[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive] - Page 3

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
A few days ago I saw a poll that said 40% of Americans believed Iraq was behind the 9/11 terrorist attack.
- Probably only the ignorant, I thought, those who get their info of the world from Rikki Lake and Jerry Springer, those with no power.

10 minutes ago I saw Ari Fleischer (White House Spokesman) on the television confirming that GWB believes Iraq responsible (I cannot even with my best intention make his comment mean something else, sure someone else here can).Actually there is compelling evidence that two of the hijackers were not the people that their papers said they were. The files on these two are from Kuwait, and were tampered with during Iraq�s occupation, along with hundreds of others. In the case of the two under investigation, people who knew them personally in the past say that the pictures and descriptions do not match the people they knew. One of them would have grown about 5 inches very late in life. The other is very much the wrong age. Also, of the tampered files, almost all of the people have since dispersed across Europe and North America, many then dropping out of sight.

Also as I post this, US Special Forces are attacking an enclave of the Taliban in Iraq.

Oh..Rikki Lake is a looser, who watches that crud anyway?

[ March 21, 2003, 20:20: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 10:38 PM

Check out this baby... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://www.remtek.com/arms/imi/desert/tn50b.gif

primitive

March 21st, 2003, 10:44 PM

Thermo:
Correct me if I missunderstand you here.
The main evidence of Iraq beeing responsible for 9/11 is 2 persons with falsified papers from Kuwait ?

BTW, those pictures of yours was real funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi:
Is there any point at all to your post ?
Please excplain.

And regarding the war.
Now thats it's started, lets all hope it will be over as soon as possible.

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Aloofi:
Is there any point at all to your post ?
Please excplain.

.Come on, that's a Desert Eagle, the prettiest baby in town. I have to get me one of those.
Don't you like it?
Which kind you oil?

solops

March 22nd, 2003, 12:23 AM

solops

March 22nd, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Check out this baby... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (imagine off-color picture of Destert Eagle pistol)

My brother has the 44 Mag Version of the Desert Eagle. Awesome pistol, incredibly well designed, surprisingly low recoil and accurate to 75 yards. We were hitting a 4" PVC pipe at 150 yards 2 out of 5 shots. Not bad for duffers. The Smith and Wesson 357 can't touch it. Very few moving pieces, easy to strip and clean....also incredibly expensive. But, pistols in general and automatics especially give me the willies. Revolvers are a bit less intimidating to me, but rifles leave me a lot more compfortable. Of course, all of the marines I know would really, really, really like to have one. Now, if I can just catch that possum that has been raiding my garbage cans....

[ March 22, 2003, 12:32: Message edited by: solops ]

primitive

March 22nd, 2003, 12:32 AM

Aloofi:
No I don't like it.
I find your little picture highly offensive in a thread about life and death of real people.
Please remove it.

Edit: That goes for you too Solops

[ March 21, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: primitive ]

jimbob

March 22nd, 2003, 01:30 AM

Primitive said:
Thermo:
Correct me if I missunderstand you here.
The main evidence of Iraq beeing responsible for 9/11 is 2 persons with falsified papers from Kuwait ? According to Time magazine, yes. They make the argument that the major ringleaders in the majority of recent American targetted terrorist attacks are 1) related (ie from a single family) and 2) are using fake Kuwait identities that were coincidentally created during the Kuwait occupation (ie passports issued while the Iraq regime was in control of the Kuwaiti burocracy)

(I didn't even bother looking for a quik'N E-Z link, but if you get Time, go and read). Now I'll admit that Time is unabashedly pro-American (rah rah rah) but it's not in the habit of publishing fanciful conjecture either (cf. Al' Jazeer and possibly CNN).

Thermodyne

March 22nd, 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...<hr /></blockquote>The Stingers are not all that advanced, and it should also be noted that without maintenance, they spoil in storage. This was built into them from the start. Also, the cold war was a different world; we armed anyone who would fight communism in those days. We even influenced the elections of our allies when it appeared that their governments were in danger of going socie/commie. There were direct interventions in Italy and France, and we outright fixed an election in Australia back in the sixties. Back then anything was game so long as the US and USSR were not face to face. We had a quiet shooting war in Central America from the sixties all the way into the eighties. We had combatants in Africa during the late sixties and first part of the seventies. And of course we were all over SEA for two decades. Back then we armed lots of people, but not with frontline aircraft, and not with advanced chemical plants and reactors.

The Stinger is a defensive weapon, and has limited offensive capabilities. And providing them was a magnitude of order less dangerous than supplying Saddam with F-1s. No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash?

[ March 21, 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Thermodyne

March 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
You seem to have skipped the Last part. America, England and Australia are putting an end to this jerk. What art the rest doing? Many are protecting their Iraqi cash cow.*sigh* You seem to keep avoiding my point. So I'll put it in bold and won't mention anything else.
The USA had a hand in the making of Saddam, just like France (which you like to target) and other countries. If your going to rave about how the French gave him this, and the French gave him that then you have to acknowledge the US's part in making of the Frankenstein.

Askan<hr /></blockquote>. No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash? The US spent billions containing Soviet Communism; France made a billion arming the third world. And then had the audacity to try and protect one of the most evil men in the world. All for cash! America will have its way in Iraq, could be easy, could be hard, but we will have our way. I can only hope that we will freeze France out of the reconstruction that will follow.

Perrin

March 22nd, 2003, 02:58 AM

Not to mention the fact that the US is working on rectifying their mistakes of helping to create Iraq. We are going into Iraq to remove Saddam.

France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.

Wardad

March 23rd, 2003, 05:25 PM

q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.

Atrocities

March 23rd, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by jimbob:
Primitive said:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Thermo:
Correct me if I missunderstand you here.
The main evidence of Iraq beeing responsible for 9/11 is 2 persons with falsified papers from Kuwait ? According to Time magazine, yes. They make the argument that the major ringleaders in the majority of recent American targetted terrorist attacks are 1) related (ie from a single family) and 2) are using fake Kuwait identities that were coincidentally created during the Kuwait occupation (ie passports issued while the Iraq regime was in control of the Kuwaiti burocracy)

(I didn't even bother looking for a quik'N E-Z link, but if you get Time, go and read). Now I'll admit that Time is unabashedly pro-American (rah rah rah) but it's not in the habit of publishing fanciful conjecture either (cf. Al' Jazeer and possibly CNN).<hr /></blockquote>This was also covered in detail on MSNBC and FNC. This kinda sobers ones opinion on Iraq now doesn't it. To think, that 9-11 and the previous attempt in 93 are now semi-conclusively linked to Saddam and Iraq.

Just goes to show you, where there is a desire, there is always a way. Thank god the US intervened before Saddam got his grubby little hands on Nuclear weapons. Just think what he or his cronies would have done with one or more of those? shudder

Thermodyne

March 23rd, 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.I heard that the forecast was for warm sunny weather with a 100% chance of bombs and missiles.

primitive

March 23rd, 2003, 08:00 PM

Jimbob, Atrocities, Thermo ++
Sorry, I do not doubt the fact that these two individuals got their passports during the brief regime of Iraq in Quwait.
I only find the strange if this is the only evidence of Iraq beeing behind 9-11. It's very little to base a war on, beeing this happened in one of the most corrupt corners of the world. It could be some big plan of Saddam, or it could just be the work of some low-level clerk lining his own pockets.

This is very circumstantial evidence at the most, and refering to it as genuine proof only strengthen the image of USA putting themself beyond (international) law.

When that is said; Now that the war is started, I whish the coalition forces the best of luck in the war. And I also whish the US the best of luck in winning the peace and rebuilding their reputation.

Solops:
Thank you.

rextorres

March 23rd, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wardad:
q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.I heard that the forecast was for warm sunny weather with a 100% chance of bombs and missiles.<hr /></blockquote>You guys should be ashamed of yourselves people are dying (both american and iraqi). If your so hot for war what are you doing here!!?

Thermodyne

March 24th, 2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wardad:
q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.I heard that the forecast was for warm sunny weather with a 100% chance of bombs and missiles.<hr /></blockquote>You guys should be ashamed of yourselves people are dying (both american and iraqi). If your so hot for war what are you doing here!!?<hr /></blockquote>Talking about things, of which you have no knowledge, only makes you look stupid! Frankly, I am ashamed to be associated with someone like you! Don�t ever take the liberty of speaking about my qualifications; I assure you that I have earned the right to say what is on my mind.

rextorres

March 24th, 2003, 12:55 AM

It still doesn't change the fact that you are making idiotic jokes while people are dying - warmongers like you make me sick. Also you nothing about me . . . so YOU don't go making any assumptions. I think I would know enough that a war initiated by your AWOL president and his chicken hawks is futile.

[ March 23, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

March 24th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
It still doesn't change the fact that you are making idiotic jokes while people are dying - warmongers like you make me sick. Also you nothing about me . . . so YOU don't go making any assumptions. I think I would know enough that a war initiated by your AWOL president and his chicken hawks is futile.I reserve the right to say anything I please about Iraq. If I could trade the lives that were lost in the WTC for Saddam and everyone that supports him, I would do so gladly. I for one am joyous at the sight of Baghdad being bombed. This is long over due. You have no idea why it was not finished the first time, if you did, you would not be posting insults against a man you have never met. You don�t even have the courage and pride to post your location below your sig. As for our American son and daughters that have gone into harms way, I have only pride. And I will mourn everyone that is required to give all. I will not mourn the death of Saddam and his nation, I will take pride in the fact that America and here allies were the ones to send him and his to hell. Never in the history of man has an attack of this scale been conducted with such a small amount of injury to the general population. And we will pay a price in Allied lives for being this restrained in our bombing campaign. So when I make a light hearted post that you don�t care for, just say that I have offended you, don�t take the liberty to tell me how I should feel about it.

I have no mercy for any nation that would shoot POW�s in the head and then display their bodies on TV. These savages will get all that they have coming to them. For the first time in the better part of a decade, America has a president that was not bought and paid for with foreign cash. We have a man that knows the meaning of honor, unlike his opponent who sat in silence while his boss lied to the nation. We have a war of liberation in Iraq, and we will finish it this time. There will also be crude jokes about it, many of which I will enjoy. The fact is that I really don�t give a damn about your feelings on the issue.

rextorres

March 24th, 2003, 02:54 AM

I think your lame reply says it all. Anyone who thinks war is a good thing is evil.

Also it's typical for people to question people's patriotism when they don't support misguided policies.

Some were making fun of me for writing this quote, but you are guilty of what this quote says so I'll repeat it.

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Herman Goering

[ March 24, 2003, 01:08: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

March 24th, 2003, 03:19 AM

I really don�t think that quotes from National Socialists helps your position. Had a nation had the foresight to step on that adoration in the late 30�s the world would have been a lot better off. But the peace keepers had their say, and all but the cowards paid the price. This would be Nazi called Saddam has invaded his Last country, and had his day. His time is over whether you like it or not. I�m sure he can quote Nazi�s just like you do.

[ March 24, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

rextorres

March 24th, 2003, 03:30 AM

What position doesn't it support?

That your evil for liking war.
That your acting like a Nazi for questioning my patriotism.
Or that W was AWOL for a year in 1972.

[ March 24, 2003, 01:30: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Wardad

March 24th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Hey guys can we cool it. I never wanted a flame war.

Ok, the humor was a bit tasteless, it was also on the radio, and funny. Humor is a ligitimate way of facing concerns, especially when one feels powerless. I make fun of Bush also, but that does not make me an /enaemy of the State any more than my other joke makes me a WarMonger.

I am sorry for the loss of IRAQI lives since gulf war 1. I am sorry for the lives lost when the US encouraged rebellion failed. I understand committments were made to key coalition members and they had to be honored. It still would have been better to finish it then.

I feel honored by the behavior of our troops and the tactics of the ground war that does expose them to more harm. May God protect them.

40% of US citizens believe Sadam had helped the 9/11 terrorists. The is even some indications that Sadam intel spooks also helped with the first WTC bombing.

I will be glad when this Sadam/Iraq business is finally over. I hope the US and Iraq can pick up the pieces and get on with life.

I simply hope Bush has the sense to ignore some of the advice he is getting. I am glad we are taking care of Iraq, but I do not want it to go farther. He will not get my vote.

Thermodyne

March 24th, 2003, 03:44 AM

Rextorres,

I laugh in your face, is that the best that you can do. Evil Nazi is not a description that has ever been used to describe me. And the way you put it makes you sound like an angry child. Don�t you have the courage to come right out and state your opinion of me? I guess we know the answer to that now. And yes I do question your patriotism. I think that there is a good chance that you are nothing more than a coward sitting at a computer, spouting off from a home that is made safe by the sacrifices of others. So until you decide to add some substance to your Posts, I will ignore you, and spend my time enjoying the demise of Saddam.

[ March 24, 2003, 01:47: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Fyron

March 24th, 2003, 03:52 AM

Thermo and Rex:
Please take this squabbling to PM. No one wants to see it.

geoschmo

March 24th, 2003, 03:57 AM

This is an official warning now. This has gone way beyond a discussion of the events and is getting extremely personal. You all cool it or this thread will be lockd down.

Geoschmo

rextorres

March 24th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Rextorres,

I laugh in your face, is that the best that you can do. Evil Nazi is not a description that has ever been used to describe me. And the way you put it makes you sound like an angry child. Don’t you have the courage to come right out and state your opinion of me? I guess we know the answer to that now. And yes I do question your patriotism. I think that there is a good chance that you are nothing more than a coward sitting at a computer, spouting off from a home that is made safe by the sacrifices of others. So until you decide to add some substance to your Posts, I will ignore you, and spend my time enjoying the demise of Saddam.Thanks for confirming my points - I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Aloofi

March 24th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Wow, a flame war!

*seats in a reclinable chair and opens a popcorn bag*

CEO TROLL

March 24th, 2003, 03:41 PM

This is getting interesting...

Aloofi, do you mind passing the popcorn?

Aloofi

March 24th, 2003, 03:59 PM

Sure, here you go.
*Passes the Popcorn bowl to CEO Troll*

Hey hey, don't eat it all, you nasty pig. Give me back my popcorn!

*CEO Trolls runs away and locks himself in the bathroom with the popcorn bowl*

Open the door!!!
Give me back my popcorn or I'll bring down this damn door!!!

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2003, 04:32 PM

edited by tesco...

links removed....

[ March 24, 2003, 20:46: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

dogscoff

March 24th, 2003, 04:48 PM

I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?

Link-> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0111-07.htm

CEO TROLL

March 24th, 2003, 05:22 PM

tesco,

In the interest of fair play, could you post some links to pictures of Iraqis dead from Sadams chemical weapons? Or pictures of Iraq prisoners dieing from anthrax testing? How about some of Sadams sons torture and rape victims?

Aloofi

March 24th, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
warning very very very graphic pictures of the war, and of the brave fallen soldiers who fight it.

Do you know if they have an english site?

Aloofi

March 24th, 2003, 06:29 PM

gotta tell you, I'm tired of watching only war propaganda instead of news.
I dispise Al Jazeera for all the lies they say about Israel, but I guess I have no other place to see the pictures that have been Banned from the american media...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Link to Photo of dead soldier.
http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2003/3/23/1_146017_1_17.jpg
.
.

[ March 24, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

dogscoff

March 24th, 2003, 06:49 PM

gotta tell you, I'm tired of watching only war propaganda instead of news.
Impartial news is always hard to come by, especially in times like these. The only way to be utterly sure in situations like this is to actually go there yourself, and to be honest I think I'd rather not know than do that.

That said, I usually find the BBC to be pretty good. Their website isn't all that easy to search, but you can tune into their radio over the web if you're not in the UK to do it the old fashioned way, and they tend to show both sides of any given argument/ conflict. Most importantly, you know they're not in the pockets of some corporate or other because that's just not how they're funded. They do have links with certain political parties at the higher levels, but I honestly don't think that influence filters down very far into the news reporting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Edit: Thinking about it, there's nothing wrong with biaseed news coverage as long as (a) you can find some equally biased piece leaning in the opposite direction and (b) the reporter follows rules of good journalism and doesn't lie/ distort the facts becasue of their bias.

Also aloofi, I find it odd that such images are Banned in america. After all, you can go down the cinema any time and see ten times as many soldiers killed with a hundred times the gore. I often find Americans very hard to understand for this sort of contradiction.
That said, we're hardly any different these days here in the UK of A.

[ March 24, 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Aloofi

March 24th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QUOTE]

Also aloofi, I find it odd that such images are Banned in america. After all, you can go down the cinema any time and see ten times as many soldiers killed with a hundred times the gore. I often find Americans very hard to understand for this sort of contradiction.
.The problems is that we all know that movies are faked, is just acting. Now the real thing would definitively upset the mayority of americans.
Anyway, i don't consider myself american, even though both my parents are, cause i was born and raised oversea, in the land of milk and honey http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , but I've been living back in the US for a while and I can tell you, the yanks are anything but tough, they just like violent movies, like I do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

geoschmo

March 24th, 2003, 07:19 PM

Aloofi,

I have edited your post. I changed your image to a link. I agree with your desire for unbiased, and even unedited news coverage. But this isn't CNN, this is a discussion forum. Their may be people here that would be offended by such graphic scenes. By displaying the image openly with no warning you do not give them the choice of whetther they wish to see it or not. In the future link to your photo's and give a description please.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2003, 07:29 PM

Dogscoff the post was not ment to be an anti-american stance. Just a reminder to all that war is brutish and that its results are very horrible.

tbontob

March 24th, 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Aloofi,

I have edited your post. I changed your image to a link. I agree with your desire for unbiased, and even unedited news coverage. But this isn't CNN, this is a discussion forum. Their may be people here that would be offended by such graphic scenes. By displaying the image openly with no warning you do not give them the choice of whetther they wish to see it or not. In the future link to your photo's and give a description please.

GeoschmoAs much as I dislike censorship, I have to agree which Geoschmo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A link would still allow full expression while preserving the sensibilities of the people who may not like being subjugated to extraneous stuff without their consent.

geoschmo

March 24th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
As much as I dislike censorship, I have to agree which Geoschmo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A link would still allow full expression while preserving the sensibilities of the people who may not like being subjugated to extraneous stuff without their consent.I hope no one views what I did as censorship. I left the link to the photo. Anyone that wishes to see it can click on it.

Geoschmo

Fyron

March 24th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Dogscoff the post was not ment to be an anti-american stance. Just a reminder to all that war is brutish and that its results are very horrible.But less horrible than leaving Saddam in power.

Baron Munchausen

March 24th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?

Link-> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0111-07.htmYes, the treatment of Taliban/Al Qaedi prisoners is just one of the many contradictions between US policy and what the US expects of others.

If they're really interested in 'world peace' why won't they join the international court? Are the troops currently invading Iraq the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining this important cornerstone of international order?

An even better question, of course, is whether the forces supported by Oliver North/John Poindexter are an example of the sort of 'peace keepers' they want to protect by not joining the court treaty. The US repeatedly lost to Nicaragua's complaint at the existing 'World Court' in the Hague during the illegal proxy war on Nicaragua in the 80s -- and so claimed the court did not have 'jurisdiction' over the conflict. What world is Nicaragua in if it's not in this world?

North and Poindexter are war criminals by any rational definition of the term, and morally identical to Osama Bin Laden. They payed for at least as many deaths as Osama has to date, but the bodies were not economically valuable like those high-powered executives in the WTC. This is why they won't join the court. The US govt. thinks its own terrorists are 'heros' and doesn't want its 'heros' prosecuted as the criminals they are.

And why do they whine that Russia is not respecting UN resolutions when it (reportedly) gives GPS jamming technology to Iraq, when the US doesn't respect UN resolutions either? The original Gulf War resolutions explicitly said that Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait and that the object was NOT to over-throw the Iraqi government. Yet the US is claiming these resolutions, and the newer 1441 which deals only with 'weapons of mass destruction', as authority to force 'regime change' in Iraq. The US can violate UN resolutions in order to enforce UN resolutions? So does the UN have authority or not? Or does the UN only have authority over nations other than the US? Or only when it agrees with the US?

Now Turkey is talking about sending its troops into northern Iraq, or might already have done so. The US of course, doesn't want them to do this. So just what is the US going to do about it? Complain to the UN? How is Turkey less 'authorized' to invade Iraq than the US? I'll be damned amused if they try to get any UN resolutions against Turkey for 'protecting its national interests' on its own borders when the US claims the right to protect its national intertests anywhere in the world. So what does that leave them? Apparently threats of force. Will US forces attack Turkish forces if they are outside Turkey? This is the world GWB has created. Might makes right and the bigger gun is 'more right' than the smaller.

The same thing goes on with domestic politics. The Federal govt. constantly bullies the states by threatening to cut off funds for various things if they don't pass laws to suit the Feds wishes, completely over-riding the supposed seperation of the layers of government provided in the constitution.

In 'response' to the total incompetance of our law enforcement and intelligence communites to prevent the WTC attacks they have passed new laws to make it possible to law enforcement to rummage through your personal affairs at will -- without legal protocols -- and have been arresting even American citizens and holding them without charge or access to legal council. Most recently a draft of another outrage has surfaced where secret arrests are authorized, apparently to avoid the inconvenience of having to defend their actions in court when people find out that someone has been 'disappeared'. Presumably this will have to include some legal sanction against people who dare to reveal that someone they know has been arrested, else it cannot remain secret for long. It was speculated that this was to be submitted in the midst of the war to take advantage of 'patritoism' to intimidate the opposition. Fortunately it doesn't look like the opposition is going to slink away this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try to pass their new powers.

The US Govt. is a monster out of control.

[ March 24, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Sinapus

March 24th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I hear the US is complaining about Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war. How can they demand that Saddam respect the Geneva Convetnion when they won't even do it themselves?
Probably because you can't tell the difference between soldiers and brigands. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Judging from the treatment of Iraqi soldiers who are now POWs, I'd say the US and British militaries can tell the difference. Well, except when some of Saddam's thugs open fire under a flag of surrender. Oh, but you have a handy excuse for that as well, right?

Elsewhere:

Also aloofi, I find it odd that such images are Banned in america. After all, you can go down the cinema any time and see ten times as many soldiers killed with a hundred times the gore.


Except the "gore" in the cinema involves special effects and the actors in question are usually still alive when the scene is finished. But don't let facts get in the way of your posturing.

I often find Americans very hard to understand for this sort of contradiction.


It's a matter of letting the families be informed if a loved one has been killed in action before they run into it on the nightly news and see the corpse.

AFAIK, the images aren't "Banned" but the networks are reluctant to show such things due to the above. Or if it was Banned, why was FoxNews able to show a still of the bodies from the Al-jazeera footage? One where the faces are not clearly visible, btw.

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Sorry to bring this up... But I believe that even the links to the pictures may be illegal since this server is based in the USA. A few sites have been shut down showing and displaying the links so I am going to edit my post and remove the links from below. I ask that Aloofi and others who have the links in the previous Posts do so as well. We would not like to see shrapnel shut down for inappropriate graphic material. I apolgize to Shrapnel and its members for posting the links in the first place. Tesco.

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2003, 10:50 PM

here are some blogs i use for information as it comes in...

http://www.agonist.org/

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://warblogs.cc/
as always read everything with a grain of salt.

[ March 24, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

jimbob

March 24th, 2003, 11:51 PM

Tesco:
check private message.

tbontob

March 25th, 2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
As much as I dislike censorship, I have to agree which Geoschmo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A link would still allow full expression while preserving the sensibilities of the people who may not like being subjugated to extraneous stuff without their consent.I hope no one views what I did as censorship. I left the link to the photo. Anyone that wishes to see it can click on it.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Geoschmo. It would appear that the word "censorship" has a somewhat negative press.

A lot of people interpret it as being bad.

I was using it in its broadest sense...where anyone limits or restricts an act or verbal expression of another, however small.

The picture may be appropriate at a gun forum, but not at this site.

I had no intent and certainly no desire to give the impression you were somehow wrong in what you did.

I applaud your actions.

Phoenix-D

March 25th, 2003, 12:39 AM

"The original Gulf War resolutions explicitly said that Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait and that the object was NOT to over-throw the Iraqi government. Yet the US is claiming these resolutions, and the newer 1441 which deals only with 'weapons of mass destruction', as authority to force 'regime change' in Iraq."

Those would be the same resolutions putting the sanctions in effect? The way I see it, he agreed to a cease-fire with certain terms. If he violates those terms, the cease-fire is no longer in effect.

Phoenix-D

DavidG

March 25th, 2003, 12:40 AM

MegaTrain

March 25th, 2003, 12:50 AM

To those who still hold to the position "No WAR for OIL" or "Stop Bombing the Iraqi people",

I urge you to consider the following article carefully:
Link: I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html)
A powerful first-person report of the true condition of the population of Iraq, and the opinion of its people.

Mephisto

March 25th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
[QUOTE]I think there is a world of difference between restricting prisoners access to a lawyer and taking then into a room, shooting them in the head and then showing the pictures on national TV.It is still unconfirmed that any POW were shoot. The video does not suggest that they were shoot in the room itself. Until there is more reliable info we should be careful with our judgement.

DavidG

March 25th, 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
[QUOTE]I think there is a world of difference between restricting prisoners access to a lawyer and taking then into a room, shooting them in the head and then showing the pictures on national TV.It is still unconfirmed that any POW were shoot. The video does not suggest that they were shoot in the room itself. Until there is more reliable info we should be careful with our judgement.<hr /></blockquote>Well maybe we saw different pictures but a bullet wound dead centre in the forehead and and a soldier lying on the floor in a pool of blood is highly suggestive of an execution to me.

Suicide Junkie

March 25th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Are there any stats for the number of deaths occuring in Iraq before, compared to now?

Andr�s

March 25th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Why do you insist that anyone that doesn't support this war is pro-Saddam?

I've found many similarities between Saddam's regime and the military dictatorship we had here in Argentina not so long ago. So I think I have an idea of how Iraqis feel.

Yes most Iraqis are against Saddam and would like to change the regime.
But they don't want to be bombed and invaded either.
Now not only they fear Saddam but also fear Americans.
When you have to choose between a foreign potency that is bombing and invading your cities and a local dictator backed up by local propaganda many will help to repel the invaders.

The US doesn't care about human rights, and as some have posted before Americans have done very little to support democracies around the world. Links to 9-11 are vague and inconsistent.
This war is about oil, about consolidating a new pro-American world order, about American economy, about the strong threatening the weak.

BTW the so feared WMD haven't been found yet what strongly suggest they never existed.

geoschmo

March 25th, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
BTW the so feared WMD haven't been found yet what strongly suggest they never existed.Actually this suggests nothing of the sort. The Iraqi's would be expected to have any such faciliites close to Bagdad in areas that are still very much hostile at the moment. The coalition forces are a little busy at the moment to be going around rounding up the WMD. There will be time for that later.

Not to mention the jury is still very much out on the chemical plant that was found outside of Najaf. That plant is just a little too unusual to be brushed aside. Latest press reports are that "nothing has been found", but what the coalition is really saying is "we aren't saying we found anything". That is a big difference that may be lost on the press. We've only been at the plant for a little over 24 hours. Not really had time to bring in the experts and the detailed equipment. There are a lot of questions that need answered about the facility.

It's very likely that if we did find anything there or anywhere else at this point we would not be trumpeting the fact loudly. The biggest deterant to Sadaam (assuming he's still around) using the WMD's is that it would remove any sort of world opinion from his side. If nothing else he is a survivor and he is counting on that opinion to somehow bring a halt to the war before it's too late for him. If we broadcast the exsistance of a smoking gun at this point he loses what little credibility he has remaining, and most of his incentive not to order their use.

On the other hand, we don't particularly need the world opinion to radically shift to continue the war so we don't really have a strong incentive to expose any evidence this early.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

March 25th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Leaks are beginning to show that the intercepts of 24 march (local) contained orders giving local commanders control of the �special� weapons. I think we could see limited use in the next 24 hours. I can only hope that the response will be so horrific that the Iraqi�s will hesitate to use them again. Published doctrine would call for a tactical device, but I doubt we would go that far. I would think that we would begin to use fuel air devices on the RG�s positions.

DavidG

March 25th, 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Why do you insist that anyone that doesn't support this war is pro-Saddam?
I don't think anyone has insisted this in this thread but since you asked if you post things like "The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound." this sort of implies that you don't think Saddam is a bad guy. Or when you post things like "Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs." you imply that those 5000 gassed Kurds were evil villains trying to steal Saddams oil.

[ March 25, 2003, 03:02: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Krsqk

March 25th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Are there any stats for the number of deaths occuring in Iraq before, compared to now?Best I remember was ~20000/month. Sorry I don't have a link; just going by memory right now.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 07:09 AM

IT is an interesting tatic that the coliliton is using.

I see that they have linked up and blocked the south off....

Did anyone watch BBC on Sat night 1 am eastern standard time.... I was glued to the seat watching a 3 hour long fire fight ( they showed every minute of it.... )

I am also surprised that they have been using the Apahce's against fixed positions. Interesting. I feel that this is a doctrine flaw in a mobile weapon.

phaet2112

March 25th, 2003, 07:13 AM

One question I had is how bad are WMD when countries regularly use napalm, depleted uranium that aerosolizes *still radioactive* uranium to get into the lungs of soldiers (just because it's "depleted" only means it isn't useful for nuclear reactors anymore...not that it's not incredibly hot...isnt this gulf war syndrome?), and the new bombs that spray the incindiary mist that ignites, and sucks the air out of people's lungs due to the pressure differential (causing suffocation) as the oxygen burns up in an instant. Is that so much better than mustard gas? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
It is terrible that there are so many different ways to kill people.

Askan Nightbringer

March 25th, 2003, 08:38 AM

The amount of spin being generated and then quoted is quite staggering at the moment. Its like everybody suddenly forgot what the first casualty of war is.

I remember in the first gulf war when the world was awed of the Patriot missiles, and the way they shot down Scuds. Several years later I saw a US miltary commander say the Patriots didn't account for a single Scud, that the whole thing was to give the impression that Israel was in no real danger so they would not worsen the conflict by entering it.

I also remember the Kosovo/Serbia conflict. An Australian aid worker had been captured by the Serbs and was accused of being a NATO spy. This was of course denied by the west, and Malcom Fraser (an ex Australian Prime Minister) travelled to Yugoslavia and negotiated the release. When the aid worker was safely back in Sydney, Fraser admitted that the worker had been caught with maps where he was marking the location of Serbian troops. Yet during the whole incident the media was making out it was Serbian propaganda.

Now as both sides seem to have access to some media the amount of utter sh!t spouting out from both sides is staggering. The pro-Iraqi claims are dismissed until hard evidence turns up, the pro-Coalition claims are set as fact until disproven. Then I can go to an Arab news site and the opposite is true.
Either all journalists are morons or they all slant their work based on their chosen team or that just repeat what "leaked" documents and "unidentified" military officals are saying.

I'm not going to believe anything for at least another five years, cause thats how long it'll take for any truth to come out.

Askan

PsychoTechFreak

March 25th, 2003, 09:55 AM

iraq war checklist (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bliraqchecklist.htm)

dogscoff

March 25th, 2003, 11:27 AM

I think there is a world of difference between restricting prisoners access to a lawyer and taking then into a room, shooting them in the head and then showing the pictures on national TV.
Well, for one thing, the only proven breach of the geneva convention so far by Iraq is the broadcasting of P.O.W. images. I'm sure other crimes will come to light, but my point is that the US is demanding that Iraq adhere to the Geneva Convention when the US does not do so itself. It's called hypocrisy, and the US is not doing itself any favours if it wants to be seen as the "good guys" in this conflict.

EDIT: The US still has not given any guarantee that they won't simply "try" their camp Xray prisoners in a kangaroo military court with no legal representation and no appeal, and then find them guilty and execute them. And that's just a drawn out, sanitised Version of taking them into a room and shooting them dead.

And before you say that's impossible, it's not. It's one of the options they are considering. The refusal so far to give them legal counsel certainly does not bode well for a fair trial in the future. And before you say it's no more than they deserve for organising 9/11, that's bull****. Human rights apply to all humans, and it would be wrong to punish anyone for 9/11 until they have been properly tried and found guilty.

But once again, George W proves that he is nothing more than a cheap bully who only cares about getting his own way.

As for my comments about the images of war: I wanted to point out that depicting graphic and realistic bloody death as entertainment loses some of its appeal when contrasted with the real thing.

[ March 25, 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

geoschmo

March 25th, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?
Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different?

Geoschmo

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QUOTE]
But once again, George W proves that he is nothing more than a cheap bully who only cares about getting his own way.

.Yeah, I voted for Al Gore, like the mayority of american citizens, but this bastard stole his presidency with the help of his corporate buddies.

.

Askan Nightbringer

March 25th, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Some1:
Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?
Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different?

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>I may have agreed with you here a couple of years ago but at the moment I have my doubts. Its difficult for me to be sure, as I really don't understand what happens in South America as much as I'de like to, but the goings on in Venezuela seem to to have some US involvement.

Askan

Some1

March 25th, 2003, 03:41 PM

Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different? A lot IMO. the US has to many interests in the region (Oil for example), to be it not US friendly.

And another thing, a democratic regime is in no way a stable regime. I just can't see with all the goodwill in the world, the US want that.

i take an example: the US:
first we have a regime that wants to destroy nuclear weapons in the world.(and its own weapons)
4 years later we have a regime that cancels the treaty and produces even more WMD.
And this was just an example, every democracy is like that. (not only USA)

And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?
So, does that mean that only US supporters can have WMD?

And Last, there were no ties proven with terrorist organisations. And its also very objective, US is known to support everyone in their cause, also terrorists... ally to you is terrorist to another.

R.

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?

R.The Israeli Nuclear Program was and still is the best keeped secret in the world. What is known was "leaked" to deter the Arabs from launching a conventional or unconventional war against Israel. That's why Israel keep a "triada" defense system (Missiles, planes and subs), to make sure that if one or two of the defense systems are destroyed the rest can still fire back. The way is seen in Israel is that without nukes Israel would have had been overrun by Arabs already, and the jewish population exterminated like the Arabs leaders have promised to their people and as the Arab propaganda machine have been putting in their people minds since the creation of the Jewish State. For Israel nukes are a question of survival.

But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them.

Askan Nightbringer

March 25th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?
So, does that mean that only US supporters can have WMD?
Well at the end of the day its almost impossible to stop the profileration of WMDs to the governments that really want them.
Its more of a question about domestic politics and international pressure, with international pressure only going so far.
For example, Indonesia could build them if they wanted to. Australia could easily do it, in fact our chief scientist during the 60s was a huge supporter of chemical, bioligical and nuclear weapons (none of which were -ve words back then). We even starting building a reactor capable of making weapons grade fissile material, but after the foundation was layed it was abandonded because of lack of support in the domestic politics of the day (change of government).

Askan

PsychoTechFreak

March 25th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Axis of Evil

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the 'Axis of Evil', Libya, China and Syria today announced they had formed the 'Axis of Just As Evil', which they said would be 'eviller than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union Address.' Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really silly name.

'Oh, right. They are just as evil, are they? In their dreams!' declared North Korean leader Kim Jongle. 'Everybody knows we're the best at being evil... we're the tops.'

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they had asked if they could join the Axis of Evil.

'They told us it was full,' said Syrian President Basher Assad.

'An Axis can't have more than three countries,' explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 'This is tradition. In World War II there were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three.'

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift. Within minutes, France unilaterally surrendered to everybody.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical musical chairs. Rhodesia, Sudan and Serbia said they had formed the 'Axis of Truly Evil'.

Somalia joined with Cuba and Burma in the 'Axis of Occasionally Evil', while South Africa, Indonesia and Russia established the 'Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Bloody Unpleasant'.

With the criteria suddenly expanding and all the desirable clubs filling up, Turkey, El Salvador and Rwanda applied to be called the 'Axis of Countries That Aren't That Bad But Certainly Won't Ever Be Asked To Host the Olympics.'

The European Union announced a twelve-strong 'Axis of Nations That Pretend To Be Quite Nice But In Fact Hate America.'

France, Israel and Belgium formed the 'Axis of Countries Who Won't Complain About The Axis of Evil Because We Have Weapons To Sell Them.'

--------------------------------------------------

President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?"

The barman says, "Yep, that's them."

So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III ".

And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one blonde with big tits.

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?

Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ***, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 04:59 PM

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?

Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ***, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!" Hehe, this is the funniest joke of the week. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

DavidG

March 25th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
And Last, there were no ties proven with terrorist organisations. Is it not a public Iraqi policy to give money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Sounds like a ties to me.

Andr�s

March 25th, 2003, 05:35 PM

I don't think anyone has insisted this in this thread but since you asked if you post things like "The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound." this sort of implies that you don't think Saddam is a bad guy. Or when you post things like "Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs." you imply that those 5000 gassed Kurds were evil villains trying to steal Saddams oil. I still think that most accusations against Saddam are biased and exaggerated. In every war there�s a need to demonize your enemy to legitimate your position.
I�m not saying he�s a good guy, or that I�d like to live under his regime. But no dictator Lasts that long if he doesn�t count with some support from his people.
Kurds were seen as seditious traitors to the country and fighting them was a way to show the loyal Iraqis they were protecting them. How�s that different than bombing Iraqis to �protect� Americans?
Also don�t Americans agree that Kurds have no right to fight for their independence?

phaet2112

March 25th, 2003, 05:37 PM

But palestinians attacking israel doesn't affect us, it affects israelies. With israeli firepower, there is no excuse for us to fight their battles. As usual, if you wanted to target the real criminals who fund terrorist attacks *against the US* then you target the financiers in saudi arabia, not iraq.

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 05:53 PM

This from Reuters:

Reuters web page (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=WPXYVL0R2NXOSCRBAEOCF FA?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2443696)

Tue March 25, 2003 08:22 AM ET

By Luke Baker
NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces are finding it only takes a handful of guerrillas to unnerve a fighting force. Sometimes, just shadows in the night will do.

"Up, up, up," sentries screamed as they ran through a dusty engineers' camp at dead of night. "We're on 100 percent security."

That meant: everyone to defensive positions at the camp near Najaf in central Iraq -- everyone, rather than the one in four already ordered to stay up all night to watch for danger.

Soldiers who had been slumped over steering wheels, lying on the ground or on top of vehicles -- sleeping, or desperately trying to -- raced to man the artificial earth mounds, up to 15 feet high, that ring the desert camp.

A score of militants armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were prowling the area less than half a mile away, scouts had reported.

Some of the 200 soldiers here have already seen the hit-and-run raids by small militia Groups, some in civilian dress, which have emerged as a key Iraqi tactic in the 6-day-old war.

Danger now looms everywhere, not just in obvious armed formations. Troops are on edge and are taking no chances -- but that brings its own risk. Fear and nerves might wear them down, depriving them of sleep and dulling their responses.

For four hours, from midnight until before dawn, they waited, squinting in the hazy, faint moonlight to detect anything suspicious moving through the sand whipped up by strong winds.

In the end, it was a false alarm. Had someone panicked by calling out the whole camp?

"We have got to be careful and make sure we respond properly to our intelligence, that we don't overreact," Lt. Col. Paul Grosskruger, commander of the 94th Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division, told his officers.

ANYTHING MOVING IS A THREAT

Scouts no longer look for obvious armed units but for a threat from any quarter, and anything that moves in the desert scrub and the shabby irrigated fields is potentially hostile.

Soldiers were up much of the night and were left exhausted, meaning missions ended up being delayed the next day.

"This is the sort of thing that terrifies me. Your adrenaline starts pumping but you are tired and you are scared and you can't get back to sleep," soldier James Canaday, 22, from Oklahoma City, said as he returned from guard duty.

Commanders are trying to find the balance between complacency and being alert to a very real danger.

In the past 48 hours, U.S. forces around Najaf, about 90 miles south of Baghdad, have faced sniper attacks, assaults by small militant bands using mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and false surrenders that turn into attacks.

"It puts everyone on edge," Grosskruger said.

"It's a tactic that can take its toll on soldiers. You have to stay alert and awake all the time, and you're always worried that the threat is there," said Lt. Mark Pietrak of the 535th Engineers Company.

He said he and a group of soldiers went only a few miles from camp on Sunday evening to find water. A grenade was thrown at their vehicles and they had to take cover in the scrub. It was eight hours before they got back.

Farmers, goatherds and other civilians cautiously watch the invading forces from the fields or from brick hovels, sometimes crowding round their vehicles begging. That now scares soldiers, many of whom had expected a heroes' welcome.

geoschmo

March 25th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
I still think that most accusations against Saddam are biased and exaggerated. In every war there’s a need to demonize your enemy to legitimate your position.
I’m not saying he’s a good guy, or that I’d like to live under his regime. But no dictator Lasts that long if he doesn’t count with some support from his people.
Kurds were seen as seditious traitors to the country and fighting them was a way to show the loyal Iraqis they were protecting them. How’s that different than bombing Iraqis to “protect” Americans?
Also don’t Americans agree that Kurds have no right to fight for their independence?Andr&eacutes, the case against Sadaam is anything but wartime propoganda. If anything, he is worse than we know or will admit, because doing so makes us look all the worse for doing business with him all those years.

The official administration opinion is against an independant Kurdistan. The hope is for free, democratic Iraqi that represents the interests of all the various ethnic Groups. Admitadly, it is a lofty goal.

Geoschmo

Some1

March 25th, 2003, 06:08 PM

But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them.Only 1 country has used them (Russia and china, how "evil" we thought they were never even did), anyway agree a little with you, but i think without them they would be "fine" to, the first 20 years were a lot more hostile and they survived. When a country has them, it makes them "the Law" because who would dare to oppose them? But i think i make this OT topic even more OT.

For example, Indonesia could build them if they wanted to. Australia could easily do it, in fact our chief scientist during the 60s was a huge supporter of chemical, bioligical and nuclear weapons (none of which were -ve words back then). We even starting building a reactor capable of making weapons grade fissile material, but after the foundation was layed it was abandonded because of lack of support in the domestic politics of the day (change of government).Yep, but i think that the USA would be very angry when Indonesia would get them. And when australia get them, they would not even mind it. Not that indonesia would use them, its just:" You are our friend, you can research them, you ain't, stop or we'll.....".

Is it not a public Iraqi policy to give money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Sounds like a ties to me.As i said, USA supports terrorists too. So are we morally superiour that our "terrorists" are good and they are bad??... Our terrorists kill a lot of people to, but they just won't get they 8 o'clock news and their terrorists do.

Its in the eye of the beholder, to one they are "freedom-fighters" to the other they are terrorists.

R.

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 06:20 PM

but i think without nukes they would be "fine" to, the first 20 years were a lot more hostile and they survived.What was that?
20/20 hinsight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes!

You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War)

So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish.

solops

March 25th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
[QB
Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?

Im just curious what everyone thinks.

R.

p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.[/QB]Well, personally, I think the entire region would be much happier as part of the great Republic of Texas. Unfortunately, they are 158 years and one war between the states too late. Sigh....timing is everything.

jimbob

March 25th, 2003, 07:33 PM

Posted by Some1:
p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

But it isn't like the USA could afford to sit in Kuwait with 250,000+ troops for ever - that's a lot of mouths to feed, that's a lot of resources/money! And sitting in the middle east with 250k+ soldiers is a diplomatic nightmare, so it's a no win situation... vocal Arabs will be mad if the US invades Iraq, but they'll be mad if the US is even just present in the middle east. When it was the UN forces with US troops amongst them, it was the same catch-22.

So what is the solution? It's fine to be against war. I'm definitely against war. Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer short of the second coming (and I'm pretty sure "Dubbya" doesn't have that much authority http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Please, tell me, what could have been done instead? If you can give me an answer, I'll go on a peace march. Until then, I have no choice but to support this war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ March 25, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Master Belisarius

March 25th, 2003, 07:36 PM

Well, I dislike the endless discussions, specially when feel that have no opportunity to change the mind of the other person(s). This is the main reason, because I mostly ignored this topic.
Anyway, today feel myself more cynical than other days, and will post some of my thoughts... is somewhat long, then, you could ignore this post and I'll be fine!

Some things I consider Facts.
=============================

a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal.
Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food?

b) From the times of the first civilizations to our days, the WAR always was with us, and will be here until the extinction of the mankind.
Examples? The list of wars would be endless... and think does not exist evidence that would finish some day.

c) A country doesn't need "good" reasons to invade / attack other country.
Of course that doesn't need a good excuse, because a bad one would work fine.
The ONLY what a nation need, is enough POWER (it mean money, technology, army, political alliances, etc) to carry out the attack and resist the international pressures or counter attacks.
Somebody could object that in the western democracies of our times, the crowd need a "good reason", my point is that the mass of people can be manipulated just clicking the right "buttons".

d) The Moral has little to be with the International Relations.
Is pretty obvious that the moral issues are pointless when we talk about international relations.
From Machiavelli to our days, everybody know that the "raisons du �tat" are more strong than any moral objection.
Example: If you kill somebody driving while you're drunk, probably you will go to the jail... but nobody will go to the jail, if a missile kill civilian people (yea, everybody know that the "colateral damage" can't be avoided!). Well, I admit that if a country lose a war the persons involved with "collateral damage" can be judged as a criminals... but remember: ONLY the losers are criminals!
Example 2: somebody has doubts that a free country committed with the democracy as USA, used the CIA to change democratic governments for dictatorships, just because those new governments would be pro-USA? It happened in my own country and in most of the South America countries during the 70s. USA did not this because is evil... did it because considered that was the best to server their purposes.

e) To live in peace, a nation need to be prepared to fight or at least have powerful allies.
This is old like the life: the big fish eat the small fish...
Objections?

f) In terms of power, USA is the Roman Empire of our times. Is the first power in the world, and doesn't exist a 2nd power.
Don't think somebody could object this.

Have USA the right to Invade Iraq?
==================================
Based on the "facts" I wrote above, is pretty obvious to me, that USA have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT!) to invade Iraq and attack / invade every other country that could be considered a target or menace. If USA could use the UN as shield to carry out his actions, yes, would be better for USA try to keep an appearance of legality , but if not... what the hell!!

What I dislike
==============
I think in some way, USA try to justify his acts with some hypocrisy... but of course that my stupid objections are pure BullS###t considering the "fact" c).
Here some of the published reasons, and my opinions (irrelevant opinions!).

1) "Operation Iraqui Freedom" think is a bad name... sounds a bad joke to me. They had free elections and Saddam got all the votes!!!
Yes, Saddam is a tyrant, a sanguinary one, and so what?
If the goal of this war, is release the people of Iraq, then, why Bush father didn't removed Saddam after the first war in the gulf? Why nobody helped the Kurdish and Shiites that started revolts against Saddam after the first war in the gulf? And finally, as others wrote here, USA have/had many tyrants as allies, and it not mean that USA will invade those countries to release the local population (well, Panama was an exception!).

2) Because Iraq is a menace to USA.
Still I want to know how Iraq could hurt USA.
Using Scuds? With those old 60's missiles?
With anthrax or Chemicals? Then, how they could spread it to cause enough damage?
With those old rusky tanks?
Using Nukes? hehehe, although somebody would decide to use it some day, everybody knows the reprisals after an attack against USA (do you remember Afghanistan?).
Yes, I think that Saddam was (and I'm saying was, because has not many days to live) a menace for his people and for his neighbors, agree. But for USA? Remember to me the Grand Fenwick!

N.Korea claim to have Nukes that could use in "preventive attacks"... and can bet 100 to 1, to everybody want on this board, that the US marines will not put their foots in NK.

3) Because Saddam have links with Al-Quaida, and probably helped to do the 9/11 attack.
The arguments to support this, that I was able to read/hear seems very weak to me, honestly.
And although both have common enemies, Saddam is an heretic for Ossama just a bit better than the "Great Satan"

4) Because Iraq has not filled the UN resolutions and still had WMD.
A good reason... but the question is that the UN decided to continue with the inspections instead to authorize a new attack against Iraq. This is related with the next argument:

5) USA doesn't need to have a new UN resolution, because still they're at war from 1991, due Iraq doesn't filled the conditions to sign the peace.
Then I ask, why so many words so many pressures to get the enough votes in the UN, to authorize a new attack?

What Think are the probably Reasons for this war
================================================
The polls in most the world, show that the people doesn't agree with this war. Only in USA is popular and think I know the reason: the 9/11. IMHO this is the clue.
First all, think the "hawks" in the Pentagon / White House, used the 9/11 to move the machine war and get the strength to impose the "preventive doctrine".
Second, specifically about the reasons of this war:
1) The Oil of course. Is not a secret that Iraq is an strategic place and have one of the biggest reserves of "crude". Is not a secret that "to save Kwait" was not the main reason to save them from Saddam in the frist war in the gulf.
2) To show to other enemies what USA can do if a country have an hostile attitude... and show that support the terrorism against USA will involve a great danger.
3) Bush need to show to his country, that the crusade against the Terrorism, "The War on Terror", has not finished and he will fulfill their promises to annihilate the terrorism.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 07:47 PM

From the NY TIMES... Interesting article

Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

y and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry � with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has Banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious � and widely hated � for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel � which became a giant only in the Last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership � to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians � by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 08:01 PM

Perhaps the best hope of a swift resolution between the warring sides would be some sort of "peace deal" that would allow both sides to save face.

Saudi Arabia, according to the Agonist, is floating such a proposal. No details have been released, and none of the major media outlets had run stories, but Riyadh was supposedly still waiting to hear back from the two respective capitals (DC and Baghdad -- Bush's lackeys in London get no respect).

Problem is, I can't imagine a scenario in which Bush could halt the war and still "save face". Indeed, this war was predicated in large part to the argument that withdrawing US forces massed in the Gulf region without utilizing them would be "losing face". Any resolution to this conflict that would leave Saddam in power would be clearly unacceptable to Bush.

But, how about this: Saddam steps down and takes exile in Bahrain (which has graciously offered). A government of "national unity" takes control, with no (or token) representation from the Baath Party. This new government promises a full accounting of Iraq's WMD program.

In return, the US must withdraw all forces from Iraq.

Would Bush agree to this? If he didn't, it would be conclusive proof that the US isn't there for freedom, democracy, or any of that other bull (otherwise, why is Uzbekistan listed in the "coalition of the willing"?), but for military domination of a vital economic and strategic region.

Hopefully we'll hear more about this Peace Plan soon.

taken from http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002143.html

An Interesting question. I would like to dicuss it.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 08:09 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

an interesting article about the prisoners and the Taliban prisoners...

DavidG

March 25th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Another well written post jimbob. I couldn't agree more.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Has anyone read

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts
Publishing House, February 1999)

Aloofi

March 25th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Has anyone read

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts
Publishing House, February 1999)Give us a link!
Sounds interesting......

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 10:21 PM

google Unrestricted Warfare pdf

you will find it

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2003, 10:33 PM

A random quote from the net....

repost:

interesting thought:

first the war was "a war on terrorism" because of the 9-1-1 attack (completely unrelated to iraq)

after we found no proof of that, it became a war "because iraq has weapons of mass destruction" (which was also unfounded to date)

finally after no proof of either one of those was found...it became our duty to free the iraqi people.

free them from what? and by bombing them?

does anyone know why we are at war right now...the REAL reason?

i am reminded why every time i head to the gas station to re-fuel my vehicle so that my capatolist goverment will survive one more day.
it's only a matter of time before this all comes crashing down around us anyway, why are we wasting the time and energy?

if anyone feels that this is unfounded, please convince me otherwise. my confidence and trust in my own government has been greatly swayed by the lies and propaganda that indended to grab my support. when will they stop treating us all like children the night before christmas, and tell us the truth for once. chances are, i am going to support the truth (regardless of right/wrong issues) before i will support lies. anyone else feel the same way?

if our governement were to say..."hey...we need the oil...and war is good for the economy"...i don't have to agree with it to support it. it's called "united we stand...devided we fall".

...the only true freedom lies in truth.

Posted by curiousgeorge at March 25, 2003 02:23 PM

Bah I post too much here....

Anyways my Posts feel like the CBC.... Damm...

Hunkpapa

March 25th, 2003, 10:36 PM

Unrestricted Warefare link...

http://www.parrhesia.com/cryptome/cuw.htm

primitive

March 25th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by jimbob:
Posted by Some1:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

<hr /></blockquote>I have some trouble understanding the logic here.

When you use "threat of force" to get someone (Saddam) to comply with your wishes. Shouldn't you then choose not to use the actual force when he complies.

Doesn't attacking anyway ruin the "threat of force" as a weapon in the future, as it now will be obvious for all bad-guys that him complying or not will have no influx on the decission to use that force ?

phaet2112

March 25th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Re: tesco

The thing is, the scenario where saddam must exit iraq is lose/lose for him. There is no provision he can take his country back if they find no wmd (would anyone believe anti-saddam people saying "hey we found some wmd"? Do I believe my US govt if they say "hey we found some wmd?" Not really...I believe the embedded journalists, and I bet the govt is kicking itself for embedding them...maybe Id believe the international community running the country, but then no one wants to do that, cause it isnt in the UN charter. I believed Hans Blix, but he had no time...) and there is no guarentee that the US wouldnt try to extradite or somehow *still* go after Saddam after he is flushed out of baghdad.

If I were saddam, Id cling to power as long as possible and hope world pressure builds enough force to stop the war before it kills me. Otherwise, Id probably die in the bunker, and not use WMD (Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization")

[ March 25, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

Phoenix-D

March 25th, 2003, 11:52 PM

"(Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization")"

This would be slightly more relevent if he hadn't already done so (though IMO calling most chem weapons WMD is pushing things a bit)

Phoenix-D

Krsqk

March 26th, 2003, 02:13 AM

RE: the NY Times "Rally for America" article.

The original idea did not come from ClearChannel, but from a morning talk host at a Dallas-Fort Worth AM station. ClearChannel talk show host Glenn Beck picked up on it and began organizing rallies in 3 to 4 major population centers distributed fairly evenly around the country. Interest shot through the roof, as listeners began pestering their local channels to host their own rallies or to arrange transport to one of Beck's rallies. Beck has since organized around 15 or 20 rallies, with dozens more held around the country by local stations, including one here in Orlando (not all ClearChannel stations). Most recently, a 16-year old girl in Minnesota organized her own rally, held this Last Saturday, to which 3500 people came (in mid-March in Minnesota). Over 100,000 have attended rallies with Beck, and no one has estimates on total national attendance. Beck is currently considering one final rally in the nation's capital.

It is interesting that the Times published this article. Even NPR (that bastion of conservative thought http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) backed away from doing an article when they found that ClearChannel had no corporate direction in the rallies. Oops, I forgot. There is no liberal bias in the media, only conservative. As if all corporations were GOP-owned and operated and tithed of their earnings to the RNC. The only thing that really matters to the vast majority (~99%) of corporations is $$$$$$$. If something will bring in money, they'll support it. It wouldn't matter if Beck's show consisted of quoting Cajun recipes in Pig Latin; if it sold advertising, they'd support it. Beck, incidentally, frequently rips the GOP and Bush for policies with which he differs. If ClearChannel really is in lockstep with the President, they sure have a lot of cleaning up to do at home.

Some1

March 26th, 2003, 02:19 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

But it isn't like the USA could afford to sit in Kuwait with 250,000+ troops for ever - that's a lot of mouths to feed, that's a lot of resources/money! And sitting in the middle east with 250k+ soldiers is a diplomatic nightmare, so it's a no win situation... vocal Arabs will be mad if the US invades Iraq, but they'll be mad if the US is even just present in the middle east. When it was the UN forces with US troops amongst them, it was the same catch-22.

So what is the solution? It's fine to be against war. I'm definitely against war. Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer short of the second coming (and I'm pretty sure "Dubbya" doesn't have that much authority )

Please, tell me, what could have been done instead? If you can give me an answer, I'll go on a peace march. Until then, I have no choice but to support this war Ok, if you quote me so good, why not reading it? I said i was against THIS was. I know that war is (and should in some situations) be the Last resort, but this wasn't it. Why?

- Because this war triggers even more hate in the region/world against USA & the west. So you end with more problems then you start with. (look at the little flash like i gave before)
- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.
- Because this war gives the right to countries like Turkey to invade north Irak, cause they tread their country too. Even North Korea to invade South, China- tibet, Russia-formerSU countries....etc. everyone is a tread to the other in their opinion (with war or thoughts). What USA does, make it legimate for them too.
- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)
- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.
- Because it is hypocrite to remove a regime like iraq for the iraqi people and let the palestinians die. If the US would help them and would try to prevent the harmful israeli politicy from doing what they do now, US would have their UN resolution. And their would be a lot less USA hate in the world. Because all the Arabian countries hate Sadam too.. they just hate USA more now...
- Because if GWB would really care about people, he would have donated all that money in a fund to help everyone in the world, with so much money he could almost make everyone in africa/asia/middle east "rich"/have food (and they are in a situation as bad/worse as the iraqi people) and as dangerous in long term.
When people have it better then they have now, they are better fed/educated etc. that means that they are less extreme (cause extremes only occur when people are in a bad situation) and terrorist actions would be a LOT less frequent.
Terrorist organisations loose their support..etc.

Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war.

i hope i'll see you in the next march http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Posted by Master Belisarius
a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal.
Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food? true, but can't we have ideals, cause we know what brought us in the "regular" way.... just more wars. Atleast things are somewhat better then 100 years ago, so i hope humankind learns from their faults.... (an illusion too, but you (I) should have hopes and dreams and "fight/discuss" for what i think is right) or else i have no reason to live http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

R.

[ March 26, 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Fyron

March 26th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war. Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.

Some1

March 26th, 2003, 02:47 AM

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

maybe you have seen it, maybe not, but its IMO the situation. (And i hope, never turns out to be consequences..)

A question i like to ask the "pro" war people (Not that anyone wants war, but you support this one).
What do you think about the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP" the US made/developed Last year (Its a nuclear bomb, made to penetrate deep into the earth and destroy bunkers)?? Is it right to use something like that?? (even develope it) When you are fighting a war against a regime and its WMD.

Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?

Im just curious what everyone thinks.

R.

p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.

TerranC

March 26th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Ok, if you quote me so good, why not reading it? I said i was against THIS was. I know that war is (and should in some situations) be the Last resort, but this wasn't it. Why?

- Because this war triggers even more hate in the region/world against USA & the west. So you end with more problems then you start with. (look at the little flash like i gave before)

No, just the USA. And all this percieved hate against the US isn't against the US, it's really more at Dubya and his administration.

- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.

If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.

- Because this war gives the right to countries like Turkey to invade north Irak, cause they tread their country too. Even North Korea to invade South, China- tibet, Russia-formerSU countries....etc. everyone is a tread to the other in their opinion (with war or thoughts). What USA does, make it legimate for them too.

This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries. This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes.

And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbors with a underfunded undermaintained army.

- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)

Because the world is against it? Wow. That's cirtainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.

- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.

You really have to stop seeing this as a war of conquest.

- Because it is hypocrite to remove a regime like iraq for the iraqi people and let the palestinians die. If the US would help them and would try to prevent the harmful israeli politicy from doing what they do now, US would have their UN resolution. And their would be a lot less USA hate in the world. Because all the Arabian countries hate Sadam too.. they just hate USA more now...

Harmful israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.

- Because if GWB would really care about people, he would have donated all that money in a fund to help everyone in the world, with so much money he could almost make everyone in africa/asia/middle east "rich"/have food (and they are in a situation as bad/worse as the iraqi people) and as dangerous in long term.
When people have it better then they have now, they are better fed/educated etc. that means that they are less extreme (cause extremes only occur when people are in a bad situation) and terrorist actions would be a LOT less frequent.
Terrorist organisations loose their support..etc.

If you can figure out a viable way to make sure that money does not go to:
1. Regimes where those people live under
2. Drugs
3. Rebel factions
4. Other unforseeable factors,
Then you can say that Dubya should invest his "fortunes" to about 75% of the world.

There's my two cents.

tesco samoa

March 26th, 2003, 03:44 AM

Krsqk... Thank you for the info... Thats why I read everything with a grain of salt.

Hunkpapa.... HTML Link cool... thank you.

Phaet2112... Perhaps the provision is that he cannot take his country back ever.... But I do believe that he should be punished.

Primitive... Intersting Point.

Master Belisarius

March 26th, 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Some1:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />quote:
[QUOTE]Posted by Master Belisarius
a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal.
Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food? true, but can't we have ideals, cause we know what brought us in the "regular" way.... just more wars. Atleast things are somewhat better then 100 years ago, so i hope humankind learns from their faults.... (an illusion too, but you (I) should have hopes and dreams and "fight/discuss" for what i think is right) or else i have no reason to live http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
R.<hr /></blockquote>I understand your view.
The "facts" that I wrote are things that IMHO, everybody could see in the real life.
Is not how I think the things should be. I'm not God, I'm not a Messiah but think that I understand the human nature, then Some1, can't be optimistic. I like the history and have learned that the history repeat itself once, and once again.

Suicide Junkie

March 26th, 2003, 05:12 AM

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."Interesting... the immediate things can't be helped, but the results can turn out in your favour. Even the occasional twin or triplet.

tesco samoa

March 26th, 2003, 05:15 AM

Time and Time again I think the best site for info is http://www.agonist.org/

For up to date, rumors, war reports, opinions...

I highly recommend it.

phaet2112

March 26th, 2003, 07:18 AM

tesco: There's no way saddam is going to escape punishment, esp. with any mistreatment at all of american soldiers, or reports of soldiers with holes shot in their heads. I seriously doubt he will survive this war. My only hope is that the loss of lives on both sides is minimal, andthe ensuing blowback during occupation is also minimal. I want to be able to fly again sometime soon without feeling unnecessarily freaked out (but that's my problem, I guess...)

[ March 26, 2003, 05:19: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

Captain Kwok

March 26th, 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
HEY KWOK>>>>> GO LEAFS GO <<<<<<
Geez, they're dropping like flies! I mean, how many injuries can a time suffer right before the playoffs? At least Owen Nolan is doing very well...just wish the whole team was healthy!

Askan Nightbringer

March 26th, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Time and Time again I think the best site for info is http://www.agonist.org/

For up to date, rumors, war reports, opinions...

I highly recommend it.I like this site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsguide/0,11376,,00.html
You can pick a newspaper at random at read a different slant everytime.

Askan

Some1

March 26th, 2003, 10:49 AM

hmmmz, to much to quote, i'll give the just awnsers (IMO)

Originally posted by TerranC: 8 Posts below

- Yep, its against Dubya, but the problem is that he is untouchable for them, so they have to cool their frustrations on someone else. (Like in israel, if they could kill sharon, he would be long dead)... But you are right that the real quarrel is with GWB & his administration.

- WMD = nuke. When North Korea has a nukes, US would never attack them. So that means when you have these weapons, you are ok. the quarrel is now with iraq, who pays attention to you now? (in dictatorships and things like that) US won't have money right now to attack you.

- Nope, its about safety... and in their opinion thats the way to garantee it.
Russia vs. tsjetjenie (i can't find how to spell it) when its not in the news anymore, it doesn't mean there is no war there. Also vs. terrorists according to the russians and for the tsjetj they are fighting a war for freedom.
For the chinese its a part, but the tibetanians still think they should be seperate.

- Nope, thats not going to stop them, we see. But should we all follow Dubya (or someone else) if we just can't stop them??? i call it herd instinct http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And IMO the Balkan situation was very different.

- Its not conquest... (altough US want to occupy iraq for some time) still the interests of US are the same: Oil, power (in the region) and another regime.
And if you can't see it, i can't change your opinion anyway... so i stop wasting my time on this one.

- This one is a fault a lot of regimes make. They all fight the outcome and never the things that led to them.
Ofcourse someone who's family is killed don't want those Palestinians, but emotions are a bad guide.
When people are cornered and can't have a way out, they do things unimaginable (suicide).
ummm, for example. In jail institutions in my country they always give people(inmates) the illusion that there is a escape. Without that "hope" people just go crazy...
Other example, When you or i are in a situation like that: no food, water, live, money, hope...only dead. We can give our family $25000. The cause is good, cause its for freedom (you have to remeber its an act of patriotism for them!!!!).... so what the heck???
Lucky that not everyone thinks like that, but its not uncommen in that area we know.
The fact is that israel is in the power position, and they have the solution, its just not popular and easy...

- Yes, this one is utopia.
But you have to agree that its a bit crude that you wage a war that costs (i lost count, but around) 150 bollion dollars against 1 person and his regime, when not far away countless more people starve to dead, AIDS, war for food etc... and there was no help for them (in compare)

Posted by Master Belisarius:
I like the history and have learned that the history repeat itself once, and once again.I know it, just don't like it.

R.

[ March 26, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Some1 ]

primitive

March 26th, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war. Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.<hr /></blockquote>It is no way this war can be considered legal. Many believe the war to be fair, righteous and/or necessary, but it is by no means legal.

The “official” reason for the war is failing to comply with the UN charter. Only UN can sanction such a war. The time when a war was legal because one party called it is over.

This war is a case of US doing the classic high school bully (sure you have met some of those) thing.

High school bully – GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I’ll kick your *** – Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK – OK
Thanks for the money but I’m going to kick your *** anyway – I really want to bomb you, I’ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.

This is how most people in my part of the world feel. It’s going to take a long time for the US to rebuild their old friendly “big brother” image.

Mephisto

March 26th, 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.It is not the only but the main source of legality. Face it, the legality of this war is on very shaky legs. No UN resolution to date demanded or threaten a change of regime and the Iraq, without even a border to the US or any means to reach the US soil with its weapons, can hardly be accused of an aggressive stance that legalised an pre-emptive strike. Such a pre-emptive strike is possible but only under very narrow circumstance all of them requiring undeniable proves for the planned aggression. The pure possibility that someday the country will attack you is not enough in the international law.

Originally posted by TerranC:
If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.Playing devils advocate: It will give a sign to the world that you have to be fast like North Korea. If you are fast enough they will attack weaker nations and leave you alone. You can even try to blackmail the rest of the world!

Originally posted by TerranC:
This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries. This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes. And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbours with a under funded under maintained army.You know what he meant. How can you deny Russia for example the right to intervene in any of the southern Caucasus republics. Devils advocate again: Some Caucasus terrorists even stormed a theatre and hundreds died in the incident. �We, the Russian people, have every right to protect us from those terrorists and will invade their country where they rule as clans over all the civilian people down there. We will free them and bring them democracy!� Never mind that this brought the terrorists to the theatre in the first place�
Arguing with money shortage and other outside facts isn�t valid. The point is not if the can do what the US did but if they have the same right to do it. Tell me they don�t.

Originally posted by TerranC:
Because the world is against it? Wow. That's certainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.You certainly don�t want to compare war criminals in Bosnia to the US. Criminals might not be stopped by reasoning but honest and rightful man.

Originally posted by TerranC:
Harmful Israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.Actually, I hope I would have the strength to do exactly this. All the killing in the world will bring none of my beloved ones back to me. Killing will only result in more killing. Only if I bear the pain and extend my hands in peace will bring peace back to me. Of course the murderer should be put to jail. How many of the Palestinians and how many of the Israelis really want to kill each other? For centuries there was a bitter hate between France and Germany and both sides were more then willing to kill each other any time on the battlefield. This hate gave birth to two World Wars. Now, finally, both sides have swallowed their pride and hate for each other, forgave (but not forgot) what each side did to the other. This brought as the longest period of peace in Europe ever. I think it is just an alien thought for both sides to kill each other just for being German/French now, a thought not uncommon just 50 years ago.
Point is, force will only provoke force and only the ability to forgive and try to live in peace with your neighbour despite what has happened in the past will bring a bright future.

dogscoff

March 26th, 2003, 12:47 PM

Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.
Correct. As of Last week, the source of global legality is whoever happens to have the biggest army. That really does not make me feel confident about the future.

- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.

If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.
But this war is not about WMD. It was about 9/11, until no-one believed it. Then it was about WMD for a while, but no-one believed that either, so then they changed it again to "liberating the ppl of Iraq." Now that no-one really believes that either, they just mumble some crap about UN resolutions and the Last war and storm in, guns blazing.

This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries.
Really? Tell that to the Turkish tanks massing on Iraq's northern border.

This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes.
It is, although indirectly. It's about installing a US-friendly government on top of those oil fields and flexing America's military muscles.

And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbors with a underfunded undermaintained army.
Some of the examples might not hold but the point does.

- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)

Because the world is against it? Wow. That's cirtainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.
Whatever weight world opinion used to have has now been stripped completely away by Bush's steamrolling of the UN. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.

You really have to stop seeing this as a war of conquest.
You really have to stop believing pro-war spin. This is a war about conquest.

Harmful israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.
Someone needs to. Retaliation only results in counter-retaliation. Hate begets hate and the violence only escalates. Bulldozing palestinian townships does nothing to dissuade suicide bombers, it only breeds more.

tesco: There's no way saddam is going to escape punishment,
He will. He'll kill himself and/or dissappear, just like Bin Laden. I'd put money on it.

esp. with any mistreatment at all of american soldiers, or reports of soldiers with holes shot in their heads. I seriously doubt he will survive this war.
Emotive stuff, but I refer you to the "captured troops" thread, shows quite clearly that the US has absolutely no claim whatsoever on the moral high ground when it comes to human rights against prisoners.

My only hope is that the loss of lives on both sides is minimal, andthe ensuing blowback during occupation is also minimal. I want to be able to fly again sometime soon without feeling unnecessarily freaked out (but that's my problem, I guess...)
If you want to fly safely, try to come up with ways to reduce anti-american sentiment in the rest of the world.

I'm no expert but I'd say that threatening and attacking other nations on the "justification" of flimsy (sometimes falsified) evidence, undermining international law, ignoring popular global sentiment, polarising the middle east into muslims vs non-muslims, establishing puppet governments (afghanistan) and abusing human rights is probably not the best way to achieve this.

[ March 26, 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Thermodyne

March 26th, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> but i think without nukes they would be "fine" to, the first 20 years were a lot more hostile and they survived.What was that?
20/20 hinsight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes!

You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War)

So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish.<hr /></blockquote>The reason that the wars stopped was not the Israeli nukes. It was the sick feeling that the US and USSR came away with after going to the brink in 72. Someone realized that the Middle East was a loose loose situation and withdrew support. Egypt had already broken with the Soviets, and never recovered from its own material losses. Later, the Syrians and Israelis had at it, but by then the superior western technology carried the day. Iraq had plans to take Israel to task, but several million crazy Iranians tied them down for a decade and they missed their window of opportunity.

primitive

March 26th, 2003, 03:26 PM

Krsqk:
AFAIK the inspectors was satisfied (not happy) with the progress made so far, and wanted to continue the search for WMDs. Finding anything in a country like Iraq where official records are sketchy at best, will always take time. Much more time than GWB was willing to give.

Askan Nightbringer

March 26th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />High school bully � GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I�ll kick your a** � Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK � OK
Thanks for the money but I�m going to kick your a** anyway � I really want to bomb you, I�ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.Just a minor quibble here, but the demand should read "Provide the inspectors with substantive proof of your total disarmament," not "Let the inspectors in.<hr /></blockquote>Hey! Take a load off and look over there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan

Wardad

March 26th, 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
...I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan[/QB]Why is Iraq different?

To expand on your analogy of defendant and prosecution:
Iraqs ruling regime is a proven violent offender. An offender that has repeatedly violated the conditions of parole.
An offender has the burden of proof and must report to a parole officer.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression over oil fields with Iran.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression with Kuwait.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime kills it's own people who dissent. It also targets the whole family and rapes the women.

So before we morn the Iraqi dead from this war. Let us morn the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi dissidents who were killed before.

note:
In the US, the legal system is getting bolder about corrective involvement in cases of domestic (family) violence. I think this change in attitude has been carring over to foreign policy. Since Just Cause can be used to breach the family sanctuary, why should national sovereignty be an exception?

[ March 26, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Wardad ]

tesco samoa

March 26th, 2003, 07:15 PM

http://www.theonion.com/

has their spin going... worth looking at...

No need to post them here...

phaet2112

March 26th, 2003, 08:30 PM

I think the best article is the "vital info on iraqi chemical weapons provided by US company that made them" That and "you plus me and baby minus me makes two"

Krsqk

March 26th, 2003, 10:21 PM

Finding anything in a country like Iraq where official records are sketchy at best, will always take time.Actually, the Iraqis keep much better records than they are given credit for. For some reason, sadistic dictators seem to enjoy having records of all the insignificant puny little insects they've successfully stomped, in gruesome detail. They also have kept nice records of their WMD tests. (Oops, I just said WMD--*smacks self in head repeatedly*) Maybe all dictators are obsessive-compulsive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Kinda like I have both spreadsheet and database records of every expenditure in the SE4byCommittee game, including location, cost per month, etc.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Some1

March 26th, 2003, 11:44 PM

If still got one "opinion" on my mind.

I think that the propaganda of the USA is a lot better then the iraqi propaganda, because more people believe it to be true(also people in other countries, opposed to iraqi propaganda, that looks just plain "sad" imo). It is supposed to be freedom of press, but is it??
Thats why i think a lot of people believe in dubya and his "cause"...

R.

jimbob

March 27th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Primitive said
AFAIK the inspectors was satisfied (not happy) with the progress made so far, and wanted to continue the search for WMDs. Finding anything in a country like Iraq where official records are sketchy at best, will always take time. Much more time than GWB was willing to give.Hmm... but how much time is reasonable Primitive?UN checks over the period of several months is likely required for a good investigation, but does anyone think that the current government of Iraq would have cooperated over a period of months without the ready and apparent threat of force? Was GDubbyaB "unwilling to give this much time", or is it just too flipping expensive to give that much time when a lot of time had already been given i.e. about a decade.

1) Can anyone honestly believe that diplomacy could have worked without threat of force?

2) Does anyone honestly believe that Sadam's regime would disarm through diplomacy alone, given the prior track record?

If so, why does anyone believe 1) or 2)? Give me some reasons that are sound, not just more anti-American rhetoric about international law. I for one am willing to believe that there was another way, but I can not (yet) see any other way from my perspective.

phaet2112

March 27th, 2003, 12:53 AM

The thing is, there was nowhere near the amount of international pressure on saddam to disarm in the past 10 years. And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war. To say that he has been actively defying the UN isn't as accuarte as saying, well, the world has been ignoring the area, besides keeping sanctions in place. Once the focus was brought back upon them, the inspectors had nowhere near theamount of time necessary to evaluate the country.

There is an enormous difference between the *threat* of force and the *use* of such force. I dont really understand your position- most people (I believe) who are against the war are for disarmament through diplomatic means, not as we bomb civilians and pummel their country. So what are you saying, that you support the war as it is currently as the only solution?

I guess my question is solution to what? Disarming him? Or removing him from power? Or freeing the iraqi people? Or preventing "WMD" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or payback for 9/11? I think another reason I am against the war, and other people, is that there seems to be a dozen reasons that people are using to defend the war itself, and instead of defending one reason, they cite another. The worst reason in my opinion, but the one that is used *most often* here in the US is that the war is to combat terrorism and to directly protect american lives after 9.11.

Problem is that this is the least defensible reason, since the majority of hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and there hasn't been one shred of credible evidence linking saddam to 9/11. Whether he would aid terrorists- he gives money to families of palestinian suicide bombers, that is all the evidence there is. ANd that is israel's problem, not ours (in that israel has its own military and can deal with it by stopping the bombers...I doubt the money is the incentive for palestinians to kill israelies...)

As for wmd- well at this point we dont know. Maybe they'll find it and maybe they wont, but it still doesnt change the fact that the inspectors were not given enough time to determine whether he had any, and what state the program was in. There have been numerous refutations of claims iraq has nuclear weapons.

Iraqi freedom? If you believe that then I'd like to sell you some prime real estate, rightoutside of basra. Real prime location, too. The military has already admitted it'll have to have an occupying force of tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand, and cannot see putting the extremely religious shi'ites back into power, or it would turn iraq into iran. This is what the world sees- the americans as invaders trying to force out saddam to take control of the oil. haliburton already has gotten the contracts to rebuild iraq, before the war is a week old.

Removing him from power is a terrible excuse- we don't like someone ruling a country so we try to kill him? Oh wait, we did support that coup in venezuala, too bad it failed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif So who else should we remove? What about Germany- they don't support us? Why not just overthrow every government we come across we don't like? And why is it america that decides? Cause we have the biggest army. Gee...what ancient power does that make us?

If us americans were at *least* given the respect that blair gives the british, then MAYBE more people would support the war. Blair argues that iraq could be the first step in transforming the whole region, but that isn't what bush argues. Our leaders are still focused on non-existant WMD and 9/11.

[ March 26, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

primitive

March 27th, 2003, 12:55 AM

Jimbob:
The amount of time that was reasonable would be the excact amount of time the people conducting the investigation (Blix & Co.) thougth they would need. If GWB was unwilling to give this time, why bother with inspections in the first place ?

1) I have never claimed I was against using "threat of force". Just missusing it.

2) If he have any WMDs (and for the record, I believe he has something (not nukes) stashed away somewere), he probably would have given them up if the pressure was big enough. He would never have dissarmed totaly as that would have been suicide in a country like Iraq.

The trouble is not to find good reasons NOT to go to war, but to find good reasons to go to war. When in doubt, war should be your Last choice.

Phoenix-D

March 27th, 2003, 01:00 AM

"And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war."

Err..no. They were kicked out in 98, and I think a few times before that. But they were there.

Phoenix-D

phaet2112

March 27th, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by primitive:

The trouble is not to find good reasons NOT to go to war, but to find good reasonsto go to war. When in doubt, war should be your Last choice.Totally and completely agree. That is why I am upset, and I think a lot of others in america, at least more left leaning thinkers, believe- that there hasn't been a convincing case to go to war, only the scattershot reasons without much substantive support.

phaet2112

March 27th, 2003, 01:02 AM

So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?

DavidG

March 27th, 2003, 01:23 AM

It seems to me that if Iraq supports terrorists in Israel it is not a great leap of the imagination to assume that he is quite likely to support them in other countries. Although perhaps not so publicly. So I don't buy that argument that it is a problem just for Isreal.

As far as WMD's are concerened isn't it a fact that although he may not have them he has certainly tried to get them in the Last 10 years?
As far as the weapons inspectors are concerned were they not kicked out about 3 years ago? (not as mentioned in a previous post in 1991)

I think the main problem is that sanctions against Iraq were/are killing 1000's of people. I haven't read all the details on this but as I understand it each side blames the other for this. So how do you end this problem? Maintining the status quo clearly isn't good enough. War is one way. Obviously a crappy solution due to the obvious reasons. But a solution that has the potential to result in a much improved Iraq in a few years. The only other solution I can see would be to lift the sanctions. Thus allowing the cash to start flowing into Iraq. Except do you think this cash will go to help the people or into Saddams pocket and his military. A Saddam with unlimited cash flow is a scary thought.

DavidG

March 27th, 2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by phaet2112:
So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?I think there are other reasons but here is one: Because they were kicked out.

[ March 26, 2003, 23:26: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Thermodyne

March 27th, 2003, 02:11 AM

A little fun with the Inspectors http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Inspector: Tomorrow we will inspect the chemical plant at Carbala

Iraqi: Tomorrow will be a bad day for that.

Inspector: How about next week?

Iraqi: We will have the plant ready on Thursday.

Inspector: Out standing, tomorrow we will inspect the abandoned partially destroyed bunkers at Arum again.

Iraqi: Cool, we have nothing there except some Mercedes that Saddam got in the oil for food program. Perhaps you would like it if we made you a gift of one.

Inspectors report: No WMD were found at the facility in Arum.

Iraqi report: No WMD were moved out of Carbala, 16 trucks were not used to move them, and they were not buried in the desert outside of Naira. The trucks were returned to the motor pool on Wednesday morning.

UN report: UN inspectors have not found any WMD; the government of Iraq has been cooperating fully.

jimbob

March 27th, 2003, 02:11 AM

Primitive:

I'll think on your response.

Originally posted by phaet2112:
So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?Because the Iraqi govt has records of producing certain volumes of UN mandated illicit weapons (biological and chemical). But they have not provided records of destruction for much of the weaponry. For example, there is about 30 000 L of unaccounted for Anthrax somewhere (dead or alive) in Iraq.

Well, you can't just wave a magic wand and *poof* the 30 000 L of anthrax is gone! The Iraqi govt claims to have destoyed this unaccounted for stash, but also claim to have no records of the destruction. Could the records have just been misplaced? Maybe a little mix up? Oh, it was that silly administrator Ahmed, you know how messy his desk is, it must just have been misfiled.

For comparison... the British did a little experimentation with Anthrax on some Scottish Isles during WWI, and 40 years later the thing (and it's neighbours) was still "death island". They had to go up with in excess of 100 000 L of formaldehyde to clean it up (ie sterilize the island).

Now even if we give an incredible amount of credit to the minimal inhibitory concentration of formaldehyde vs anthrax spores, (and factor in things like the island was sprayed with less than 30 000 L of spores, but the spores were spread out across a huge surface area of soil) the Iraqi gov't would need atleast equal quantities of formaldehyde (or equivalent agent) to sterilize/destroy their stockpile(s).

Now an agency will have a pretty tough time of purchasing 10 to 30 000 L of formaldehyde (or equivalent disinfectant) and not leave a shred of a paper trail. There have to be letters request, of purchase, of transfer... there will be work orders and paycheques and duplicate and triplicate copies in governmental department after governmental department. Not to mention the biohazard suits used to keep the handlers alive (say 10 to 15 000 $US a pop.) specialized trucks, the original bioreactors, etc. That's a lot of dough and a lot of equipment to be "hidden down a hole" with no paper trail, let alone a no physical disposal site!!

P.S. And that's just the Anthrax, what about the chemical agents that are claimed to have been destroyed, but again with no paper trail?

[ March 27, 2003, 00:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

tesco samoa

March 27th, 2003, 02:43 AM

Perhaps while were waiting for the Iraq Govn't to come to trial for use of " WMD " etc..

Perhaps the trial should begin with the people who sold them the " WMD " and proped up the Dictatorship and supported it. The Decision Makers.

Perhaps the prosecution of these " war criminals " would stop future generations from repeating and supporting these horrible decisions and policies.

Thermodyne

March 27th, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Some1:
And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them?

R.The Israeli Nuclear Program was and still is the best keeped secret in the world. What is known was "leaked" to deter the Arabs from launching a conventional or unconventional war against Israel. That's why Israel keep a "triada" defense system (Missiles, planes and subs), to make sure that if one or two of the defense systems are destroyed the rest can still fire back. The way is seen in Israel is that without nukes Israel would have had been overrun by Arabs already, and the jewish population exterminated like the Arabs leaders have promised to their people and as the Arab propaganda machine have been putting in their people minds since the creation of the Jewish State. For Israel nukes are a question of survival.

But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them.<hr /></blockquote>Israel and South Africa developed their devices in a joint program. This is a well-known fact. But where did they get the equipment and know how that was needed to achieve the rapid development and deployment of the devices? Anyone? For a clue, look up the location of the test site.

Krsqk

March 27th, 2003, 02:54 AM

High school bully � GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I�ll kick your a** � Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK � OK
Thanks for the money but I�m going to kick your a** anyway � I really want to bomb you, I�ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.Just a minor quibble here, but the demand should read "Provide the inspectors with substantive proof of your total disarmament," not "Let the inspectors in.

Askan Nightbringer

March 27th, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by phaet2112:
So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?I think there are other reasons but here is one: Because they were kicked out.<hr /></blockquote>They were not kicked out.
First they withdrew at the request of the US ambassador. Richard Butler (head of UNSCOM at the time) admitted it. The withdrawal was so they would be safe during a bombing blitz by US/UK forces. The Chinese and the Russians were very angry he withdrew without the permission/knowldege of the Security Council, and it was the end of Butler. Other inspectors went in but the bombing incident and allegations that inspectors were spying for the US pretty much ended any chance of success and the program was aborted.

Askan

tesco samoa

March 27th, 2003, 03:45 AM

I asked a few questions a couple of Posts ago... I was hoping that we could talk about it... As I value everyone opinion here.

Side note.... I hear that they increased the range of the tanks to 100 miles or so until they have to change the filters.... Is this true???? I remember Last war they had a range of about 15 to 30 miles then the sand would kill them...

I am surprised that the guard came out to attack... Big mistake. Their strenght was to not allow the Colilion strenght which to battle in the open...

Askan Nightbringer

March 27th, 2003, 03:54 AM

Tesco, what questions were they?

Askan
Oh look, I get some low Ratings. Is this the new system for judging those who support the Troika of Killing and those who don't?

tesco samoa

March 27th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Asken... I think I dreamed them... Man... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Carry on and ignore the crazy canuck...

Fyron

March 27th, 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
It is no way this war can be considered legal. Many believe the war to be fair, righteous and/or necessary, but it is by no means legal.

The “official” reason for the war is failing to comply with the UN charter. Only UN can sanction such a war. The time when a war was legal because one party called it is over.

This war is a case of US doing the classic high school bully (sure you have met some of those) thing.

High school bully – GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I’ll kick your *** – Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK – OK
Thanks for the money but I’m going to kick your *** anyway – I really want to bomb you, I’ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.

This is how most people in my part of the world feel. It’s going to take a long time for the US to rebuild their old friendly “big brother” image.A nation has every right to declare war for any reason it wants to. Morality does not equal legality. All that a war needs to be "legal" is for an official declaration to be made. The reason(s) for the war may not be morally suitable, but the legality is certainly there. "Legal" does not mean "right", any more than "illegal" means "wrong" (or vice versa).

Some1

March 27th, 2003, 10:08 AM

Weapon inspectors were thwrown out of iraq in 1998, because US/UK bombers bombed several factories US/UK thought were chemical weapon plants (nobody knows for sure if they were or not) + the US-Inspector-Spy quarrel. After that action Sadam threw them out and never came back.

I have no doubt that iraq has WMD(no nukes) but the problem is that with the US adim, you know that they want to get rid of you and that they will attack. Are you going to give all your weapons and let them march in easily? Ofcourse noone will do such thing. Just try to see it from their perspective.

Originally posted by DavidG:
It seems to me that if Iraq supports terrorists in Israel it is not a great leap of the imagination to assume that he is quite likely to support them in other countries. Although perhaps not so publicly. So I don't buy that argument that it is a problem just for Isreal.

As far as WMD's are concerened isn't it a fact that although he may not have them he has certainly tried to get them in the Last 10 years?Why are we hypocrite and say that they support terrorists and they are evil and we are good...etc.

i don't support terrorism in anyway, but we should get rid of our own terrorists first before we should make this accusatinon...

And sure that he also tried to get them, and?? US/west gave it to him when he fought Iran. Are we so much special that he can use them against Iran and not against us? In his eyes probably the US army is a WMD too. The war is just to unbalanced to be "fair". How many US casuelties? 5 maybe? and 1000-2000 iraqi?

The only reason i heard here "pro-war" that i can understand is: USA has the biggest/strongest army, so everyone has to do what they want (Its back to the middle-ages, but its a fact now, middle-ages with better weapons). Its not fair, they are not right, but its a fact that they can do what they want.
History tells us that when a powerfull country, goes at war with another and the other can't stop them, a guerilla war follows (also known when its against you: Terrorism) its a way to wage war against someone who is a lot stronger.
So.... deal with it (how scary the thought even is)

And for the people that "thought/hoped" this war was for the good of Iraqi people and not about the money and power?
Dubya is selling the rights to US companies to exploit oil, rebuild factories EVEN rebuild roads and bridges that are not yet bombed (All ofcourse to companies with republican ties). If this administration was concerned for Iraqi people and their well being/democarcy, He would let the Iraqi rebuild it themself....

I have not heard any "good" reason yet to wage a war, other then the "we are the strongest and do what we want" theory.

R.

Mephisto

March 27th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A nation has every right to declare war for any reason it wants to. Morality does not equal legality. All that a war needs to be "legal" is for an official declaration to be made. The reason(s) for the war may not be morally suitable, but the legality is certainly there. "Legal" does not mean "right", any more than "illegal" means "wrong" (or vice versa).There are international laws (every nation has to follow these) and treaties (that the US signed, i.e. the UN charter) that make any declaration of war without sanction of the UN or without an case of emergency illegal.
Illegal equals against the law. If you think doing something against the law is not unmoral, fine, but that's not the way most people see it. Next time a thieve robs you, he will say that it is illegal but hey, you have no right to think of him as bad or his deeds unmoral! It's just against the law, nothing more! So smile.

Mephisto

March 27th, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by jimbob:

1) Can anyone honestly believe that diplomacy could have worked without threat of force?

2) Does anyone honestly believe that Sadam's regime would disarm through diplomacy alone, given the prior track record?

If so, why does anyone believe 1) or 2)? Give me some reasons that are sound, not just more anti-American rhetoric about international law. I for one am willing to believe that there was another way, but I can not (yet) see any other way from my perspective.The answer to your questions are from my perspective certainly no. Without the threat of force Sadam would have done nothing but laughing at us. However, he started to comply at least to some extend. With more time we would either have known quite surely that he has or has not WMD. With this result one could have argued in the UN easily and rally the world behind you. But I think the US admin wanted to invade Iraq in the first place with or without prove because they are not really there for the WMD. Second, the US had already accumulated much to many forces for just a threat and it got expensive to keep them there. And of course the weather in the region forces you to fight now or not for several month. I would like to ask a question in return:

Can anyone honestly believe that giving the UN just a bit more time would have meant any harm to the cause?

primitive

March 27th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Fyron
You’re partly right. "Legal" does not mean "right", any more than "illegal" means "wrong" (or vice versa), is a very correct and good statement. However; Just sending a declaration of war is not enough to make a war legal anymore (UN charter).

On a side note, has there even been a formal declaration of war against Iraq ?
Tried to google, but I couldn’t find anything.

Jimbob
Thank you, that is certainly a fresh approach. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thermo
Is that just a very bad joke, or have you run out of any plausible arguments and have to stoop to claiming the inspectors was being bribed ?
It’s just a question, personally I love the jokes (the good ones anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Askan
The rating system have run amok. Very few that have entered any opinions (on any side) in this thread still have a 5 star rating. Some people can’t see the difference between the opinions (should not be rated) and the delivery (rateable).

Tesco
Crazy canucks are not easily ignored http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thermodyne

March 27th, 2003, 03:02 PM

Primitive,

The little http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif and the title would indicate that it was just a little razzing of the inspection process. The under lying jab would be the value of the inspectors this time around. They were there to look for WMD, which was only part of their original mission. Originally they were there to verify compliance with the cease-fire, which included the elimination of the WMD. But this time they had the higher mandate of preventing war, so the US would have to have doubts about the way the inspections were being performed. And as a point of clarification, the inspector never said that he would take the bribe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

March 27th, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Can anyone honestly believe that giving the UN just a bit more time would have meant any harm to the cause?Yes, honestly I believe that. As you conceded the threat of force was the only thing motivating even half hearted compliance from Sadaam. A delay would have weakened our ability to project that force and so would have rendedered the threat impotent.

I disagree with you that with more time we would known whether he has WMD or not. The inspectors were not capable of finding things that the regime did not want them to find. They are ineffective when presented with passive non-cooperation, and useless when faced with active concealment.

Geoschmo

Krsqk

March 27th, 2003, 07:27 PM

History tells us that when a powerfull country, goes at war with another and the other can't stop them, a guerilla war follows (also known when its against you: Terrorism) its a way to wage war against someone who is a lot stronger.
So.... deal with it (how scary the thought even is)I have to take serious issue with this. The objective of guerrilla warfare is attrition of a force which you do not have the strength to meet in full battle. It is fought against military forces. The objective of terrorism is intimidation of citizenry through murder and spectacular violence. It is directed against civilians.

"Things that are different are not the same."-Unknown

oleg

March 27th, 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />History tells us that when a powerfull country, goes at war with another and the other can't stop them, a guerilla war follows (also known when its against you: Terrorism) its a way to wage war against someone who is a lot stronger.
So.... deal with it (how scary the thought even is)I have to take serious issue with this. The objective of guerrilla warfare is attrition of a force which you do not have the strength to meet in full battle. It is fought against military forces. The objective of terrorism is intimidation of citizenry through murder and spectacular violence. It is directed against civilians.

"Things that are different are not the same."-Unknown<hr /></blockquote>Oh yeah ? Western media does not follow your definition. One example that just came to my mind first: "Terrorist attack" against USS Cole in Yemen. It will not take that long bofore all Iraqis will be blamed Al-Quada agents !

Aloofi

March 27th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
Oh yeah ? Western media does not follow your definition. One example that just came to my mind first: "Terrorist attack" against USS Cole in Yemen. It will not take that long bofore all Iraqis will be blamed Al-Quada agents !Yeah, the western media (and goverments) have cheapen the definition of terrorist.

About the war, I'm betting on Irak. I don't think the US has a chance of winning this war, they have made mistake after mistake from the very begining, they planned their campaign expecting massive Iraki surrenders, and all cities but Baghdad to give up at first sight of coalition forces, and now their supply lines are being harrased by those towns and cities....

And anyway, an american victory will mean the creation of an evil palestinian state to "compensate" for Irak, so I'm no longer a friend to the Bush administration, not that I ever was......

So you can say that the US have become a bigger threat to the national integrity of Israel than Saddam Hussein ever was.

I will never accept a Palestinian State with Arafat in power, or without an inconditional cease fire first, or without a treaty that would have the Palestinians accountable for any violations, not some Oslo crap that only hold the Israeli side accountable while the Palestinians go a suicide bombing/drive by shooting rampage and the west blame everything on Israel and claim that the Palestinians are the "victims". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ March 27, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

rextorres

March 27th, 2003, 09:43 PM

Ironically we are now in a catch-22. If we don't find WMDs the U.S. is wrong - (we're obviously not liberating anyone* because no patriot of a country wants to be invaded). If there are WMD it probably means lots of casualties. I for one hope there aren't any WMD.

So what do the pro invasion folk want? WMD and casualties or be wrong and no WMD.

*except the kurds

Aloofi

March 27th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:

So what do the pro invasion folk want? WMD and casualties or be wrong and no WMD.

I'm pretty sure Saddam have WMDs, but I don't think he will use them unless he starts to lose the battle for Bagdad. Of course, he can always, and probably already did, give some toys to the nuts in Al Qaeda......

rextorres

March 27th, 2003, 10:02 PM

jimbob

March 27th, 2003, 10:08 PM

Mephisto:
The answer to your questions are from my perspective certainly no... ...[but] Can anyone honestly believe that giving the UN just a bit more time would have meant any harm to the cause?It could have. It would have pushed the potential fight into summer, which would make the troop movements more difficult in that part of the world (or so I am told, never having been there in summer.. or at all for that matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). As Geo stated, it's likely that this would have left the threat of force somewhat impotent.

The real threat to me however was the incredible cost of having troops sit for extended periods of time. My friend, Basam, who has lived in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is of the opinion that the Kuwaitis would have gladly paid the US forces upkeep costs. If this is so, then I would definitely change my opinion - yes, the USA should have waited. Now that's a pretty big should! I've not seen any reports of Kuwaiti willingness to pay these costs.

Primitive:
The amount of time that was reasonable would be the excact amount of time the people conducting the investigation (Blix & Co.) thougth they would need. If GWB was unwilling to give this time, why bother with inspections in the first place?Okay, I've thought on this. Yes, GWB should be willing to give Blix & Co. enough time to complete the inspections. However compliance did not really occur until threat of force was apparent.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" costs nothing then yes, the USA and UK should have waited for Blix and crew to do their job, that is, give enough time for the job to be done.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" will cost the USA a whole bundle of cash while other UN security members sit on their duffs, then no, the USA and UK should not have to wait and pay infinitum. If they are the only ones making the Iraqi government cooperate, then they should be allowed to set the expectations.

Finally, Blix is correct that it will take months with full cooperation to complete his job but they had months in which to complete it during which Sadam & Co. did not cooperate. However it was Sadam who did not cooperate, so that is Sadams' "lost time". I don't think that somebody else should have to waste their precious time when Sadam came to the "cooperating table" months, if not years late!

[ March 27, 2003, 20:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Aloofi

March 27th, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
The "conspiracy of the willing" will take Bagdad. Once they get the supply lines secured - that's what's holding them up. No one is allowed to say, but they have M1s with no fuel waiting for supplies.I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.

rextorres

March 27th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
The "conspiracy of the willing" will take Bagdad. Once they get the supply lines secured - that's what's holding them up. No one is allowed to say, but they have M1s with no fuel waiting for supplies.I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.<hr /></blockquote>The scary thing about the whole thing is that there are 5M citizens in bagdad. If even a small % decide to fight then the american forces will be severely outnumbered. I was listening today how Rumsfeld wanted to send in only 50k troops and the military wanted a lot more than they did send. It makes you wonder what they were thinking.

[ March 27, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

March 27th, 2003, 10:32 PM

Saddam�s army is finished; without air support they can not maneuver. Just today they tried to move several companies of mounted infantry, perhaps a brigade. Two BUFF�s and some F-18�s utterly destroyed them, highway of death revisited. This leaves Iraq with a hard choice to make. Do they pull out all of the stops and use Gas and VX? Or do they begin to position themselves for what happens after Baghdad falls?

Guerrilla warfare might cause the US to increase the amount of troops that are in country, and they might prevent the countryside from being fully under allied control. But they can not take on armored unit�s head to head, and they will not prevent Baghdad from falling to the Allies. The lead Allied units are setting up a classic armor battle, one where you have to maneuver or be killed in place. The Guards will have to make a decision in a day or two as to how they will fight. Doctrine would advise closing on the Americans so that the air power would be removed from the battle. Problem with this is that it is very hard to close on an Abrams with a T-72. So given that problem, the doctrine would advise falling back into an urban area. But if that area is not Baghdad, then your forces run the risk of being isolated and bypassed. And a run for Baghdad at this point in time would make the retreat from Kuwait look like a minor skirmish. So, do they go all out? Or position themselves for a diplomatic solution? I don�t have a clue what is in the mind of that madman, but if they use WMD, then there will be no settlement of any type.

Personally, I think that Saddam thinks his four divisions of RG�s can take the one American infantry division out first and then wheel on the Marines, inflicting severe casualties that will force the US to negotiate a settlement. Or, that the slaughter of his troops will be so horrific that the world will force the US and Britain to back off and negotiate. The wildcard here is the Republican Guards they hold the key. If one or two of the four division turn on Saddam, then we have a whole new ball game, and a bunch of staff officers will have just made a place for themselves in the new Iraqi government. This corp of officers has tried to take Saddam out on several past occasions. Also, for them the plan is self-serving, the best of all possible outcomes. The Americans are re-supplying for the drive on Baghdad, and should push off very soon, I think the first big engagement will determine what happens within the RG leadership. A lot could happen this weekend.

Thermodyne

March 27th, 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
The "conspiracy of the willing" will take Bagdad. Once they get the supply lines secured - that's what's holding them up. No one is allowed to say, but they have M1s with no fuel waiting for supplies.I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.<hr /></blockquote>If you can really perceive a situation where this could actually happen, then you need to stop Bogart�n and pass that thing around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Aloofi

March 27th, 2003, 10:43 PM

You guys still expecting people switching sides?
Come on, its obvious by now that Saddam is not nearly as hated as the western media said.
The fact that for us he is a bloody dictator doesn't make him such for his own people. Or are you believing what the Iraki opposition in exile says, which of course, they would say anyway?

You got to understand that people from a diferent culture have a diferent view of what's good and what's bad.

And don't forget the effects of propaganda....

Aloofi

March 27th, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If you can really perceive a situation where this could actually happen, then you need to stop Bogart�n and pass that thing around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Hell no. That's not my problem, not my war.
Why should I be loyal to a country that plans to cut my country in half to please the Arabs?
No way.

rextorres

March 27th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Thermodyne is right anything outside of Bagdad is finished, but the real battle will be in Bagdad proper. This might be a stretch, but the only analogy I can think of is Berlin and the Russian took a million casualties with "the gloves taken off". Unless, of course, the media is lying - 1000 militia are holding back the Brits in Basra I don't see how Bagdad can be any better.

Wardad

March 28th, 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Thermodyne is right anything outside of Bagdad is finished, but the real battle will be in Bagdad proper. This might be a stretch, but the only analogy I can think of is Berlin and the Russian took a million casualties with "the gloves taken off". Unless, of course, the media is lying - 1000 militia are holding back the Brits in Basra I don't see how Bagdad can be any better.Yes, Cities have some defense advantages.
There are ways to counter the advantages, BUT... you can not do that and preserve civilian homes and lives.

Using concusion bombs, flame throwers, and flooding basements and tunnels with water can be quick and very effective.

To clear a city surgically with minimal loss of troops requires intel (native cooperation) and time to play a patient game cat and mouse.

Master Belisarius

March 28th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
we're obviously not liberating anyone except the kurdsAnd what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

rextorres

March 28th, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
we're obviously not liberating anyone except the kurdsAnd what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>No . . . the Turks are on our side so it's O.K. for them to mistreat their Kurds. It's only the Iraqi Kurds that need liberating.

Some1

March 28th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Wardad:
Yes, Cities have some defense advantages.
There are ways to counter the advantages, BUT... you can not do that and preserve civilian homes and lives.
Thats the problem . When GWB starts killing civilians.... where does it end?

Originally posted by Wardad:
Using concusion bombs, flame throwers, and flooding basements and tunnels with water can be quick and very effective.
Russia tried the destroy-way in Grosney (or how do you spell it) and after years, they still are there. Thats not an option for Bush.

Originally posted by Wardad:
To clear a city surgically with minimal loss of troops requires intel (native cooperation) and time to play a patient game cat and mouse. There is no way to play it with few losses. City war cancels out all technoligy. Big guns and tanks just won't work in cities.

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.

Its a loose-loose position GWB is in right now. If he is cornered to much, who know what will happen??? Maybe nuking Bagdad? cuz the war took to long and to many soldiers???
But this is a horror senario that is possible! Dick C. said before (and the neo-conservatives) "We will use "Tactical nuke" when needed". *shudders*

R.

Askan Nightbringer

March 28th, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
On a side note, has there even been a formal declaration of war against Iraq ?
This was in the Australian press, as Australia did not officially declare war. The Prime Minister said there was no reason to declare war as there was enough justification through the Last million or so resolutions. As our PM seems to parrot Washington's argument I assume the US has taken the same stance.

Askan
Oh, I understand the Ratings systems is silly, but after my small whine I noticed a got a few good Ratings. I feel like a little beggar boy now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Krsqk

March 28th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.Yeah, that's why he refuses to put a timeframe on the war, instead saying that we'll fight "as long as it takes."

RE: casualties--Right now, the PR problem with casualties is that there are too few of them. The media can take time to cover each one in graphic, mind-numbing detail and still not have enough news to fill up their 24-hour coverage. They would still report it if there had been hundreds so far, but they would be limited to just one or two stories, instead of forty. I'm not saying that I want casualties, just commenting on the coverage of them.

RE: civilian casualties--There will be civilian casualties in any war. That is part of the cost of waging war. The US is pussyfooting to prevent any civilian casualties, perhaps too much to wage an effective war. When the fight gets to Baghdad, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian casualties. If the US is too aggressive, they will be perceived as uncaring. If they are too passive, though, hundreds or thousands more US troops will die (aren't their lives worth something, too?), as well as far greater numbers of Iraqis who die from the side-effects of having a drawn-out war fought in your city. [edit] Oh, and there is the technology to negate the defensive advantages of city fighting, but it's not ready for widespread use yet. Probably in 2-3 years, though, it will be standard equipment at the division level, at least.

RE: WMDs--My guess is that Saddam will use them at some time against the US troops, provided he gets the chance. I also have a suspicion that he has several mobile launchers sitting out in the desert, just in range of...the coalition POW camp. Yep, let's finish off the infidels and the cowardly traitors at the same time. Just a guess.

[ March 28, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

dogscoff

March 28th, 2003, 02:42 AM

Very few that have entered any opinions (on any side) in this thread still have a 5 star rating.
I started with my 4 stars (that's a deliberate 4, by the way) and I still have 4 stars- no-one listens to me, obviously http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Askan Nightbringer

March 28th, 2003, 02:44 AM

Listens to who? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Askan

tesco samoa

March 28th, 2003, 06:33 AM

Today a US Command centre was attacked by artie. 37 injured. IT did return fire. Only problem was that it was an artie marine base that lobbed the shells over.

The Iraq army should pull back and let the British and US attack each other. This friendly fire is brutal... Where is the inquries to remove these blunders.

Mephisto

March 28th, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by jimbob:
It could have. It would have pushed the potential fight into summer, which would make the troop movements more difficult in that part of the world (or so I am told, never having been there in summer.. or at all for that matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). As Geo stated, it's likely that this would have left the threat of force somewhat impotent.
The real threat to me however was the incredible cost of having troops sit for extended periods of time. My friend, Basam, who has lived in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is of the opinion that the Kuwaitis would have gladly paid the US forces upkeep costs. If this is so, then I would definitely change my opinion - yes, the USA should have waited. Now that's a pretty big should! I've not seen any reports of Kuwaiti willingness to pay these costs. Granted, there was not much time left but I think at least one or two more weeks would have been possible. One could argue that they even could have waited over the summer and attack � if needed � in autumn. I see that this would have been very cost intensive. However, maybe an arrangement would have been possible to collect the money from the UN member states. I think after France and Germany could hardly said �no� to this after they demanded more time. Don�t know about Kuwait, maybe they too would have given money. Finally, this war will cost at least 70 to 80 billion dollars. If you used this money to support the troops over summer and maybe avoid the war altogether, it would be worth it and maybe it would even be a cheaper way. But we�ll never know�

Some1

March 28th, 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk
Yeah, that's why he refuses to put a timeframe on the war, instead saying that we'll fight "as long as it takes."Thats what he says now, but GWB told the US civilians/world before that this war would be swift and easy. If this turns out to be Vietnam 2, we'll see a huge shift in US opinions considering the war. GWB has just a year to complete this.

Also a big problem for him is that the iraqi summer is comming.

Thats why im afraid what GWB will do. When Someone is cornered (Bush or Sadam) he will do "strange" things.

R.

p.s. Who hacked Al Jazeera? Just patriotic Hackers? or maybe hackers supported by the US gouverment?... IF....

dogscoff

March 28th, 2003, 12:17 PM

There is no spoon.
Yes there is.

*dogscoff waves a spoon in front of Aloofi's face.

Look! Spoon! Spoon! Oh hang on, that's a spork...

primitive

March 28th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Found this list of the coalition members at CNN (Guess this is in addition to UK, USA and Australia) :
According to the Bush administration and press reports, the coalition consists of: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

Can anyone else spot some countries here you normally wouldn’t find in a coalition fighting for “democracy and human rights” ?
Wonder what reason they are giving their own population for joining the coalition ?

And then there are of course some countries that have absolutely no armed forces at all. Well, I guess GWB really appreciate the moral support as he don’t get very much of it.

henk brouwer

March 28th, 2003, 03:30 PM

I'm ashamed that the Netherlands are in that list, the majority of the population is against the war though. The goverment that made that decision had to resign a couple of months ago and will only be in office untill the coalition talks for the new goverment are ready, also it's only political support not military, whatever that may mean. I hope the new goverment will show some more common sense.

geoschmo

March 28th, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Granted, there was not much time left but I think at least one or two more weeks would have been possible. Actually no, one or two more weeks was not an option. But not because of the US/UK. The final UN resolution that never came to a vote would have given the Iraqii's another week. But the French and Russians made it clear they would veto it if it had any sort of ultimatum or approval to use force at the end of it. France had determined they were not going to approve the use of force under any circumstances until the inspectors made the determination that they could do nothing more constructive. (I think that was Chiracs term. I can find the link if it matters.) They would not consider any timetable, no matter how long. Of course that would have never happened. The inspectors were being duped, and they would have gone on being duped forever if neccesary.

If you used this money to support the troops over summer and maybe avoid the war altogether, it would be worth it and maybe it would even be a cheaper way. But we’ll never know.Maybe I am naive, but for me the money is irrelevant. 75-100 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it's not that big a deal when you compare it to the gross national product. And what exactly is the monetary value of our national security? What is the value of a human life, American, British or Iraqii? I don't like getting into those sorts of discussions because to me it cheapens all of us.

What is not irrelevant is the degradation of operational readiness of the forces sitting in the desert. You can't keep the soldiers on a razors edge like that for months and then expect them to be able to perform at their peak once you give them the go.

The only relevant question in this regard is was their any usefull purpose for continued inspections. I believe there was not. I am human and will allow the possibility that I am wrong on that point, but that determination being made deadlines and timetables become irrelevant. You go when you believe your forces are operationally ready, or you don't go at all.

Geoschmo

Ward

March 28th, 2003, 03:51 PM

Found this list of the coalition members at CNN (Guess this is in addition to UK, USA and Australia): ...Czech Republic... As far as I know and can speak for my country we are not members of any coalition. We did't approve the attack but we sent anti-chemical(don't know the right term) squad to help anyone affected by any biological weapons. We are not under US command(well the reality in Irak is a bit different but this is how the orders were given when the unit left the country). We would help anyone including Irak's citizents. I wonder how many other countries were added to that list unvoluntarily.

PsychoTechFreak

March 28th, 2003, 04:08 PM

WMDs--My guess is that Saddam will use them at some time against the US troops, provided he gets the chance. I also have a suspicion that he has several mobile launchers sitting out in the desert, just in range of...the coalition POW camp. Yep, let's finish off the infidels and the cowardly traitors at the same time. Thats why im afraid what GWB will do. When Someone is cornered (Bush or Sadam) he will do "strange" things.

R.

p.s. Who hacked Al Jazeera? Just patriotic Hackers? or maybe hackers supported by the US gouverment?... IF.... Should I be surprised if GWB/CIA would throw a B- or C- bomb killing even coalition forces within the next weeks... Of course they would pin the blame for it on Iraq.

http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf
http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions_2.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html

Not necessarily my opinion, but I have lost my faith in almost everything and everyone (the theories about conspiracies included).

dogscoff

March 28th, 2003, 04:10 PM

Interesting to see afghanistan on that list too. I guess you can hardly be surprised with the US pulling their strings now. I wonder what the afghanistani people think about it all.

Crazy_Dog

March 28th, 2003, 04:54 PM

If anyone want to read intel from the russian side http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=902&sesid=2

Hunkpapa

March 28th, 2003, 05:15 PM

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030328/D7Q262I80.html

That's real nice, firing at your own people who are trying to get out.

And we are still being questioned for trying to oust him?

Anyone read what his son did to the Olympic Athletes who failed, there is another real 'humanitarian'.

primitive

March 28th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Crazy_dog:
Thanks for the link. The info is great, and I’m sure it is more accurate than the BS we can get from our Western media (lots of eye-candy, but low on facts).

Hunkpapa:
Nobody on these forums has ever called Saddam a nice guy. We know all about the atrocities he has committed. But that is not what this war is about.

Dogscoff:
My guess is that most Afghanis don’t know (like most Czechs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Crazy_Dog

March 28th, 2003, 07:25 PM

and the loser is.....
Turkey

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653857544.html

tesco samoa

March 28th, 2003, 09:57 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/28/iraq_syria030328

ANYONE NOTICE WHERE THIS IS GOING.

20 dollars on Iran to show in the 3rd race of the afternoon.

tesco samoa

March 28th, 2003, 10:03 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

Aloofi

March 28th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Guys, you got to read this! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
What's next?
Will they start lynching people?

"Last week, the Shelby County Alabama Legislative Delegation hosted a
"Stand
Up for America Rally." More than 1,200 people attended including featured
speakers Chief Justice Roy Moore, Adjutant General Mark Bowen and Alabama
State Auditor Beth Chapman.

Below is a copy of Mrs. Chapman's speech, which resulted in five standing
ovations, tremendous applause and an encore. It's a short read and well
worth it.

"I'm here tonight because men and women of the United States military have
given their lives for my freedom. I am not here tonight because Sheryl
Crowe, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Jane Fonda or Phil
Donahue, sacrificed their lives for me.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not movie stars or musicians, but
the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the
jungles
of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy. Tonight, I say we should support
the President of the United States and the U.S. Military and tell the
liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippy, tie-dyed liberals to go
make their movies and music and whine somewhere else.

After all, if they lived in Iraq, they wouldn't be allowed the freedom of
speech they're being given here today. Ironically, they would be put to
death at the hands of Sadam Husssein or Osama Bin Laden. I want to know
how
the very people who are against war because of the loss of life, can
possibly be the same people who are for abortion?

They are the same people who are for animal rights but against the rights
of
the unborn. The movie stars say they want to go to Iraq and serve as
"human
shields" for the Iraqis. I say let them buy a one-way ticket and go.

No one likes war. I hate war! But the one thing I hate more is the fact
that
this country has been forced into war - innocent people have lost their
lives -- and there but for the grace of God, it could have been my
brother,
my husband, or even worse my own son.

On December 7, 1941, there are no records of movie stars treading the
blazing waters of Pearl Harbor.

On September 11, 2001, there are no photos of movie stars standing as
"human
shields" against the debris and falling bodies ascending from the World
Trade Center. There were only policemen and firemen - -underpaid civil
servants who gave their all with nothing expected in return.

When the USS Cole was bombed, there were no movie stars guarding the ship
--
where were the human shields then?

If America's movie stars want to be human shields, let them shield the
gang-ridden streets of Los Angeles, or New York City, let them shield the
lives of the children of North Birmingham whose mothers lay them down to
sleep on the floor each night to shelter them from stray bullets.

If they want to be human shields, I say let them shield the men and women
of
honesty and integrity that epitomizes courage and embody the spirit of
freedom by wearing the proud uniforms of the United States Military. Those
are the people who have earned and deserve shielding!

Throughout the course of history, this country has remained free, not
because of movie stars and liberal activists, but because of brave men and
women who hated war too. However, they lay down their lives so that we all
may live in freedom. After all - "What greater love hath no man, that he
lay
down his life for his friend," or in this case a country.

We should give our military honor and acknowledgement and not let their
lives be in vain. If you want to see true human shields, walk through
Arlington Cemetery. There lie human shields, heroes, and the BRAVE
Americans
who didn't get on television and talk about being a human shield - they
were
human shields.

I thank God tonight for freedom - - those who bought and paid for it with
their lives in the past -- those who will protect it in the present and
defend it in the future.

America has remained silent too long! God-fearing people have remained
silent too long!

We must lift our voices united in a humble prayer to God for guidance and
the strength and courage to sustain us throughout whatever the future may
hold.

After the tragic events of Sept. 11th, my then eleven-year-old son said
terrorism is a war against them and us and if you're not one of us, then
you're one of them.

So in closing tonight, let us be of one accord, let us stand proud, and
let
us be the human shields of prayer, encouragement and support for the
President, our troops and their families and our country.

May God bless America, the land of the free, the home of the brave and the
greatest country on the face of this earth!"

Crazy_Dog

March 29th, 2003, 12:01 AM

An the tension escalates with Syria

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/29/1048653885385.html

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 12:06 AM

Have you seen Bushs war record for when his country called for him.

18 months awol National Guard Texas.

some even may say it is Desertion..

cheney.... deferments "had other priorities than military service

Ashcroft

WEll you get the picture...

Perhaps the speach could have went like this

"I'm here tonight because men and women of the United States military have
given their lives for my freedom. I am not here tonight because George Bush Jr, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, or John Ashcroft, sacrificed their lives for me.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not Republicans or Republicans, but
the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the
jungles
of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy.

.... well you get the picture again.

nice speach... well written

Thanks Aloofi I enjoyed that one.

Has anyone seen any reports of t-72's being destroyed, That is kind of nerve racking...

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 12:09 AM

no doubt the WMD have been secertly moved to Syria... Perhaps in July we can here that one...

Then come Novemenber... Iran....

If so... Every American has a democratic right to rally and rally and impeach the president, ( do not know how it happens, perhaps someone can explain), and get USA back on track and repair the damage that has been done. And make the world a safer place by making sure no chickenhawks get control again...

rextorres

March 29th, 2003, 12:30 AM

It's kind of Pathetic

Of all the members of congress only 1 - the democratic senator of south dakota - out of 485(?) has their son or daughter serving in the military. If we had a draft with no deferments so that people like cheney and rumsfeld couldn't get out of it sending troops into adventures would be far less likely. Also - Gore actually volunteered to go to Vietnam unlike others - it may have been for cynical reasons but he still went.

[ March 28, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: rextorres ]

atari_eric

March 29th, 2003, 12:38 AM

From Practice to Deceive
What Boot is calling for, in other words, is the creation of a de facto American empire in the Middle East. In fact, there's a subset of neocons who believe that given our unparalleled power, empire is our destiny and we might as well embrace it. Didn't the Germans call this liebensraum? Is it me, or are these "neocons" (Neo-Conservatives) looking to be more and more like the National Socialist party of the 1930's? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Krsqk

March 29th, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by atari_eric:
Didn't the Germans call this liebensraum? Is it me, or are these "neocons" (Neo-Conservatives) looking to be more and more like the National Socialist party of the 1930's? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I'm not exactly sure which neo-conservatives those are. I have yet to hear anyone advocate the establishment of an American Empire. For one, the overwhelmingly vast majority of both liberals and conservatives would oppose it. Second, there is probably a subset of "neolibs" who would just as gladly impose a "welfare empire" on the world (some would argue that this already exists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

Baron Munchausen

March 29th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
no doubt the WMD have been secertly moved to Syria... Perhaps in July we can here that one...

Then come Novemenber... Iran....

If so... Every American has a democratic right to rally and rally and impeach the president, ( do not know how it happens, perhaps someone can explain), and get USA back on track and repair the damage that has been done. And make the world a safer place by making sure no chickenhawks get control again...The US Congress has to act to impeach the President. Specifically, the House of Representatives has to bring out specific 'Articles of Impeachment' describing what he has done wrong and pass it. If it is passed, the Senate than acts as a 'jury' to try the President on the charges contained in the resolution passed by the House. Didn't you notice any of this when they impeached Clinton? IF the Congress had any spine this would be underway already. GWB has committed numerous crimes in launching this illegal war. But the knee-jerk patriotism is too strong and the Congress-sheep too timid to even discuss it.

Trivia -- Prior to Richard Nixon, the only president to have articles of impeachment introduced against him was Andrew Jackson. But Clinton was NOT the third President to have this happen. Who was the third?

[ March 29, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Mephisto

March 29th, 2003, 01:24 AM

"Last week, the Shelby County Alabama Legislative Delegation hosted a "Stand Up for America Rally�."Excuse me, people, but what a speech is this? I could turn this into a speech to support Nazi Germany in WW2 any time by just replacing the locations!

Originally posted by atari_eric:
Didn't the Germans call this liebensraum?/Smartass mode on
It was called lebensraum.
Leben equals live, liebe equals love. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
/Smartass mode off

Baron Munchausen

March 29th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
It's kind of Pathetic

Of all the members of congress only 1 - the democratic senator of south dakota - out of 485(?) has their son or daughter serving in the military. If we had a draft with no deferments so that people like cheney and rumsfeld couldn't get out of it sending troops into adventures would be far less likely. Also - Gore actually volunteered to go to Vietnam unlike others - it may have been for cynical reasons but he still went.If we had a draft it ought to run in a different age range. In the past you'd be drafted at 18 or 19 (26 at most) and at that age most people are too conditioned by the propo^H^H^H^H^H patriotism radiating from all the media to know any better than to serve the war machine and go kill foreigners for disobeying their rightful rulers in Washington. If the draft were to run from about 21-35 with NO exceptions for college, marriage, etc. (which their used to be in the old draft) then ordinary 'middle class' citizens with responsibilities would have to pay attention to US foreign policy. Gratuitous wars on disobediant dictators would be much more difficult if millions of people who had established lives of their own and learned to think for themselves a bit were in the line of fire.

Thermodyne

March 29th, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
intel analysis update

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=954&sesid=2You can�t be serious. Intel from un-named comm. intercepts? And no sources named? I hope that you realize that this is not intel, it is someone�s opinion.

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 04:59 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44801-2003Mar28.html

intersting article... Ran on the front page..

warning must put in some FF ( Fake Fields )

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Thank you Baron.

US politics is kind of strange, from what i have learned about it over the Last 20 years. ( as is Canada's , Out of all the different types of Democracy, I think Switerland has the best of the systems )

So what do you think about how the US will take war criminals to trial in their own courts...

Do you believe that the US truelly believes that individual countries can prosecute warcriminals.

[ March 29, 2003, 15:07: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Thermodyne

March 29th, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Thank you Baron.

US politics is kind of strange, from what i have learned about it over the Last 20 years. ( as is Canada's , Out of all the different types of Democracy, I think Switerland has the best of the systems )

So what do you think about how the US will take war criminals to trial in their own courts...

Do you believe that the US truelly believes that individual countries can prosecute warcriminals.Historically, the winners tried the losers in Kangaroo courts. Being tried in the US courts could be their best chance to go free. The way our court system works these days, the war criminals could all walk free. I think they will be able to afford TV lawyers just like OJ.

I say let the new Iraqi government try them under Islamic law.

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Thermo... you should like this link

http://agonist.org/annex/sitmap

Thermodyne

March 29th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Thermo... you should like this link

http://agonist.org/annex/sitmapReminds me of the old play by mail war games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It has become obvious that the info being given to the news about future plans is not necessarily what they have in mind. And it is obvious that the original plan has been modified into something very different. This is normal; the first plan always goes to crap after contact. The thing that has me scratching my head is the lack of a heavy armored division. It is as if they wanted to make sure that this was an infantry war, not just a seek and kill against Saddam. But then why have two armored divisions packed up and ready to move? And where are the RoRo�s right now? I have been checking all of the usual sources, and have found no mention of them, except for the ships of the 4thMInf. Also, the First Arm. seems to be cutting way back on operations, at the same time they are flushing out with reservists. If we were war gaming this, I would be rounding up some larger maps right about now. I hope that the long range goals only included Iraq. The holding of the hard hitting units in reserve has me wondering. The units in country now, will require a long refit after Baghdad falls, but since they are not the first string; I wonder what the starters are being saved for?

[ March 29, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Wardad

March 29th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Are the hard hitters held back because of the WMD threat?

More importantly, Saddams Regime displayed the My Way Or No Way attitude by igniting the oil wells when leaving Kuwait. I also find it disturbing that citizens are shot for leaving the cities. Are the citizens to be used only as shields, or will they be sacrificed in an act of WMD suicide?

examples of (cult) leaders and mass suicidal incidents:
Hitler:
He ordered the destruction of German Infrastructure and ordered armed children to the front lines. All citizens were ordered to resist to the end.
He did not have WMDs and not all orders were obeyed.
Jones:
Jones Town suicide/massacre.
Loyal followers drank poison after forcing the doubters to drink first.
It was done after their chosen life style was threatened. US refused to send social security and pension checks to "imprisoned" elderly.
Waco:
Followers died in raging fire caused, in part, by spread of lamp oil accelerant. Some doubters were shot before they had a chance to run from the flames.

Baghdad lies near a river (valley?). A heavier than air gas or chemical could do a lot of harm in a closed valley. The WMDs were suppossedly hidden in civilian locations.
Very Very Scary Scenario...

Baron Munchausen

March 29th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Thermodyne:

I don't know what the TV networks are reporting, but the 'special coverage' from NPR has definitely mentioned that Rumsfeld had a fantasy war plan that Iraq would crumble when our troops marched in. He wanted to send less than ONE division and rely on air power to handle any resistance. Think of what a disaster this would have been if the actual military men hadn't known better and fought for more troops. As it turned out, Turkey did us a favor by refusing access to the one heavy armored division we were going to send. Now they are going around and will re-inforce the invasion from the south much faster than a division could have been moved all the way from the US. It's still gonna be close to two weeks before they can arrive. Can you imagine how exhausted those Marines and Mechanized Infantry will be in another week or two? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif The northern front can be handled by the air-borne and special forces being dropped in.

Wardad:

Saddam will not committ suicide until and unless he has no remaining options. He's been trying to rouse the 'Arab nation' to serve him for decades. The war on Iran was as much a ploy to do this as to grab some territory and gain better access to the sea. Most Americans don't realize that Iranians are not Arabs, and there is a long-standing ethnic hatred between the Arabs and the Persians (i.e. Iranians). This is one reason that Iran is more-or-less standing aside and not interfering in the US invasion of Iraq. (Militias possibly excepted?)

Saddam's current strategy is still geared towards that same goal of rousing Pan-Arabism -- under his leadership of course. The 'Fedayin' and other irregulars cannot defeat US troops, and he knows it. He is sending people out to get slaughtered, on purpose, so he can have stories and pictures of the awful slaughter broadcast around the world. This would be why the civilians trying to leave the cities are killed, too. There must NOT be pictures of Iraqi civilians greeting US troops gladly or being aided by them in large numbers. Only pictures of battle and slaughter. So refugees have to be killed before they get in range of the western media cameras. Thanks to the Arabs having their own network this time around, his long-time desire might actually be realized. The resentment is building up fast, and I don't see how this war can possibly be ended in 'a few weeks' as Rumsfeld was fantasizing.

I suspect that the only way Saddam is likely to use WMD is if he can find some way to blame US forces for it. He must realize that he would destroy most of his 'moral advantage' even with other Arabs if he actually used the weapons he claimed he does not have. The mass slaughter is going well, anyway. Lots of bodies, in civilian clothes, are available for the Al Jazeera cameras every day. I wouldn't put it past him to have purposely bombed some neighborhoods in Bagdad in order to create photo-ops, either.

[ March 29, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

tesco samoa

March 29th, 2003, 11:59 PM

WarDad... WMD gas ones are way over rated...

If the wind blows the wrong way their useless....

Their more for propaganda...

Now Nail Bombs etc... will cause way more deaths than WMD ever will in close quaters...

tesco samoa

March 30th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Now on the lighter side

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/27/french030327?

Yea... Frenchs mustard is worried...

But shouldn't be as it does not go well with Freedom Toast..... "In other news, American cheese in France has been changed to idiot cheese" SNL - March 22nd 2003

Ha Ha... Man... I got a chuckle out of it.... Now back to my Wus Bacon !

[ March 29, 2003, 23:42: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Andr�s

March 30th, 2003, 01:08 AM

Don't underestimate Iraqi patriotism. Very few would gladly greet US troops. Saddam is not as hated as you suppose.

If I were in Saddam's place and I had WMD I would have already used many of them against US and its allies.
I insist that they haven't been used not found yet because of the simple fact that they do not exist.

He might most likely commit suicide himself to prevent being captured alive, but I don't think he'll ever massacrate his loyal followers.

Crazy Dog, keep posting those links, even if they are not perfectly acurate, it's hard to find info that is neither american nor arab propaganda.

Crazy_Dog

March 30th, 2003, 01:42 AM

I know they are not perfect info, but in a running war that don't exist......
All sides, even the ones not fighting have they interests, and the battle of media today is one of the more importants.
These links are not perfect info, but IMHO they portrait a very credible / possible situation, more 'real' than the ones reported by US/Iraq.

Crazy_Dog

March 30th, 2003, 02:20 AM

intel analysis update

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=954&sesid=2

TerranC

March 30th, 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Don't underestimate Iraqi patriotism. Very few would gladly greet US troops. Saddam is not as hated as you suppose.Iraqi "patriotism" differs from place to place. If you were to begin a jouney by car from Basra to Baghdad, you'd notice the change of loyalties quickly, especially from the lack of portraits of Saddam to the overabundance of them as you head further north.

And let me remind you of a very important fact: It's hard not to say "glory to saddam" when Uday's Fedayeen runs around shooting people in their foreheads, execution style.

Andr�s

March 30th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Living under a dictatorship is not as scary as you believe.
Only opposition activists are persecuted and treated brutally. Most people may have a few complains about the government granted (as they complain about the sanctions imposed by the international community), but they are not that desperate to have a regime change.
They had a relatively normal life that was disrupted when the bombing and fear began.
I wouldn't gladly greet US troops as my saviors, I'd blame them for all this terror around me.
Add patriotism (and propaganda if you want) to the equation and you'll have many people against the invaders and very few, the same ones that were persecuted by the goverment welcoming the US troops.

Crazy_Dog

March 30th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Russian military intel update: War in Iraq, March 29

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1069&sesid=2

Crazy_Dog

March 30th, 2003, 03:14 PM

Several links for the war in the web.....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653844793.html

Roanon

March 30th, 2003, 03:41 PM

Maybe 80% of the Iraqi people hate Saddam the dictator but 100% hate foreign invaders destroying their country. I'm surprised that this simple truth hasn't been realised by the attackers.

geoschmo

March 30th, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
Maybe 80% of the Iraqi people hate Saddam the dictator but 100% hate foreign invaders destroying their country. I'm surprised that this simple truth hasn't been realised by the attackers.Right. And not only that 80% of the people don't hate Saddam. They love him. That's why 100% of the Iraqi people voted for him in the Last election. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Your "simple truth" is nothing but made up numbers that you pulled out of the air. You can't support it with anything. The only people in Iraq that support Saddam are part of the problem. They are part of the regime oppressing and suppressing the majority.

The soldiers fighting against the coalition aren't fighting "for Iraqi sovereingty". They are either part of the regime or they are forced to fight by the regime under penalty of death. They are poor bastards caught in the crossfire. I feel sorry for them.

Geoschmo

primitive

March 30th, 2003, 06:49 PM

Geo:
Roanons numbers may be made up, but there are some valuable truths there that the US should take notice off (and they should have known this before the war, the warnings was there).

Basically the US have F... up big time.
They gambled that the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam and do the job for them. It is now clear that its not gonna happen (Maybe in the South, but not in Bagdad). There may be many reasons for this; fear may be one, but not the only. The truth is that most of the people (of central Iraq) would prefer Saddam over USA any day.

That leaves 3 possible solutions for the war.
1: GWB packs up and goes home. That's not gonna happen.
2: US troops will have to storm Bagdad. Seems like thats gonna take a while, and cost many American (and even more Iraqi) lives, and damage US international relations even more.
3: Some Iraqi general takes over from Saddam and negotiates a peace. Then we are back where we started, just with a new dictator in Bagdad. Only time will tell if he will be better or worse than the old one.

geoschmo

March 30th, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
The truth is that most of the people (of central Iraq) would prefer Saddam over USA any day.The people of Iraq don't have to make a choice between Saddam and the USA. The USA isn't there to rule them, just to get rid of Saddam so they can rule themselves. There will be much resistance from those that are part of the current power structure, but that is only because they know that once the regime is gone they are going to be on the wrong end of rope held by the now liberated and very pissed off populace.

In 91' there was a lot of celebration among the Iraqi people because they thought we were coming to free them. They weren't complaining about an invading army. And then when we pulled out and Bush Sr. told them to revolt they did. Unfortunatly we screwed them again and cost them a lot of blood. Any hesitance on their part now is completely understandable. They are worried we might pull out again. They are waiting to be sure that the regime is done before they stick out their necks.

I can't blame them a bit. But let's not pretend it's anything but what it is. Fear. Not fear that the US/UK is coming, but that they will leave before the job is done.

Geoschmo

primitive

March 30th, 2003, 09:54 PM

Geo, just a small question:
Is this your personal opinion, or is this the general opinion promoted by the news in the US ?
I only ask because it is so different from the news I get in Norway (and from BBC).

geoschmo

March 30th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Geo, just a small question:
Is this your personal opinion, or is this the general opinion promoted by the news in the US ?
I only ask because it is so different from the news I get in Norway (and from BBC).I am not sure what you are asking me. Which point? Or do you mean the whole thing?

Of course I can only give you my personal opinion, the same as anybody here, yourself included. The US press is not of a single mind about the war anymore then the population of our country, or any other country for that matter. All one can do, and what I try to do, is get as much information as I can from as many sources as I can and formulate an opinion of my own.

I read the BBC, I read CNN and several other US news organistions, I read the arabnews website out of Saudi Arabia, and the Haretz news daily out of Isreal. I even try to read the Al Jazeera website, although since the inception of their english Version web page it's been tough to get on there because of the constant DOS attacks of a bunch of idiots with more technical skills then common sense.

And I try to read most of the links people put in their comments here. And I have been reading a lot of the blogs that have gotten so much attention lately. Although most of those are just opinions of people that have no more direct knowledge of the events then myself.

I don't believe everything I read from any of them. But all the little pieces go together to form the view that I have.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

March 30th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Here's a good example of why the people in Iraq fight us and how much they "love" Sadaam.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

Is it all true? I don't know of course, but is has the ring of truth to it.

Geoschmo

Master Belisarius

March 30th, 2003, 11:33 PM

geoschmo

March 31st, 2003, 12:04 AM

MB, that's a thought provoking article as well. It's not directly related to the disccussion Primitive and I were having as we were discussiong whether the average Iraqi supports the invasion, not whether those in teh neiboring countries do. But it's thought provoking nonetheless.

Noone has to convince me that the US policies in the past have been, to be kind, inconsistant. Our support for Isreal and the lack of pressure on them to resolve the Palestinian issue has been unconcionable.

Maybe we have learned something, or maybe the war with Iraq is just another example of that. If that's the case then all our effort in removing the threat of Saddam will as the saying goes just be sowing to the wind. I hope that is not the case. But for me the fear of repurcussions of action started and not finished is no greater than no action at all.

Geoschmo

[ March 30, 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Crazy_Dog

March 31st, 2003, 12:18 AM

No love lost betew the US Army and Rumsfeld

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1144&sesid=2

primitive

March 31st, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Here's a good example of why the people in Iraq fight us and how much they "love" Sadaam.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

Is it all true? I don't know of course, but is has the ring of truth to it.

GeoschmoIt may be true, it may not be true (personally I am inclined to believe it is true).
But it does not change a thing. The question is not if (the majority of) the Iraqi people love Saddam, but if they will fight for their home country against an outside aggressor.

I think you underestimate the hatred for Western imperialism in the Arab world. Very few Iraqi would believe in your noble intentions of restoring democracy and free the oppressed people. Very few Europeans even belive that.

The reason I brought up the news is that we obviously read and watch the same stuff. I just find it strange that we would manage to come to so completely different conclusions.

Master Belisarius

March 31st, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
MB, that's a thought provoking article as well. It's not directly related to the disccussion Primitive and I were having as we were discussiong whether the average Iraqi supports the invasion, not whether those in teh neiboring countries do. But it's thought provoking nonetheless.

Noone has to convince me that the US policies in the past have been, to be kind, inconsistant. Our support for Isreal and the lack of pressure on them to resolve the Palestinian issue has been unconcionable.

Maybe we have learned something, or maybe the war with Iraq is just another example of that. If that's the case then all our effort in removing the threat of Saddam will as the saying goes just be sowing to the wind. I hope that is not the case. But for me the fear of repurcussions of action started and not finished is no greater than no action at all. Either way terrible things were coming. You can try to head them off knowing that you may fail in the attempt, or you can simply wait and be run over by them.

GeoschmoI believed was related with your discussion with Primitive, because is another view to understand why some (or most?) Iraqi (Arab) people doesn't see the US forces as liberators.

Crazy_Dog

March 31st, 2003, 12:31 AM

War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1084&sesid=2

Thermodyne

March 31st, 2003, 01:08 AM

It should be remembered that the Iraqi�s are survivors. They have learned over several
generations that to be noticed is not a good thing. And they have been conditioned to obey the
Saddam government without question. Also, we can�t blame them for not embracing America
and it�s troops. Their history is one of conquering despots replacing the despot that was in power. And lets not forget that those lucky enough to be from Saddam�s tribe, have a good
thing going with him in power. Once Saddam is gone, and they see that the US is going to give
them the opportunity to have a government that is by the people and for the people, they will
soften in their hatred of America. Also, once Saddam is gone, the silent survivor majority will
begin to say more. Last time they wagged their jaws at Saddam, they paid dearly. I for one
don�t hold their lack of a warm reception against them. The opposition by the people is actually
very small, the attacks by the paramilitary/people are very few, given the opportunities that the rapid advance to Baghdad has given them.

Note of the day would be the capture of a terrorist training camp, computers and records intact. I�m sure that quite a few terrorist SOB�s will not sleep well for the next few weeks. They will be waiting for the local police to kick the doors in on their homes in the west.

primitive

March 31st, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Once Saddam is gone, and they see that the US is going to give them the opportunity to have a government that is by the people and for the people, they will soften in their hatred of America. I hope you are right.
I hope US give them the chance to prove you are right, by setting up a true democracy. Not just a puppet regime backed by US guns, while US companies (GWBs buddies) grows fat on "rebuilding" Iraq with Iraqi oil money.

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

Thermodyne

March 31st, 2003, 01:39 AM

If it is against the rules of war as described in the Geneva Convention, then I think it should be called terrorism. To blow up a car and kill invaders in the process is the act of a patriot. To kill civilians that are trying to flee from the fighting is terrorism. To open fire under the protection of a white flag is terrorism. To kill and dismember POW�s is also something less than an act of patriotism; it is an act of savagery.

primitive

March 31st, 2003, 01:50 AM

Thermo:
My personal definition would call all that terrorism, but then I call many of the actions done by coalition forces in Iraq Terrorism too.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Roanon

March 31st, 2003, 01:52 AM

Note that there is a difference between what intentions the US have, what actions they actually do, and what people think about what they are doing.

There may be the intention to liberate the Iraq and install a democracy (though I doubt it, there is just too much oil involved). What actually goes on now is a war hurting a lot of civilians. And someone who used to live not in freedom but in relative safety in Iraq, and who now faces the danger of being killed by bombs and who is starving because he can't get food or water any more, who has a completely different religious and cultural background, who hasn't access to all the different sources of information - he is very unlikely to welcome the invading soldiers with open arms.

There is widespread disagreement and doubt about the altruistic intentions behind this invasion, even in the "free" world. Why should an even more biased Iraqi citizen share the US viewpoint? That seems to be simple to me, and I am still wondering about the US theory of a warm welcome and no resistance.

geoschmo

March 31st, 2003, 02:17 AM

I seriously doubt anyone in the administration or the military thought there would be "no resistance". Otherwise why bother sending the military at all? That being said, it's clear there is more resistance in some places then we expected. The question that hasn't been answered is what is the source of the resistance.

Yes, civilians get hurt in war. War sucks. However the number of civilians killed and wounded to this point are small compared to even the number the regime has killed on it's own, and would kill in the future if left in power.

I think it interesting that people will try to make the argument that it is preferable to give up their chance at liberty to live in "safety" under a murderous dictator, and in this country we have people criticising the administration recently for trying to take some of our liberty in exchange for safety from the terrorists.

I'd also like to know why doesn't the Palestinian argument apply to the arab governments in the region as well? I completely agree the Palestinian issue is a terrible human tragedy that needs resolved. But isn't it rather hypocritical for them to insist that it be resolved before Saddam be removed from power, when he is responsible for more arab and Islamic deaths than the Isreali's?

Geoschmo

geoschmo

March 31st, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
The reason I brought up the news is that we obviously read and watch the same stuff. I just find it strange that we would manage to come to so completely different conclusions.I could give you a patronizing answer, but you haven't, and I appreciate that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Suffice it to say it is one of the imponderable questions that makes humanity such a fascinating and wonderful creature. If everyone in the world could spend their time pondering such questions, sharing their views and thoughtfully considering those in opposition to their own as we do in this forum perhaps oppresion and war truely would be things of the past.

Geoschmo

Crazy_Dog

March 31st, 2003, 02:41 AM

An intersting article from the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/international/worldspecial/29CND-ASSE.html?th

Krsqk

March 31st, 2003, 03:02 AM

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.

Master Belisarius

March 31st, 2003, 05:07 AM

For awhile I have heard references to the Rand think-tanks, related with the visions that moved the US to start this second war in the Gulf.
Today I was reading some papers in their website(http://www.rand.org/), and some of them, seemed very interesting to me.
If somebody have the time/patience, here some links that I liked (specially the 2 Last):

- Confronting Iraq: U.S. Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War (MR-1146-OSD) by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 2000. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1146

- Leadership Succession in the Arab World: A Policy-Maker’s Guide" (RP-902) by Jerrold D. Green, 2000. Originally published in Changing Leadership in the Arab World.
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/ordi/getabbydoc.pl?doc=RP-902

- The Persian Gulf in the Coming Decade: Trends, Threats, and Opportunities (MR-1528-AF) by Daniel L. Byman and John R. Wise, 2002 (PDF).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1528/

- Persian Gulf Security (MR-1245-AF) edited by Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee, 2000.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1245/

[ March 31, 2003, 03:09: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Crazy_Dog

March 31st, 2003, 09:43 AM

British fury at 'cowboy' US pilot's deadly error

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/31/1048962677977.html

Unknown_Enemy

March 31st, 2003, 01:42 PM

How do arabs country see the gulf war 2 ?
The other side of the Hill.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/31_03_03_a.asp

It is a libanese newspaper, but a moderate one. I had troubles finding any interesting sources of more "weird" arab countries such as Syria/Saudia Arabia.

Aloofi

March 31st, 2003, 03:52 PM

I remember there was a war once in which some guy said something like "You only need to knock at their door and the whole house will come down in debris...."
This guy was invading because of ideology diferences, because the other war he had with some other guy was in stalemate, and because of oil......
Who says history doesn't repeat itself with a twist?

Some1

March 31st, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.<hr /></blockquote>But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)

But my point is as Primitive already said:

It's all a matter of perspective.

We all agree that people who excecute, torture etc. Can be considered war criminals..
But what is the divinition of people? Al Aqaida people on Cuba? I think they are not handled that well.... in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.

[ March 31, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Aloofi

March 31st, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
....in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.hohoho, me pay Pay-per-view fee for that fight. Me like it. Me bet Saddam kick, Bush cry. Me thinks Saddam make Bush wash underwear.

Me thinks Romans had Gladiators, me have Marines on CNN live.
Me thinks Romans not that evil now.

dogscoff

March 31st, 2003, 04:44 PM

British fury at 'cowboy' US pilot's deadly error
I wonder if friendly fire could be a feature of se5.

Aloofi

March 31st, 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I wonder if friendly fire could be a feature of se5.As long as is not as bad as in Fallout Tactics, where you could easily shot someone next to your target than your target....
One of my tactics was to get one of my guys to sneak behind 2 or 3 enemies and then I would target my own guy from maximum range with a .50 caliber and I would take out all the bad guys with one spray. It never failed.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

General Woundwort

March 31st, 2003, 11:51 PM

And to think that I came to Shrapnel Forums to get away from this mess... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I haven't had the chance to skim over all 45+ back pages of this thread, but what I have seen is pretty close to a lot of other discussions on this topic - lengthy exercises in missing the point.

I have given a lot of thought to what the real significance of this war is, for America and the world in general. Several articles I have read have greatly influenced me in this regard. For those interesed, here are the links...

Our World-Historical Gamble (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A)

The Pentagon's New Map (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm)

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002122)

The Clash of Civilizations (http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html) (The article that started it all. Before you agree or disagree with Huntington's thesis, read it.)

For the more adventurous, I would recommend two hardcopy books that relate to the subject...

The Ends of the Earth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751238/qid=1049147285/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6481844-5760748?v=glance&s=books) - A reporter's travelogue through various failed third-world "nations". Definitely not recommended bedtime reading.

The Next Christendom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195146166/qid=1049147394/sr=2-1/104-6481844-5760748?v=glance&s=books) - examines, among other things, the coming clash between Third-World Christianity and Islam.

I don't agree with everything in these articles, but they all provide sobering food for thought. The twenty-first century looks to be "interesting times", as the old Chinese curse goes...

(If these articles have already been referenced or discussed, I apologise. Like I said, I haven't had the time to start at page 1 of this thread...)

[ March 31, 2003, 21:54: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

tesco samoa

April 1st, 2003, 01:26 AM

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,921647,00.html

primitive

April 1st, 2003, 01:46 AM

Geo:
I agree fully with your statement. And I always try to save my patronizing answers to to the more moronic Posts, not those which there are logic and knowledge behind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
Your wellcome to nitpick as much as you want. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I only complain when different standards are applied to the different sides.

Master Belisarius

April 1st, 2003, 02:13 AM

General Woundwort: welcome on board!

I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

But it would be a terrible mistake to conclude that such gambles are reckless ventures. In fact, the whole point of a world-historical gamble is that it offers the only possible escape from the kind of historical impasse or deadlock in which the human race presently finds itself. It emerges out of a situation where mankind cannot simply stay put, where the counsels of caution and conservatism are no longer of any value, and where to do nothing at all is in fact to take an even greater risk than that contemplated by the world-historical gamble.
It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it.
I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).

[ April 01, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Krsqk

April 1st, 2003, 02:52 AM

But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)As the attack on the Pentagon was not in time of war, it was unannounced, and it was done via hijacking civilian aircraft, I would call that terrorism. If war came here, I would expect the Pentagon to be shelled/bombed.

It's all a matter of perspective.Indeed. Now, if we could only find an unbiased perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I know, there is no such thing.

tesco samoa

April 1st, 2003, 03:23 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy.

I am sure they would like to attack them with Apache's and Abrams but that is not the weapons they currently process...

General Woundwort

April 1st, 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
But it would be a terrible mistake to conclude that such gambles are reckless ventures. In fact, the whole point of a world-historical gamble is that it offers the only possible escape from the kind of historical impasse or deadlock in which the human race presently finds itself. It emerges out of a situation where mankind cannot simply stay put, where the counsels of caution and conservatism are no longer of any value, and where to do nothing at all is in fact to take an even greater risk than that contemplated by the world-historical gamble.
It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it.
I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!
<hr /></blockquote>I think that Harris' reply would be that during the Cold War, you had two "national" entities in opposition who both stood to lose, from their strategic viewpoint, if such an exchange occured. The "deadlock" then was one of balanced power. That situation no longer applies, as you have "nations" now that are little more than fronts for local strongmen - or ideological fanatics. Such folk as these cannot be counted on to view the use of WMD in the same 'balance of power' light that the old US/USSR framework did. Harris' other article, on the mindset of al Qaeda and other such Islamic Groups, illustrates this rather chillingly. These articles should be read in tandem to get the full gut-wrenching effect.

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.Point well taken. I will repeat, I do not agree 100% with everything in the articles. As things stand now, South America has a lot in common with its old European "home countries". But, how long will that Last? Just suppose - if Europe continues down the path of secularization, while Latin America becomes a center of a new form of vigorous Christianity (see Jenkin's book), what effect might that have on their relations? Their common cultural links? Just suppose - what if, through immigration and/or cultural accomodation, Europe becomes radically "islamicized"? What if France becomes the next Pakistan? What happens to Euro-Latin American relations then?

My point in posting these articles is to get people to look at the events that are unfolding not just in the old "nation state/liberal rational democracy" model, but in a developing model of regional cultures, diffusion of mass-casualty weaponry, and the role religious conflict may play. I think that the 21st century will be as different from the 20th in how things play out as the 20th was from the 19th.

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).Now there's a loaded comment... :-}

[ April 01, 2003, 10:28: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]