ALL IRAQ topics here.

[Laughing Cow]

Hi All.

Just a quick poll to see if you think that the upcoming Gulf War will be long or short.

[Laughing Cow]

I think that the war will be long and followed by a fairly long occupation period.

Why, in order to get rid of Saddam they have to fight a ground-war and those are normally long and dangerous.
Plus, re-supplying ground troops in the field is costly and dangerous


Also the ground troops in the gulf at the moment are way fewer than took part in 1991(about 1/2 I think).


The only way I could see the war ending soon, would be if such an amount of bombs dropped that would totally destroy Iraq's cities and it's infrastructure and naturally result in a lot of civillian deaths.
This would still need to be followed by a lenghty occupation to affect the regime change.

[Black Jack]

Experts on this situation are calling for a very quick victory. From anywhere to one week to 3 weeks.

Any additional blood shed due to our long wait IMHO should be blamed on war protesters, the U.N. and in specific France as the longer they kept us tied up in diplomatic round a bout-something the Frence would of vetoed if approved anyway-the longer the Republican Guard had to think of new and dangerous ways to kill American soliders, damage its neighboring countries and its own citizens.

Acutally the armed forces this time around are MUCH greater in terms of military might and technology than they were back in 1991. We are talking LEAPS and BOUNDS. Not to mention a solid coalition of troops and support from Britian, Poland, Aussiland, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Bulgaria (sp?) to name a few. As well as moral support from Japan.

[Laughing Cow]

BJ.

Last time I checked (a few minutes ago) only Britain and Australia (2.000 methinks) actually send fighting troops.

Spain refused soldiers, but like other countries will send in non-combat specialists.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[joedoe]

I expect it to be quick but with a lot of blood spilled.

[Goldenmane]

I operate on the view that "everything always takes twice as long and costs twice as much"...

So I have no idea. :)

I'm not too sure where the "end" of it comes in. If an immediate withdrawal comes into effect once the blowing-thing-up-and-shooting-people bit is done, then I suppose that would count. But that's not likely to happen.

Occupation... does that count as the war being over? What if there is lingering resistance (as there may be)?

Gah... my inability to draw lines once more makes my brain turn to mush. I'm only really writing this to see myself talk. :D

-geoff

[Black Jack]

I think britian was around 5,000 troops? Plus other support aspects and gear. The Aussies....???? I do know the polish are sending troops.

For exact numbers my best bet Cow would be to give it tell the start date and just watch as anything else will be a guess between fiscal numbers, troops vrs other kinds of support, and actual times that countries will touch ground so to speak.

From one day to the next it could change...maybe 2,000 from the aussies one day to a boost of 5,000 the next.

[joedoe]

The Aussies have sent 2000 people, of which there are 150 SAS troops, and a squadron of FA-18 fighters, plus support crews etc. There is also at least 1 warship assisting in pastrolling the Gulf.

I thought the UK had sent something like 50000-75000 troops?

The decision to send troops has raised hell over here, and I am guessing it would be in the UK as well. Much as I dislike the idea of war, I think it is time now to stop the wrangling and wish our troops the best of luck. I would hate to see the troops that are over there feeling like they do not have the support of their people when they are putting their lives on the line.

[Serpent]

The only countries committing actual fighting troops are the US, the UK and 2,000 ground forces plus some hardware from Australia.

[Laughing Cow]

BJ.

I agree it is still very open. I think one of the big deciding factors will be upcoming vote in turkey about what level of support they give.
Many countries will wait on this before deciding.

Have to agree with Goldenmane, about
"everything taking twice as long, nd costing twice as much".

From a recent newspaper article I noticed that the Apaches are getting probs with their rotor blades due to the sand and need to be inspected, serviced fter every flight now.
The sand is pitting the Blades and causing holes to appear long the edges, crews are stuggling to get hold of Tape or paint to cover them.

I also hear that the Soldiers in the Gulf already been issued with "White Gold", and similar stuff.

Cheers.

[Goldenmane]

Just saw a report touching on the mechanical problems they're having over there. Seems some of the equipment (tanks, etc) is overheating and breaking down due to dust/sand.

And the soldiers and media/observers, etc. have all been issued with personal morphine syringes. Just thought I'd add that, though it has no real bearing.

-geoff

[Royal Dragon]

Hi, I'm in a rush and can't read the whole thread.

I'm saying Fast war, but long occupation.

[Laughing Cow]

Joedoe.

I think you are close:

Feb. 7th UK-Troops numbered 42.000.

Plenty of other country also sending people like chemical warfare experts, Doctors, etc.

[rogue]

Bush on in a few minutes.

[Budokan]

Yep. I'm off to watch the war on CNN. You boys take care and I'll see you in a coupla days...

[prana]

first Tomahawk has landed, not a pretty sight. I hope they are reborned in a better place than this hell.

:mad: :(

[Royal Dragon]

Looks like they went directly for Saddam personally. He may very well be dead right now.

[joedoe]

I doubt it. I reckon he went into hiding in a bunker well before the deadline expired.

[Royal Dragon]

They are saying he was in a bunker having a strategic meeting, and we recived a call from one of his generals about his location. We had "Bunker busters" on the way to another target, and diverted them on the spot. Suposedly, his facillity was hit very rapidly. He may not have had enough time to get out.

It seems our miltary has been in contact with Saddam's higher level Generals by E-mail (Of all things) for months now.

I bet we got him already.

[Serpent]

How will "we" know for certain?

[Royal Dragon]

"We" will never know for sure, I'm just reporting what the news here is saying. If he is dead, it will be un provable because the 2,000 pound Bunker busters will have vaporised any evidence he existed in the first place.

[Serpent]

My point exactly.

Ah well, we'll see what happens as it unfolds I guess.

[Royal Dragon]

Honestly, I am suspicious of the "Tapes" of Bin Ladden too. I think we vaporised him right off, but then faked his contnued existence to keep support for the effort up.

[Serpent]

I wouldn't be surprised.

Then again, I'm equally willing to believe that the US with all it's military might couldn't kill one dude in a cave.

[Royal Dragon]

LOL!!! Could be. I don't doubt our boy's ability to get the job done, I doubt their leaders ability to let them.

[joedoe]

If they were in contact with his generals, couldn't they have just gotten one of them to kill Saddam? Much cheaper surely.

[Serpent]

Yep.

[prana]

well the fact that Osama is still on the run shows that the army are overfilled with "intelligence" ...

:mad:

[Royal Dragon]

I really don't think he's "On" the run. I think we got him the first day and just couldn't admit it was over that fast and still maintain public support to finish the job on the Talaban. We were mad, and wanted blood. Osama was not enough, we wanted to topple his whole organisation and the Talaban for helping him too. We just needed public support to do it. That meant keeping Bin Ladden alive, even if we had to fake it.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
I really don't think he's "On" the run. I think we got him the first day and just couldn't admit it was over that fast and still maintain public support to finish the job on the Talaban. We were mad, and wanted blood. Osama was not enough, we wanted to topple his whole organisation and the Talaban for helping him too. We just needed public support to do it. That meant keeping Bin Ladden alive, even if we had to fake it.

Reminds me of a snippet of a stand-up routine I heard relating to Afghanistan. The comedian said "You know, I think they captured Ossama 1 week into it, but then the generals realised that they wouldn't be able to blow **** up anymore. So they said, 'OK Ossama, you have 2 weeks. Now get out of here'." :D

[rogue]

Anybody catch that the US launched a big a$$ hunting party in the Afghan mountains about the same time as Sadaam got his mustach waxed? I stayed up and watched "Sadaam" on TV and that video was fishy.

[red5angel]

Saddam is still alive. He has been transmitting since a short time after the initial attack. You guys have to understand this man is extremely paranoid and takes some pretty extreme measures to protect himself. Bin Laden I am sure is alive as well. It's pretty hard to track down one man, no matte rhow popular he is with the resources of both men. Saddam may prove to be easier as he is more a military man and may stay to fight til the end.

[rogue]

I don't know R, that video looked more like a dress rehersal than a real speech. Has he broadcast anything since?

[red5angel]

supposedly there are reports that he has also broadcasts over short range radio as well. Hard to say, it would be nice if we got that lucky but I have a hard time thinking that Saddam is such an easy target considering all the failed attempts the last time.

[SLC]

"... this man is extremely paranoid..."

LMAO!!! :D Take this one to the bank!


With Saddam, paranoia is not neurotic behavior.

Even paranoids have enemies (see Saddam).

[Black Jack]

It's nice to hear that our Patriot missles are doing a excellent job of protecting Kuwait. They have been beefed up since they were last used in 91. They had problems with the scud missles back then but from what I heard this morning we have been blowing them out of the sky before they could touch down.

I also just heard a marine unit just took over a Iraqi city.

So much stuff going on its like you say one thing and ten seconds later....:eek:

See ya later gents

[diego]

hey help me out with some tidbits...I dont have cable so its hard to stay up to date: how many people are fighting for the iraqis?. is it true iraqis hate saddam they just to scared to say shiat?.
whats iraqs weapons like?...cuz i imagine since the last gulf war the us has a whole smack of updated goodies to molest saddam with!?.

Anyone!!?.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by diego
hey help me out with some tidbits...I dont have cable so its hard to stay up to date: how many people are fighting for the iraqis?.

Who knows?

is it true iraqis hate saddam they just to scared to say shiat?.

That's what the US would have you believe, but how could you ever know the truth of that. The Iraqi's are saying they don't want liberation. Are the toeing the line for Saddam or do they mean it?

whats iraqs weapons like?

Probably a bit knackered and rusty by now, unless the US and Britain and France have sold them any news ones recently. Which they probably have.


...cuz i imagine since the last gulf war the us has a whole smack of updated goodies to molest saddam with!?.

Indeed they do. And Bush couldn't wait to start playing with his new toys.

[diego]

Thanks Serp, anyone got more infos to add?.

also you always here about iraqis in exhile hating on saddam, i dam sure am curious how iraqi natives truely feel....if they all do hate him why they so wimpy not to rise up like the chinese did in the 40s with mao!?.

[joedoe]

diego, there is so much stuff flying around on the news services that it is hard to tell what is happening. Even then it is hard to tell what is for real and what is rumour/speculation.

As for why the Iraqi people have not revolted yet, who knows? Why haven't the Chinese people revolted against their government? There are a few possible answers but here are two that spring to mind. 1) They are happy with things the way they are (hard for westerners to believe, but you never know it may actually be the case) 2) The control that the leadership has over the military is so absolute that any uprising would be brutally squashed. This is probably more likely the case.

[ZIM]

Hey Diego! Among other sites, this ain't bad. (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/index.html) Listen while u type. ;)

[red5angel]

"The Iraqi's are saying they don't want liberation"

All the interviews I have heard so far indicate the majority of Iraqids want Saddam out, they have just been too afraid to do anything about it because Saddam, his sons and their regime deal brutally with anyone who tries to promote dissent.

[rogue]

Whoops, guess Hans Blix and Sadaam forgot about this one. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622) :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

This is actually a CIA planted construction. This facility was actually used to produce toys for Iraq's orphaned children.

You are a fool for believing this right wing propaganda. It's all clearly been planted by U.S. intelligence.

[Royal Dragon]

Oh yeah right, the CIA has been sneaking into Iraq for the last two years and having small teams of "Crack" experts building entire complexes complete with arial camoflage out of supplies they procured form the local Iraqie "Home Depot", just so our soldiers can accidentally find the facillity incase of war. :rolleyes:

[Laughing Cow]

Rogue.

So far they only say it is a "suspected chemical plant".

NOTHING been confirmed as yet.

[Merryprankster]

Exactly Royal!

I'm glad some people on here are smart enough to deduce the existance of conspiracies involving thousands of people, worldwide rather than take facts and evidence at face value.

I mean, it's obvious, isn't it, that this administration planted all this evidence so we could get at Iraqi oil and make a vast profit on the backs of dead Iraqis.

Everything you hear about Saddam is just propaganda. He's actually a well known philanthropist and a kind and gentle man. After all, none of his supposed crimes beyond invading Kuwait have been confirmed yet--and let's face it--we all have judgment lapses.

[Royal Dragon]

I don't know about you guys, but I ALWAYS try to camoflage my activites, even when I'm not doing anything wrong, just for the Fu(ck of it. :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Saddam is also a first rate ninja. Because of his extensive budo training, it's beyond him to do anything dishonorable.

[Royal Dragon]

I dunno, from what I have seen, we would have to completely conquer Iraq to get enough Oil to make this a break even, or even a slightly profital venture. Were not going to do that though, are we. Were going to give it back to the Iraqies and help them set up thier own democratic government like a bunch of wussy putz's. :rolleyes:

[rogue]

Whoops my bad guys. LC is right, it's only a "suspected chemical plant" thats been disguised to look like it's surroundings when viewed from a satilite, being guarded by 30 Iraqis and a general.

Probably just an aspirin factory.;)

[Royal Dragon]

No, if it was an aspirine factory, Clinton would have bombed it when the Cole was hit. I'm sure it was really a super top secret Toy factory.

Again--->:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Saddam Hussein was worried that insurgent groups in his country would try to steal the orphan's toys. That's bad because Saddam Claus couldn't go around and give them away. So he disguised the factory to ensure everything was safe.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
Whoops my bad guys. LC is right, it's only a "suspected chemical plant" thats been disguised to look like it's surroundings when viewed from a satilite, being guarded by 30 Iraqis and a general.

Probably just an aspirin factory.;)

Rogue.

My point being don't claim a victory till it has been comfirmed.

Unless of course US Troops are also experts in chemical manufacturing.
Maybe we should use them rather than UN Weapons Inspectors.
(sarcasm intented) ;)

Reread the article and see the words "alleged" and similar.

I am not saying it isn't, but till the official word is in you are spreading possible false info.

Seeya.

BTW, didn't I say that you guys will cheer and celebrate over the War some time ago and was being booed by everybody??

Funny I see this very same behaviour shown by US Ctizens on all the boards that i frequent

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Saddam is also a first rate ninja. Because of his extensive budo training, it's beyond him to do anything dishonorable.

Nonsense. I haven't once seen him totally flip out or kick his mom in the face.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

BTW, didn't I say that you guys will cheer and celebrate over the War some time ago and was being booed by everybody??

Funny I see this very same behaviour shown by US Ctizens on all the boards that i frequent

He's got a point. I remember the outrage at people dancing at the news of the WTC. You should be careful how much you enjoy all this. Human beings are dying. (Half of them by accidents and friendly fire it seems! :rolleyes: )

[shaolin kungfu]

Good point serpent.

By the way, Saddam has kicked his mom in the head. Not the face, but close enough.:p

[rogue]

Who's gloating and dancing? Please see my Reality topic if you think I'm gloating. I don't see MP, RD or myself doing anything but rolling our eyes over all those who doubted that Sadaam was producing chemical weapons.

IMO if anyone is responsible for the deaths of American and British soldiers it's the UN who have done nothing to keep this maniac in check.

[Laughing Cow]

rogue.

What is that anybody can say to a person with your viewpoint.

Except I saw the light and everybody is bad except you guys.
;)

Bad, bad U.N. let me guess who will be asked to help re-build Iraq and sanction/approve the war after it is over.

Could it be that bad, outdated, useless U.N.?

have fun.

[Royal Dragon]

Yeah, I have have to aggree here, no one is "Gloating" war is a serious thing, and people DIE. On of my Tai Tzu brothers is there right now, and I can't say for sure if I will ever hear from him again.

The issue is Saddam is acting VERY VERY VERY guilty. Yet people want to say he's this innocent little lamb that is getting picked on by the big bad US. I have news for you, The US may not be perfect, but we have been FAR more merciful than any other nation in history, FLAT OUT! How there can be people that are trying to "Demonise" us, when Saddam is a proven and uncontested MONSTER is beyond me, and to be honest, it really tics me off.

The even sadder part, is if we did nothing, and he started attacking and conquering all his neighbors, and Gas prices went to $17+ a gallon, and our society could no longer function because the fuel to ship even food made it out of reach for many people, these same people protesting the war now, would be protesting the unbeliveable food prices an asking, no screaming and demanding to know, why we didn't intervine in the Mideast back when Saddam was containable.

The whole thing just makes me sick. These are people who are so afriad, and so insecure that the thought of being sent to war terriifes them beyond sanity. I truly belive THAT is why they protest. The real issues have nothing to do with it. It's a deep seated fear born of weakness plain and simple.

[Laughing Cow]

RD.

In case you didn't know the USA has the lowest gasoline prices in the world.
;)
Try driving those fuel-guzzlers in another country and you will go bankrupt filling it up.

Nobody is trying to demonize you, just getting you to look at the world without your pro-US shades.

As for gloating, it appears that this thread seems to contradict it atleast in the eyes of non-like minded people.
The thread title alone sez it all.

Your intent is not as important as how your actions are perceived in your peers.
And at the moment the USA has 5.8 Billion peers watching its and it's citizens actions very closely.

Cheers.

[joedoe]

Just a question for everyone that was sparked in my mind regarding the place oil has in our everyday lives. Would it be better to focus more money on the development of alternative, sustainable fuel sources so that we no longer have this dependence on oil? If our very quality of life depends on the price of oil, wouldn't it be smarter to break that dependence?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by joedoe
Just a question for everyone that was sparked in my mind regarding the place oil has in our everyday lives. Would it be better to focus more money on the development of alternative, sustainable fuel sources so that we no longer have this dependence on oil? If our very quality of life depends on the price of oil, wouldn't it be smarter to break that dependence?

Fortunately, Australia is actually making some good ground on that subject.

If only it could happen faster. Trouble is, all the money is in oil.

:(

[Laughing Cow]

Joedoe.

The wise thing would be to develop additional resources. Oil won't be around for ever and it is one of the biggest pollutants we got.

Japan already has fuel-cel cars on the road and the first hydrogen refueling station is up and running.
Electric cars and hybrids are taking off well in both Europe and Japan.

The real stumbling block to alternative fuel sources I see is the investement that many got in oil-based products.

Fuel (being a side-product in the refinement process ;) ) is only a small amount of what the oil & gas actually is used for.

We would have to readjust our lifestyles quite a bit in order to escape the oil dependancy.

One thing that fuled the modern way of life is plastic and guess what gets used in it's manufacture??

Cheers.

[joedoe]

Hmmm, OK. I thought that oil as a fuel was the main reason for oil consumption levels. Obviously I was wrong

[Royal Dragon]

Would it be better to focus more money on the development of alternative, sustainable fuel sources so that we no longer have this dependence on oil?

Reply]
YES!, but that is not enough. Oil is used in solvents, lubercants, making plastics, refrigerant's, coolents, and has been integrated it in to our lives SO DEEPLY, that without it, we would revert to a caveman existence in a blink.

Much of our medical tecnology would beome un-functional, because of all the plastics in medical equipment (A syringe is plastic for instance), cars would cease to function without oil to lubercate the engines, transmission, differentials and axials.

Computers would cease to exist without plastics for insulation and the cases not to mention disks, DVD Roms, and floppies.

The refrigerants you use in your house hold refigerator is also derived from oil, and without it, we would not be able to store food, all manufacturing would grind to a hault LITERALLY because the machines used in mass production require lubercants to run. Without it, they seize the same as running a car without Oil. That means we would have NOTHING in the stores. No tooth brushes, not breakfast cereal, not even milk (Unless you have your own cow) No TV's, Vcr's, Sterios, nothing. No soap, anything you buy in a supemarket is made, processed, or shiped by machines that require some form of lubercant. Even the fork lift run on Propane has an internal combustion engine that requires oil to lubercate it's bearings, and coolants to keep it form over heating. We owe our ENTIRE EXISTANCE to oil. Without it, we are cavemen again, and way to over populated to support ourselves without the technologys we have, technologies that DEPEND on oil. Heck, even with food production, the combines that harvest our crops need oil to lubercate their motors, and other mechanical parts. Without oil dependant farm equipment, we cannot produce enough food to feed everyone.

Even the ELECTRIC CAR has bearing in the axials, and in the electric motor itself that are lubercated with oils, or greases derived from Crude oil.

Oil is an absoLUTE nessecety for survival. The smartest thing for the US to do, is sit on our reserves until the rest of the world runs out, make sure we have the biggest baddest army there is to fight off others trying to conquer us for the oil we have, and hope by that time some sort of replacement technology has been developed. At least by then, being the only world source for it will ensure our survival, and hopefully buy us the time to figure out how to ensure everyones survival.

If you think about this, you will see I am right.

Everyone document your arts on paper now, because when the oil runs out, the videos won't work anymore. (Just to make it on topic He he he)

[Laughing Cow]

Joedoe:

Here are some oil-based products:

OIL BASED PRODUCTS
Materials or goods which have been produced wholly or in part from oil, e.g. petroleum.
CARGO
BENZINE
GLYCERINE
NAPHTHA
OIL
PARAFFIN
PETROLEUM
PITCH
ROSIN
TAR
WHITE SPIRIT

And what was said in the post above this one.

[joedoe]

I know that there are many products in our day-to-day lives that are oil-based, however I erroneously assumed that fuel was the main source of oil consumption.

You also forgot rubber as an oil-derived product :)

[Laughing Cow]

Yep, latex for Tires and similar is another one.

Actually I reckon we could replace some of those products with some that are not oil derived.

In this centuries the most treasured natural resouce will be FRESH WATER.

Seeya.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Oil is an absoLUTE nessecety for survival. The smartest thing for the US to do, is sit on our reserves until the rst of the world runs out, and hope by that time some sort of replacement technology has been developed. At least by then, being the only world source for it will ensure our survival, adn hope fully buy us the time to figure out how to ensure everyones survival.


Holy jeezus keeeerist, I can't believe I just read that!

Just hope some replacement technology gets developed, huh? And how much R&D money is being invested in the US to address that probem? Very little, I would imagine, as Dubya has been spending all your money making his toys.

Not to mention his own vested interest in oil.

:rolleyes:

[DragonzRage]

Of course Saddam's got some WMD hidden somewhere. We should know since we're the ones who armed him the first place :rolleyes:

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Serpent


Holy jeezus keeeerist, I can't believe I just read that!

Just hope some replacement technology gets developed, huh? And how much R&D money is being invested in the US to address that probem? Very little, I would imagine, as Dubya has been spending all your money making his toys.

Not to mention his own vested interest in oil.

:rolleyes:

Actually, Australia does something similar. Granted, Australian oil is not the right grade for fuel etc, but we supply only about 20% of our own consumption so that our reserves will last longer.

However, we are trying to do something about alternative fuel sources. I don't know why the Australian govt does not put more money into developing a larger alcohol-powered car market, as Australia produces so much sugar we could use that to produce the alcohol for vehicles. Then instead of complaining about the ethanol content of petrol, Australians could complain about the petrol content of the ethanol :D

[Royal Dragon]

Holy jeezus keeeerist, I can't believe I just read that

Just hope some replacement technology gets developed, huh? And how much R&D money is being invested in the US to address that probem? Very little, I would imagine, as Dubya has been spending all your money making his toys.
!

Reply]
It's terifiying when you think about it, ain't it?

The promising thing, it there is alot of research going inot this already. Good example, it the electric car being developed at all three major US auto manufacturers. it may not completely eliminate our dependancy on oil, but it will defenetly cut it down enough to double the life of the oil reserves if they get it going.

Also, on the lubercant front, some strides, abet only a few, have been made with Soybean substitues. The problem is they break down really quick, and would cost 100 times that of Crude oil based lubercants. But hopefully, by the time it runs out, we will have figured out how to make it work.


Of course Saddam's got some WMD hidden somewhere. We should know since we're the ones who armed him the first place

Reply]
I hate to say it (read as admit it), but good point. Of course, when we did that, we didn't know he was a super power mongerig psyco. We just thought he was a normal contianable one. A good part of this war is a cleaning up of our own mess, I think. I mean, I suppose it's better than someone else cleaning up after us...............Right?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by joedoe


Actually, Australia does something similar. Granted, Australian oil is not the right grade for fuel etc, but we supply only about 20% of our own consumption so that our reserves will last longer.

However, we are trying to do something about alternative fuel sources. I don't know why the Australian govt does not put more money into developing a larger alcohol-powered car market, as Australia produces so much sugar we could use that to produce the alcohol for vehicles. Then instead of complaining about the ethanol content of petrol, Australians could complain about the petrol content of the ethanol :D

LOL. :D

I agree with your points. All of 'em. Well said. ;)

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Stumblefist
Every American death, every Iraqi death is Sadams fault.
He wants a Holy Bloodbath.


Bull****. The US is at least as much to blame if not more so.

[shaolin kungfu]

Saddam did not start the war, we did. America is at least partially at fault for any death that happens as a result.

[Brad]

I heard they're working on a deal to retire him ... in France!
No kidding, i didn't make that up!
...
I guess that's the standard dictator's retirement package: a villa, the South of France, casinos, wine, cheese and roses.
Actually, I think the idea of the french deal was to exile Sadam to a small Iraq friendly Islamic country in Africa... same basic idea though :P

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Brad

Actually, I think the idea of the french deal was to exile Sadam to a small Iraq friendly Islamic country in Africa... same basic idea though :P

Didn't Bahrain offer to take him??

[Serpent]

Why not send him to Texas?

:rolleyes:

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Stumblefist
Every American death, every Iraqi death is Sadams fault.
He wants a Holy Bloodbath.


How can that be if the USA has initiated the war?

[shaolin kungfu]

Exactly my point, joedoe

[joedoe]

I can already see how stumblefist will reply - it will be something along the lines of "Saddam did not disarm", or "Saddam did not leave the country when he was given the chance". Basically, it is Saddam's fault that the war started :rolleyes:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Basically, it is Saddam's fault that the war started :rolleyes:

How can that be if it is the U.N.s fault for not doing anything??

[joedoe]

Good point. Maybe it is France's fault for surrendering to the Nazis back in WWII :D

[Serpent]

No. It's the fault of the apes for coming down from the trees in the first place.

[shaolin kungfu]

The un wouldn't have had to do anything if saddam had given back the weapons we gave him. Therefor it is saddams fault.:rolleyes:

[shaolin kungfu]

Or maybe it's the single celled organisms fault for evolving to form more complex beings. Oh,wait, Bush doesn't believe in evolution.:rolleyes:

[joedoe]

For the creationists: It's God's fault for creating man. (Now I will wait for the lightning to strike me :D)

For the evolutionists: It is the fault of the single-celled amoeba for developing into life as we know it.

Edit: D@mmit someone beat me to it!!!!!

[Laughing Cow]

It is the fault of that darn Monolith that gave our ape ancestors intelligence, etc.

:D :D

[shaolin kungfu]

For evolutionists: it's the fault of random chemicals coming together to form single celled organisms.

For creationists: nothing was before god

[Laughing Cow]

Actually if you look at the History you can blame a LOT of the world's problems on Roosevelt's and his policies.

Why.

Because he promoted the liquidation of the British Empire after WW II.

The withdrawal of the British in the 1950's created a power vacuum in the middle-east, the british understand this and thus are willing to support the USA in the current war.

So if it wasn't were Roosevelt and his anti-colonism policy we wouldn't have the Israel/Palestine or India/Pakistan conflict.

Nor would the Iran/Iraq war have happened.

Plus, many African countries would be better off too.

So the current situation is the fault of the USA.
:D :D

[dezhen2001]

I heard the Iraqis say they don't have to obey the Geneva convention because the Koran predates it.
And something about how they were civilized 2000 years ago when Bushes great-grandfathers were living like animals in the caves. Bleh. :mad: Actually its true, the middle east was influenced a lot by ancient greece, the byzantine empire etc. and had many good thinkers etc.

But stumblefist - u forgot that before islam came was the "time of ignorance" when the arabs were just pagans hitting each others with sticks and had no civilization. At least look at what "traditional" islam teaches - which is the exact opposite of what u said. islam is only 1393 yrs old. :rolleyes:

dawood

[dezhen2001]

The withdrawal of the British in the 1950's created a power vacuum in the middle-east also the affect colonialism had on the cultures in places such as india led to people being subdued and having no identity compared to what they had before the british came to take over india. i mean - this is the country that built the taj mahal and other things.

dawood

[Merryprankster]

So the current situation is the fault of the USA.

Why does it not surprise me, that even tongue in cheek, you reach this conclusion? :D

[Merryprankster]

Oh, so that's what started the gloating thing--

There's a big difference between gloating and throwing out some sarcasm. Gloating is behaving like the Middle Easterners across from friends building in Jersey City, who watched the towers come down and had a dance party on the roof. It's sick and wrong.

No, of course not all Middle Easterners responded that way.

Dead people suck. My dad's over there and although he's not in the line of fire these days, he's sure as hell vulnerable to getting shot by random whackos with a gun.

There are no winners in war is a bad piece of work. We win when people can walk down the street and not worry about getting jumped by the Iraqi Mukhabaratand fed feet first into a plastic shredder.

So yeah, there are some pretty clear winners here, regardless of what theories you might have about motive.

[ZIM]

I heard the Iraqis say they don't have to obey the Geneva convention because the Koran predates it.

Actualy, I heard this phrased as a legal argument: this is not an officially declared by Congress "war" [remember that Congress gave a blank check, emergency powers to Bush], so it doesn't fall under those rules.

They're saying everybody is thus a mercenary in this war, and I guess, especially the Iraqis, as they're being offered bounties for Coalition forces killed. [BTW- its Coalition, not just US forces! We always fail to remember who helps us when we 'gloat'!] ;)

Oh, the whole thing is MY fault. My bad, my bad! :rolleyes:

[Black Jack]

All I want to know is what ninpo lineage is Saddam. I hear he is the inheritor of the lost Koga line.

I put dollars to donuts that he hides ninja stars in that pickle tickler he has on his face.

[Royal Dragon]

Saddam did not start the war, we did. America is at least partially at fault for any death that happens as a result.

Reply]
How do you figure this? Saddam invaded a freind and allie of ours. They asked for hel, we obliged. War broke out. We chased saddam's army back to Iraq, and should have conquered his country for our troubles. But Noooo, we didn't do THAT, instead we aggreed to some stupid cease fire for disarmerment deal, that Saddam totally blew off. Now the cease fire is over, and the war is back on.

The only real shame here is we are going to give Iraq back to the Iraqie people instead of keeping it as an anexed territory of the US and drilling the Sh1t out of it for it's Oil. A Gross violation of the third rule of War btw.

[red5angel]

"Nobody is trying to demonize you, just getting you to look at the world without your pro-US shades."

How about looking at the US without those anti-US shades?

By the way, someone always wins a war. ;)

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Saddam did not start the war, we did. America is at least partially at fault for any death that happens as a result.

Reply]
How do you figure this? Saddam invaded a freind and allie of ours. They asked for hel, we obliged. War broke out. We chased saddam's army back to Iraq, and should have conquered his country for our troubles. But Noooo, we didn't do THAT, instead we aggreed to some stupid cease fire for disarmerment deal, that Saddam totally blew off. Now the cease fire is over, and the war is back on.

The only real shame here is we are going to give Iraq back to the Iraqie people instead of keeping it as an anexed territory of the US and drilling the Sh1t out of it for it's Oil. A Gross violation of the third rule of War btw.

OK, here's a scenario. Let's say I am married and my wife is ****ing me off for whatever reason. Maybe she is taunting me about how small my willy is. So I beat the living daylights out of her. Is it her fault that I beat her, or is it mine? Did I make the choice to beat her or did she?

[ZIM]

OK Zim we will curse you for all the mistakes and the civilian casualties. YAY! All my bad karma- gone! :D

Re: China: No! They're quietly encouraging the war so they can say, with apparent honesty, 'America went nuts! Buy OUR weapons, we will protect you [taiwan, yep] JOIN US NOW!'

[Royal Dragon]

It's your fault, just like It's Saddam's for invading Kuwaite.

And just like you, Saddam's getting his ass handed to him by Kuwaites "Older Brother" for beating his "Little Sister".

[joedoe]

Sorry, I am missing the bit that says that this current war is a result of Iraq invading Kuwait 12 years ago. I thought this war was about disarming Iraq, about the war on terror, even about liberating the Iraqi people from a despot, but not about Iraq invading Kuwait.

[diego]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon


The even sadder part, is if we did nothing, and he started attacking and conquering all his neighbors, and Gas prices went to $17+ a gallon, and our society could no longer function because the fuel to ship even food made it out of reach for many people, these same people protesting the war now, would be protesting the unbeliveable food prices an asking, no screaming and demanding to know, why we didn't intervine in the Mideast back when Saddam was containable.



couldnt we just rely on americas alaskan reserves if this occured;)

[diego]

Originally posted by joedoe
Sorry, I am missing the bit that says that this current war is a result of Iraq invading Kuwait 12 years ago. I thought this war was about disarming Iraq, about the war on terror, even about liberating the Iraqi people from a despot, but not about Iraq invading Kuwait.

i thought this was about america wanting total control in the middle east!?.

i also thought saddam hates religious people and i also thought osama dissed saddam...so where is the al qaeda link?.

[Laughing Cow]

Hi All.

In a recent article I came across this bit of info in explaining why we need the U.N..

It takes only 1 country to start a war, it takes many to build peace.

What are your opinions on it. And let's try to keep this discussion seperate from the current war.
;)

[Royal Dragon]

Actually, this DOES go back to 12 years ago. If I remember right, we had a cease fire that was conditional on Saddam disarming. He didn't disarm, so now the war is back on. In between then and now has been 12 years of BS monkey games and hooop jumping. 8 of those was Clinton being a weasle more than a leader (I blame him for the Towers too for bombing an aspirin factory instead of real commitment). This whole thing is our fault, because we (not me mind you but collecively) kept voting that idiot into office despite is blatent ineptitiude.


Saddam got 8 years of procrastination due to our collective brain **** with Clinton. Now it's time to fix things.

[ZIM]

so where is the al qaeda link?. With the Kurds, man.
i thought this was about america wanting total control in the middle east!?. shhhhh....ixnay on the ontrolcay...

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Actually, this DOES go back to 12 years ago. If I remember right, we had a cease fire that was conditional on Saddam disarming. He didn't disarm, so now the war is back on. In between then and now has been 12 years of BS monkey games and hooop jumping. 8 of those was Clinton being a weasle more than a leader (I blame him for the Towers too for bombing an aspirin factory instead of real commitment). This whole thing is our fault, because we (not me mind you but collecively) kept voting that idiot into office despite is blatent ineptitiude.


Saddam got 8 years of procrastination due to our collective brain **** with Clinton. Now it's time to fix things.

My question then is this: Why was that never used as a reason to go to war? All we got was 1) In breach of resolution 1441 2) Liberating Iraq. No mention of the terms of the ceasefire being broken.

So it is your POV that this is just a continuation of the war 12 years ago?

[Fred Sanford]

the UN is worthless.

[Royal Dragon]

My question then is this: Why was that never used as a reason to go to war? All we got was 1) In breach of resolution 1441 2) Liberating Iraq. No mention of the terms of the ceasefire being broken.

Reply]
Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 1441-2 the resolution Saddam signed aggreeing to disarm? And didn't he sign that originally to keep us from going all the way to Baghdad and conquer *Cough*......ahhh disarming him by force 12 years ago?

Sounds like a Cease fire to me.

That being said, violating that agrrement is the same as violating a cease fire reguardless if it is currently being worded that way or not.

So it is your POV that this is just a continuation of the war 12 years ago?

Reply]
Yes.

Am I missing something?

[joedoe]

Resolution 1441 was passed late last year requiring Iraq to allow weapons inspectors back into the country to verify that they had disarmed. It was not the ceasfire agreement from 12 years ago.

[dezhen2001]

didnt know that joe :)

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

Check the below link for the UN resolutions in regard to Iraq:

UN Resolutions (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm)

Or visit the Un site directly if you don't like that site.

Many people are confused as to which resolutions are about what.

Cheers.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
didnt know that joe :)

dawood

Well, you learn something new everyday :)

[Royal Dragon]

Many people are confused as to which resolutions are about what.

Reply]
Yup, that's me. I know that everything up to now, has been a result of the Cease Fire 12 years ago. From Saddam disarming, to the whole deal with having inspectors, to the current invasion.

But I get fuzzy on most of the minor points.

[joedoe]

Well, 1441 is not really a minor point. It is the basis of the justification of this war.

[dezhen2001]

true :D

dawood

[Royal Dragon]

I thought the justifaction of the war is the fact that Saddam agreed to disarm, and now won't do it? 1441 was just his last final chance to stop it, and he blew it.

[Royal Dragon]

This is why we are in there now. 1441 was created because some argued this one was too old to be valid anymore. He's in violation of most of 687 too.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.



http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

[joedoe]

The coalition leaders based their legal justification on resolution 1441, specifically the 'serious consequences' part of the resolution. Otherwise the coalition would never have bothered with trying to get UN support and would have just gone in last year.

[joedoe]

LOL :D

[Royal Dragon]

Yes, I know, but 1441 was originally created (I'm pretty sure) because some argued 687 was too old to be valid (8 years of Clinton doing nothing).

Now, all Saddam had to do was follow ith 1441, and everything would have been cool, but he didn't do that.

I do remember us saying we should go in over violations of 687, but like I said, some argued it was too old. 1441 was the tool to give us the power to go in and do the job we wanted to do (And are doing now).

Either way, which ever "Resolution" was/is active (I say 687 should have been acted on no later than 94). We are going in and disarming Iraq because Saddam's a threat, and in violation of the deal made in the early 90's.

Th UN decided that resolution was no good because too much time went by, so everyone came up with a new resolution for him to violate, and he did, giving us the green light to do our job like we wanted to do with the first resolution he violated.

I don't know how many more ways I can explain how I see this, but it's all pretty d@mm simple to me.

[joedoe]

I understand how you see it, I just disagree with it. But that is OK, because there is no requirement for you to convince me, nor vice versa. :)

[Laughing Cow]

RD.

The argument is not about if he has or hasn't broken a resolution.
But if Military action was justified or not.

Other problem is that a cease-fire turns the clock back to any pre-conflict and thus all parties are considered at peace with each other.
Any cease-fire agreement must also state what actions can be taken if it is broken by one party.

Thus UN resolutions are deliberately worded vaguely so that at the time of breach an agreement on what actions to take can be reached by it's members.

The problem is that the USA and the other UN members read the same script to mean different things.

Seeya.

[ZIM]

The problem is that the USA and the other UN members read the same script to mean different things. They're cheap politicians, not klassy Kung fu types.

[Royal Dragon]

I understand how you see it, I just disagree with it.

Reply]
OK

The argument is not about if he has or hasn't broken a resolution.
But if Military action was justified or not.


Reply]
Ok, but I still say we should have annexed that country back I the early 90's

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon

Reply]
Ok, but I still say we should have annexed that country back I the early 90's

The Coalition forces in 1991 were there to get Saddam out of kuwait and put him on a leash so too speak.

But I agree a few garrisons of UN troops wouldn't have hurt.

2 interesting points:
1.) The "no-fly" zones were setup without UN approval.
2.) Most of the terrorist attacks agaisnt the USA happened after 1991.

[joedoe]

Annexing a country can produce just as many headaches as the current situation, not to mention being a serious ongoing cost. How do you think it would have been greeted in the international stage if the USA had in fact annexed Iraq back in 1991?

[Royal Dragon]

I dunno, but in war, the goal is

1. Kill People

2. Break stuff

3. Take territory.

It seems stupid to leave it after we did so good with one and 2.

Especially since there is all that good oil we just threw away for no good reason.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon

Especially since there is all that good oil we just threw away for no good reason.

Don't worry there is plenty in Alaska to make up for it.
Pity about the wildlife and the climate effects created by taking it out.

By co-incidence I checked a few figures.
The USA imports 3.5 million barrels a year, just what Iraq can produce when running on full yield.

Hmmm.

Seeya.

[Royal Dragon]

see, I told ya we should annex it!!! :D

[Serpent]

Fred Sanford, if you're serious then you just summed up why the rest of the world hates America. If you're joking it's not really funny, because the actions of the US, acting like the world's biggest bully, is what has devalued the UN.

In this day and age, more than ever before, the world needs a coalition of nations with peace as their primary agenda.

NOT a braggart bully with more weapons than anyone else dictating world policy to further their own agenda.

[shaolin kungfu]

Well said serpent.

[SanSoo Student]

And our current president has the mental capacity of a five year old. This war is causing the US to further increase the national debt; which Clinton worked so hard to try and decrease. The US is the nation with the larget debt.

[ZIM]

Whatever.

Let's move on to somethiung important:
WARBABES!

Jeannie Ohm is a hottie.... ;) And that Michelle Husayn! YIIIIII!

[Fred Sanford]

I was being dead serious. The UN has serious issues. The US definately did not need UN approval to attack Iraq. The UN does a **** poor job of enforcing it's own resolutions and I think it looks pretty pathetic right about now.

[rogue]

The UN is not worthless. Without the UN many high dollar bordellos would be out of business(fact provided by my dad who was stationed at the 17th for awhile).

[shaolin kungfu]

True, but a little off topic. This is about the UN's validity.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
I dunno, but in war, the goal is

1. Kill People

2. Break stuff

3. Take territory.

It seems stupid to leave it after we did so good with one and 2.

Especially since there is all that good oil we just threw away for no good reason.

Except that in 1991 and today, the stated goals of the war excludes step 3. Come to think about it, I don't think the US has taken step 3 in modern times (even in WWII) has it? Taking territory and occupying territory are two different thing in this case :)

[Royal Dragon]

Clinton didn't do craop but declassify sensitive military, missle guidence technology to the commerc commision, and give it to the Chinese in payback for funding his election.

Oh yeah and that thing with the girl under his desk.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah and bomb aspiring factories to distract attention form his personal problems.:rolleyes:

And let Bin Laden go free when we COULD have had him easy.

Oh, and on the economy, the stock market started to tank 9 months before the election, let alone the results, let alone Bush taking office. Go look at the DOW charts, you'll seee a hugh "Head & Shoulders" bear signal confirmed wile CLINTON was STILL in office.


Clinton was the biggest joke this country has ever seen.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
I was being dead serious. The UN has serious issues. The US definately did not need UN approval to attack Iraq. The UN does a **** poor job of enforcing it's own resolutions and I think it looks pretty pathetic right about now.

So what would be better? Or what alternative is there?

I like people that always say "x or y is rubbish" but don't offer an alternative plan.

Also comeup with a plan to replace unesco, unicef, IAEA (sic), etc.

I am sure that the people fed, aided by the UN would disagree with you.

Looking forward to your reply.

[shaolin kungfu]

At least the rest of the world didn't want us dead while clinton was in office.

[joedoe]

The UN is an important body for trying to broker peaceful solutions, but it is only as strong as the support it is given by its member nations. If the member nations choose not to give it enough support, then it risks fading into obscurity.

The UN may have limited power, but it still has an important role to play in trying to achieve peace.

It is interesting that so many Americans seem to think the UN is irrelevant when it is the US that provides the majority of the funding and military support to keep the UN running (or so I have been told).

[carly]

royal dragon, Bush wasn't chasing down and eliminating Osama either, until 9/11. No better than Clinton, and worse in some ways.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
It is interesting that so many Americans seem to think the UN is irrelevant when it is the US that provides the majority of the funding and military support to keep the UN running (or so I have been told).

Isn't that why they think that the UN must be at their beg and call and do their bidding.

AS for US funding, that happens only when they pay their membership fees.

I think there was a bit of a row due to outstanding fees not too long ago and the US was given the choice.

Seeya.

[ZIM]

So what would be better? Or what alternative is there? UFC? Pride? :confused:

V. Putin [judoka] by Choke out ;) :p

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by ZIM
UFC? Pride? :confused:

V. Putin [judoka] by Choke out ;) :p

How about:

ROLLERBALL
:D :D

Actually I am wondering if the People that say that the UN is obsolete ever looked at some of their other aspects besides the security council.

A quick visit to http://www.un.org will show the full scope of what the UN does.

Like humanitarian aid, refugee aid, etc.
There is a LOT more to the UN than they seem to see.

Cheers.

[joedoe]

But it's only the security council that counts :D

[Serpent]

Fred Sanford, you make me very sad indeed.

:(

[ZIM]

Oh, yah. Usually, whenever I give to charities, its to the WHO.

not related, 1 for u, LC (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) ps- don't get all overboard with it, please.

[Laughing Cow]

ZIM.

Thanks, for the link.

[diego]

Originally posted by Stumblefist
"OK, here's a scenario. Let's say I am married and my wife is ****ing me off for whatever reason. Maybe she is taunting me about how small my willy is. So I beat the living daylights out of her. Is it her fault that I beat her, or is it mine? Did I make the choice to beat her or did she?" -JD
---------------------------------------------

In that case i think your wife has a right to happiness. If your willy is too small, she's entitled to find a real man.
...
There's a Famous Dr. Long in China that has a plastic surgury solution for this kind of problem. If that doesn't work you can always join the French Foreign Legion, but i don't think they are seeing too much action these days. You are better off joining US Rangers and dying in action somewhere.

and his name just happens to be dr long eh lmao:D

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

this is not a joke. this is the footage that was aired in iraq that i found on ogrish.com.

this is your warning. the following video is our dead boys.

http://users.1st.net/abaddon/killedsoldiers.asf

i am not posting this to disgust or shock people. not this time. however, i do think it sheds some light on the new reality show eveyone has been watching on cnn.

[joedoe]

Dude, can I get some of whatever it is you are smoking? :D

[SevenStar]

A prayer goes out to all of their families. It's messed up that this all "had" to happen and even more messed up that this is just the beginning. One of the guys who was in one of the shot down choppers has a brother who lives in my city. He found out this morning that his brother is dead, and on top of that, his unit has been activated and he is on the way over there also.

[joedoe]

I hope you are kidding. Otherwise, all I have to say is that Denis Leary sang a song about you a few years back :D

[SevenStar]

George Wilson (I think he lives in my town) was given a medal in 1994 by the French for his valiant efforts in 1944. Now, at 80 yrs old, he gave his medal back to them because of their refusal to fight. WTF? How ungrateful can someone be?

[joedoe]

Well, we had some veterans of 1991 give their medals back because they disagreed with the war. Everyone has a right to protest in their own way.

I personally think that changing French fries to be Freedom fries was even sillier.

But I agree, I think the French bashing has probably gotten a bit out of hand. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the frogs would stand up and fight for themselves though :D (just kidding).

[joedoe]

Very gruesome. Sad for the families of those dead or captured to see them like that. I am not sure whether it is a good or bad thing to see images like that - bad for those affected by it, but maybe good in that it drives home the ugliness of war.

[Fred Sanford]

I will not buy anything that is french. no more peugeots for me. I used to down french wine by the gallon but no more, strictly napa valley from now on.

[SevenStar]

yeah, the Freedom fries thing was WAY more silly than this. If the name actually got changed, we could boycott freedom fries and not buy them until they changed the name back :D

[Laughing Cow]

Personally, I think it is good.

Better than the PC corrected version I see on CNN.
War is ugly and should be shown in it's full ugliness.
I grew up with pics and images of the holocaust, vietnam war and more, those changed my opinions about war quiet a bit.

I am also a bit skeptical about those reports from "embedded" journalists, i think this happened so that the military ahs more control of what is said and shown back home.

Just my opinion.

[joedoe]

This is leads me to an interesting point - given the emphasis on freedom in the US, isn't it interesting that the Pentagon has basically slapped a ban on those images being shown?

[PHILBERT]

I hope that everyone who is associated with that video, be it the camera men, the people who killed the soldiers, the people at the news station, etc die a horrible death with there spine's being ripped from there own backs and shoved back down there throats into place.

This does not include the people who put it on the web.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
I will not buy anything that is french. no more peugeots for me. I used to down french wine by the gallon but no more, strictly napa valley from now on.

Still waiting for your answer on the other thread.

BTW, there are many things in everyday life that you and your military use that are french.

Go ahead rip all those french electronics out of your F-14's and similar.
:D :D

Cheers.

P.S.: Let me guess the peugeot's you guys get in the states are assembled & build there. So buy not buying them you put some US-workers out of a job.

Great way to go and protest the french.
:D

[Serpent]

Philbert,

The cameraman? The war is a media party. You can't just look at pictures of US bombs blowing the sh!t out of Baghdad and not want to see pictures of Baghdad fighting back.

The people that killed the soldiers? What about the US soldiers that are killing Iraqi's?

What about those POW US soldiers? Their defence is, "I was just following orders" and I'm sure you respect that. Would you accept the same thing from an Iraqi that was just as scared and lost as them?

Get a grip, Philbert.

[Serpent]

I don't get it. The English have been slamming the French for centuries and you guys are only just getting on board?

Come on, dudes, catch up!

[Budokan]

I went into my local sex shop to buy a freedom tickler and the girl behind the counter didn't know what I was talking about.

[ZIM]

Come on people! Get with the program!!
KILL!!!!
Blow em all to HECK!!!!!!!!
If we could have only all been there to see all the battles only just from Zero A.D.!!!!!
These deaths are just baby burbs!!!
I've NEVER said this to anyone before: Dude, never join the military. You're just "friendly fire" waiting to happen. :eek: Seriously. I bet every veteran on here would frag honeybar stumblefist.

[Laughing Cow]

Saw an image this morning on the local news.

An Iraqi mother holding her 18months old baby whose right side of the face has been scared and bleeding due to a bomb going of close by.

Both Baby and mother were crying, but the mother also cursed the "American Dogs" for hurting her baby.

This type of images need also be shown.
War coverage should be unbiased and show what is happening, let the pictures and sounds speak for themselves.

[Serpent]

That's cos you usually buy the 12" Mambo Super Rectum Agitator as you tend to wear them out so quick.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Serpent
I don't get it. The English have been slamming the French for centuries and you guys are only just getting on board?

Come on, dudes, catch up!

Even New Zealand has been having a go at the frogs for years :D

LOL @ the sex toy comments :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by PHILBERT
I hope that everyone who is associated with that video, be it the camera men, the people who killed the soldiers, the people at the news station, etc die a horrible death with there spine's being ripped from there own backs and shoved back down there throats into place.

This does not include the people who put it on the web.

I don't know who killed the soldiers (were they executed?) but if they were killed in combat then let's be honest - they are there to wage war on foreign soil.

I think that maybe spending so much time filming dead bodies is kinda macabre and could probably be seen as gloating. However there have been plenty of similarly gruesome scenes shown back in 1991 and in this current war.

[ZIM]

We're only begining to see the stories/images from the "unilateral" journalists, as opposed to the "embedded" [aligned?] ones.

Interesting stuff. They went in after the journalists who photo'd the now-famous jig-dancing Iraqi... the townies were actually kinda p1ssed and waving Iraqi flags after awhile. "Why are you invading us? Are the Israelis coming next?"

Something about doing interviews when surrounded by army guys...I don't know... what was the question again?

[Budokan]

You remember how much the right-wing hated and despised President Clinton? That's how much I hate Dubya. With a deep and burning visceral hatred. Not because I think he's criminal but because I know he's an ignorant puppet of the arrogant neocons who are driven by their simplistic ideological and hegemonistic paranoia.

Dubya is not a criminal. But Aljazeera's repeated showing of this videotape IS. It says a lot about a people and their psychology (re: culture) who think that repeatedly showing the broken, twisted, blood-splattered bodies of ANYONE is news.

Aljazeera. They make Goebbels look like an amateur....

[Chinwoo-er]

oh come on.
Freedom fries.
pouring out french wine
giving medals back.

thats NOTHING

if America really have the resentment for the french for being against the war, you should give back the STATUE OF LIBERTY :D

[Fred Sanford]

laughing cow,

here's my reply,

I really don't care.

[ZIM]

Oh, thats the question.

Well, yeah I'm outraged! WTF?! I'd seen it, don't really wish to again.
It says a lot about a people and their psychology (re: culture) who think that repeatedly showing the broken, twisted, blood-splattered bodies of ANYONE is news. the aljazeera guy was talking about just that. They DO think its news, said 'consider our culture, our situation', but they've yanked it for now.

edit: do embedded journalists say anything about our culture? a 'for the sake of argument' question only!

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
laughing cow,

here's my reply,

I really don't care.

Hmm, interesting.
:( :(

[PHILBERT]

I understand soldiers die, but to sit there and display it on television showing people playing with the body is what is horrible. You don't see U.S. troops on CNN taking Iraqi bodies and moving them around, playing with them and smiling while talking about how they wage war. You don't see the cameramen running up to dead Iraqi soldiers letting you see there face being ripped apart from bullet wounds and other wound, or them missing entire body parts. That is what ****es me off, at least we aren't showing the bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers and making fun of it.

I've watched CNN and MSNBC off and on the past few days and have yet to see them displaying images of dead soldiers. All I see is a live image of Baghdad and it looks like any random city in this country.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by PHILBERT
I understand soldiers die, but to sit there and display it on television showing people playing with the body is what is horrible. You don't see U.S. troops on CNN taking Iraqi bodies and moving them around, playing with them and smiling while talking about how they wage war. You don't see the cameramen running up to dead Iraqi soldiers letting you see there face being ripped apart from bullet wounds and other wound, or them missing entire body parts. That is what ****es me off, at least we aren't showing the bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers and making fun of it.

Fair point. I didn't listen to the audio on the aljazeera footage so I didn't know what they were saying. However, I do remember seeing pictures of burning Iraqi tanks with charred bodies hanging out of them back in 1991.

I agree though - the image of that guy with a big smile on his face moving that body around for a better shot was kinda sick.

[Laughing Cow]

Philbert.

Those are the realities of war, they don't go away by not showing them.
And bad and ugly things to happen on both sides.
Why, because human nature is human nature.

OTOH, if they are shown, maybe next time people will think twice before sending troops and starting a war.

CNN & MSNBC appear to be sugar-coating their broadcasts to make them palatable for the whole family.

[ZIM]

OTOH, if they are shown, maybe next time people will think twice before sending troops and starting a war. Works for the Middle East. I think we all need a new approach, don't you?

[PHILBERT]

I was 7-8 years old back when we first went over there 12 years ago, I have little memory of it. I sure don't remember burning tanks and charred bodies. Realities of war, yes. But it also shows how gruesome they are over there displaying that stuff on tv and making fun of it. Im sure there are American soldiers over there who probably go to the bathroom on dead Iraqi soldiers, but you don't see it on CNN. If I did, I'd be angry too. But probably less angry at that sorry sack of **** who calls himself a human in that video for playing with the bodies.

[Laughing Cow]

Philbert.

I helped compile a presentation on the Holocaust for a school project.

To be honest I am still not sure who sickened me more the german troops or the jews that sided with them and commited atrocities and often worse ones on their fellow prisoners so that they might get out alive.

During this project I saw pictures and had to research some material of stuff that was not commonly known by the average person.

This things happen in EVERY war and on EVERY side.

It is hard not to give in to ones emotions, but at the same time humans are humans.

An Iraqi won't be more brutal or gruel than an american under the same circumstance.

Naturally you won't see the bad side of your own troops publicly paraded, that 's why it is important to get info from multiple sources.

Seeya.

P.S.: I remember Gulf War I well, we had a TV's set up in the offices so that we could follow the war.

[Laughing Cow]

Question.

How much was the RAF Tornado incident covered on US media??

We had quiet a bit of coverage on it over here.

[prana]

yea, but those english make fun of sheep-shaggers, I mean, Welschmen too, kinda emphasis on their whinging poms more than anything :D

No seriously, stop bashing the French, in fact we want Peugeot 206 WRC cars on the road, not some FWD GTi Naturally aspirated now !

Since Nissan is owned by Renault (I think) are we going to stop the 350Z being sold in the States ? hehee fat chance of that !

Especially love those people driving around in the Toyota Corollas and yelling out gooks at Asians.... ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Question.

How much was the RAF Tornado incident covered on US media??

We had quiet a bit of coverage on it over here.

Hmmm.

No one know what I am talking about??

[prana]

It is not cruelty, just cultural difference.

In all other countries other than first world, dead bodies are printed all over public newspapers. It's the reality of life.

Sad pow ! :(

[respectmankind]

I am more ****ed that stuff like this happens, rather than being ****ed it is shown to me.

[Mr Punch]

That's pretty sick.

In some ways Prana is right and it could just be a cultural difference, al Jazeera show enough close-ups of Iraqi bodies albeit for a different reason. And the grinning looks more nervous than gleeful to me.

But I don't buy it. I'd like to have heard the commentaries. It looks like gloating, and the bullet wounds look like close range, not like normal combat.

And no, it shouldn't have been made. But now that it's been made, it should be shown. Partly to show the atrocity of some elements in the Iraqi military, and partly to show the atrocity of war.

The Bush administration, including the arms dealing 'containment specialist' Rumsfeld, have been hankering after this war for some time, and here are the poor ****ers who have got to do it for them. So yeah, I blame the Iraqi army scum and al Jazeera, but I still blame Bush.


As far as media exploitation goes... I was of course extremely sickened by the 911 atrocity, but I was also sickened by the constant repetition of the images, serving to feed an emotional response bypassing logical action, and at the same time inuring the public to the reality of feeling in sudden violent death.

Those images were indelibly printed on my mind the first time. Then the image of the man near the remains of the towers saying 'I can't believe it, it was just like a movie -' burned in pretty deep. We, especially a lot of the American people it seems, are all in a movie, and watching another.

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html) may help to explain why there are no equivalent pictures from the Allies' side from the last Gulf War, or from Afghanistan. If you can get past the writer's obvious anti-American bias and look at the facts he gives more dispassionately than he, it'll give you something to think about.

Stumble, the bodies will be from both sides.

A prayer for the families, and the other soldiers. A prayer for the soldiers on both sides, that they don't lose their humanity. Death to those who committed those atrocities. And a curse on the Bushes and Rumsfeld.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
I will not buy anything that is french. no more peugeots for me. I used to down french wine by the gallon but no more, strictly napa valley from now on.

LMFAO; what a ****ing idiot! Bet the French economy is quaking... how much ****ing wine did you drink...? That may explain some of your posts...!:D

And LC, good point. Any sanctions anyone imposes only serves to ****-up the people... sure as hell doesn't get them to vote any different. And now the economy is soooo global, it's just going to injure international trade... and cause more pocket dictators to look for new ways of contributing to international diplomacy... like restarting abandoned nuke programmes...:eek:

And let's face it, the US, UK, French etc yawn etc governments have all authorised trade deals against internationally or even unilaterally agreed sanctions in the past... but good luck to you Fred.

Try educated articles, argument and discussion to influence foreign governments... or knee-jerk BS...! Don't reckon either of them actually have much chance, but guess the former has slightly more than zero.


Now... the freedom tickler... that sounds like infinitely more fun than the French variety...!

[TzuChan]

Pfsh .. Freedom Fries .. you people realise it should be Belgian Fries yes ? Have you ever eaten fries in France ? They are so frigging horrible =[ Freedom Fries, makes america look like fools though ;) Not that i'm anti-America or something.

[rogue]

aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net) Take it for what it's worth.:rolleyes:

[Vapour]

As far as allied side of media policy goes, military camp wish to avoid showing any blood or dead bodies whether it is iraqi civilian, iraqi soldier or American or British casualty. After all, it is war fought on the foreing soil. The support of war back home tend to decrease as the public see more casualties especially among Iraqi civilian and their home boys. Remeber Somalia. American appatite for involvement in foreign hotspots decreased significantly after that.

Arab televisions obviously would different angle. General feeling among Arab public is that the war is totally unjustified. They are certainly interested in all the bloodshed caused by this mayhem whether it is casualty on Iraqi soldier or civilian or American/British soldier.

[apoweyn]

By 'interesting', I think you mean 'feeble.'

As in, "It's feeble to care enough to spout off an opinion and yet not care enough to back it up in any reasonable fashion."

[GLW]

Let me see if I follow Lamont's reasoning:

The UN is worthless because it has no teeth to back up its resolutions.

The UN, to work, needs teeth (read as military).

The biggest argument against the UN in the US up to now is that the US will not provide military under the UN control because then the US would lose sovereignty over its own military.

Similarly, were the UN to start its own military and allow people from all over the world to enlist, first it would need a bigger budget....and the US does not pay its dues anyway.

Second, should a US citizen enlist in a UN military and serve, there is a conflict of citizen duties. In such a case, suppose the rest of the world sanctioned and decided upon military action in an area that Congress has declared off limits for US citizens. The US citizen serving with the UN, in doing their duty, would be committing a possibly treasonous act....

Nope...these are the very reasons that the UN does NOT have a military arm but is instead made up of coalitions.

This very thing is why the US going it alone is the thing that made the UN irrelevant....and why it is a choice that this administration has made that will have some very far reaching impact.

As for preemptive strikes...In the news in the last 72 hours, there are stories of skirmishes and fire between Pakistan and India (Again). What if Pakistan uses the logic of India being a threat and then uses a nuclear weapon...and then says "But the US did it..." Hmmmm....

[GreyMystik]

mmm... freedom fries eh?
those aren't good for you...i'd rather eat a nice healthy salad with some French...erm...i mean uhh... "freedom dressing" :D

[Radhnoti]

A lot of Americans who thought the French were "allies to the U.S. through thick and thin" are finding out that many French hate the U.S. for the first time. They feel betrayed. My grandpa used to tell stories about France and how great and happy the people there were, always saying he'd like to go back. He was with the "Buckshot" infantry division and went hedgerow to hedgerow fighting (as he told it) for their freedom in WWII. To say he's upset by their recent decisions would be an understatement. He has the hatred for them now that you can only have for someone you once thought a close friend.

Freedom fries, freedom toast, etc....it's all just harmless expression of displeasure. And if it makes 'em feel better, I say more power to 'em.

[ZIM]

And that's what any soldier or marine will tell you.: their purpose is to KILL the enemy as quickly as possible and then go home A battlefield is different than a kwoon. On the battlefield, you follow orders, period. Those orders may include to "kill", yes.
Also Zim if you want to KILL me, just say so. Don't hope or try to egg on someone else to do their dirty work for you, like wishing vets would do it for you. I'm not wishing any harm on you whatsoever. Why should I? I'm a vet, 6 years service. I would frag you, had you been my leader on a battlefield and you were carrying on like this. You would get everyone killed by your foolish disregard for the enemy and self. Its your deathwish, don't share it. Thats the dead body in YOUR living room. Clean it up.
Anyway look deep inside your secret self, you must have wanted to kill someone, sometime, and i bet ... you might have even liked the idea Yep.
-------------------
Afterthought:

bunch of ad hominem cr@p I'm not arguing with you, nor flaming you- I'm telling you. But go ahead, you can have the last word. Whatever.

[guohuen]

We could just avoid the whole issue by calling the food product by it's original name. Belgian fries.

[norther practitioner]

It was actually french cut fried potatoes... supposedly invented in Belgium (there is history of fried potatoe products elsewhere). The "french" only reffers to the way they are cut.

[KC Elbows]

There's been a lot of talk about this and the belief that the republican guard intends to use chemical weapons should US forces cross a certain, as yet undisclosed theshhold. On the flip side, we have hinted that if they use WMD, we will retaliate using much the same, but better. In addition, we've adopted the whole 'shock and awe' approach, trying to put panic into the hearts of the enemy, even talking about using munitions that cause mushroom clouds. And the last time we actually reshaped a nation, we nuked them first to stop ground fighting.

Do you think that the military goal is:

1) to get the military to surrender with the minimum of fighting by convincing them that sadam is on the losing side

2) if 1 is not possible, to force the Iraqi military's hand and get them to attack with WMD so that the moral imperative is no longer on us to not use such using such tactics: i.e. by using munitions that produce mushroom clouds, and cornering them in a position where, to maintain some intitiative, they would have to strike fear in our troops, force the enemy to use WMD?

And do you think this war might mark the reintroduction of chemical and biological weapons into active military use by the third world?

[Crimson Phoenix]

For the last time, there are recorded historical evidence that the fries are French. They were called "Pomme Pont Neuf" in reference to the bridge "Pont Neuf" where the merchants first came up with them...these evidence date from the 17th century. And also, remember that it is Parmentier (French) who brought potatoes to the old world (they would only exist on the American continent before that)...so you'll have to face it: French fries are french

:D

As for hating you, that's what the stoopid media makes you think...we do not hate the US. But even though we are allies, we are entitled, as a free country, to our views on the issue.
I don't see why it breaks the friendship between US and France. For me, a good friend is not someone who approves and agrees to all you say, but someone who has the gut to tell you "I disagree" or "you are wrong" when he is convinced some thing is not right...

[Black Jack]

But I thought Saddam did not have WMD's:rolleyes:

It's the first choice. The second is for the Mulder and Scully's of the world to get hot over.

btw, The bunker bomb 2,000lb muntions already used in Baghdad produced mushroom clouds. It was on MSNBC for everybody to see. You do not need a nuclear weapon to produce that effect.

[SevenStar]

good post, but I stand by my statement that fries come from the belgian frite. :D

[red5angel]

KC, who is telling you the US will use chemicals weapons if Iraq does? We have already made it quite clear that we will not under any circumstances use chemical weapons.
We have more then enough conventional weapons to choose from to have to worry about using chemical weapons on them.


personally I think if we send my corgi over there this would all be over in a few minutes.

[guohuen]

I've been told my Potage Parmentier is as good as it gets. (pats self on back):D

[TzuChan]

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
For the last time, there are recorded historical evidence that the fries are French. They were called "Pomme Pont Neuf" in reference to the bridge "Pont Neuf" where the merchants first came up with them...these evidence date from the 17th century. And also, remember that it is Parmentier (French) who brought potatoes to the old world (they would only exist on the American continent before that)...so you'll have to face it: French fries are french

:D

As for hating you, that's what the stoopid media makes you think...we do not hate the US. But even though we are allies, we are entitled, as a free country, to our views on the issue.
I don't see why it breaks the friendship between US and France. For me, a good friend is not someone who approves and agrees to all you say, but someone who has the gut to tell you "I disagree" or "you are wrong" when he is convinced some thing is not right...

No way dude, there even was a two hour documentaire on TV that explained why the fries come from Belgium :D

[norther practitioner]

personally I think if we send my corgi over there this would all be over in a few minutes.
LOL at that. This red line concerns me. I think we should have kept that info on the dl a little longer. It may be construed through a Sadam teleconference that they are winning a moral victory for not using them if and when the coalition forces cross this line. If we take out that ability to use these weapons before hand, then some will take it as them not having those capabilities in the first place. So many unknowns not even I, the engineer can come to a conclusion :D .

[KC Elbows]

Geez people, try to recognize when a thread has no partisan position before coming in and trying to fight the propaganda war.

Our leaders said, before all of this began, that if chemical weapons were used against our troops, then we would use whatever weapons were at our disposal. I NEVER said anything about us using chemical weapons, but more nukes, and if you don't think the option is played around with by command, then I'd be interested to hear just how high up in command ytou were to know what does not get brought up behind closed doors.

I mean, these guys pick who lives and dies to some extent. You think they don't even consider nukes, when our leaders have hinted at consideration of nuclear force?

I am not placing any moral picture over this, I was just suggesting that we already stated our position, that WMD would be responded to, and the hint was that the nuclear option was open, as it is always open.

And Black Jack, since they haven't surrendered, don't you think it naive that our military has limited its planning to one plan? Highly unlikely.

We've already hinted at the nuclear option, quite some time ago. Hopefully, we'll find no need to use it, but it would be foolish of our military to not recognize the fact that its use in such a situation is not without precedent or results.

Also, I specifically said weapons that cause mushroom clouds, because I WAS NOT talking about nukes, which by default cause mushroom clouds. I was suggesting that if the enemy thought we were already using nukes, they might cross the WMD thresshold, thus enabling us to say 'look what they did', come off clean, and finish the war in one brutal stroke. Is this not the sort of thing generals look for when it comes to war?

I'm not arguing some political view here, just noting that we voiced exactly what criterion would enable us to consider extreme force, and the enemy might be willing to fulfill those criteria. Hopefully, they're lying. Do you think we were? I don't. We're there to get something done, not posture to the world. I'm placing no judgement on it, but I think you're being somewhat naive to think they don't have a plan that involves nukes, even if it isn't the one they end up using.

[KC Elbows]

I mean, I know I'm not the only one who heard the quote in referrence to what we would do if Iraq used WMD's. I think it was Bush, it was very reminiscent of his father(Bush senior liked making veiled comments that weren't really veiled, usually ending with 'and that's all I'm gonna say about that').

I'm not asking people's opinions on policies or of the war, just starting a discussion on what this means for the future. I mean, nukes are a big question mark in the world, how are they to be used? Everyone has them or wants them, but thus far, they've only had two uses:

A. Mexican standoffs.

B. Simplifying what looks like a messy invasion.

And since they've been hinted at by the US, doesn't use B seem most apt to the present situation?

And given the vastly superior nature of our military, doesn't it seem likely that chem and bio weapons are tempting as an equalizer? Much less nukes?

I mean, every time these weapons proliferate somewhere, we're gonna have to go in there and take charge. That being the case, eventually, it seems likely that we'll simplify the process by using nukes, or we'll spend a long time mired in such land wars.

It just seems like people are being too pc here.

[David Jamieson]

Later, when I find a little time I will be merging all threads into one thread about the current Iraq situation.

Please post to this thread and follow this thread when I get it going.

We don't need 50 side issues about the same subject.
And we can argue as much as we want as effectively in one thread as we can in 50.

Any extra threads will be merged to the main thread as I find the time. That way we can all play! :D

cheers

[KC Elbows]

"One thing i know is that the US threated in the last war that if Saddma used WMD they WOULD BE nuked."

They repeated that threat for this one. And considering the belief that nukes simplified the invasion of Japan(for better or worse), there is precedent.

As for creating plans that involve nukes, I'm sure they do it all the time. It's their job to have such plans, not wing it. Winging it with nukes would be the height of stupidity.

I'm not saying we will use nukes, but the fact is, we've said we would if they used WMD's, and they appear to intend to do so. Don't you think there would be a concrete plan for their use if we intended to use them at all?

[rogue]

Hey KL, thanks for letting all of us vent about the subject. You and I may not agree on politics but you haven't let it get in the way. I appreciate that.

[KC Elbows]

Stumblefist- not suggesting planners would plan the death of a significant part of our forces, that makes no military sense. I'm suggesting that a sensible leader would array our forces in such a way to minimize losses should this occur, and if it does occur, which is a possibility they are required to plan for, then the losses would be used to show the enemies character, even exaggerated at the time.

I'm not suggesting that we would needlessly throw away our troops, but that we'd have a plan in place for the worst, because that's the job of military planners.

This is not far fetched stuff, it's been stated that we'd nuke if as much happened, are you suggesting we have no military plan that corresponds to such statements?

[Crimson Phoenix]

sorry, I got it from someone who studies culinary arts history...yup, don't ask me, some people do study that...heheheheheheheh

I know I sounded like I was gesting, but I assure you it's true :eek::D

[Royal Dragon]

I would almost say it's better to make a seperate board at this point. To many people are discussing to many different aspects of it for a single thread.

I'm pretty sure this forum system allows for unlimited forums. I think now is the time for the General discussion forum to be created, even if it is only temporary till the War is over.

[red5angel]

KC, that's psych ops type stuff. You say it, and they know you have it, but you aren't going to use it. The only way I can see it happening is if the Iraqi military starts hitting alot of civilian targets as well as military targets. If this is the case our target would be military, we won't drop any nuclear weapons in the heart of baghdad.

"This is not far fetched stuff, it's been stated that we'd nuke if as much happened, are you suggesting we have no military plan that corresponds to such statements?"


you're getting ahead of yourself here, no one has come out and said it, you even agreed to that at the beginning of this thread. They implied it, but implying it and saying are two different animals.

KC look at it this way. The US government is already facing a lot of heat on this war. If they can come out of it looking as clean as possible, they can come back with a major political upset. Nuking anyone, military or otherwise would not do this.

[KC Elbows]

I understand that the statement is not direct, but essentially, it either sets up a bluff, we will use nukes if you..., or it lays down the rules. If it is a bluff, we may be very close to being called on that. Now, we have to assume that the military has a plan for just that scenario. And that bluff won't work in the future if we don't back it now.

I'd like to think it's uneccessary, but that all depends on how long term the fight turns. If it becomes a long fight, we can't militarily afford that, because we, as a nation, do not support long fights toward nebulous gains. Therefore, we need to be quick, and we still may be, but if it becomes prolonged, which option is better, slowly losing public support and leaving a knife at our back in the end, or destroying the knife at our back but instantaneously being on the edge as far as public opinion goes?

[PaulH]

I think this is a very informative article explaining the conflicting emotions of Iraqis as the Allies come to liberate their cities.

Why They Resist
Iraqis aren't yet confident Saddam's a goner.

BY BRENDAN MINITER (Wall Street Journal)
Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

The allies were cheered Friday when they rolled into Sawfan, Iraq, a small town on the Kuwaiti border, and began tearing down larger-than-life Saddam portraits. "Americans very good," Ali Khemy told an Associated Press reporter. "Iraq wants to be free." U.S. Marine Maj. David "Bull" Gurfein returned the goodwill by yelling "Iraqis! Iraqis! Iraqis!" while pumping his fist in the air.

But the moment was bittersweet. Premature jubilation had cost many Sawfan residents their lives in 1991. They'd cheered American forces during the first Gulf War and, confident that Saddam was about to be ousted, some residents tore down Saddam portraits. After the U.S. halted its advance, Norman Schwarzkopf came to Sawfan, but only to work out cease-fire terms with Iraqi generals.

It didn't take long after that meeting for Saddam's minions to round up, torture and kill many of the "disloyal" Sawfan residents.

So on Friday a woman shrouded in black cut her celebrating short when her companion reminded her of Saddam's ruthlessness by "sliding his finger across his throat," according to the AP.

This history is lost on some reporters. Reuters correspondent Michael Georgy, who went to Sawfan two days after the AP (and after allied forces started to meet stiffer resistance ****her north), seemed to find only Iraqis who hated America. "I swear it was better when Saddam was here," Jamal Kathim told Mr. Georgy. But nonetheless America has a history of leaving many Iraqis open to Saddam's reprisals, and it is this history we must now remember in seeking to explain why some Iraqis are willing to fight on against an overwhelming military force that is there to free them.





The power of fear should not be underestimated. Saddam is a survivor. He's still in power despite multiple assassination attempts, internal uprisings and even the onslaught of American military might a decade ago. Some Iraqis are understandably hesitant to gamble that this time Saddam--and his evil lieutenants--will be gone after this war. If they lose the bet, the stakes are horrifying to contemplate. Saddam has managed to cling to power for decades by disregarding all standards of human decency. Rape and other unspeakable forms of torture await anyone who is perceived to have slighted him.
In Iraq, parents have to police their every word, every thought, out of fear their children will let something slip at school. In Saddam's Iraq, chemical and biological weapons aren't just to use against foreign armies, but are stockpiled to keep the people in fear too.

Captured Iraqis admit they will fear Saddam until he is dead. Old fears die hard, especially for those who've been fed nothing but Saddam's propaganda for more than a generation and who still have family under Saddam's control.

Despite all this, there have been mass surrenders. At the same time, some Iraqi units have feigned capitulation, while waiting for an opportune time to strike at allied forces. Others simply melt away as soldiers desert--possibly to return home to make sure nothing happens to their families. Others can be seen along the road to Baghdad in civilian clothes, pretending to be farmers in a part of the desert that has no farms. They remember that Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in 1991 were later severely punished, tortured or killed; they're probably hedging their bets.

In one instance, two Iraqi officers surrendered while carrying a duffel bag of cash. The officers claimed it was payday for their troops--men whose gaunt, unfed frames reveal how little their officers care for their wellbeing. It's more likely that the cash was to be spent fleeing Saddam's police state.

Saddam, long schooled in the value of fear, also knows the allure of cash. That's why his regime is now offering $14,000 rewards to any Iraqi who kills an American soldier and $28,000 to those who capture one. It's blood money, aimed at allaying enough fear of the regime to garner more support without--of course--letting up on the oppressive tactics that keep Iraqis from rebelling.

American soldiers have found makeshift shelters made by guerrilla fighters and other irregular troops. In one shown to reporters, a fighter had fled, leaving behind almost all of his belongings--a thin, raggedy blanket (to stave off the cold desert nights), pictures of his two children, and a plastic bag full of raw meat.

This isn't a force equipped to fight the allies, but it's also not a force that's prepared to openly oppose a madman who's exercised totalitarian control for decades. The Iraqis know that America is strong, but few among them know how resolute or even how moral the U.S. military is in this fight. There is no free press in Iraq, except for the broadcasts beamed in with the backing of the West. The "Ministry of Information" filters everything else. Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, was even spewing propaganda here in America on Sunday during an interview with MSNBC. Dow Jones Newswires summed up his remarks this way: "He said Iraqi defiance shown in Nasariyah, Basra and other major cities is intensifying, and is coming, he said, from a people who want to defend their independence."





Fear of Saddam doesn't fully account for Iraqi resistance, of course. Many of the guerrilla fighters and militiamen as well as the irregular recruits Saddam enticed from other Arab countries (who are strikingly similar to al Qaeda recruits) are committed to propping up the regime. The fabled Republican Guard is also more loyal to Saddam than is the rest of Iraq's military.
Saddam sits atop a police state so vast in its oppression that its operation requires the support of a great many thugs. Air Force Secretary James Roche stopped into The Wall Street Journal's offices last week before the invasion started and indicated why these thugs will remain loyal to the dictatorship. Iraqi civilians are arming themselves, he told us, with weapons discarded by deserting soldiers. These weapons, he said, are likely to be used in reprisal attacks against Saddam's lackeys--payback for having raped or murdered their family members. There are more than a few evil men who have a lot to lose in a free Iraq.

Thankfully there are a lot more people who have a lot to gain in a liberated and democratic Iraq, and that's why so few refugees have fled into neighboring countries. And the allies are getting a lot of support on the ground. In the south, Iraqi officers are talking to Americans soldiers and may soon lead them to chemical-weapons factories and other illegal sites. In the north there's even more support. "We're not going to say no to anything the Americans want," Mohammad Haji Mahmoud, leader of the Kurdistan Social Democratic Party, told the AP.

And what do the Americans want? Well, as reported in the New York Times, that's something that Lt. j.g. Jake Heller told his men before launching a raid on Thursday. "We're going to change the world tonight," the 26-year-old Harvard graduate and Navy SEAL told his crew. "Let's do it right."

[jun_erh]

there is speculation basically saying that Cherac was invlved in this scandal fairly recently and he's just trying to save his career

[KC Elbows]

France was never with us on this whole thing. It's not like they led us to believe they agreed, and then backed out. They were never with us.

[PaulH]

Carnage predicted after uprising (The Mercury - Australia)

26mar03
BRITISH forces have predicted carnage as Iraqi troops fire on their own people to quell a rebellion in Basra.

Troops stationed outside the city said a violent uprising against Saddam Hussein's regime had erupted today, and that Iraqi troops opened fire to put down the revolt.

"There has been a civilian uprising in the north of Basra. We have seen a large crowd on the streets," said one British officer.

"The Iraqis are firing their own artillery at their own people. There will be carnage."

Iraqi Information Minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf denied the report in a statement to Al-Jazeera television.

But British intelligence reports said thousands of people were rampaging through parts of the city known to be populated by loyal supporters of Saddam's regime. They said Iraqi artillery opened fire on the rebels.

Dozens of buildings were said to be in flames in the city, a centre of Shiite Muslims long repressed by Saddam's ruling Sunni Muslim Baath Party.

"I categorically deny these provocative lies the Americans are trying to spread through CNN," Sahhaf told Al-Jazeera.

"These are lies issued by the US administration and British government ... with the aim of demoralising (the Iraqi population)."

US and British commanders have been looking for Iraqis to rise up against the regime as their troops push their way into the country in a bid to topple Saddam and his inner circle from power.

Undercover British intelligence offers were said to have been working inside the city of 1.5 million people for weeks in a bid to engineer the unrest.

British tanks were massed outside the city and preparing to move in. British troops described the Iraqi artillery fire as "horrific".

The main Shiite Iraqi opposition group, based in Iran, also said the revolt was under way.

"A revolt is taking place in Basra," Mohammad Hadi, spokesman of the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq said in Tehran. "We have no more details for the moment."

[KC Elbows]

Good and bad news. Hopefully those civilians are okay, and hopefully this will make Iraq fall sooner.

[PaulH]

I fear carnage. It takes lot of faith to go against armed, dangerous, and desperate Saddam's soldiers unless the Brits, Aussies, and Americans can rescue them quickly in the confusion.

[Black Jack]

KC- I am sure the military has numerous plans and counter plans up the wazzo and I too remeber Rumsfield saying in a conference that nuclear weaponry is not ruled out if chemical/biological attacks by the Iraqi's are used on U.S. troops or its own citizens.

Where that statement really stands now though is anybody's guess?

I might take the bet that we will see the M.O.A.B used in this regard instead of a nuclear device as a psychological tactic. The M.O.A.B has the force of a small nuclear arm but without the greenpeace enviromental political hissy-fits. From what I understand is one of those bombs alone is capable of taking out a whole Republican Guard divison. Use it on a divison, make sure the Iraqi news stations see it and film it, and watch if it destroys moral as the Atom bomb did in Japan.

What is weird is that the war only technicaly started late last week...but it seems like a long time already...in that amount of time the Coalition troops have made serious headway moving through Southern Iraq. Though the real deal is yet to come I think we will see what really happens when the troops step foot within the city of Baghdad and if the Iraqi army is committed to using WMD's.

Cheers

[joedoe]

The Brits have started shelling mortar positions inside Basra to try and help the civilians that are rebelling. They expect to move into Basra in the next few hours.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix

For me, a good friend is not someone who approves and agrees to all you say, but someone who has the gut to tell you "I disagree" or "you are wrong" when he is convinced some thing is not right...

Well said. A good friend should not only help you out of trouble, they should help to keep you out of trouble.

[Martial Joe]

The link didnt work...

[jun_erh]

too bad they're nt allowed to read our newspapers

[joedoe]

Denis Leary sang a song a few years back call "Assh0le". Very amusing song and it describes the ugly American very well. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are joking - actually I find it very hard to read your posts for some reason.

Anyway, no harm done :)

[joedoe]

All we can do is hope that other member nations do not follow the path of pre-emptive strikes that the US has forged. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail, and that the UN has not been relegated to irrelevance.

[tsunami surfer]

Everytime I see the photos of the cemetaries above the Normandy beaches it makes me think twice about war!!

[joedoe]

LC - yes, I know what you are talking about. Patriot missile shot down a British Tornado fighter. Yet another case of friendly fire -terrible stuff.

Philbert - I clearly remember the image because I remember thinking it was particularly gruesome. And I never realised that you were a young 'un :)

As they say, the victor writes the history books. We always hear about the atrocities of the Germans and the Japanese during WWII, but I am certain that Allied troops also carried out atrocities but we never hear about them. No judgements being made here, just stating that it is a fact of war. Emotions are bound to run high especially when your comrades have been killed and you want revenge. These aren't supposed to happen but they do.

[ZIM]

Everytime I see the photos of the cemetaries above the Normandy beaches it makes me think twice about war!! A senator wanted to have them disinterred, part of the anti-french thing... makes you proud.
WRT the RAF Tornado: yes, same day coverage.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by ZIM
A senator wanted to have them disinterred, part of the anti-french thing... makes you proud.
WRT the RAF Tornado: yes, same day coverage.

The silly thing is that the French oppose what the current day US leadership is doing. They still have a great deal of respect for that those WWII soldiers did for France. Two different things, but people seem to want to link them together. Silly

[tsunami surfer]

Some senators are idiots! Whether he's a republican or democrat he (she?) should be voted out. Also I have seen plenty of coverage of the Brit tornado shot down also our own aircraft firing up a patriot battery. I see more of our mistakes aired than our successes but mistakes are more newsworthy I guess.

[joedoe]

Doesn't the Patriot missile system have an IFF built in? Seems like a serious oversight to me.

[tsunami surfer]

I don't know tech stuff.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Doesn't the Patriot missile system have an IFF built in? Seems like a serious oversight to me.

The Planes & Tanks, etc are supposed to have IFF transmitters.
So far all they said was that they can't figure out why it didn't work.

I think there were also probs in Desert Strom with some A-10's mistaking US Tanks for Iraqi owned Russian Tanks.

Seeya.

[joedoe]

That would make me decidedly unconfortable if I were a pilot. Surely they have the IFF thing right with their SAM batteries, so why would they have problems with Patriot? Seems strange to me.

[Serpent]

:D at the French and Belgian posters arguing over who owns the fries!

KFO has reached a new height in lineage and history debates!

[Laughing Cow]

joedoe.

If i remember correctly there are 2 parts:
1.) Patriot missile launcher
2.) Control center.

Patriot Missile (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/)

[joedoe]

OIC. Thanks LC.

[joedoe]

LOL!!!!! :D

We could try and start a lineage debate with the New Zealanders over who made the first pavlova :D :D :D

[Waidan]

Seems like they're having probs with the patriots. In addition to the Tornado incident, one of the batteries locked on to a US F-16 today, and the F-16 knocked it out before it could fire.

The vid was rough stuff, to be certain. The only thing that made me say wtf was the nature of the wounds. Looks like at least 2 soldiers were exicuted.

[ZIM]

IFF isn't perfect or anything. Used to be you had a tech watching the screens, now its more mechanized [digitized] but there's no saying thats any better, just faster. You remember, we shot down a passenger jet awhile back, pre-Gulf I? Same kind of problem: the IFF read wrong.

[ZIM]

WOW, this is disorienting!

Uh, on the french thing? Aren't they busy in the Ivory Coast? Seems they're always sending troops someplace. Crimson?
---------------

Anyone following the weblogs?
http://www.wbur.org/special/iraq/weblog/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080273/

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
D'you think that one is real? Its supposed to be an Iraqi

http://saddamhussein.blogspot.com/
that one is- its gotta be.

worst case scenario fans (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html)

have they found this place yet? (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm) more facilities! (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/facility.htm)