them or make them 'leave'.

When it was occupied by insurgents and was going to be under bombardment, yes, we could.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Most people on this forum will probably grill me for having this opinion, but I support the war and I support the troops fighting in it. However, I do not have much trust in the media. They will say whatever they want to make their own interests successful.
Either way I dont really care if people support the war or not, they are entitled to their opinions, but I just hope they support the troops.

Heh, majority of the people on this boards support operation Iraqi freedom, no matter what, bro


Frankly speaking, everybody who freely usees term "insurgent", should be more cautios with it. The line between so-called "insurgents" and civillians in Iraq is very thin.

And by the way, noone seems to listen to what actual free people of Iraq think regarding presence of U.S troops. All are very boldly think what U.S troops should do- go hunt there, attack there, but everyone seem to forget that U.S troops on the other side of the barricade are seen as men with guns and tanks who came and establish their rule out of a thin air. Everybody seem to forget that Iraq was not a threat.
Mere soldiers become more and more frustrated, accidents of rape, murder, mosque vandalism happen here and there- it does not mean that U.S soldiers are bad, it does mean that every war includes such things as inevitable companions, no matter what nation wages a war. But you can't explain that to people of Iraq.

It seems that history always repeat itself. No matter how many beautiful words are spoken regarding indiependence, intenational equal basis, democracy, respect for human rights etc. huge powerful countries will do what they want, despite actual feelings of ordinary people living in torn, dying and conquered countries.
By the way, I've stated the official public opinion of Iraqi people elsewhere here. No wonder it's so hard sometimes to define who is "insurgent" and who is a civillain.
Former farmers, pleasents, teachers, soldiers- husbends, brothers and sons- are all among those "insurgents"....


.


But anyway, we all have the right to have our opinion.

But I simply can't but wonder- if you read what I wrote in the other thread- it's not a lie, and still noone proved that I'm lying for personal "anti-american" satisfaction.- what can all "war supporters" say abouyt dark pre-history of this war, apparent contradictions of "official point of view", legal aspect of international system of security, actual political and geopolitical reasons of the invasion, the entire excuse for U.S presence in a Middle-East, and last, but not the least- countless broken fates and lives,I think noone seem to realize how unjust and terrible war is- everything seem to fall out of view.

[enigma]

not the least- countless broken fates

Thats a bit of a condritidtion ... that would have been there fate :p

[aag567]

Actually there's also plenty of Iraqis who are making friends with the troops.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Actually there's also plenty of Iraqis who are making friends with the troops.

Sources of such claim?

Between 45% and 88% of Iraqi Sunni Arabs consider armed attacks on U.S. forces legitimate and justified resistance.

Polls suggest the majority of Iraqis disapprove of the presence of coalition forces
Research indicates that majority of both Sunnis and Shi'as want an end to the occupation as soon as possible, although Sunnis are opposed to the occupation by somewhat greater margins.

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

omg... blabalbalablbalbalalablalblbalblbalblaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa

[aag567]

A memoir by an Iraq war veteran and a another memoir by a reporter who tagged along with a Marine platoon. And I don't understand "between 45 % and 85 %", how much is that?

[Edub]

I think and this is just my opinion, that more Iraqis like us than the media portrays. Im sure a lot of them hate us too, but look at the election turn outs. Those people want to be free and I think many of them understand that the colaltion forces are there to deliver freedom. Im certain that almost all of them are frustrated with whats going on in their country and are sick of seeing US tanks rolling down their streets, but deep down they understand.

[Saden]

I think they'd be better off without any U.S troops... Imagine there being a chance that you will be shot while sitting in your home by somebody who is trying to free you. However small or large that chance is, there still is the chance, I doubt they want the U.S in their country.