[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive] - Page 4

Some1

April 1st, 2003, 11:21 AM

Krsqk
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.I would call it terrorism too, but for them it was war already... And bombing the pentagon in a normal way is not possible for them. This is what you get when to not equal enemies fight.

Krsqk
Indeed. Now, if we could only find an unbiased perspective. I know, there is no such thing. Because, the first thing that dies in a war..... is the truth.

DavidG: Calm down plz..., i didn't suggest it.

Geoschmo
If one wanted to stretch the definitions a bit I could almost see some logic that the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was an act of war and not terrorism. And if the 9/11 terrorists had taken a private plane loaded with explosives or something and flown it into the Pentagon you could make the same case. You can have a war that is undeclared afterall. But calling the innocents on the airliners collateral damage is ridiculous. Collateral damage is not intentional by definition. The 9/11 terrorists purposly murdered those pasengers. They made no effort to prevent their deaths. Their deaths were in fact part of the objective.Its ridiculous for us... Thats the problem (i want to add that i do see it as an terrorist act, but also GWB his war is.)
The bombs that miss and hit civilians are what?? Collateral damage? Remeber that US can permit itself to say what to attack and destroy, something the opposition can't.
The problem is that this was (i guess) the only way to "make their point". Bomb the pentagon? (no way), use a private plane (shot from the air in a sec).... Its just an to unequal war (for them) to stick to the "principles of war".
Guerilla tactics are largely based on: hit, run & fear.

IMO: First look at what you do wrong, before telling someone else what he does wrong (when you are just as wrong yourself).
&
This war is just to enequal to make them stick to any rules.

R.

primitive

April 1st, 2003, 01:27 PM

So, another ”interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ” incident. Marines kill 10 civilians, including 5 children under 5 years of age, in a van.

Probable reason: The vans driver did not understand a stop signal.

War Crime or acceptable collateral damage ?

DavidG

April 1st, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Some1:

DavidG: Calm down plz..., i didn't suggest it.
Yea you did. And not not only that now you've made another post that appears to justify their actions as it is the 'only way to make their point'

DavidG

April 1st, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by primitive:

War Crime or acceptable collateral damage ?How about unaceptable collateral damage. Clearly if they had know it was a bus full of unarmed women and children they would not have fired.

As a side note on civilian casualties why is it that Iraq seems to be held to a different standard than the coalition? Has anyone asked Iraq why they are lobbing missles into Kuwait city or firing at civilians leaving Basra?

DavidG

April 1st, 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Geo
“Interesting” theory. I have not seen any pictures of that actual roadblock yet, but it is not always obvious where you are supposed to stop. If the cover-up is not too big, we may learn something later today.Cover-up? It has already been reported that the platoon leader's commander tore a strip out of the guy for not firing the warning shot early enough. "You f--ing killed a family" he supposedly said. That said I would still view this as an accident and one that quite likely was caused in part by what Geo suggested. Given the tactics used so far I for one am not in a postition to second guess the actions of troops in the field. The only way this could be considered a war crime is if you consider the whole conflict a war crime (which some obviously do)

DavidG

April 1st, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
DavidG
There is no such thing as unacceptable collateral damage. Its either a crime or it is what should be expected and therefore is acceptable.

Everybody knows Saddam is a war criminal and the number one bad guy. Please do not take every criticism of USA or US forces as support for Saddam.If that second part was also directed at me then I apologize. It is not what I believe or intended to come across in my Posts. (and yea I know I have taken exception to a couple of Posts (not yours) I thought were pro Saddam but the vast majority of anti war Posts put forward perfectly valid points. A lot of which I agree with)

primitive

April 1st, 2003, 03:52 PM

DavidG

It is the "You f--ing killed a family" quote that makes me believe it’s not a stupid suicide driver as Geo suggests, but a misunderstanding of the proper procedures from the drivers side.

We will know in a couple of days if there is a cover-up or not.

Re: The other post.
It was both a general message and a hint to you. Anyway, No hard feelings http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

geoschmo

April 1st, 2003, 06:09 PM

Well if this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61229-2003Mar31.html) turns out to be true, then it starts to look more like a stupid mistake, or even gross incompetance. It's way to early to know for sure at this point of course. I'd be very suprised if it turns to be some sort of deliberate act on the part of the soldiers. Contrary to Iraqi propoaganda the US soldiers are not targetting civilians. They are getting themselves injured and killed in many cases going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. That's not to say however they mistakes won't be made. And if it turns out someone didn't act quick enough and that caused or contributed to this tragedy they should be punished accordingly. But that doesn't make it a war crime.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the number of French/Belgian/etc civilians inadvertantly killed by Allied actions during the liberation of Europe in WWII. Might be interesting, if nothing else for context.

Geoschmo

Some1

April 1st, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Some1:

DavidG: Calm down plz..., i didn't suggest it.
Yea you did. And not not only that now you've made another post that appears to justify their actions as it is the 'only way to make their point'<hr /></blockquote>If you actually read my post.

I said that i condemn all kinds of terrorist action, ALSO GWB actions...

And i didn't say/justify, i ask myself the question and compared, anyway... one war is enough (to much).

Peace,
R.

tesco samoa

April 1st, 2003, 06:50 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/oicw.htm

check out this piece of hardware.

tesco samoa

April 1st, 2003, 06:55 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,927233,00.html

Is this true that the USA is setting up their own team of "WMD" inspectors...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tesco samoa

April 1st, 2003, 06:59 PM

And I also wonder if the future of Iraq will be like Afghan. or Algeria ??

Which one is a worse future... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Baron Munchausen

April 1st, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And I also wonder if the future of Iraq will be like Afghan. or Algeria ??

Which one is a worse future... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Somalia might be a better comparison, actually. They are all the same 'ethnicity' but still fighting among themselves. The Kurds all have hatred for the Sunni tribes who have ruled with Saddam, so they won't want to join in a single government with them. But they also have internal hatreds and will continue to fight amongst themselves. The Shiia Arabs in the south of Iraq are the same. Their internal rivalries will become apparent soon after Saddam is really gone. Given the number of weapons hidden all over the country their will be a dozen new internal fractures within months of the fall of Baghdad. That date is not as close as the war planners had been claiming, though. They will have the city surrounded soon, and the arrival of the heavy armor division in a week or two will make it a tstorng seieg, but Saddamhas been planning for his and stored up lots of supplies. It might be next spring before the city actually falls -- if GWB can keep his **** together that long and maintain the military expedition.

I might be glad that GWB has obviously doomed himself politically, but it's going to be a horribly high price to pay to get the neo-fascists out of office.

trooper

April 1st, 2003, 08:06 PM

33 civilians killed by bombing today, mostly women and children. more than a hundred others have been injured.

M Bush and M Blair, you are murderers. If there a justice in this world, you will be sued for that.
All those who have voted for you, all those who support your politic, all those who agree to pay for that dirty war are accomplice.

oleg

April 1st, 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by trooper:
...If there a justice in this world, you will be sued for that.
...There is no justice, there is only judical system. And they will walk away, just read my signature http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

oleg

April 1st, 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,927233,00.html

Is this true that the USA is setting up their own team of "WMD" inspectors...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Yes, it is contracted to a subsidiary of Halliburton of wich Dick Cheney was the chairman before joining Bush team. It is not about USA security, it is not even about oil. It is about personal greed of few Americans. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

raynfala

April 1st, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/oicw.htm

check out this piece of hardware.At a previous job, I worked with an engineer who used to work for Alliant. He worked on the fuse for the OICW "bullet". A very interesting technical challenge, to say the least.

He said he saw the OICW test fired at a couple of dummies situated behind a protective barrier. They programmed the bullets to burst just beyond the barrier. According to him, the results were... quite gruesome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

--Raynfala

trooper

April 1st, 2003, 09:23 PM

Bu the way, if you think it's anti-war french propaganda :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030401/ts_afp/iraq_worldwrap&cid=1503&ncid=1478

I don't think sky news speak of such "insignifant" details. It's what the White house calls "collateral damages"

This war makes me sick.

rextorres

April 1st, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I might be glad that GWB has obviously doomed himself politically, but it's going to be a horribly high price to pay to get the neo-fascists out of office.Unfortunately - I am not so sure about that - I listen to conservative radio programs and most of them say that what's going on in Iraq was intended - and they are blaming any problems they may have on French or Turkish intransigence.

First of all the Turks didn't let us use Turkey in '91 when we had some moral authority and real diplomacy then. So any plan that involved invading from Turkey was wishful thinking and inherently flawed to begin with.

Also Rumsfield's plan obviously screwed up the supply issue - it's not a good thing when an M1A1 is sitting in the desert with no gas.

They also underestimated Iraqi nationalism - I saw a picture of the "sinister" militia and most of them looked like civilians to me - I mean apparently these people can't hit the side of a barn so it suggests to me that most of the people picked up a gun pretty recently and have no training. What people forget is that the Iraqis got rid of the Brits 40 or so years ago and every Iraqi child is taught of THAT liberation so they are never going to accept reimposition of what they perceive as an attempt at colonial rule.

[ April 01, 2003, 19:26: Message edited by: rextorres ]

primitive

April 1st, 2003, 10:00 PM

Tesco, Raynfala:

Please start another thread for your discussions of how cool weapons are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Sinapus

April 2nd, 2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Also Rumsfield's plan obviously screwed up the supply issue - it's not a good thing when an M1A1 is sitting in the desert with no gas.
I suppose your vast experience in military logistics tells you that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The logistical train is catching up with the forward group. That's why they paused a few days ago.

It's not simply a matter of driving through a sector with a resupply depot, after all. (Or even fleeting 'tanker' ships with other ships.)

DavidG

April 2nd, 2003, 12:43 AM

So is Saddam even still alive? From the bits of news I've read it seems that since that first day there has not been any statement from him that proves he is. It does seem a bit strange that he has aired speeches that, if I am to believe the news stories, contain nothing that proves they weren't pre-taped. (ie no mention of any specific events)

Krsqk

April 2nd, 2003, 12:47 AM

From what I heard today, the statement given at noon EST today was dated 3-29-03. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

MegaTrain

April 2nd, 2003, 12:49 AM

Worse than that--in an earlier speech he praised one of the southern forces that had already surrendered!

I highly suspect (although we may not know for quite a while) that he is dead or gravely injured.

Sinapus

April 2nd, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,927233,00.html

Is this true that the USA is setting up their own team of "WMD" inspectors...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Yes, it is contracted to a subsidiary of Halliburton of wich Dick Cheney was the chairman before joining Bush team. It is not about USA security, it is not even about oil. It is about personal greed of few Americans. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif <hr /></blockquote>LINK! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20030401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_halliburton_iraq_4)

[ April 01, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: Sinapus ]

geoschmo

April 2nd, 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
So, another ”interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ” incident. Marines kill 10 civilians, including 5 children under 5 years of age, in a van.

Probable reason: The vans driver did not understand a stop signal.

War Crime or acceptable collateral damage ?Actual probable reason: The driver of the van intended for the van to be shot up and thus feed the flames of negative opinion in the world. Stop signals the world over are the same Primitive. When a man with a gun holds his hand up and then fires into the air, you stop. Where on earth does that mean "Keep going"?

Most likely a war crime. But one commited by the driver of the van, not the soldiers at the roadblock. Purposly taking a van full of innocents into harms way and then acting in a manner likely to get them injured or killed is no different then pulling the trigger yourself.

Geoschmo

primitive

April 2nd, 2003, 02:15 AM

DavidG
There is no such thing as unacceptable collateral damage. Its either a crime or it is what should be expected and therefore is acceptable.

Everybody knows Saddam is a war criminal and the number one bad guy. Please do not take every criticism of USA or US forces as support for Saddam.

tesco samoa

April 2nd, 2003, 02:33 AM

According to the terrorists. From the 93 bombings. No one is innocent. With the power of democracy it is you who has the power to vote in a govn't and support their foreign policy. Or something like that... Perhaps some one can find the complete quote and post it.

One must fight with what ever means they have. Where I was lucky to get out of it is well understood that if your on the other side of the fence your the enemy. To ignore that can be costly. So the people have choosen to continuely vote in more and more moderate politicians to slowly and surely change the political climate. It is working but takes years.

I guess I am trying to say I understand that statement. Do I agree with it. No. But I understand it. And perhaps when the next elections come around i will voice my opinion that the Middle East issue should be a topic of dicussion so I can formulate my opinions and cast my vote for the party that matches those opinions. If I do not like the results. I can always vote again down the road...

Roanon

April 2nd, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Please do not take every criticism of USA or US forces as support for Saddam.That seems to be a common problem. Official viewpoint: the world is black and white. Divided into good and evil, and of course we are on the good side, and everyone who does not support us without questioning is on the other side.
It is not that simple, cowboys. Though I wish it were.

tesco samoa

April 2nd, 2003, 02:38 AM

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=26&PHPSESSID=6855705c097d50d694bb3fb6856a3a91

an interesting link about the tatical use of suicide bombers

primitive

April 2nd, 2003, 02:58 AM

Geo
“Interesting” theory. I have not seen any pictures of that actual roadblock yet, but it is not always obvious where you are supposed to stop. If the cover-up is not too big, we may learn something later today.

rextorres

April 2nd, 2003, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
Also Rumsfield's plan obviously screwed up the supply issue - it's not a good thing when an M1A1 is sitting in the desert with no gas.
I suppose your vast experience in military logistics tells you that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The logistical train is catching up with the forward group. That's why they paused a few days ago.

It's not simply a matter of driving through a sector with a resupply depot, after all. (Or even fleeting 'tanker' ships with other ships.)<hr /></blockquote>So your saying that they planned for the tanks to be 50 miles from Bagdad short on fuel and for the soldiers to get caught short on rations!?

I'm not a logistical expert no, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out that it was not intended that way and that it's not a good thing. We won't know why until it's all over, but my guess is the "unwargamed" militia is what has caused all the supply problems.

rextorres

April 2nd, 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
From what I heard today, the statement given at noon EST today was dated 3-29-03. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif There is a theory that the reason that Iraqis have had such a coherent resistance is that he's either gone or too incapacitated to be involved.

tesco samoa

April 2nd, 2003, 05:38 AM

primitive : Sorry...

David G : I do not think it matters if S.H. is dead or alive.. It would change nothing. What must be done will be done reguardless of who is on the receiving end.

Crazy_Dog

April 2nd, 2003, 10:29 AM

Russian military intel update: War in Iraq, April 1

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1398&lang=en

Mephisto

April 2nd, 2003, 10:49 AM

I just hope the Coalition will make swift progress now. Every day increases the suffering of the bystanders. Regarding the firing incident with the killed family: It�s a tragedy but we will see more of this and I don�t think you can blame either side to much. I don�t know if I as the driver would have stopped the car if someone fires a weapon around me. I don�t know if he fires upon me or just the air and to stop and see what is fired upon might not be a good idea � it could be me!
On the other hand, after 4 comrades were killed by a car bomb and some big car is heading my way without stopping after I have signalled a �Stop!�, I might just as well fire at the car. Better them then me and my comrades. Really, I don�t want to be in their shoes down there�

Aloofi

April 2nd, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Cover-up? It has already been reported that the platoon leader's commander tore a strip out of the guy for not firing the warning shot early enough. "You f--ing killed a family" he supposedly said. Hahaha, do you really believe that?
That is just part of the cover-up!

kalthalior

April 2nd, 2003, 07:14 PM

Map of area around Baghdad, and Coalition advance
Advance on Baghdad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_key_maps/html/push_for_baghdad.stm)

Alpha Kodiak

April 2nd, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
Iraq, Testing Ground for US Hi-tech Weapons
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1395&lang=enOk, this one I can't let pass. Logically, every weapon system (except perhaps the fist) ever used in warfare from the dawn of time had to be used for the first time in battle at some time. Perhaps we should arm our troops only with stone knives and clubs to keep things fair.

Sinapus

April 2nd, 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sinapus:
The logistical train is catching up with the forward group. That's why they paused a few days ago.

It's not simply a matter of driving through a sector with a resupply depot, after all. (Or even fleeting 'tanker' ships with other ships.)So your saying that they planned for the tanks to be 50 miles from Bagdad short on fuel and for the soldiers to get caught short on rations!?
<hr /></blockquote>You've never studied logistics, or spoken with someone familiar with the subject, right?

Shortages are indeed expected. Same with maintenance failures on armored vehicles.

I'm not a logistical expert no, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out that it was not intended that way and that it's not a good thing. We won't know why until it's all over, but my guess is the "unwargamed" militia is what has caused all the supply problems.It seems to take an armchair general, sitting in front of a computer thousands of kilometers away from the front, who has an axe to grind to come to conclusions based on ignorance and what you think it should be like.

Even if the "unwargamed" militia hadn't shown up, they'd still have to pause periodically so the trucks carrying fuel, beans and ammunition could catch up. (Not to mention let the troops get some sleep.) Which, of course, would lead you to presume incompetence in the planners, right?

Btw, there's a wide gulf between "this was not in the plan" and ["WE'RE DOOMED, MAN! QUAGMIRED, MAN! SUPPLY LINE CUT, MAN!" "STAY CALM MOMMY, I MEAN, SQUAT!"]

[ April 02, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Sinapus ]

Wardad

April 2nd, 2003, 11:18 PM

Sometimes the weather does not cooperate. Blinding dust storms can hold up supply lines.
Meanwhile the troops need food and lots of water while they wait it out.
Waiting it out will unbalance the supplies, more ammo and fuel but less water and food.
The enemy did not cooperate either, and harrased the supply lines.

I thought the plan was flexible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
So if things go well, the forces can jump at an opportunity.
If there are problems, the forces can sit tight or regroup, and try again later.

I do not see a real screw up here. Of course, they wouldn't tell us if there was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ April 02, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Wardad

April 2nd, 2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
Cover-up? It has already been reported that the platoon leader's commander tore a strip out of the guy for not firing the warning shot early enough. "You f--ing killed a family" he supposedly said. Hahaha, do you really believe that?
That is just part of the cover-up!<hr /></blockquote>That would have to be the worst cover-up story I have ever heard.
Kinda like signing a confession to cover-up guilt.

DavidG

April 3rd, 2003, 12:34 AM

Seems like everyone and their Grandma has a complete copy of the US war plan. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Can anyone tell me where I can get it? Might be a good read. Gee you'd think they'd have security for important things like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Wardad

April 3rd, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Seems like everyone and their Grandma has a complete copy of the US war plan. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Can anyone tell me where I can get it? Might be a good read. Gee you'd think they'd have security for important things like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It was on CNN Last night, and Jeraldo Rivera outlined it in the sand. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Crazy_Dog

April 3rd, 2003, 02:11 AM

Strains of war test the allies
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1413&lang=en

Family deaths at checkpoint fuel fury and mistrust
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1414&lang=en

Myers, Rumsfeld Lash Out at War Plan Critics
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1391&lang=en

Iraq, Testing Ground for US Hi-tech Weapons
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1395&lang=en

tesco samoa

April 3rd, 2003, 02:49 AM

Well they should be right now. A three pronged attack is under way.

I do not have a map to link to... But it will be worth dicussing.

Thermodyne

April 3rd, 2003, 03:47 AM

Krsqk

April 3rd, 2003, 05:03 AM

Thermo, I hate to say this, but:

Link, please?

I haven't heard any of this (not that I've caught any news since ~noon Wed.); and I'd like the opportunity to read it for myself.

That said, it does indeed appear much of the press had a predetermined idea of what would happen. Many of them cut their journalistic teeth on Vietnam, and would love to have that power and notoriety back. Unfortunately for them, it's not going to happen while ~75%+ of the Americans are for finishing what we started, which I think they're aware of.

Askan Nightbringer

April 3rd, 2003, 05:12 AM

Thermodyne, I just don't get it. I've never seen anything that ever hinted at a possible US loss. Was someone doubting that the US Army wasn't capabable of killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqis with little risk to their own? Remember Gulf War 1? Over 100,000 dead Iraqi soldiers to the loss of 148 on the US side. Tens of thousands of soldiers died while fleeing Kuwait along the highways to Basra, defenceless and systematically killed. At least when the soldiers are charging suicidally at US positions they're not getting shot in the back.

As for the journalists, who really gives a damn. I watched a bizzare US news program the other day (I think it was ABC) where some blonde host was aruging with an Al-Jazeer journalist, complaining about the bias of the coverage. He pointed out the bias of the American coverage and the arguement went on. I kept thinking three words, "pot", "kettle", "black".
They are all being fed lies from both sides, what really happened won't really be known for several years. Until then just read/watch your bias of choice and cheer your team on.

Askan

rextorres

April 3rd, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Sinapus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sinapus:
The logistical train is catching up with the forward group. That's why they paused a few days ago.

It's not simply a matter of driving through a sector with a resupply depot, after all. (Or even fleeting 'tanker' ships with other ships.)So your saying that they planned for the tanks to be 50 miles from Bagdad short on fuel and for the soldiers to get caught short on rations!?
<hr /></blockquote>You've never studied logistics, or spoken with someone familiar with the subject, right?

Shortages are indeed expected. Same with maintenance failures on armored vehicles.

I'm not a logistical expert no, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out that it was not intended that way and that it's not a good thing. We won't know why until it's all over, but my guess is the "unwargamed" militia is what has caused all the supply problems.It seems to take an armchair general, sitting in front of a computer thousands of kilometers away from the front, who has an axe to grind to come to conclusions based on ignorance and what you think it should be like.

Even if the "unwargamed" militia hadn't shown up, they'd still have to pause periodically so the trucks carrying fuel, beans and ammunition could catch up. (Not to mention let the troops get some sleep.) Which, of course, would lead you to presume incompetence in the planners, right?

Btw, there's a wide gulf between "this was not in the plan" and ["WE'RE DOOMED, MAN! QUAGMIRED, MAN! SUPPLY LINE CUT, MAN!" "STAY CALM MOMMY, I MEAN, SQUAT!"]<hr /></blockquote>There is no point in being hostile - I assume I am getting the same news that you do and I've come up with different conclusions (unless of course you have insider information).

Okay then let's just say that they planned to run out of gas and supplies. How would you account for a plan that called for invading through Turkey - when the Turks didn't allow U.S. troops in the first war!? What about Iraqi nationalism!?

Also the reason that this war plan issue is big news in the first place is because the politicians are making such strong denials. They should have just admitted that they didn't account for some things and moved on.

kalthalior

April 3rd, 2003, 06:08 PM

RE: Supply lines/warplans

As someone with almost 10 years military experience (Army/NG), & someone who has run many a LOGPAC (logistics package), I guess I'll comment on the warplan and logistics. The plan was, and is, an excellent one -- multi-pronged assault over a wide front, using Coalition advantages of maneuver & air superiority to the maximum. Bypass centers of resistance (urban areas) to continue to advance on the main objective -- Saddam & Baghdad.
As far as the supplies go, we were victims of our own success, advancing far faster & further than probably anyone thought we would. At no point did I ever hear about anyone that didn't get SOME supplies -- even 1 MRE a day provides more than enough calories for the average soldier to keep fighting, and while tanks/apcs may have been low on fuel, but were never out of gas as they were in Patton's advance across France.
More than likely, the main holdup was getting a forward supply point organized, secured and getting inventory to that location (inside Iraq). It would be from that point that the divisional/brigade support units would get the supplies to distribute the beans and bullets to the trigger pullers.
While the sandstorm was a nuisance, it was probably a blessing in disguise as it let us rest up, redeploy, secure our lines, and modify the operation to continue the advance more successfully.
BTW, my brother-in-law is in country supporting the 101st.

[ April 03, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

Thermodyne

April 3rd, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Thermo, I hate to say this, but:

Link, please?

I haven't heard any of this (not that I've caught any news since ~noon Wed.); and I'd like the opportunity to read it for myself.

That said, it does indeed appear much of the press had a predetermined idea of what would happen. Many of them cut their journalistic teeth on Vietnam, and would love to have that power and notoriety back. Unfortunately for them, it's not going to happen while ~75%+ of the Americans are for finishing what we started, which I think they're aware of.The events at the LA Times is straight from CNN and the Washington Post. The Emails I was
allowed to read were not addressed to me, so I will not post them. But I am told that Fox
featured one of them on their cable channel Last night. I will see the tape of it later tonight. If I got to see the emails, that means that they are pretty much in open circulation now, my contacts are pretty poor these days. The emails were from people in the 3rdInf at the front lines. I am also told that Fox interviewed a gentleman Last night who said that the New York Times had requested an article that was biased
against the administration, he turned them down.

Crazy_Dog

April 3rd, 2003, 07:50 PM

another cluster of links....

Russian military intel update: War in Iraq, April 2
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1494&lang=en

From the West Bank to Baghdad
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1612&lang=en

Arabs See Israel's Hand Behind U.S. War in Iraq
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1613&lang=en

Key developments concerning Iraq
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1535&lang=en

US troops 'within six miles' of Baghdad
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1565&lang=en

As usual, i only provide the links for anybody interested to read.
They are not from US nor from Iraq.
I don't say they are the 'real thing' but on this war everibody lie......

Crazy_Dog

April 4th, 2003, 09:26 PM

An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&sort_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en

Alpha Kodiak

April 4th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&so rt_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en (http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&sort_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en)The fun part is that the hull sustained no damage, the crew survived, and after repairs to the damaged carriage, it will be going back into action. It ain't that easy to take out an M1.

Thermodyne

April 4th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&so rt_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en (http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&sort_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en)Not really hurt that bad. It had a track fire to be sure, but the blow-off panels are in place so the interior did not burn. M1 are very resistant to fire, unlike the T 72's. T 72 will go off like fireworks at the first spark of a fire. And the anti-wgm packs they carry often stop the missile only to then cook the crew in the resulting fire.

Baron Munchausen

April 4th, 2003, 11:58 PM

It is interesting how much has been learned by the US about tank design. US tanks used to be sh*t. (Germans always designed good tanks, of course... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). The Sherman in WW II, for example, was a bathtub with treads and a turret on it. The reason the US armored divisions managed to defeat the Germans was sheer numbers, and air support.

It's hard to tell just from that photo how bad the damage to the rest of the M1 was, but it is entirely possible that the main body of the tank was not touched. There are all sorts of safety features and 'firewalls' in the design of the Abrams tank. But that's still quite an eye opener. As far as I have heard, the Iraqi resistors (uniformed or not) do not have 'anti-tank' missiles. They are using RPGs. What does an Abrams cost? Aren't they getting to be something like fighter planes, costing close to $100 million each? The 'special' armor is very expensive, I know that much. Yet a cruddy little RPG, designed in the 1970s and costing a few hundred dollars, can disable it. And they are so simple that many 'third world' nations manufacture them (under license) instead of buying them directly from the Russians.

You can see why they don't want to go into close-in 'urban' combat from images like this. The Abrams has normal steel armor on top, NOT the 'special' armor that can resist shaped charges. It was too expensive, and too heavy, to use on all surfaces. If you can do this to the tough side armor at reasonable ranges with a mere RPG, then you could certainly destroy one if you could get a shot from above (in the upper stories of building, for example). I think they designed these tanks with US air power in mind. Every war we've fought since aircraft were invented, we've had air superiority. So they felt they could presume the tank was safe from above and save weight. If some clever person figures out how to make armor-piercing mortars, or how to use RPGs in that fashion (shoot up and then come down) our super-duper tanks will be in deep doodoo.

[ April 04, 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Alpha Kodiak

April 5th, 2003, 12:03 AM

From what I understand, their were two M1s damaged by WGMs similar in class to TOWs mounted on the back of flat bed trucks. I assume this is one of them. I don't think the trucks survived the return fire nearly as well....

Krsqk

April 5th, 2003, 01:13 AM

I don't think an armor-piercing mortar round is possible (although I could well be wrong). The ballistic use of RPGs is even more unlikely. You'd either have to fire at a high angle to hit your target, giving your round a high probability of being misdirected by wind; and/or you'd have to cut the burn time down for the rounds so they wouldn't go so high first.

If someone does come out with an effective means of attacking the top armor of the tanks, I'm sure the defense industry will find some way to stop it. It's the old "Make a bullet to pierce this armor" "Okay, now make some armor to stop this bullet" routine.

Baron Munchausen

April 5th, 2003, 03:15 AM

Oh, an armor piercing mortar round is certainly possible. At least the shaped-charge variety. I guess I should have been clearer. It would have to be reasonably accurate to be worthwhile. Mortars are highly inaccurate, and so they are almost always anti-personal (fragmentation) or plain high explosive warheads that can be made to explode above the target and cover a wide area. A shaped charge mortar round would just punch holes in the dirt 95 percent of the time. If you could make a 'smart' shaped-charge mortar that would 'look down' and guide itself to hit a tank it would be well worthwhile to produce and deploy because the Abrams is not the only tank with less armor on top. But this sort of technology is the hallmark of Western, especially US, military methods, not third-world militaries.

In fact, there is a weapon of this type in the works with the US military. A special artillery shell that would deploy a parachute and scan for tanks before firing a special weapon down on them. Not sure how far along that is.

Same for the RPG round. If you could make a 'smart' RPG that would seek out a tank you'd have something. As it is, yes, you'd just be firing off flares for the enemy to follow back to your position. The chance of hitting anything by shooting up and hoping it comes down at the right place would be pretty small.

That level of damage on the M1 does make more sense from a real 'anti-tank' missile, though.

[ April 05, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Master Belisarius

April 5th, 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
That level of damage on the M1 does make more sense from a real 'anti-tank' missile, though.Could be this?
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1784&lang=en

Suicide Junkie

April 5th, 2003, 04:58 AM

This is why we need multiple levels of both the "armor" and "armor skipping" abilities for SE5 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

April 5th, 2003, 05:49 AM

Well guys and gals, the cat is about to be out of the bag. First let�s note that the LA Times just got burned for using doctored photos on the front page. Photos that were altered to show the US military in a bad light, when in fact just the opposite was occurring. Now back to the cat; CNN and MS-NBC are not showing things as they are! These terrible battles that were going to kill Americans by the thousands are in fact human wave assaults. Why do they only say that these Guards divisions are just taken out? Why do they not show how one sided the fight really is? They started the war with a reporting plan of their own, and now they run stories about how FUBAR�d the Army�s plan has become. I think that the networks are the ones with FUBAR�d plan. A plan that they used in the sixties, and grew to love. Well this is not the sixties, and this is not a police action run by McNamara and Johnson from the White House. This is not McNamara trying to send Messages with measured escalation. This is a combined arms offensive such has not been mounted in the history of man.

Soldiers from the 3rdInf are reporting mass charges against their armor. They are describing seas of body parts, yes parts, knee deep. They are using dump body trucks to haul them away. Published kill numbers for the 3rd are less than 50 KIA and 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqis KIA. These guys are massing up and trying to over-run the US positions. 300 men at a time. What a waste, this in and of itself gives us a look at what Iraq had become. To throw away the Last of your Army like this indicates that they have no intention of achieving victory, it indicates that they are going to try to go out with glory. Perhaps glory in the eyes of their god, but dead is dead. And dead from charging M-1s and Bradley�s with RPG�s is just plain stupid. Personally, were I there, I would be cleaning the sand out of my NBC gear.

Thermo's post is true....

But the picture was not shown to show the americans in a bad light.... More it was that the photographer snapped two pictures quickly and decided that if he combined them together it made a better, stronger emotional picture. Unfortantly he had a couple of duplicate people.

When this was found out. The person was sacked as per the policy of that newspaper.

The rest of his post.... Well I enjoyed the fiction as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Keep up the Posts Thermo.... You always make me think ( except when you putting down countries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ).

Thank you

tesco samoa

April 5th, 2003, 05:58 AM

that iraqwar.ru should be read with a huge grain of salt..... But it is a blog none the less... No matter what they try to push themselves off as ....

http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.oss.net/extra/page/
http://philcarter.blogspot.com/
http://www.agonist.org/

Much better...

Thermodyne

April 5th, 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Well guys and gals, the cat is about to be out of the bag. First let�s note that the LA Times just got burned for using doctored photos on the front page. Photos that were altered to show the US military in a bad light, when in fact just the opposite was occurring. Now back to the cat; CNN and MS-NBC are not showing things as they are! These terrible battles that were going to kill Americans by the thousands are in fact human wave assaults. Why do they only say that these Guards divisions are just taken out? Why do they not show how one sided the fight really is? They started the war with a reporting plan of their own, and now they run stories about how FUBAR�d the Army�s plan has become. I think that the networks are the ones with FUBAR�d plan. A plan that they used in the sixties, and grew to love. Well this is not the sixties, and this is not a police action run by McNamara and Johnson from the White House. This is not McNamara trying to send Messages with measured escalation. This is a combined arms offensive such has not been mounted in the history of man.

Soldiers from the 3rdInf are reporting mass charges against their armor. They are describing seas of body parts, yes parts, knee deep. They are using dump body trucks to haul them away. Published kill numbers for the 3rd are less than 50 KIA and 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqis KIA. These guys are massing up and trying to over-run the US positions. 300 men at a time. What a waste, this in and of itself gives us a look at what Iraq had become. To throw away the Last of your Army like this indicates that they have no intention of achieving victory, it indicates that they are going to try to go out with glory. Perhaps glory in the eyes of their god, but dead is dead. And dead from charging M-1s and Bradley�s with RPG�s is just plain stupid. Personally, were I there, I would be cleaning the sand out of my NBC gear.

Thermo's post is true....

But the picture was not shown to show the americans in a bad light.... More it was that the photographer snapped two pictures quickly and decided that if he combined them together it made a better, stronger emotional picture. Unfortantly he had a couple of duplicate people.

When this was found out. The person was sacked as per the policy of that newspaper.

The rest of his post.... Well I enjoyed the fiction as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Keep up the Posts Thermo.... You always make me think ( except when you putting down countries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ).

Thank youWhich part is fiction, I watched tape of the fox report, and they showed one of the emails just as I was told they had. It was the one that spoke of the body parts. The photo was altered to fit the anti war view that the paper wanted. And the CF's are public record. The picture in question was altered to make it look like the civies were being held at gun point, which was not what was going on at all. So which part is fiction. Perhaps the toxins that were rooted out today are fiction. Perhaps the trace samples from the terrorist camp are fiction. I hope so in this particular case, since the stuff was there but is now gone, one would have to wonder about where it went.

geoschmo

April 5th, 2003, 06:04 AM

I have seen the photo and I am not sure I see how it potrays the Americans in any light, good or bad. For one thing the soldier in the picture is a British soldier.

It's obvious the photographer was simply trying to make a picture that had more visual interest. I don't see any nefarious message or political slant in his choice of imagry. It was very harmless.

That being said his termination was completely right and proper. Allowing any sort of manipulation like this, even one as innocuous as this one, is something that simply should not be tolerated. It opens up too much potential for horrible abuses.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

April 5th, 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
From what I understand, their were two M1s damaged by WGMs similar in class to TOWs mounted on the back of flat bed trucks. I assume this is one of them. I don't think the trucks survived the return fire nearly as well....What has happened to the M1 tanks in Iraq is a short fall in the tactics, not a weakness in the tank. The M1 was developed to kill Soviet armor from long range while moving at high speed. And to deal with Soviet infantry by killing their personnel carriers before the infantry dismounts. The Soviet battle plan calls for units to dive forward until halted by combat, then to stand aside and let the unit directly in trail to move forward and continue the advance. American order of battle was to kill and displace, to buy time and delay the advance, not stop it. This was designed as a combined arms engagement with air power, TOW and Dragon anti-armor weapons and tank engagements that were quick long range fights. The M1 was not designed to fight dismounted infantry. And it is poorly suited for stationary slow moving fights against these forces. The doctrine would be to blow past these guys and attack the areas to their rear, leaving them to be dealt with by our infantry. These tanks are being de-tracked by shoulder fired RPG�s and possibly by some sight guided anti armor missiles. Their defense against this is open country speed, which they do not have in these small towns. And will not have in Baghdad. In an urban fight, the tank becomes self propelled artillery. At close quarters in a stationary fight, I could have a troop of girl scouts ready to de-track tanks in about half an hour. The problem is that de-tracking does not kill the tank, so if you loose the ground, then you get to fight the same tank again the next day.

To put this in perspective, the damaging of 5 tanks in a two hundred mile, balls to the wall advance, in dismal. It shows the Iraqi army to be totally inept. They should have killed five tanks at every creek and gully along the way. They should have forced the infantry to dismount every couple of miles. Personally, it appears to me that the Iraqi�s have very little faith in their equipment and even less ability to make good use of it. This is typical of a fighting force built on the Soviet model. When command and control is removed, the individual units do not have the ability to take the situation onto their own shoulders. They are trained to follow orders, and the development of local leadership is forbidden. This is to prevent the Army from being capable of independent operation that could be directed against the government. In the urban fight that will probably be fought in Baghdad, the same short coming will be evident. The Iraqi�s will never be able to mount an integrated defense without re-establishing command and control. In Somalia, the Skinnies were able to punish the Rangers because each fighter (can�t really call them solders) instinctively knew how to best contribute to the battle based on the local situation. They had never had the luxury of command and control in battle, so they had many trained field commanders, and an instinctive knowledge of how to fight a fluid battle in their urban back yard. This had been developed over a generation and a half of fighting. Many of these 20 year old Skinnies had 10 years of combat experience, with out ever having taken an order from anyone who was not close enough to give it verbally.

I find it strange that the Soviet model can train an irregular force to be self controlled at the local tactical level, but not allow the same freedom of action to the units in the regular Army. This is an obvious result of the mistrust that dictatorial governments have of the military forces under their command.

Thermodyne

April 5th, 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I have seen the photo and I am not sure I see how it potrays the Americans in any light, good or bad. For one thing the soldier in the picture is a British soldier.

It's obvious the photographer was simply trying to make a picture that had more visual interest. I don't see any nefarious message or political slant in his choice of imagry. It was very harmless.

That being said his termination was completely right and proper. Allowing any sort of manipulation like this, even one as innocuous as this one, is something that simply should not be tolerated. It opens up too much potential for horrible abuses.

GeoschmoAs always, you are correct Geo. When I said American, I should have said Coalition.

tesco samoa

April 5th, 2003, 06:18 AM

and their was a m1 that drove off a bridge... a few days ago... All crew perished...

Thermodyne

April 5th, 2003, 06:27 AM

Yep, the reports indicate that they drowned. Some say that it was also de-tracked, which
would cause it to make a hard turn to the side missing the track. Seems to me that it would
have been a good idea to have already blown the bridge. Or at least called arty onto it once it
was lost.

tesco samoa

April 8th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Some heavy losses the Last 2 days for both sides....

Here is an interesting link

http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous

rextorres

April 8th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Some heavy losses the Last 2 days for both sides....

Here is an interesting link

http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By AnonymousThat link sounds like this thread.

EDIT: While doing my taxes I just realized that based on the number of tax payers in this country we've each - on avg. - just paid around $800 of our hard earned money to blow up Iraq. We could have given every man, woman, and child of Iraq $4500. Kind of wacky if you ask me. This is based on $100B price tag for this adventure.

[ April 08, 2003, 09:18: Message edited by: rextorres ]

General Woundwort

April 8th, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
While doing my taxes I just realized that based on the number of tax payers in this country we've each - on avg. - just paid around $800 of our hard earned money to blow up Iraq. We could have given every man, woman, and child of Iraq $4500. Kind of wacky if you ask me. This is based on $100B price tag for this adventure.It's been tried before. It was called the "Oil for Food" program. The only ones who saw any of the money were Saddam and his "praetorians" (because they controlled the south), and the Kurds (because their distribution program wasn't controlled by Saddam).

So, you are not convinced that this war was a good return on the investment?

rextorres

April 8th, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
While doing my taxes I just realized that based on the number of tax payers in this country we've each - on avg. - just paid around $800 of our hard earned money to blow up Iraq. We could have given every man, woman, and child of Iraq $4500. Kind of wacky if you ask me. This is based on $100B price tag for this adventure.It's been tried before. It was called the "Oil for Food" program. The only ones who saw any of the money were Saddam and his "praetorians" (because they controlled the south), and the Kurds (because their distribution program wasn't controlled by Saddam).

So, you are not convinced that this war was a good return on the investment?<hr /></blockquote>Not if they don't find significant amounts of WMDs. I'm not talking mustard gas either - or a few rusted barrels of sarin -(I am not sure when this war became about liberating the Iraqi people BTW). I want to see a huge wmd plant that had been churning out weapons.

If it had been my money I would have invested it in improving gas mileage - or how about a middle class tax cut - I could give you a laundry list. Or better yet I would pay off North Korea.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:30: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo

April 8th, 2003, 02:16 PM

"A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous" was interesting. Although it was misnamed. It should have been called, "A misinformed peacenik suffers a pshychotic break in which he fantisizes about having a discussion with a similerly misinformed warmonger."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

General Woundwort

April 8th, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by General Woundwort:
So, you are not convinced that this war was a good return on the investment?Not if they don't find significant amounts of WMDs. I'm not talking mustard gas either - or a few rusted barrels of sarin -(I am not sure when this war became about liberating the Iraqi people BTW). I want to see a huge wmd plant that had been churning out weapons.<hr /></blockquote>Patience, Grasshopper - all will be revealed...

If it had been my money I would have invested it in improving gas mileage - or how about a middle class tax cut - I could give you a laundry list. Or better yet I would pay off North Korea.The only "payment" we should give NK is "payment in kind". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

As for the rest, it does no good to focus entirely on domestic issues and ignore the dangers of the larger world. It is in part because we did just that in the 90's that we're in the situation we're in now.

tesco samoa

April 8th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Ha Ha Ha good one GEO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

kalthalior

April 8th, 2003, 07:10 PM

3 myths revealed (http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,482-638446,00.html)

Aloofi

April 8th, 2003, 08:29 PM

Any news about Afghanistan?
I've heard things are not going well there....

rextorres

April 8th, 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by kalthalior:
3 myths revealed (http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,482-638446,00.html)Thanks for the info, but here's the response to the three myths.

Myth 1

Yes most of the weapons are russian, etc. BUT the one percent the U.S sold him are the WMD of mass distraction we can't find.

Myth 2

This guy is plain wrong (unless he gets insider information). From the news sources I've read the most loyal followers are the Fedayin(too lazy too look up spelling) evil true, but not Islamist. The foreign fighters the U.S. has caught are Pan-Arab nationalists not Islamists.

They did get a "training camp" in western Iraq, but it was in an enclave similar to the kurdish one and in the no fly zone - so we could have bombed it out of existance. They were evil too AND also anti-Saddam.

Myth 3

Yes they are under different chapters BUT there is majority support to make them binding except the U.S. would veto them. So the resolutions were passed outside of the sec. council in the general session and a huge majority did vote for them.

The will of the international community counts - when we want it to count.

[ April 08, 2003, 19:37: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Alpha Kodiak

April 8th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Any news about Afghanistan?
I've heard things are not going well there....I found this story:

Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030408-78759856.htm)

This brings up an interesting question. Regardless of how we got where we are, what should we do now in Afghanistan. Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?

Master Belisarius

April 9th, 2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
While doing my taxes I just realized that based on the number of tax payers in this country we've each - on avg. - just paid around $800 of our hard earned money to blow up Iraq. We could have given every man, woman, and child of Iraq $4500. Kind of wacky if you ask me. This is based on $100B price tag for this adventure.It's been tried before. It was called the "Oil for Food" program. The only ones who saw any of the money were Saddam and his "praetorians" (because they controlled the south), and the Kurds (because their distribution program wasn't controlled by Saddam).

So, you are not convinced that this war was a good return on the investment?<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure this war will return the investment to both sides: at the end, Iraq have enough resources to pay any debt with US, and also, the people in USA will sleep more safe because the Saddam's weapons never will be a menace again.
In the other hand, the people of Iraq will have great returns too: what is some blood and oil, compared to receive the freedom?

Master Belisarius

April 9th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aloofi:
Any news about Afghanistan?
I've heard things are not going well there....I found this story:

Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030408-78759856.htm)

This brings up an interesting question. Regardless of how we got where we are, what should we do now in Afghanistan. Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?<hr /></blockquote>A very interesting article. And your questions are not easy to answer, I think...

jimbob

April 9th, 2003, 12:30 AM

If it had been my money I would have invested it in improving gas mileage - or how about a middle class tax cut - I could give you a laundry list. Or better yet I would pay off North Korea.-bold added

Yes, becuase as we all know, paying off agressive dictators from financially struggling countries is always a good plan... it never results in them taking another mile (please note sarcasm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

...what should we do now in Afghanistan. Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?Well I didn't have time to read the article attached, but I think the world (perhaps just the liberator alliance) has a significant obligation to pour some serious cash into Afghanistan. More to the point from most Western World standpoints, it would be incredibly wise to pour significant amounts (ie. dumptrucks of http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ) cash into Afghanistan - otherwise you just end up with dirt poor people with nothing to lose who will open the doors to another wealthy Bin Laden http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif . Wouldn't it be better by far to create a county that is far wealthier that won't want to risk their well being? Wouldn't it be better for the world to see and acknowledge that the Western world has been benevolent and rebuilt an aggressor (a la Germany and Japan post-WWII).

There should be no half-measures here, now is the time to do great and wonderful things for the "enemy" to heap up the coals on the head of those who would claim America and the West are simply the Great Satan! It's only too bad that this wasn't done before going in to get Sadam, as it would have sent a message to all the currently insensed Muslim nations that the West was good to their word of wanting to build up the people, but remove the dictator. Unfortunately I don't think that the West has really had a very good track record lately (see support of Russia post USSR, see support level of Haiti post turnoil, see evidence of rebuilding of Afghanistan: or lack therein!)

unfortunately, I've only got 2 cents,
and that was them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 08, 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: jimbob ]

TerranC

April 9th, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
If it had been my money I would have invested it in improving gas mileage - or how about a middle class tax cut - I could give you a laundry list. Or better yet I would pay off North Korea.Rex, I'd rather wish that the US did declare war on North Korea, Oblierate the peninsula, and destroy east asian diplomacy than to pay them off, as that would accomplish the same thing I just listed above, except with the fact that it will cost America more with a payoff.

tesco samoa

April 9th, 2003, 02:26 AM

To bracket Iraq and Israel in the way that Robin Cook did is to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a murderer and someone who is having difficulty with marriage guidance counselling.

Ummm yea... Ok.... The guy is a member of a right of centre think tank that is called the Policy Exchange

Good writter though. Always makes you question what you thinking. And what he is writting.

tesco samoa

April 9th, 2003, 02:34 AM

u know i think that the Iraqi army is staying back for the reason that when this new 'democracy' comes they can take part in their 'slice'.

So far the price of this 'democracy' is a few thousand civilans dead, wounded or missing.

That is a fact.

Herr Runsfield has mentioned that Sryia is next... CNN, FOX and those other Pre-school news sites will begin to gear up the average Joe on why their evil,,,, meanwhile The British Gov't fearful of being removed from the EU and all their work with Syria start to question this path their forced to follow.

North Korea just watches as dipolomcy is the answer there....

GodDamn those Chicken Hawks. This is going to get much worse than the cold war. And 6 million people were killed in the cold war.

rextorres

April 9th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aloofi:
Any news about Afghanistan?
I've heard things are not going well there....I found this story:

Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030408-78759856.htm)

This brings up an interesting question. Regardless of how we got where we are, what should we do now in Afghanistan. Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?<hr /></blockquote>The scary thing about the article is that the Washington Times is a conservative paper. If they are publishing THIS imagine how bad it really is.

Alpha Kodiak

April 9th, 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aloofi:
Any news about Afghanistan?
I've heard things are not going well there....I found this story:

Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030408-78759856.htm)

This brings up an interesting question. Regardless of how we got where we are, what should we do now in Afghanistan. Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?<hr /></blockquote>The scary thing about the article is that the Washington Times is a conservative paper. If they are publishing THIS imagine how bad it really is.<hr /></blockquote>Regardless of what you think about the particular paper, the real question is what we should do. If we left more troops there to provide better security then we would be accused of occupying the country and trying to control Afghanistan. If we pumped more money in, one group of people would be screaming about sending lots of money overseas instead of taking care of our own people, while another group would probably accuse us of trying to buy the country. If we leave them alone then we will be accused of abandoning them when they need us the most. I cannot think of any action that would not be portrayed as evil by somebody.

Atrocities

April 9th, 2003, 08:17 AM

Someone should take all of the Posts in this thread and save them as a historical referance. Think about it, for one of the first times in history, our comments about CURRENT events can be saved and passed down for eons to come.

Unknown_Enemy

April 9th, 2003, 02:48 PM

U.S. Builds Proliferation Case Against Pakistan

Summary

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has called U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to seek clarification on new sanctions that were levied against a Pakistani nuclear research institute, which is accused of buying North Korean No Dong missiles and selling nuclear technology to Pyongyang. Details of the accusation made by a "senior" U.S. administration official, cited by the Washington Times on March 31, have technical inconsistencies, however. Given the timing of the sanctions, it appears elements of the Bush administration are trying to paint Pakistan and North Korea with the same brush -- laying the groundwork for potential action against both nations in the post-Iraq war era.

Analysis

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has called U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell after word emerged that the United States has levied sanctions against Pakistan's Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL). The sanctions were triggered by the alleged transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea and also are related to the alleged purchase of three to six complete North Korean No Dong ballistic missiles. Pakistan has denied both charges.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Though in reality the sanctions themselves do little -- KRL does not trade with U.S. companies anyway -- the political impact is already being felt. And by raising the issue of Pakistani participation in North Korea's nuclear program both directly and through arms purchases, it is evident that there are at least some elements in the U.S. administration intent on ensuring that Pakistan is clearly linked to the North Korean issue.

With Pakistan already closely monitored for its possible role in harboring al Qaeda and Taliban members, there is an apparent movement in Washington to define the post-Iraq U.S. strategy as simultaneous confrontations with Pakistan and North Korea.

This report is from WWW.STRATFOR.COM, (http://WWW.STRATFOR.COM,) if you want the full thing, just buy a subscription.

Aloofi

April 9th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Someone should take all of the Posts in this thread and save them as a historical referance. Think about it, for one of the first times in history, our comments about CURRENT events can be saved and passed down for eons to come.Dang right!
This are my comments:
1- The Taliban is going to retake Afghanistan.
2- Al Qaeda will WMD at least one city in the US.
3- North Korea, oh well, hard to predict their next move. But I would bet my bottom dollar that China is behind them. I can't imagine those little pricks upsetting the Empire without the approval of uncle Red.
4- Irak, this is the hardest to see. My guess is Saddam will survive somehow, and the war will extend at least into the next year. I don't think the Iraki army can defeat the US, cause even if they do then next year a new US army of 3 millions instead of 300 thousands would be riding on Baghdad.
The worst thing about the Iraki war is that it have become obvious that a country without nukes AND ICBMs is easy pick for the big fishes. I don't like the message this is sending to the Arab world, because you have to realize that is just a matter of time until they get nukes. Doesn't matter how far ahead the west is, the 3rd world will catch up, whether in 5 or 50 years.

Besides, our greatest weakness is not open war, but terrorism, and they know that. The worst thing I see about terrorism is that unlike in regular warfare, in terrorism weapons never become obsolete. A WW2 vintage 80mm mortar or an M1 Garand will never be obsolete for terrorist use. Especially for suicidal terrorist use. So I can see the war on terror Lasting ages.....

geoschmo

April 9th, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
u know i think that the Iraqi army is staying back for the reason that when this new 'democracy' comes they can take part in their 'slice'.

So far the price of this 'democracy' is a few thousand civilans dead, wounded or missing.

That is a fact.
The coalition made it clear from the start they wouldn't mind if the Iraqi Regular army and Republican Guard soldiers simply left their units and went home. The intention was always to destroy the regime from the top down as much as possible.

At this early stage there are very few "facts" available, but if you count the wounded civilians then a few thousand is a very realistic expectation. Of course every innocent casualty is tragic, but when the dust clears and some independant verification is possible I believe that the numbers of civilian dead will be astoundingly low considering the level of conflict that has taken place.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

April 9th, 2003, 04:47 PM

hey geo is that you at dailykos ???

geoschmo

April 9th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
hey geo is that you at dailykos ???Gotta go somewhere when Shrapnel is down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Atrocities

April 9th, 2003, 05:31 PM

If any one is interested, if Shrapnel goes down, try out Fyrons Forums as they are a great alternative site. I mean that. They look great, and he is always adding new things. check out his instant Graemlins selection.

[ April 09, 2003, 16:32: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

dogscoff

April 9th, 2003, 05:48 PM

Increased military presence? Increased financial aid? Leave them alone and see what happens? What would you do if you were suddenly given the authority to decide what to do in Afghanistan?
I'd like to quote a fantastic pair of UK comics you may have heard of called Fry and Laurie. I first heard them perform the following song about 10 years ago in a Texan accent and I think it sums up Bush's attitude quite nicely...

Well, the world is facing problems getting bigger every day,
They've got a greenhouse over Texas and recession's on the way,
Although people tell you that this planet's dying fast,
Well, I ain't seen a problem yet can't be solved by kicking ***.

Kickin' ***, (KICKIN AY-***)
Kickin' *** is what we do,
Kickin' ***, (KICKIN AY-***)
Iron foot in the velvet shoe.
We don't care whose *** we kick, if we're ever all alone,
We just stand in front of the mirror, and try and kick our own.

Well, we kicked *** in Grenada and we kicked *** in Iraq,
We kicked the *** out of the ozone layer, now they say we've gotta kick
it back,
We'll kick the *** of cancer and we'll kick the *** of AIDS,
And as for Global Warming, well, just kick *** wearing shades.

Kickin' ***, (KICKIN AY-***)
Kickin' *** is what we do,
Kickin' ***, (KICKIN AY-***)
Iron foot in the velvet shoe.
We don't care whose *** we kick, if we're ever all alone,
We just stand in front of the mirror, and try and kick our own.

Well, you can haul your *** or shut your *** or bust an *** is fine,
And there ain't no better place to put your *** than on the line,
But if you're like us, (YEE-HAA!) Thank you,
And you won't take second best,
You'll put your kickin' boots on, and kick like all the rest.
Thankyou.

(AWOOOOOOOO! SING THE SONG, VERN!)

Thermodyne

April 9th, 2003, 07:08 PM

We seem to have arrived at the beginning of the end of the conflict chapter of this intervention. And I do think that intervention is how history will record this. As it turns out, there were quite a lot of Iraqis that hated Saddam but were much too fearful to show their displeasure, especially after the back stabbing they received 11 years ago. The remains of the regime have fled to Syria, which has a long history of providing sanctuary to despots and murders. Perhaps the UN will try to extradite them for trial, or perhaps freedom will be found to be contagious once again. It sure spread across the former Warsaw Pact nations in a hurry once it was discovered.

Now more than ever, Iraq needs the support of the world, as they begin to form a new government and restore services and order. They do not need the old usurpers returning to demand payment on deals that were made with Saddam, and they do not need to be rearmed. I personally think that the UN should be involved in so far as their abilities go. They should provide health services and humanitarian aid. Security can be best provided by the US and its coalition allies at this time, and the formation of a government should be left to the people of Iraq. They do not need over 100 nations trying to broker a government that will be favorable to their own personal interests.

It is also of note that this event has received more real time coverage than any conflict in history, and at the same time had the truth spun to the left or right of center in amounts that will probably damage the reputations of many news services irreparably. In America we used to limit the amount of news outlets that any one organization could hold. This was to limit the editorial influence of the wealthy powerful owners. I personally feel that it time to re impose these limits. Right now we have MS-NBC and CNN giving us partial truth from the left and FOX giving us partial truth from the right. I think we were all smart enough to realize what was going on, opinion was being presented as news. I don�t like this when it is against my position and I find it embarrassing when it supports my position. I found myself reading the raw releases, and then not posting at times because of the slewed positions that the large news services were taking.

In the end, it has worked more or less as advertised. The fat lady has yet to sing, but I think I hear her warming up. And I must say that for all of the regrettable damage this war has done to the everyday people of Iraq, it has been less than what the sanctions were doing. The sanctions were not hurting Saddam and his at all; he still lived the life of a king. He lacked for nothing and this must be laid at the feet of the Nations that were violating the embargo and the UN who was tasked with the enforcement. We need no longer name names; the records will address this as they become public. The Iraqi people seemed to have lacked for everything, the living conditions of these people were much worse than had been reported in the west. This will be the worst failure that the UN ever passed off on the world. Food for oil was a sham. And I bet the involved parties do everything they can to see that this program is never fully audited and examined.

The lesson here is that while this administration has not been totally forthcoming about this, they did have a workable plan. The WMD are still missing, but from the reaction of the Iraqi people, I don�t think it will matter. Personally I think we will find them as people began to try to make amends for their involvement with Saddam. But who knows. The second lesson is that the Major News Services don�t give a damn about hard news. Everything is just an opportunity to make Ratings numbers. They have been allowed to slant the news and then editorialize it to fit the political agendas of the owners. Everyone is asking �what next�? Will we loose Afghanistan? Will wee invade Syria? I say who cares. What ever happens I would just like to be able to get the facts read the editorial opinions and then come to my own conclusions. For this government�s next action, I think we need to reform the news industry. And I think that a return to limiting the ability of any one organization to reach markets is the way to do this. Then I think that the FCC should ban the collection of news Ratings numbers from broadcast news shows. Broadcast new was meant to be a service that the broadcasters provided to their viewers. It was part of the licensing requirements in the old days. Now news is one of the largest revenue producers the networks have, and they are compelled to slant the information in their endless pursuit of profits and Ratings. Of this I have had enough! Just tell me what happened, and who did what to whom. I will decide if I think it is good or bad.

From what we are seeing now, we all know where this thing goes next. All that is in doubt is how long it takes to spin down, and how many times it comes to blows as the Iraqis learn to set aside their internal differences. In closing, I hope that there are plenty of signs to go around. Because there were a lot of experts paraded across the news by large corporations that sell news. And right now I am thinking that I am glad that I don�t have to listen to the spin that they will have to put on their views. The combat part of the war was not a blood bath. And while civilian casualties are all regrettable, they have been very light up to this point. In the coming months, we will hear things that were good and we will here things that were bad. We will decide that things could have been done differently, and we will hear that some parts were not needed at all. This is as it should be, and I can only hope that both sides of the issue will learn from this. What ever happens, it gives me a good feeling when I see so many people who have nothing, acting so happy about it. We should all strive to never take our freedom for granted again. We sit here and argue about the rights and wrongs of this war as we ***** about the price of gas and how much the war will cost. And the whole time we forget that these people face summery death should they be overheard complaining about their situation or the way they were governed. I am ashamed that I completely overlooked the horror that these people lived day to day. We should all put ourselves in their position for a moment. Were we them, everyone here who posted a derogatory comment about President Bush Clinton Bush Sr. Regan Carter Ford or Nixon would be in jail. Our wives would be in jail, our sons would be in jail. Our daughters would be worse off than that. The majority of us would be killed for speaking this way during a war. Our parents would also be punished, and at least forced to relocate to an undeveloped area. Everyone we spoke to would have become a suspect with many arrested. After 30 plus years of this, I am amazed that these people are not still hunkered down in their homes. To still be here to day, they learned to survive, and in Iraq that seems to have been to never be noticed. I solute the silent majority of Iraq. And I hope that the future hold opportunity and happiness for them. I also hope that the US protects this freedom that we have given them as surly as it protects the freedoms that America enjoys. And the freedoms that American lives have purchased for countless millions in the past.

PS:

I was going to let this pass, but what the hell. It has been fashionable and popular to trash the reputation of the United States in the past few months. Just as it was fun to razz the French for their defense of Saddam. And I hope that you have all enjoyed the debates and sparring as much as I have. A good disagreement opens the mind to outside views and ideas. But we should all take a moment and reflect on the fact that the freedom we enjoyed while doing this was paid for with the blood of America and its allies. And we do it on a medium that was developed to ensure that the Soviets could not decapitate America in a first strike. I doubt that a Nazify�d Europe would be so chatty and free to speak their mind today, and I seriously doubt that the Soviets would have ever allowed a basically free uncensored uncontrolled medium such as the internet to fall into common use by it citizens. This was an American expression of freedom. The most basic freedom, the ability to say what is on ones mind be it right or wrong.

To those who were offended by my statements, I offer no apologies. If you feel that you are owed one, well then email me, I�ll hear you out. But the reason that people don�t discuss politics and religion in mixed company is because of the hard feelings that can occur. I look forward to the next hot off topic thread that consumes this forum. This one is about over I think, with all that has happened up to now, I doubt there is much left that will seem worth much debate in at this late date.

[ April 09, 2003, 18:17: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Unknown_Enemy

April 10th, 2003, 11:53 AM

from www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com)

1919 GMT - The only militants thus far to seize on the opportunity presented by the war in Iraq have been those in Afghanistan. Their campaign apparently began when U.S. President George W. Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to step down within 48 hours or face war. Guerilla forces in Afghanistan have attacked U.S. and coalition forces across the country, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has virtually become a prisoner in his palace in Kabul.

The most daring attacks have come in Zabul, Paktika, Paktia and Hilmad -- where Afghan troops reportedly surrendered to Taliban forces. The Afghan troops' weapons were confiscated, and they were freed with a warning not to cooperate with coalition troops.

Reports emerging from Kabul indicate that the Taliban and Hizb e-Islami forces have recaptured much of the eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar reportedly is leading the resistance, although the appointed provisional governors remain nominally in charge of the areas. The situation likely will deteriorate further in the coming weeks.

General Woundwort

April 10th, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
from www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com)

Reports emerging from Kabul indicate that the Taliban and Hizb e-Islami forces have recaptured much of the eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar reportedly is leading the resistance, although the appointed provisional governors remain nominally in charge of the areas. The situation likely will deteriorate further in the coming weeks.Bear in mind a couple of things...

1) The southeast portion of Afghanistan has always been the home of the pro-Taliban tribes.

2) "Control" or "re-capture" is a pretty vague notion in a country as atomized (i.e. lots of isolated pockets of population) as Afghanistan is.

3) The best public source of MILINT and RUMINT that I know of, StrategyPage.com, actually has the *Coalition* as being on the offensive in the south lately...

Strategy Page's Afghanistan Report (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=AFGHAN.HTM)

[ April 10, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Unknown_Enemy

April 10th, 2003, 03:56 PM

I had a look at the link, but there was nothing contrary to startfor's article. In fact the 2 complement each others quite well.

Unknown_Enemy

April 10th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Revisited opinion.

I stumbled into this passage
5- Civil war breaks out in Iraq between die hard Sunnis (Saddam's power base), Shia militias (that have been maintaining training camps in Iran) and Kurds. None of this would Last long. The invasion is largely to stomp on Saddam's Sunni backers and that will happen no matter what. The Turks will take care of any violent Kurds, something the Turks have been doing quite handily for over a thousand years. The Shia militias couldn't defeat the Republican Guard, and they certainly can't defeat the U.S. Army. Iraq still loses the war. As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.

As a whole, I was not impressed by that website, so I'll keep on with stratfor which seems much more serious in its work.

MegaTrain

April 10th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Very powerful first person article from a war protester:

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

"`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued."

"`Look at it this way. No matter how bad it is we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way but nothing has worked. 12 years ago it went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want the war and we want it now`"

Some1

April 10th, 2003, 07:11 PM

Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.

Thermodyne

April 10th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.

Master Belisarius

April 10th, 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Some1:
Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.<hr /></blockquote>Hey Thermo, you was Soft again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You should have wrote "fight" instead "debate", I think! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

rextorres

April 10th, 2003, 08:35 PM

What about the WMDs? That's what all the warmongers said this war was about - we couldn't wait for the inspectors because Saddam had hundreds of labs ready to give us all Anthrax or whatever. Now I am reading long diatribes about saving Iraqis from dictators and WMD being incidental. Where is the integrity?

I for one don't want to pay taxes to "liberate" anyone from his or her life. What about African countries there are lots of WORSE dictators their - I don't see anyone clamoring to invade Nigeria for instance. What happened to giving the Afghanis a better life? It looks like the Taliban are back. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant!!

Dare I say this war was about Oil after all. I just found out that Saddam had shut out U.S. and British oil companies from Iraqi oil contracts - kind of coincidental that these are the two countries that invaded.

[ April 10, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

April 10th, 2003, 09:23 PM

People that support the war are not necessarily war-mongers. A war-monger is someone that always wants war, no matter what. Most people that have supported this war are not war-mongers. I suggest you apologize for using that term Rex. Its connotations are highly insulting.

[ April 10, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rextorres

April 10th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People that support the war are not necessarily war-mongers. A war-monger is someone that always wants war, no matter what. Most people that have supported this war are not war-mongers. I suggest you apologize for using that term Rex. Its connotations are highly insulting.I didn't say everyone that supported the war was a warmonger - read my post. But, now that you mention it - it does seem that most people who wanted this war - wanted this war "no matter what". Why else would their rational for supporting the war shift?

geoschmo

April 10th, 2003, 09:55 PM

I can't speak for everybody, but my reasons for supporting the decision to go to war did not shift. It's always been about removing the threat that Saddam posed to our nation. The fact that the Iraqi people are liberated from a oppresive murderous regime is a very nice consequence of the actions taken.

Geoschmo

Fyron

April 10th, 2003, 09:56 PM

My rationale for supporting the war has never changed.

rextorres

April 10th, 2003, 10:16 PM

What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.

Aloofi

April 10th, 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
it does seem that most people who wanted this war - wanted this war "no matter what". Why else would their rational for supporting the war shift?You got to see it from another point of view. War is a nice change in the daily routine, and as a side effect it gets rid of the old munitions. Also, professional soldiers need at least a war to make it to the big leagues, and then you need to rebuild all that have been destroyed during the war, plus new hardware to replace the damaged ones like planes and tanks. War is not longer as good a business as it used to be, but it can still make a couple bucks.

Aloofi

April 10th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
from www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com)

1919 GMT - The only militants thus far to seize on the opportunity presented by the war in Iraq have been those in Afghanistan. Hey man, keep bringing those reports about Afghanistan. It is very nice to see reports that don't exactly match with what the mass media is trying to tell us.

General Woundwort

April 10th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Revisited opinion.

I stumbled into this passage
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 5- Civil war breaks out in Iraq between die hard Sunnis (Saddam's power base), Shia militias (that have been maintaining training camps in Iran) and Kurds. None of this would Last long. The invasion is largely to stomp on Saddam's Sunni backers and that will happen no matter what. The Turks will take care of any violent Kurds, something the Turks have been doing quite handily for over a thousand years. The Shia militias couldn't defeat the Republican Guard, and they certainly can't defeat the U.S. Army. Iraq still loses the war. As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.<hr /></blockquote>In a sense, it was, since most of the Saddam regime's supporters were from the Sunnis (minorities in a Shiite/Kurdish nation), and most of Saddam's inner core came from one town, Tikrit. The whole Kurdish-Turkish question is probably one of the real sticky points for future resolution in this region - and you can bet Iran (who has its own minority problems) is watching how things unfold very closely.

As a whole, I was not impressed by that website, so I'll keep on with stratfor which seems much more serious in its work.I assume you are still referring to StrategyPage.com. Two points - first, just because StrategyPage is free does not mean it's not serious. (I'm not unaware of Stratfor - I get their free e-newsletter). Second, StrategyPage (and its hardcopy predecessor works by James Dunnigan and Austin Bay, How to Make War and A Quick and Dirty Guide to War) have an impressive track record. Case in point - Baghdad. Stratfor envisioned three models of that battle, all three from WWII paradigms. StrategyPage pointed out that the US had learned a lot from Israeli experience in digging out militants from urban areas, and would likely try some new tricks. Lo and behold, Dunningan and Bay got it right - again.

You can keep StratFor - I'll stick with a proven winner.

[ April 10, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Fyron

April 10th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Rex, Saddam has already killed many many more of his own people (by several orders of magnitude) than the coalition forces have killed in this war. He would have continued the biological and chemical weapons experiments on his own people if we did nothing to intervene. Sure, some people die in war. But after the war, the mass-murders in Iraq will stop. A little pain and suffering in the present for much greater in the near future is always worth it.

How can you say more people have died in the war than would have been killed by WMD? That is a rather arrogant presumption. You can not know what level of WMD production Iraq has (with 0 level always a possibility) without actually going in there and rooting it out. If Iraq has a lot of WMD, it would very easily be capable of killing many more people than have died in this war.

geoschmo

April 10th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.Another huge irony is that fewer people were killed in the war then have been killed by the regime.

The fact that WMD haven't been used yet in the conflict doesn't by itself prove the absence of the weapons. There are many possible explanations. All of which you will scoff at so I won't bother wasting electrons posting them.

He had them in the past and had shown a willingness to use them. He had not totally documented their destruction. We had evidence that he still had them and was trying to develop them further. And he had connections with terrorist organazations that would have happily used them on our shores. That's a threat.

I can understand why you might look at the evidence and say it was wrong. I can understand that you might believe out interpretation of the data was incorrect. I concede that you sincerely believe there was no legitimate threat. What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

Geoschmo

[ April 10, 2003, 21:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

primitive

April 10th, 2003, 11:28 PM

Fyron, Geo

For the 19th time in this thread alone: BEEING AGAINST THE WAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PRO SADDAM.
Everybody knew Saddam was the worlds biggest dickhead and nr. 1 badguy. Now that dubious title belong to GWB.

People in Iraq are probably better off now, but I don't think the killings and civil war in Iraq are over yet (I hope I am wrong).

You have removed 1 terrorist supporter, but you have pissed off the rest of the Islamic world and increased their support to terrorism.
You have taken out 1 supporter of WMD's, but proven once and for all the need for any nation not best buddy with USA to have strike back capabilities.
You have wingclipped the UN and alienated your friends in Europe.
You have created a negative image off USA and US companies/trademarks, which mean lower sales of US products. Maybe dragging US and the world into a new recession.

I truly believe that history will prove this war to be one of the biggest mistakes of modern times, but again: I hope I am wrong.

geoschmo

April 10th, 2003, 11:32 PM

Primitive, for the 20th time, I never said you were pro sadam because you were agaisnt the war.

Geoschmo

Master Belisarius

April 11th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE]What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.
How many Gas or Anthrax is needed to kill a good number of people? How spread it into the US cities?
Everybody knew that Saddam had not balistic missiles, then, how?
These in my view, are basic questions that need to be answered to consider if Saddam was really a potential treat to USA or not.
Yes, with time, he could have purchased the technology (even purchase Nukes) but he had 12 years to do it and he was unable to.

But then, I want to know why Saddam's WMD was a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. In fact, NK claims to have already Nukes and to have missiles that could reach every place in USA.

Honestly, think this war like most the wars, was about power.
And honestly again, don't think after this war USA will be a more safe place to live, because as proved the fuc$%&g attack against the WTC, a maniac doesn't need WMD to kill massive number of people.

primitive

April 11th, 2003, 12:12 AM

Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oleg

April 11th, 2003, 12:25 AM

Common guys, stop this nonsense about Oil, WMD and liberation of Iraq. The only selfconsistent explanation I know of is the Edip' complex of Bush junior. You see, he always wanted to kill his dad and his subconsious projected G.Bush senior onto S.Hussein as a personification. There is no need for any more complex conspiracy theories. This one is perfectly valid !

Thermodyne

April 11th, 2003, 12:40 AM

Rex, chill out a little. All will be come to light if we allow for people to do their jobs. By this
time tomorrow we will be reading about the Iraqi nuclear program. The leaks have already
started. While the world is better off with out the tauban we have already found. I suppose
they could have been saving it to make 5,ooo,ooo liters of Banned roach spray. We have already identified some sites where these agents were dumped recently. But check the news this week end, and see if you don�t hear about some WG plutonium. Could it be that we knew it was there? Could it be that we knew when it was sent there and from where it came? Could it be that this was part of the need to act quickly? And could this be the beginning of the end for
another government far from the sands of Iraq?

tesco samoa

April 11th, 2003, 12:49 AM

And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Bush himself stated that in a speack back in January.

You know. When I jumped into this thread at the beginning I was not decicided if I thought that this war was the best course of action.

Though the Last 100 odd pages I did form an opinion.

THat the war was wrong.

I have yet to see any proof that this war was necessary. And that the future events from this war is necessary. All pro war arguements were based on hyprocracy , fabrications, lies and what if's.

It did not sit well with my thoughts nor my feelings.

All I do know is that 10's of thousands Iraqs are dead , wounded or missing. THis occured in a few weeks. That a cluster bomb dropped on a heavily populated area is a WMD. That the cololition who is charged with bringing democracy to Iraq has members who's human rights violations rank up their with Iraq and are also dictatorships themselves.

I would like to be persuaded to believing that this was the right move. But pro war as the only solution arguement was weak ( to date).

So I ask , since this war is not over yet.

Why was this war needed?

Was it worth it ?

I feel horrible for thinking this. I doubt i am not the only one, but I for one hope that this drags out. That a bloody nose situation arrises so that the chicken hawks lose their power in dc. And that North America loses its apatite for waging war. For war should not come so easy as it has and as it has been offered the Last few months.

primitive

April 11th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Rex, chill out a little. All will be come to light if we allow for people to do their jobs. By this
time tomorrow we will be reading about the Iraqi nuclear program. The leaks have already
started. While the world is better off with out the tauban we have already found. I suppose
they could have been saving it to make 5,ooo,ooo liters of Banned roach spray. We have already identified some sites where these agents were dumped recently. But check the news this week end, and see if you don�t hear about some WG plutonium. Could it be that we knew it was there? Could it be that we knew when it was sent there and from where it came? Could it be that this was part of the need to act quickly? And could this be the beginning of the end for
another government far from the sands of Iraq?As I just said, the paranoia is spreading.

If there are evidence presented tomorrow, lets hope it's more accurate then the "evidence" presented so far.
No more the of the fakes and circumstantial evidence from before the war.

Fyron

April 11th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Fyron, Geo

For the 19th time in this thread alone: BEEING AGAINST THE WAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PRO SADDAM.
It is a good thing that nothing I have ever said implied that in any way shape or form then. Unless, of course, you want to add more to my Posts than is there, and make up such claims.

I have yet to see any proof that this war was necessary. And that the future events from this war is necessary. All pro war arguements were based on hyprocracy , fabrications, lies and what if's.
That is a lie. I suggest you unconvince yourself of that as soon as possible.

[ April 11, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Thermodyne

April 11th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.

Thermodyne

April 11th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Rex, chill out a little. All will be come to light if we allow for people to do their jobs. By this
time tomorrow we will be reading about the Iraqi nuclear program. The leaks have already
started. While the world is better off with out the tauban we have already found. I suppose
they could have been saving it to make 5,ooo,ooo liters of Banned roach spray. We have already identified some sites where these agents were dumped recently. But check the news this week end, and see if you don�t hear about some WG plutonium. Could it be that we knew it was there? Could it be that we knew when it was sent there and from where it came? Could it be that this was part of the need to act quickly? And could this be the beginning of the end for
another government far from the sands of Iraq?As I just said, the paranoia is spreading.

If there are evidence presented tomorrow, lets hope it's more accurate then the "evidence" presented so far.
No more the of the fakes and circumstantial evidence from before the war.<hr /></blockquote>Oh the finding will not be the news, the source will be the news. Looked like a deal had been
worked out (Just my Opinion) but I think that fell apart on the road to Syria.

Wardad

April 11th, 2003, 01:44 AM

Why was this war needed???? and What do you mean this war????

Our involvement in the started in response to the invasion of Kuwait.
We went to war to liberate them, and we did it.
Guess what, the war did not end then. It takes both sides to end a war.
Saddam has never met the conditions of the cease fire.
So the war has not ended.
Does it make sense to ignore an armed, injured and insulted enemy?
It takes both sides to end a war.

primitive

April 11th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.<hr /></blockquote>Thermo:

Think we covered this before,
There are many reasons a Baluchi would like a Kuwaiti passport. This is circumstantial evidence
at most.

And reality ?
The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think even GWB has given up on pinning 9-11 on Saddam.

geoschmo

April 11th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo

Krsqk

April 11th, 2003, 02:12 AM

The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.It stands to reason that nations with more fundamentalist Muslims would have more in common with Al Qaeda than with a secular leader such as Hussein. What you apparently fail to understand is the Arabic (and most Eastern cultures) view of enmity.
You apparently see it as:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. and U.K. and Saddam and Israel and ... all the same.

Arabs see it as a continuum:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. then Israel then U.K. then Saddam then ...
They will support anyone lower on the list against anyone higher on the list. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"; and, "My brother against my cousin, but my cousin against a stranger"--those sum up the Arabic philosophy of enmity.

Of course the terrorists hate Saddam, but they hate the U.S. more. Saddam is an Arab, at least; he pays well; they get plenty of women; and best of all, there's a chance to give the U.S. a black eye. Any fundamentalist Muslim is duty-bound to decry the U.S.'s actions. Of course, if the U.S. comes out victorious, that just means one more enemy is off the slate. The situation isn't to their liking, but at least they didn't lose everything.

[ April 11, 2003, 01:14: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Fyron

April 11th, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Creating false statements to respond to out of what other people actually said is a common tactic employed out of ignorance. Most people that do it do it accidentally and unwittingly.

Thermodyne

April 11th, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.<hr /></blockquote>Thermo:

Think we covered this before,
There are many reasons a Baluchi would like a Kuwaiti passport. This is circumstantial evidence
at most.

And reality ?
The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think even GWB has given up on pinning 9-11 on Saddam.<hr /></blockquote>Then we will agree to disagree for now. You should look back at what got Bin Laudin pissed
off to begin with. Then remember that �The enemy of my enemy is my friend� dates from an
older Arabic slogan �The slayer of those who torment me, will be my brothers in the greatness
of god.� The Arab world has always needed to set aside it�s internal differences to repel
invaders. It has become part of their culture. And Saddam was the kind of guy who could deal
with the devil himself. I would think that for a free hand in Iraq, Saddam would have offered
support and aid.

primitive

April 11th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Krsqk
Your arguments is good, but:
While Saddam could have had a deal with Bin Laden, he could never have trusted the Al Queda. Bin Laden kept Iraq on the list of enemies (he had to out of religious reasons), and Saddam could never have been sure that some local or splinter group would not take matters in their own hand. That said, there are many safe ways Saddam could have supported Bin Laden, SAM missiles for one (not beeing able to fly much himself).

But I think the main reason we haven't seen any proof of a Saddam - Bin Laden connection is that there wasn't any. There just wasn't any need for one. Saddam could find all the agents/terrorist he needed safer and cheaper elsewhere, and Bin Laden had no problem getting the money and weapons he needed to achieve his goals.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

Maybe the fault is all mine, I get a short fuse around this war thread. Anyway, I do/did not mean to offend you.

Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.

Thermo
Agreed

Master Belisarius

April 11th, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiorityI don't have the same feeling about the Geo's Posts.
But really disagree that "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority
In my view, this only imply Military/Technological/Political superiority, not moral.

rextorres

April 11th, 2003, 03:51 AM

Enemy of my enemy - give me a break. Talk about stereotyping. BTW: If anything we're the ones guilty of that. Did you guys forget that all the invaders were from anglo/english speaking countries?

Part of the problem is that for the Last six month there has been this moving target to justify the war.

Instead of coming up with dubious arguments why don't you pro war guys come out and say what your thinking - that it's either them or us - like the cold war. At least you wouldn't sound disingenuous.

Krsqk

April 11th, 2003, 04:57 AM

I wouldn't disagree that both Saddam and his supporters were angling for good positions from which to stab each other in the back if necessary. I wouldn't necessarily link Saddam and bin Laden, by the way; but I would link Saddam and terrorism in general. There is also a definite trans-national link between Saddam and fundamentalist Islam--that's why we're encountering these fighters from other countries. There are several Groups in whose best interests it was to defeat the US and their coalition; they contributed whatever they could/would to achieve that goal.

Rex, that may be stereotyping; but stereotypes of Middle-Eastern Arab culture tend to hit a lot nearer the mark than stereotypes of other cultures, due mostly to the homogenizing effect of Islam. In fact, there are a lot more similarities among Eastern cultures as a whole than Westerners readily accept. We are conditioned to pick out differences in ourselves and others, and tend to project our blended culture onto others. In reality, differences in Middle-Eastern Arabs exist more in spite of their culture than as a part of it.

Taking the discussion in another direction--stereotypes are not evil. They are even helpful. Stereotypes exist precisely because there are factors which are generally shared by a large segment of a given population. Stereotypes deal with large Groups of people, and are useful in those situations. The statement "Iraqis are cheering the fall of Saddam's dictatorship" is not made false because some Iraqis support him, any more than the stereotype "The accent of Americans living in the midwestern regions of the US is easily understood" is false because some living in the Midwest may have an Irish brogue or a Southern drawl. Of course there are exceptions to generalizations, but that doesn't make the generalizations any less true.

I think many people have mixed up prejudice and stereotype. Prejudice applies a stereotype to every individual in that group, without accepting the possibility for the existence of exceptions. For example, "Southerners are stupid hicks" would be prejudicial, while "Education in the southeastern United States is lower than in the Midwest" is stereotype. No one is saying that all Arabs are US-hating, Saddam-loving, dictatorship-embracing scumbags--any more than anyone is saying that everyone who supports this war is a disingenuous, deceitful, greedy warmonger who wants a US empire in the Middle East. Most people who use statements involving "Everyone" or "All you" can be written off pretty quickly as either exaggerating or prejudiced.

[ April 11, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

geoschmo

April 11th, 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Instead of coming up with dubious arguments why don't you pro war guys come out and say what your thinking - that it's either them or us - like the cold war. At least you wouldn't sound disingenuous.Excuse me, what have I been saying for the Last four months? I consider the threat posed by Iraq to be real, and serious enough to warrant action. That's why I supported the decision to go to war once it was clear that the diplomatic efforts were not going to succeed. If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that. I don't see a big difference in the two statements. How have I been disengenuous about it? Given the choice, I choose us.

Does that mean I think the US get's to do whatever the hell it wants anywhere in the world just because we can and who cares if anyone disagrees? No, I don't. I don't agree with Pax Americana or whatever it's being called. But I believe Iraq presented a credible threat and needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

April 11th, 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.
Please Primitve, with all do respect, stop misrepresenting my comments in this public forum. Disagree with what I have said by all means, my but don't make stuff up and say I said it.

I do consider my reputation in this forum, but have never claimed to be morally superior to anyone. I respect the opinions of everyone here, even those I disagree with vehemantly. And for me what happens in this thread stays in this thread. These conversations have no bearing on how I treat anyone outside this thread. You can ask Rex about that if you doubt me.

If you care to take this conversation into private email and give me some examples of what I have suposedly said along these lines I would appreciate it. If I have been careless with my words and given you this impression somehow in my comments I would like to know it. But how you can say my Posts are the worst examples of this behavior I honestly have no idea.

Geoschmo

[ April 11, 2003, 04:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Askan Nightbringer

April 11th, 2003, 05:41 AM

Disclaimer - Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Not up their with Hitler and Stalin but maybe the equal of Suharto, and more brutal than Pinochet and co.

Now that I've got that out of the way I can get to my point.

Why did a "supposedly" 400,00 strong military capitulate so quicky? If Saddam wasn't willing or capable to use WMDs to defend his own capital, then how could he have possibly been a threat to the US, or even my country? Maybe the threat Iraq posed was overstated?

Its not about oil, not about liberation, not about security threats, not about UN resolutions, its all about POWER.

And I have a little secret that I'm willing to share with everyone - "People cheat, lie and spread half-truths in order to maintain and gain power."

There was an agenda to invade Iraq long before UN resolution 1441. America never intended to let the UN dictate the actions to take against Saddam. The UN was irrelevant if it didn't support the US's plan (and irrelevant if it did, a sort of a lose-lose situation). It was all done for show. Someone or some group in the US administration decided invading Iraq was a way to gain power and all that was needed was to build the case. A string of evidence was produced, most of it turned out to be a load of crap. Evidence turned out to me plagiarised, forged and just plain wrong but that didn't stop it coming. Saddam was linked to S11, Al-queda, Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion. It didn't matter about counter-evidence, if we made up enough excuses then everyone will ended up believing at least one.
Iraq was just a "Target of opportunity" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

So does everybody believe everything their leaders are saying to them? I seriously doubt it, so why would you believe anything they say without evidence? Do you believe the media? The "alleged" champions of truth and democracy than survive based on what type of products their targeted audiences consume, with owners who are always looking to get some media ownership law overturned so they can buy something else. Hardly a recipe for impartiality if you ask me. Do you believe the so called "think tanks"? How are they funded? What agendas do they run?
The only words worth reading are by people who having nothing to gain by telling them. Thats what makes the forum a bit more interesting than my local newspaper.

Askan
(Who can't spell)

[ April 11, 2003, 04:46: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ]

rextorres

April 11th, 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE] If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that.When I say "them or us" I mean Islam and the West - that is what it's coming down to. We're just lucky that the Arabs are so fragmented - and that their leaders are for the most part weak.

rextorres

April 11th, 2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

[ April 11, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

April 11th, 2003, 06:32 AM

Primitive:
Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.
So my valid points are nothing more than minor amusements to you? That sure makes me feel appreciated. Thanks.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.
This is precisely what I was talking about, and completely validates my point.

Rex:
Enemy of my enemy - give me a break. Talk about stereotyping. Talk about, that is a basic human thought pattern, that influences the thinking of nearly every person in the world.

[ April 11, 2003, 05:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Askan Nightbringer

April 11th, 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?<hr /></blockquote>Without a doubt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
If they mentioned the obvious link between Saddam and the French Rugby Union side of the Last World Cup then I have no doubt that New Zealand would have sent troops too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Askan

primitive

April 11th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Sorry Geo:
It was very late yesterday and I edited that post about a 1000 times to make it right. Then of course I screwed up.

That first sentence should have been: Your Posts is by far NOT the worst.
Makes more sense grammatically as well as logically with people like …… around.

Unknown_Enemy

April 11th, 2003, 10:29 AM

After Iraq, who's next ?

The United States and Syria: Mounting Tensions and Multiple Agendas

Summary

Tensions between Syria and the United States will heighten dangerously in the coming days. Washington has several goals in mind, but it is unclear what the fallout will be in Damascus.

Analysis

During the past two weeks, U.S. officials have made several seemingly threatening statements about Syria, publicly warning the state to stop harboring militant Groups and suggesting it is aiding Iraq's war effort.

Among the most recent events, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during an April 9 press briefing that the Pentagon has "scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria." He later clarified that those people were not senior Iraqi regime leaders, but the statement -- designed to put Damascus on the defensive -- struck home. Then, on April 10, New York's Newsday quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld had ordered contingency plans drawn up for a possible invasion of Syria.

Washington's bellicose rhetoric -- and it is merely rhetoric at this point -- is driven by several goals, all of which are now melding to create a layered justification for heightening tensions with Syria. Those tensions likely will ratchet up quickly in the coming days and weeks.

Among Washington's many objectives, the most immediate might be to secure its own western flank in the postwar phase from the potentially hostile Syrian military and any anti-U.S. partisan elements from Iraq that might emerge in Syria. The country's military force is large -- with 316,000 active-duty personnel -- and well-trained, but crippled by obsolete equipment and a shortage of spare parts.

Washington needs to bring significant pressure to bear on the government in Damascus and the Syrian military so that both will concede to working out some security arrangements with the United States -- probably similar to the agreement between Islamabad and Washington that allows U.S. forces to conduct "cooperative cross-border" operations originating in Afghanistan.

Another agenda is the U.S. need to repay allies such as Britain, Spain and Saudi Arabia by pushing forward with the Middle East peace process and plans for the creation of a Palestinian state. To achieve this goal, U.S. State Department officials will seek to reassure Israel of Washington's continued support for Israeli security. The Bush administration might be working toward this end by putting the screws to Syria -- isolating Damascus from potential patrons France and Russia and possibly launching strikes against suspected Syrian chemical weapons plants.

The heightened focus on Syria also could serve U.S. policy goals farther abroad. For instance, Washington sees an opportunity to limit North Korea's access to advanced missile guidance systems by shutting down Syria's ability to act as a conduit: The country reportedly has imported the SS-X-26 Stone (Iskandar-E) short-range ballistic missile from Russia and resold the guidance technology to North Korea, allegedly without Moscow's knowledge. For Washington, raising the proliferation issue with Syria would create tension between Moscow and Damascus -- while further isolating the regime in Pyongyang.

Coming down rhetorically on Syria does nothing directly to aid Washington's battle against al Qaeda: Damascus is even less tied to the group than was Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria has struggled with Islamist radicals itself in the past and would find it difficult to work with Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi network. Moreover, the government has taken specific steps in attempts to pre-empt al Qaeda recruitment and training activities in Lebanon, where they threaten Damascus' own influence.

However, Syria does support the Shia militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and traditionally has backed Palestinian opposition Groups such as the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The State Department lists all of these Groups as foreign terrorist organizations and has labeled Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.

Finally, of the next potential U.S. targets in the Middle East -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria -- Syria is the weakest. By focusing attention there now, Washington could undermine any possibilities that it could serve as an ally for either Riyadh or Tehran, flanking U.S. forces based in Iraq.

Do any of these goals, taken together or singly, necessitate U.S. military action against Syria? Or could Washington achieve its objectives by putting the leadership in Damascus under intense pressure and either triggering a military coup or getting political and military leaders to acquiesce to its demands? Unlike Pakistan, Syria has no military leadership structure, and it is not clear how much control President Bashar al-Assad wields over the armed forces.

At this point, Washington is only barking; it remains to be seen whether it will bite. But even the pressure generated by the recent rhetoric could be sufficient to destabilize the current regime. And if Assad can withstand the pressure, it is far from certain that his regime would survive if U.S. forces were to conduct search-and-destroy missions within Syrian territory or launch strikes against suspected chemical weapons plants. Then there was this point in a previous article :

Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental reasons for invading Iraq:

1. To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to take risks to achieve its ends.

2. To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist Groups access to enabling resources. Like it or not.

Aloofi

April 11th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
After Iraq, who's next ?
Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

Hunkpapa

April 11th, 2003, 03:37 PM

Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a big player funding terrorists in general, not just Al Quaeda. But more than likely we will keep plugging away at the smaller easier targets before taking them on.

Set up some democracies in these newly liberated countries and watch freedom spread, teh people will see their neighbors enjoying life instead of subjegation and will be more supportive of US involvement.

Get ready Syria you are next.

[ April 11, 2003, 14:40: Message edited by: Hunkpapa ]

Unknown_Enemy

April 11th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Set up some democracies in these newly liberated countries and watch freedom spread, teh people will see their neighbors enjoying life instead of subjegation and will be more supportive of US involvement. Who said real goal was setting up democracies ???? Do you really believe that ????
Do you really think the current US administration would like to see Egyptians, Saudi Arabia, Jordanians or United Arab Emirates electing a government made of USA hating religious ?
I may strongly dislike the current US administration, but I have to admit they are not stupid, and their current moves make sense. I do not agree to their move, but in their own logic, it makes sense.

Aloofi

April 11th, 2003, 05:13 PM

Check this out:

"Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.

Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?

Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:

Business profits decline in the industrial countries;

Bosses squeeze their workers;

Workers become impoverished;

Workers rebel against their bosses, and

Workers establish a socialist order.
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.

But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.

This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."

For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.

Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."

Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.

This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"

The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.

In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude. "

Hunkpapa

April 11th, 2003, 05:14 PM

Do you really think that the people would still hate us if they enjoyed the same freedoms as us?

As for religon...no where in the Koran does it say to hate Americans and blow yourself up to kill the infidels. if the people were able to eliminate the fanatics from power we would not have these issues.

Another note...Jihad is constantly being taken out of context by these fanatics and suicide bombers to suite their needs. (Much like the Christian fanatics take specific exerts from the bible to suite theirs) The Jihad is the battle between good and evil that every person battles internally in determineing their own fate...it was never to be taken against other people.

Master Belisarius

April 11th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Hunkpapa:
Do you really think that the people would still hate us if they enjoyed the same freedoms as us?
Of course yes.
If would exist a free election in all the Muslim world today, I can bet Ossama Bin Ladin would be elected president hands down.

Unknown_Enemy

April 11th, 2003, 05:44 PM

"Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein? A sick piece of opinion that assume all opposition to war are Saddam/Al Quaeda supporters. I am sure we are all able to find some equivallent trash explaining you how the USA helped 9/11 by their policie.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism From this sentence I would hint the author is around 60 and has spend his prime time fighting in the cold war. Sadly he was not able to evolve. If someone were to tell him that communist ideology is gone, may be he would retire.

dogscoff

April 11th, 2003, 05:59 PM

Aloofi, that "article" really is a heap of crap. It offers no evidence, other than a few misquoted or misguided comments from obscure lefties.

Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?
Not really.

Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."
Any quote of just one word is suspicious from the start.
From the Oxford concise English Dictionary: "Brilliant: 2exceptionally clever or talented."
In terms of concept and planning, the WTC attack was brilliant. Anyone planning an attack would be looking for something that was simple, low cost, low risk and devastatingly effective. the 9/11 attacks were all of those things. The fact that loads of innocent people died wasn't brilliant, but the effectiveness and cleverness of the plan cannot be denied.

unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."
I agree with this sentiment completely. As far as I'm GWB has desecrated the memories of the 9/11 victims by using their deaths to advance his own agenda. He has used the attack as nothing more than political currency, with which he has bought draconian anti-freedom legislation and unjustifiable warmongering in the middle east. Sure 9/11 was scary, but isn't an Orwellian America even scarier? Do we really have to start reeling out those "he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security..." quotes again?

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime.
As has been mentioned several times lately, an anti-war stance is NOT a pro-Saddam stance. He is a monster, but I don't believe for one minute that the proper way to get rid of a monster is to feed him to an even bigger one.

Fyron

April 11th, 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo:
It was very late yesterday and I edited that post about a 1000 times to make it right. Then of course I screwed up.

That first sentence should have been: Your Posts is by far NOT the worst.
Makes more sense grammatically as well as logically with people like …… around.So now I get to be ignored. Thanks.

DS:
The fact that loads of innocent people died wasn't brilliant, but the effectiveness and cleverness of the plan cannot be denied.
Sure it was. That was a big part of the plan, after all. Just destroying the WTC on off-days when less people are there (or late at night) would not have had as profound an effect as destroying the WTC when lots of people were in it. Using lots of innocent people in the attack itself was also rather clever because it magnified the effects of terror from the action. Incredibly wrong, yes. Brilliant, definitely.

[ April 11, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Aloofi

April 11th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Aloofi, that "article" really is a heap of crap. It offers no evidence, other than a few misquoted or misguided comments from obscure lefties.
Hey, don't take it on me. I never supported the Iraki war because, frankly, it doesn't go along with my interests, since the American victory means the creation of a Palestinian state to "compensate" the Arabs for the loss of Irak, which, as you know, means the destruction of Israel.

This article I quoted I founded it interesting because it kind of match with the European anti-Israeli Left, which its extremely annoying, and definitively not interested in peace in the Middle East.
My question is, how can a liberal leftish not support the only Democracy in the Middle East, the only country with women rights, religion freedom, freedom of expression and so on, how can they support the Palestinians when they have "honor killings" against their women for the simplest reasons, when they execute any Palestinian wanting peace with Israel and don't even have a peace movement as Israel have.

Andr�s

April 12th, 2003, 12:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?<hr /></blockquote>Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?<hr /></blockquote>Wow, why would have Saddam helped us win?

Why accuse us of have been helped by Saddam?
We did help in Gulf War I, even if our help was merely symbolical.
We could have helped now too. No reason to piss us off.

BTW some say that the terrorist attacks we suffered in the AMIA and Israel Embassy were "punishment" for that help. And that that was the reason we didn't help now.

[ April 11, 2003, 23:57: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

geoschmo

April 12th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Primitive, Thank you for that clarifcation.

Geoschmo

Master Belisarius

April 12th, 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Wow, why would have Saddam helped us win?

Why accuse us of have been helped by Saddam?
We did help in Gulf War I, even if our help was merely symbolical.
We could have helped now too. No reason to piss us off.

BTW some say that the terrorist attacks we suffered in the AMIA and Israel Embassy were "punishment" for that help. And that that was the reason we didn't help now.This topic is still hot!!!
Reading the Ashkan's post, I believed he wanted to state that USA/UK were looking for any excuse to justify their invasion to Iraq... not that Argentina has been helped by Saddam! (Check his other post about the Rugby!)

Che Andr�s, tranquilo!!! Adem�s, si el Turco vuelve seguro que en la invasi�n a Siria, Argentina dice PRESENTE!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ April 12, 2003, 01:00: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

DavidG

April 12th, 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime.
As has been mentioned several times lately, an anti-war stance is NOT a pro-Saddam stance. He is a monster, but I don't believe for one minute that the proper way to get rid of a monster is to feed him to an even bigger one.<hr /></blockquote>The reason this keeps comming up I think is that fankly a lot (not all by any means and probably still a minority) of anti-war protesters are pro-Saddam. I read a poll taken after the war that said that 33% of people in France and and even higher % in Russia actually wanted the coalition to lose the war!! That's pretty pro-Saddam in my book. Your own post, which is a bit cryptic, seems to say that you prefer Saddam over GWB???

Unknown_Enemy

April 12th, 2003, 02:47 AM

t 33% of people in France and and even higher % in Russia actually wanted the coalition to lose the war!! The poll and the number are truth.
But what is missing is that the poll was made right after a US senator declared that France was now a strategical enemy of the USA.

Andr�s

April 12th, 2003, 08:12 AM

I know MB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Perhaps I should have put more smilies to show I was kidding.
My point was that it wasn't a good excuse because it would piss off a potential ally (no matter if insignificant).

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif :DWe all know it was "the hand of god" because Maradona is God:) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Espero que ni vuelva el capicua que ya hizo suficiente bolonqui en su momento ni que haya una invasi�n a Siria en la que decir o no presente. (tambi�n espero ganar el quini y no tener que seguir laburando:eek:)

DavidG, the reason is that pro-war militants allways think that anyone not supporting them is supporting the enemy.
Note there's also a difference beteween anti-american and pro-saddam.
Many in France and Russia are anti-american and would like to see them lose anywhere.

primitive

April 12th, 2003, 11:28 AM

Aloofi:
For the twentieth time...

DavidG:
For the twentyfirst time...

Even a statement that you wanted the US to loose (BTW, I was not among them), is not (nesecarily) pro Saddam. It may just be a choice of the lesser evil. A local badguy without the means of hurting anyone not in his imediate vicinity, over a mad Texan with the migthiest armed forces in the world and the will to use them for no particular reason at all.

Fyron:
Your welcome.

Hunkpapa:
Introducing democracy in the region ? What about Afghanistan ?
It is now almost 16 months since the appointment of an interim (read �puppet�) government in Afghanistan. The goal was to have general democratic elections within 18 months. I did a quick search and could not find any information of a planned election. I don�t say Kasai�s government is a bad choice, it�s probably the best possible solution at the moment, but broken promises are not the way to teach the region the great benefits of a democracy lifestyle.

Thermodyne:
The news you promised we would get Last evening. The news that would break goverments and prove once and for all the USA was right, didn't make my local news here in Norway (censorship ?). Would you mind updating me.

Geo:
I owe you an apology. I have basically reread the whole thread, and you have always beem clear and consistent in your statements. Of course I disagree vehemently with you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

DavidG

April 12th, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by primitive:

DavidG:
For the twentyfirst time...

Even a statement that you wanted the US to loose (BTW, I was not among them), is not (nesecarily) pro Saddam. Yea I heard you the first 20 times. It is really not necessary to repeat it over and over. For the 22nd time I agree being anti-war does not mean you are pro-Saddam. I also happen to think that anyone who is so intensly anti-American that they actually wanted Iraq to win the war is pro-Saddam.

rextorres

April 12th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Primitive,

SOME pro war people aren't going to change their minds even though the reasons for the war have proven to be erroneous - I won't produce the laundry list. Who wants to admit they are wrong? Bush got us in this war so now they have to support it no matter what. They are doing the same thing I am sure MOST of them claimed Clinton supporters were doing during Monicagate. The only difference is that the way Bush has lied is a lot worse.

Their attitude is irrational so why continue the debate?

Thermodyne

April 12th, 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Aloofi:
Thermodyne:
The news you promised we would get Last evening. The news that would break goverments and prove once and for all the USA was right, didn't make my local news here in Norway (censorship ?). Would you mind updating me.

I think we all have access to un-censored news. In this case, the UN�s team issued a public statement/request and then the news just stopped. Looks to be locked down tighter than what the Soviets had taken away from them on the road to Syria.

What has made the news is that some detectors set to look for Plutonium were set off at a plant that the inspectors had declared clean, but it was in an area that they may not have known existed. An announcement was made and the UN�s regulatory team stated their intent to take over. I doubt that will be allowed to happen because of the national make up of the group. All of this made the tube on Friday. But then the news just stopped! This can mean a lot of things, one or two good and the rest very bad. But it does show that the inspectors were not inspecting properly. Two previously inspected facilities have been found to be in violation of the cease fire accord. Both were cleared by the inspection teams in the Last few months.

We now have two news blackouts in this war. What is going on with the (alleged) Plutonium and what was taken from the Russians on the road to Syria?

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/2003/prn0304.shtml

I just got this link; man these guys have lost their signs! The materials were under IAEA lockdown, but the IAEA was gone. I guess they just trusted Saddam to stop his research and assumed that he would no longer try to build a bomb. I�m not a nuclear physicist or engineer, but even I know that Plutonium is not something that can be easily overlooked during an inspection. And it is not the type of stuff that can be hidden in a tool shed. It can reach critical mass in very small amounts, and particles of it can kill when inhaled by humans. Strap a few grams of this stuff to some Nitrate bombs and you could cause a real big problem.

geoschmo

April 12th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Thermo, I as well await a thourough accounting of the nuclear site, but it is way to early to be claiming any sort of coverup. It's entirely possible that the fleeing Iraqi's or even coalition forces broke open some containers with plain old waste products and that is what could be causing the high levels of radioactivity.

What everybody needs to understand is this process will take some time, just as those attempting to inspect before the war were saying. But at least now that we don't have the regime actively working to deceive the inspectors there are better prospects for finding the truth.

So far the coalition forces have found hundreds, by some accounts over a thousand sites of interest. Of these only a couple dozen have been thouroughly inspected. This would be a slow process under good conditions, in the middle of a shooting war it's even slower.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

April 13th, 2003, 06:55 PM

yea rex i believe the anti war people stated their ground on the immense human suffering war would bring and the consequences of the war.

I am sorry to say this Rex but your country reminds me of another country in the 30's... In its early stages. Pray that the orange smoothie never hits red alert. The concept of a police state scares me. They have had the practice in the inner cities for years. But hey it can't happen here. People are not being picked up by the govn't without due process. Nah... Not here. Drummed up enemies everywhere you look. The agencies that failed you in the first place need more money as a small threat becomes the uber threat of all time , and endless in its reaches. America to me is almost the classic dictonary form of fascism. Traits of classic fascism include: strong nationalism, expansionism, belligerent militarism, meshing of big business and government with a corporate/government oligarchy, subVersion of democracy and human rights, disinformation spread by constant propaganda and tight corporate/government control of the press.

Then again I could be rambling on.... But it is a thought siting their in the back of my head....

So I post it here. To be slammed and agreed upon. Or I just want to keep this thread going and going and going.

P.S. 1 week has gone by and their is still no democracy in Iraq.... Just Chaos... And whats with bringing the Baath Party leadership back to help form this 'democracy' Wasn't that the 3rd reason the war was for, to rid the Iraqi people of the brutal regime that was in charge... This is just beginning.

Baron Munchausen

April 13th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Tesco, you missed 'demonizing any form of opposition as traitorous'. If you don't agree with the war plans of The Great Leader you are automatically a beady-eyed communist secretly plotting to over-throw the government by using the anti-war protests as front.

Speaking of Clinton, there is a growing movement to use the impeachment process properly, that is to boot criminals out of office instead of harrass the politically undesirable. Check out:

www.votetoimpeach.org (http://www.votetoimpeach.org)

for example. This is 'grass roots' though I'm sure the attack-dog press can find some evil communist links. Anyone not actually in the ruling corporate elite has got a second cousin's friend's friend who was once seen reading Das Capital... But some members of the US Congress are also daring to say the word 'impeachment' out loud occasionally. I'm sure they will be called communists in short order. You'd think the neo-fascisti could find a new buzz-word more than a decade after the fall of the Evil Empire, wouldn't you? Ah well. If it grows to the point where actual hearings can be held we'll be in the fun position of watching Ari Fleischer playing the Iraqi information minister and denying that the Congressional Infidels are anywhere near the impeachment process.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the reports of 'finds' at Iraqi sites. Any nuclear facility is going to have hot spots. Especially one run by cronies of a third-world despot. They were not chosen for proven abilities but loyalty, remember. He would have to have the best party loyalists in charge of his nuclear programs. They are not likely to have been especially competent and spills of radioactive material do not make 'proof' of a weapons program deliberately over-looked by the IAEA. Of course, the US Military is now in complete control of all those sites and it's not unlikely that 'interesting' things will appear in the future. I'm not sure how well the origin of refined nuclear materials can be traced. Does anyone know if chemical traces can be used to identify the original ores or the refining processes used? It might be that they can get away with planting what they need to find.

[ April 13, 2003, 19:28: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Aloofi

April 14th, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:

Che Andr�s, tranquilo!!! Adem�s, si el Turco vuelve seguro que en la invasi�n a Siria, Argentina dice PRESENTE!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Quien es el Turco?

Aloofi

April 14th, 2003, 04:05 PM

It seems like Al-Jazeera have already "found" the first signs of anti-US feelings in Irak's civilians........

Quote:
"Anti-US protest in Baghdad

A noisy crowd of Iraqis gathered around Baghdad�s Palestine Hotel and raised anti-American slogans on Sunday, signaling that the popular mood in the besieged capital was fast turning against the US troops.

Fed up with the anarchy and looting as also the breakdown of essential services ever since the start of the war, the protestors yelled that the US troops were doing nothing to help restore normal life in the city.

�They are guarding oil facilities, but have not done anything as yet to restore essential services like power and water, � alleged Ali Zuhair. Another of the protestors said that the �Americans were interested only in oil.�

Stung by the pitch of the protests, US soldiers quickly set up barricades round the hotel to keep the protestors at bay.

But the US soldiers could do little to silence the protestors. They shouted slogans in praise of Iraq and warned against any attempt to thrust upon the Iraqis a military of a �foreign� government.

�Iraq, you are our beloved country and your sun will never set,� they chanted.

As everyone in the crowd expressed their collective dismay over the anarchy, one university teacher said he had witnessed some US soldiers encouraging the looters to plunder a university.

�I saw for myself how the US troops goaded Iraqis to loot and burn the University of Technology,� claimed the professor Shakir Aziz.

Elsewhere too, Iraqis both inside and outside of Baghdad poured scorn over the US and British troops for having done precious little to prevent the country from spiraling into lawlessness.

The dean of Basra university, Abdul Jabar al-Khalifa was gripped with rage as he surveyed the charred remains of what once used to be his office. �Is this freedom of Iraq or the freedom of thieves,� he questioned.

Southern Iraq�s prestigious university has suffered terrible losses in the anarchy that followed the war. Looters over ran it and computers, air conditioning units and furniture were carried away before the mobs set large parts of the campus on fire.

The disconsolate University dean was convinced that the British were to be blamed. �They didn�t do anything to stop the looters. I hold them therefore responsible,� he said.

Other Basra residents were equally bitter of the British troops. �They did not make any effort for the first few days. They did not move until too late,� alleged Al-Habib, a US-returned academic.

As in Basra, many in Baghdad have begun to eye the foreign troops more as villains than �liberators.�

�The Last few days have been worse than all my days under Saddam,� insisted Ahmed al-Khatib, an elderly resident.

Many also suspected sinister designs behind the lawlessness. In between patrolling his neighborhood of Al Mansura against looters, Ahmed Aziz al-Hadithi alleged that �the looters were spies bought off by those who wanted to destroy Iraq.�

�One day or another, honest Iraqis are going to force out the Americans, not for the sake of Saddam Hussein, but for the sake of Iraq,� Hadithi said. --- Al Jazeera with agency inputs

Aloofi

April 14th, 2003, 04:18 PM

From the Observer:

Welcome Aboard The Iraq Gravy Train

Well, the war has been a huge success, and I guess it's time for congratulations all round. And wow! It's hard to know where to begin.
First, I'd like to congratulate Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) and the Bechtel Corporation, which are the construction companies most likely to benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq. Contracts in the region of $1 billion should soon coming your way, chaps. Well done! And what with the US dropping 15,000 precision-guided munitions, 7,500 unguided bombs and 750 cruise missiles on Iraq so far and with more to come, there's going to be a lot of reconstruction. It looks like it could be a bonanza year.
Of course, we all know that KBR is the construction side of Halliburton, and it has been doing big business with the military ever since the Second World War. Most recently, it got the plum job of constructing the prison compound for terrorists suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Could be a whole lot more deluxe chicken coops coming your way in the next few months, guys. Stick it to 'em.
I'd also like to add congratulations to Dick Cheney, who was chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, and who currently receives a cheque for $1 million a year from his old company. I guess he may find there's a little surprise bonus in there this year. Well done, Dick.
Congratulations, too, to former Secretary of State, George Schultz. He's not only on the board of Bechtel, he's also chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group with close ties to the White House committed to reconstructing the Iraqi economy through war. You're doing a grand job, George, and I'm sure material benefits will be coming your way, as sure as the Devil lives in Texas.
Oh, before I forget, a big round of appreciation for Jack Sheehan, a retired general who sits on the Defence Policy Board which advises the Pentagon. He's a senior vice president at Bechtel and one of the many members of the Defence Policy Board with links to companies that make money out of defence contracts. When I say 'make money' I'm not joking. Their companies have benefited to the tune of $76bn just in the Last year. Talk about a gravy train. Well, Jack, you and your colleagues can certainly look forward to a warm and joyous Christmas this year.
It;s been estimated that rebuilding Iraq could cost anything from $25bn to $100bn and the great thing is that the Iraqis will be paying for it themselves out of their future oil revenues. What's more, President Bush will be able to say, with a straight face, that they're using the money from Iraqi oil to benefit the Iraqi people. 'We're going to use the assets of the people of Iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit their people,' said Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he looked really sincere. Yessir.
It's so neat it makes you want to run out and buy shares in Fluor. As one of the world's biggest procurement and construction companies, it recently hired Kenneth J. Oscar, who, as acting assistant secretary of the army, took care of the Pentagon's $35bn-a-year procurement budget. So there could also be some nice extra business coming its way soon. Bully for them.
But every celebration has its serious side, and I should like to convey my condolences to all those who have suffered so grievously in this war. Particularly American Airlines, Qantas and Air Canada, and all other travel companies which have seen their customers dwindle, as fear of terrorist reprisals for what the US and Britain have done in Iraq begins to bite.
My condolences also to all those British companies which have been disappointed in their bid to share in the bonanza that all this wonderful high-tech military firepower has created. I know it must be frustrating and disheartening for many of you, especially in the medical field, knowing there are all those severed limbs, all that burnt flesh, all those smashed skulls, broken bones, punctured spleens, ripped faces and mangled children just crying out for your products.
You could be making a fortune out of the drugs, serums and surgical hardware, and yet you have to stand on the sidelines and watch as US drug companies make a killing.
Well, Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President, has some words of comfort for us all. As he recently pointed out, this adventure by Bush and Blair will have created such hatred throughout the Arab world, that 100 new bin Ladens will have been created.
So all of us here in Britain, as well as in America, shouldn't lose heart. Once the Arab world starts to take its revenge, there should be enough reconstruction to do at home to keep business thriving for some years to come.

Terry Jones.

Master Belisarius

April 14th, 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Master Belisarius:

Che Andr�s, tranquilo!!! Adem�s, si el Turco vuelve seguro que en la invasi�n a Siria, Argentina dice PRESENTE!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Quien es el Turco?<hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The "Turco" (Turk), is one of the popular nicknames of Carlos Sa�l Menem.
He is a very controversial character in the Argentinean politic. Many people blame him for the current situation of Argentina� and although the accusations of corruption signed his 2 governments (the scandals with the weapons that Argentina sold to Croatia and Ecuador are just some part of them), still he has good possibilities to be President again.
Under his government, Argentina became a more close ally of USA, and he sent some symbolic troops in the GW1.
If I�m not wrong, his ancestors are from Syria, and the �joke� was that if he reach the Argentinean�s government and USA invade Syria, he could send again some symbolic troops again.

dogscoff

April 14th, 2003, 05:43 PM

I did have a lenghty, informed and well-written reply ready to post earlier but the forum crashed at just the wrong moment. I can't be arsed to piece it all back together, but I can summarise the important points as follows:

1- Aloofi - sorry, no offence meant.
2- George Bush is an arsehole.
3- Tony Blair is an arsehole's arsehole.

EDIT: Oh yeah, here's number 4:

4- "I'm sure they will be called communists in short order. You'd think the neo-fascisti could find a new buzz-word more than a decade after the fall of the Evil Empire, wouldn't you?"

We do have a new buzz word. It's "terrorist": Precise enough to terrify the public into endorsing monstrosities, yet vague enough to be applied to anyone you want to bomb/ arrest/ vanish. Inspired.

[ April 14, 2003, 16:46: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

David E. Gervais

April 14th, 2003, 07:34 PM

I read this somewhere and I thought it was an eerie statement...

"We are against Dictatorship and Oppression. We believe in Democracy and Freedom. It is for this reason that we will force you to accept our way of life, weather you like it or not!

I shivered when I first read this! There is something very wrong in there somewhere!

Nuf said!

P.S. (maybe not enough)... If the Oil belongs to the Iraqi people why do they have to pay for it at the pumps? (Oh yeah, they're not paying for the oil, they're paying for the refinement process and tax!) It sounds like something is wrong in this statement too!

Poof!

[ April 14, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

jimbob

April 15th, 2003, 12:10 AM

David:

It's not just about the Iraqi, if the oil belongs to Texans, Albertans or Saudis, why do they have to pay for it at the pump??

Because the oil doesn't "belong" to the Iraqi, Texan, or Albertan, it belongs to the government of the people, who then contract out the rights to develop the resource. The government of the people then recieves royalties on the oil extracted, but the contract holder now owns the oil. In the end, large company XYZ, who happens to own the oil/gas/petrolium product, can then sell it to individuals within (nearly) any country they desire... Iraq or otherwise. This is why everybody on the planet needs to pay out of pocket for gasoline, regardless of whether oil comes out of the ground in Eretria or their backyard.

I'm not certain what the policy is in Saudi Arabia, as the oil is owned not by the gov't of the people, but by the ruling family, the house of Saud. I would imagine that they too have contracted out the development to multinational companies, but have no proof of that.

Finally, I'm sure there are some countries that take care of all gas sales within their borders, but in that case it is the gov't who purchases petrolium products from the multinationals, and then turns around and sells to the people.

[ April 14, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

primitive

April 15th, 2003, 01:24 AM

DavidG
It is obviously important to repeat that message, even if it is tedious:
It is fully possible to be both Anti American (or more correctly Anti-GWB's "obey me, cause I got a big stick" policy) and Anti Saddam at the same time.

Using your kind of logic: Do you support the goverments (and the atrocities done by them), of all coalition members ? Logically you must since they are Anti Saddam too, but I would not believe that you actually supports the goverment of contries like Rwanda.

Rex
Quit !
I'm having to much fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermo
I get the news. Think the Baron covered the "significanse" of the finds well. Of course there may be chance you are right, and something serious will be found at the plant in the future. What p.. me off is the way you presents these things. You are just adding to the general hysteria and paranoia by spreading loose rumours as facts. When you have facts, not made up propaganda, I will listen.

Tesco
Good one, but I have a little faith left in the US citizens. After all, they live in (sort of) a democracy. When they find out what the overly aggressive foreign policy really will cost them, they will get rid of GWB and his evil ogiligarchy.

Aloofi
Nice quote, obviously from a wise and well informed man.
Is this the same Terry Jones as in Monty Python ?

David
In war, truth is the first victim. Logic seems to be the second http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DavidG

April 15th, 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
DavidG
It is obviously important to repeat that message, even if it is tedious:
It is fully possible to be both Anti American (or more correctly Anti-GWB's "obey me, cause I got a big stick" policy) and Anti Saddam at the same time.

Using your kind of logic: Do you support the goverments (and the atrocities done by them), of all coalition members ? Logically you must since they are Anti Saddam too, but I would not believe that you actually supports the goverment of contries like Rwanda.
Your logic baffles me. I do not follow it at all. Your point seems to be that none of the anti-war protesters are pro-saddam. Yes absolutly you can be anti-Saddam and anti-American. However my point was that after the war has already started anyone who wanted Iraq to win is taking a decidedly pro-Saddam view. How you can get from that to me supporting Rawanda is a mystery to me.
Do you really not believe there are any pro-Saddam people in the world?

primitive

April 15th, 2003, 02:16 AM

DavidG
Of course there are many Pro-Saddam people in the world.
But it's not all black and white, it's fully possible to be anti Saddam and anti GWB at the same time. Refusing to accept that is unlogical, just as it would have been unlogical for me to to accuse you of supporting Rwanda (which I did not do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Askan Nightbringer

April 15th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Primitive, DavidG -
Couldn't you be anti-Saddam, anti-USA and pro-Iraq? Couldn't you be a pro-Iraqi nationalist so you get behind your leader in times of strife (even thou you don't like him), sort of what Americans call patriotic.
Isn't it like when I watch New Zealand play South Africa in the rugby I support the Kiwis even thou I don't like them, they just happen to be the lesser of two evils?

I didn't want (maybe expect) the Americans to get obliterated by a crappy third world army, but then again I don't want this warmongering to be too easy so it becomes an acceptable solution to any problem.

Tesco -
I can't believe you said what you said and nobody has jumped you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I logged on today to watch the flames but everyone was mute.
To add my bit, its the constant use of the flag that reminds me of the nazis. Everytime I see it I cringe. Australians never seem to rally too much around our national flag, but then its probabaly more to do with that other country's flag in the corner of ours than anything else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Andres -
The "hand of god" was to get British support. If George was trying to drum up some Argentine support he would have pointed out it was Saddam who decided the Last World Cup pools http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Speaking of the soccer, looks like we'll qualify for Germany coz we don't have to play a South American team! Woo woo! We only have to beat New Zealand!! Yeh!!

rextorres

April 15th, 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
To add my bit, its the constant use of the flag that reminds me of the nazis. There are flag wavers in this forum and posters here seem relatively well informed. You can only imagine what it's like amongst the luddites. Instead of singing the "Lied der Deutschen" though they chant "USA!, USA!, USA!."

[ April 15, 2003, 07:24: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Some1

April 15th, 2003, 08:54 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
To add my bit, its the constant use of the flag that reminds me of the nazis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nationalism....
Also when i watch GWB on tv, it reminds me of Ayatollah Khomeini...(just replace Allah with God)
GWB is (also) a pure Christian Fundamentalist.

Unknown_Enemy

April 15th, 2003, 10:29 AM

This war was swift, and indeed not so bloody. I know it is quite easy to say when you are thousands kilometers away from the conflict, but indeed I believe this war killed less people that would have Saddham.

But when I read stratfor's writings about Syria/USA, I really wonder. The current US administration just can't topple every single country they don't like ?

Aloofi

April 15th, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
If I�m not wrong, his ancestors are from Syria, and the �joke� was that if he reach the Argentinean�s government and USA invade Syria, he could send again some symbolic troops again.Ohhhh, isn't his son or grandson the boyfriend of this Britney Spear look alike that is also from Syria or something?

Aloofi

April 15th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
To add my bit, its the constant use of the flag that reminds me of the nazis. I'm a flag waver! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Don't confuse Nazism with Nationalism. Nationalism in its purest form is not agressive at all, it only cares of what happens inside its borders.

tesco samoa

April 15th, 2003, 03:46 PM

Askan Nightbringer I am currently hiding under a Tramplobombomee , trampoline. Care to join me. I have a BBQ pit , steaks , and a flat of beer.

dogscoff

April 15th, 2003, 04:08 PM

I'm a flag waver!
*looks at Aloofi's avatar

No, really?

Don't confuse Nazism with Nationalism. Nationalism in its purest form is not agressive at all, it only cares of what happens inside its borders.
Still not a healthy attitude imho. To only care about what goes on in your own borders is to become insular and that can only lead to feelings of superiority/ mistrust over other nations/ races which is an easy route to hatred, nazism and imperialist expansion.

Mephisto

April 15th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
[QUOTE]Don't confuse Nazism with Nationalism. Nationalism in its purest form is not agressive at all, it only cares of what happens inside its borders.And what do you think Nazism stands for? Nazis did care for their own borders... until they decided to bring home the Sudentendeutsch from across the border...

Master Belisarius

April 15th, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
[QUOTE]Ohhhh, isn't his son or grandson the boyfriend of this Britney Spear look alike that is also from Syria or something?Not exactly� Think you�re talking about the Colombian �Shakira�, and the son of the ex-president Fernando de la Rua, Antonio de la Rua.

Aloofi

April 15th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Still not a healthy attitude imho. To only care about what goes on in your own borders is to become insular and that can only lead to feelings of superiority/ mistrust over other nations/ races which is an easy route to hatred, nazism and imperialist expansion.Well, in this imperfect world being Nationalistic beats the hell out of being imperialistic, me thinks.
Besides, if a country is hated by everyone else, an strong nationalism is the only way to survive, plus not attacking anyone and having only a defense oriented army doctrine will assure the moral higher ground, at least in a domestic sense.

dogscoff

April 15th, 2003, 05:48 PM

Well, in this imperfect world being Nationalistic beats the hell out of being imperialistic, me thinks.
But I'm saying that nationalism leads to imperialism. Think Hitler. Think British Empire. When you stop caring about johnny foreigner, you lose respect for him. When you have no respect for him, you might as well inade his country and take what's his...

Nationalism is on the increase here in the UK.
As the conservatives recoil further and further from Europe and anti-immigration hysteria increases, our extreme right is gaining more and more ground. It's under control for the moment, but I can see it getting a lot worse in the next few years.

Besides, if a country is hated by everyone else, an strong nationalism is the only way to survive,
But I think strong nationalism is one of the things that leads to a country being hated.

Aloofi

April 15th, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
And what do you think Nazism stands for? Nazis did care for their own borders... until they decided to bring home the Sudentendeutsch from across the border...Not really. In the Mein Kampf Hitler already made public his intention on fighting the USSR for living space. National-Socialism was not exactly a Nationalistic movement. Probably they should have been called National-Imperialism from a political point of view, and Capitalism of State from an economical side.
Of course, many Germans saw the Nazis as a national rebirth after WW1. But in my opinion the Nazi leadership itself deceived the German people changing their Nationalism into a German Imperialism, and it was anything but socialist, even though Hitler, Goebels and Hess played into National-socialist feelings in their speeches talking against class divisions and brotherhood, when at the same time they were doing big business with the german Industrial and financial oligarchies.
And lets not get into the minority discrimination, with was an easy shot of blaming everything on the jews and other minorities to blind the German people from the Imperialist war they were cooking.
To give you just some numbers, of the 500 000 jews in Germany 100 000 fought for Germany in WW1, which mean that every male in age went to war, and 12000 were killed, making the percentage of Jews killed for Germany higher than that of the other Germans.

.

Wardad

April 15th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Nationalism is dangerous. The stronger the feeling the more dangerous it is.

In fact any grouping that focuses strong positive feelings of US, will also focus negative feelings on THEM.

Baron Munchausen

April 15th, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

Nationalism is on the increase here in the UK.
As the conservatives recoil further and further from Europe and anti-immigration hysteria increases, our extreme right is gaining more and more ground. It's under control for the moment, but I can see it getting a lot worse in the next few years.

So where do you think UK politics is heading? Towards alignment with the US in opposition to Europe? I have heard in some other forums that Blair is actually making noises about trying to push approval of the Euro now. Is this true? If so, it's got to be the most ill-timed move in UK political history. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif With UK having a stronger economy than any of the continental nations, AND the current levels of tension of the Iraq affair every possible factor is against him.

Wardad

April 15th, 2003, 07:40 PM

ANOTHER CONFUSED PEACE PROTESTOR

http://www.twistedmonkey.org/view/funny_pictures/funny_signs/9901/0/10/?sort=rating

IRONIC

Mephisto

April 15th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
National-Socialism was not exactly a Nationalistic movement.Oh, it was. You see it to narrow. Replace Germans with Nordic race/Herrenrasse and it all works out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The problem with nationalism is that you put one nation above all other. And from this point on it will only go downhill...

Fyron

April 15th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Primitive:
Fyron:
Your welcome.
Yeah, just throw out opinions that don't agree with yours... great plan...

Baron Munchausen

April 15th, 2003, 08:54 PM

Mephisto:

You forgot to mention that people of your own nation who don't meet the right standards are just as much victims as people of other nations. How many Germans who happened to be of the wrong political affiliation, or of low intelligence, or homosexual, were also killed by the Nazis? We can see this already in the US. People who think GWB has gone too far are 'communists' or being manipulated by them, plotting to overthrow the government. People who think Ashcroft has gone too far are 'giving aid to terrorists' -- which translates to Ashcroft saying he can arrest them just for opposing him. 'Giving aid to terrorists' is an imprisonable offense. We've had waves of hysteria before, and somehow recovered, but being in the midst of one is NOT fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ April 15, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

April 15th, 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
quote:
Nationalism....
Also when i watch GWB on tv, it reminds me of Ayatollah Khomeini...(just replace Allah with God)
GWB is (also) a pure Christian Fundamentalist.He has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.

Askan:
Tesco -
I can't believe you said what you said and nobody has jumped you. I logged on today to watch the flames but everyone was mute.
Probably because it is so absurd it could be safely ignored...

rextorres

April 15th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.

[ April 15, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo

April 15th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
yea rex i believe the anti war people stated their ground on the immense human suffering war would bring and the consequences of the war.
I have been incapacitated for a few days, but I would like to respond to this. If these are the reasons for opposition to the war, then those opposed are truely misguided. I won't stoop to the level of many of you here and try to equate this being wrong with somehow being dishonest about your true intentions. You may sincerely believe these two beliefs require an oppostion to the war, but you are still wrong.

The first point is shown to be obviously wrong by low number of casualties in the war compared to the number of deaths, and horrible atrocities commited by the regime. No, the real aim of the war was not the liberation of the Iraqi people, I don't attempt to claim that. But the horrible human suffering commited everyday by the regime upon it's own people and it's neighbors remove any weight from that particular argument by the anti war crowd.

The second point is not so easily dismissed, as only time will tell the true consequences of the war. And since action was taken we now have no way of knowing the true consequences of failing to act and weigh those against the consequences of taking the action we did.

Much of the anger in the arab world can yet be amiliorated if the rebuilding of Iraq is handled properly and the colaition troops are withdrawn quickly. But there will always be those that hate and seek to demonstrate their hatred in volient ways. Many of these individuals and Groups may in fact commit heinous acts in the future and point to the Iraq war as justification. But this is not a logical argument as the former regime killed and maimed many more muslims then this brief war has, and the regime displaced and killed many more muslims then even the "great evil Isreal."

By saying it's not a logical argument I don't mean it won't be used. However, if those that hate will use a illogical argument to hate, then there us really nothing that can be done to prevent it. If not for the Iraq war they would find some other reason to hate.

Geoschmo

General Woundwort

April 15th, 2003, 10:01 PM

(popping in to the thread to see what's up...)

Well, it may be heated, but it seems to be losing whatever connection to Iraq it may have once had... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Wardad

April 15th, 2003, 11:48 PM

Sadam is not dead...

http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2186

Bomb Sadam...

http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2183

Smaky that Iraqi

http://www.politicaltoons.com/flash/saddam_smacky.cfm

[ April 15, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Master Belisarius

April 16th, 2003, 12:04 AM

The human life is cheap, very cheap. And more when we consider the death of people in the context of relations between countries.

I'm old enough, to remember the times when Saddam was the paladin of the western democracies, fighting against the evil Iran. He was the front line of occident against the evil Ayatollah Homeini!
During these times, occident was not worried about the use of chemical weapons against the soldiers or civilians of Iran or against the Kurds... and in fact, Saddam was helped by USA and other western countries.
Also, after the first GW1 occident had the opportunity to demote Saddam, but finally was decided to let him continue, because he was considered the lesser evil... and because this, he was able to kill more Kurds and Shiites and more people of the opposition.
At the end, the people that Saddam killed during more aprox 25 years, was considered by occident as "collateral damage".

Then, why use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his accomplice?
I can't accept that the current "collateral damage" was needed to fix the previous "collateral damage".

TerranC

April 16th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I'm old enough, to remember the times when Saddam was the paladin of the western democracies, fighting against the evil Iran. He was the front line of occident against the evil Ayatollah Homeini!Are you saying that Saddam should be commendated for invading a neighboring country, killing thousands of people in a war they started and they lost, and putting the world into an Oil shortage just because the guy he was fighting against was "evil"?

I hope you aren't.

raynor

April 16th, 2003, 12:22 AM

TerranC

April 16th, 2003, 12:27 AM

MegaTrain

April 16th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.<hr /></blockquote>Bible-believing Christians (that's all "Fundamentalist" means, anyway), don't all agree on every issue, including the use and role of military force or the various "end times" theories.

Sure, there are some out there that can't put forward a rational argument or defend a position with anything more than out-of-context Bible verses or "What would Jesus do" arguments, but just because there are some who defend a position poorly does not mean that the position itself is poor.

And just because there are others who set a horrible example by their behavior, that doesn't mean that all Christians are hypocrites or that Christianity is hogwash. All it means is that the church is made up of (GASP) people too.

Regarding eschatology (end times)--there are very very few who hold that it is our ROLE as Christians to actually BRING ABOUT the Last days by our actions or behaviour. Just because someone has a religious belief that someday the world will end doesn't mean that they are supposed to bring it about.

Regarding war/fighting--I was raised in a church that held to the doctrine of pacifism--that all fighting is immoral, even to defend your own life or family. I had just graduated from high school when the first gulf war broke out, and I actually prepared documents to declare myself a conscientious objector (CO) if a draft was instated.

More recently, however, I have become convinced that war/fighting is not always the greatest evil. The most persuasive argument that led me to this position was: "If good men do not fight evil, then evil will prevail." So there is something actually WORSE than war--and that is to allow an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein to torture his own people.

Now this is a MORAL argument, and doesn't speak to all relevant political issues, but I do believe that this is a major part of the reasoning behind this war. This is surprising to many people from around the world, because there are lots (even in the US) that would say "Good and Evil are such archaic concepts--who are you to say that you are better than another--who are you to decide what is good and what is evil?"

This is a huge issue, and ultimately comes back to fundamental philosophical and religous beliefs (on BOTH sides--"there is no absolute standard of good and evil" is a "faith-based" position as much as "there IS a standard").

There is a lot of good writing and thinking out there on these kinds of issues, and they are not trivial in the least. A man I admire uses a phrase that I'll end with: "Clarity is more important than agreement."

Master Belisarius

April 16th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
Are you saying that Saddam should be commendated for invading a neighboring country, killing thousands of people in a war they started and they lost, and putting the world into an Oil shortage just because the guy he was fighting against was "evil"?
I hope you aren't.I'm saying that occident (USA included), helped Saddam to fight against Iran during the 80's. It's a fact, and if you want my personal view, don't think was good.
I'm saying that at the end of the GW1, he was not demoted, and occident let him to continue with their crimes.
I'm saying that people who died under his bloody rule, died (specially after GW1) because occident was "looking to other place".
I'm saying that to use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his "accomplice", is in my view absurd.

Edit: added a few things, and removed the Last phrase, because I don't wanted be aggressive but after read the post again, it looked to me something "violent".

[ April 16, 2003, 01:32: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

geoschmo

April 16th, 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I can't accept that the current "collateral damage" was needed to fix the previous "collateral damage".No, no amount of Iraqi deaths in this war will bring back the Iraqi, Iranian and Kuwati dead from the past actions. Even the death of Sadam himself, though likely would be viewed as justified and neccesary by the majority of reasonable people in the world will do nothing to undo the actions which he has done. And it will not lessen the responsibility of the American government that tolerated and in many cases assisted in his murderous doings. That is something we as a people will have to face up to if we are to be honest withourselves and others.

As far as GW1 goes I believe now and believed then, as many other Americans do, that we made a huge mistake not completeing the job at the time. I dis not believe that Iraq was the lesser of two evils as Bush senior apparently did. Right or wrong our policy at the time was more about making sure the coalition members, primarily the Saudi's, were happy. They would not allow any consideration of taking out the regime.

At the very least we should have encouraged and protected the revolting Kurds and Sh'ites in the months following the war. Our failure to do so was unconsionable, and something that we are feeling repurcusions from yet in this war.

None of this detracts from our justification for taking action. This main gola of this war wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people and save them from the regime. That was merely a very pleasant side effect. If anything our poor record in the past made it mroe our responsibility to clean up the mess we made.

Geoschmo

Master Belisarius

April 16th, 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I can't accept that the current "collateral damage" was needed to fix the previous "collateral damage".No, no amount of Iraqi deaths in this war will bring back the Iraqi, Iranian and Kuwati dead from the past actions. Even the death of Sadam himself, though likely would be viewed as justified and neccesary by the majority of reasonable people in the world will do nothing to undo the actions which he has done. And it will not lessen the responsibility of the American government that tolerated and in many cases assisted in his murderous doings. That is something we as a people will have to face up to if we are to be honest withourselves and others.

As far as GW1 goes I believe now and believed then, as many other Americans do, that we made a huge mistake not completeing the job at the time. I dis not believe that Iraq was the lesser of two evils as Bush senior apparently did. Right or wrong our policy at the time was more about making sure the coalition members, primarily the Saudi's, were happy. They would not allow any consideration of taking out the regime.

At the very least we should have encouraged and protected the revolting Kurds and Sh'ites in the months following the war. Our failure to do so was unconsionable, and something that we are feeling repurcusions from yet in this war.

None of this detracts from our justification for taking action. This main gola of this war wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people and save them from the regime. That was merely a very pleasant side effect. If anything our poor record in the past made it mroe our responsibility to clean up the mess we made.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>This time we concur, my friend.

tesco samoa

April 16th, 2003, 01:02 AM

fyron... it is not too way out to lunch.....

rextorres

April 16th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
I think there is ample Biblical support to show that Jesus would have supported the war.This is way off topic but Huh!?

Jesus was a pacifist. I am not a practicing Christian but after twelve years of Christian education - I would say unequivocally that Jesus would never have supported any war under any circumstances. Most Fundamentalists (especially the t.v. kind) try to point to the post gospel books and the O.T. to support war mongering.

Originally posted by MegaTrain:
[QUOTE]Regarding eschatology (end times)--there are very very few who hold that it is our ROLE as Christians to actually BRING ABOUT the Last days by our actions or behaviour. Just because someone has a religious belief that someday the world will end doesn't mean that they are supposed to bring it about.That may be true, but one of the reasons that the Religious right supports Israel is there belief that its existance is a sign of the second coming. So I would be willing to go out on a limb that the war in Iraq is in the back of their minds as another harbinger of the apocalypse.

[ April 16, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
fyron... it is not too way out to lunch.....Yes, Tesco, it is.

tesco samoa

April 16th, 2003, 01:27 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

April 16th, 2003, 01:34 AM

Jesus was not a pacifist by modern standards. Read the account of Jesus overturning the money changers tables and drivign them out of the Temple with a whip of cords. Does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He would likely not have actively supported the war, but you wouldn't have seen him marching in a peace rally either. He would have taught the people and encouraged them to get right in their hearts for his Kingdom was in Heaven. He would have been more concerned with the spiritual needs of the people then getting involved in the war arguments on either side. He was quite adept at not allowing himself to be trapped into hypothetical and political arguments that the Pharises threw at him on a regular basis. If given the opportunity he would have been in Bagdad, not as a human shield, but ministering to the spiritual and physical needs of the citizenry, ignoring his own personal danger. If dragged before Hussein he would have no doubt had many direct words regarding the treatment of his people. But you wouldn't have seen him on CNN espousing the virtues of military intervention either or shaking hands with Bush in a rose garden photo op.

Geoschmo

[ April 16, 2003, 00:47: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 01:53 AM

So now everyone is talking about the positions of a guy who has been dead for about 2000 years and didn't write a single thing about himself or anything else in his own hand?

So we are stating what a 2000 year old dead person believed based on second and third, fourth, fifth, to the umpteenth hand information?

[ April 16, 2003, 00:55: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 02:08 AM

You are treading on dangerous ground there Cyrien...

[ April 16, 2003, 01:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 02:14 AM

Hrmm... I tend to do that alot... Oh well.

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Yeah... so do I... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

General Woundwort

April 16th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
That may be true, but one of the reasons that the Religious right supports Israel is there belief that its existance is a sign of the second coming. So I would be willing to go out on a limb that the war in Iraq is in the back of their minds as another harbinger of the apocalypse.Yes, for some, but not for all. Please do not paint with too broad a brush.

Although, I noted with no small level of distaste that a book linking Saddam to Babylon (which was originally printed for Gulf War I) has been re-issued... just in time to see Saddam fall flat on his face again. This sort of concoction of bad theology and worse timing, frankly, is an embarassment to thoughtful believers... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ April 16, 2003, 02:32: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Phoenix-D

April 16th, 2003, 03:38 AM

"This sort of concoction of bad theology and worse timing, frankly, is an embarassment to thoughtful believers..."

It's not as bad as the group that predicted the end of the world on a specific date. Twice. Did I mention this was in the 1800s? And somehow they're still around, too..

Phoenix-D

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 04:12 AM

Third time is the charm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Askan Nightbringer

April 16th, 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Askan Nightbringer I am currently hiding under a Tramplobombomee , trampoline. Care to join me. I have a BBQ pit , steaks , and a flat of beer.Sounds good. I've got about a dozen half bottles of various spirits left over after a party on the weekend. I'll bring them around.

Fyron - I'm sure most Germans didn't expect to get what they got either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everyone - Please lets not talk about god and jesus. Anything but god and jesus. I live in a secular nation where officials go to great lengths to never say the g word, where we find it very amusing that the only two sides that mentioned the g word in the war were US and Iraq, and the Last thing I want is to have an interesting discussion derailed with talk about god.

Askan

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 05:45 AM

I second that motion.

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 06:37 AM

Askan, Germany only had a democratic form of government for a few decades (or less). The people were used to strong, authoritarian governments. So, the regime change was not such a big change of pace. But in the US, the country has had a democratic form of government for centuries. The people would not sit idly by if a military regime seized power. There is a huge difference between the US and post WWI Germany.

Askan Nightbringer

April 16th, 2003, 10:09 AM

Fyron, before the Florida debacle would you have said that the people of America would never had sat idly by and let that sort of thing happen? If that happened in Australia I don't think I could ever talk about our democracy with a straight face.

Askan

MegaTrain

April 16th, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Everyone - Please lets not talk about god and jesus. Anything but god and jesus. I live in a secular nation where officials go to great lengths to never say the g word, where we find it very amusing that the only two sides that mentioned the g word in the war were US and Iraq, and the Last thing I want is to have an interesting discussion derailed with talk about god.Ah--but its not derailing the discussion--it is one of the central issues.

You live in a secular country where (I assume) the greatest proportion of the people oppose the war. In the US, a largely religious nation(historically at least), recent polls show 75% and higher support for military action.
This tells us something about how philosophical and religious ideology can affect your worldview.

We (in the US) largely view this as a question of "right and wrong", "good vs evil". Much of the rest of the world (and many on the left in the U.S.) view this as a question of legal vs illegal. This is why there is such a huge divide between those that say that U.N. support/approval is absolutely required, and those of us that say "The UN is wrong. This action is the right thing to do, and though we would like others around the world to agree and support us, the lack of a UN vote for military action will not prevent us from doing that which is necessary and right."

Again, I belive that clarity is more important than agreement, and if we understand more about the philosophic basis behind the disparity of views, that helps bring clarity.

dogscoff

April 16th, 2003, 04:10 PM

We (in the US) largely view this as a question of "right and wrong", "good vs evil".
I think many (most?) of the protesters see Bush vs Saddam as "evil vs evil." I certainly do.

MegaTrain

April 16th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
We (in the US) largely view this as a question of "right and wrong", "good vs evil".
I think many (most?) of the protesters see Bush vs Saddam as "evil vs evil." I certainly do.<hr /></blockquote>I don't doubt that for a second--but what it tells me is that much of the opposition to this war is partisan. It is actually opposition to Bush as an individual and the republicans. Where were these people when Clinton was bombing Iraq? I know there were some who have consistently opposed military action by any president, but the vast numbers of democrats who supported Clinton's military campaigns but oppose Bush's is simply astounding.
"This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war."
--Tom Daschle, 2003, when President Bush struck Iraq
"We have exhausted all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that . . . we have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
--Tom Daschle, in 1998, when President Clinton struck IraqNot all Democrats support Daschle, of course, but his statements are a largely accurate picture of the positions taken by the Democratic party leadership in 1998 and in 2003.

dogscoff

April 16th, 2003, 05:12 PM

I don't doubt that for a second--but what it tells me is that much of the opposition to this war is partisan.
No, not really. Remember that the vast majority of the opposition is from *outside* the US, and so couldn't give a toss about US internal politics and partisanship. (except where it effects foreign policy.)

It is actually opposition to Bush as an individual and the republicans. Where were these people when Clinton was bombing Iraq?
Well, that's a good point I suppose. There certainly has been consisitent opposition, but nothing on the scale we see now. I don't think that makes the current protesters hypocritical though. For one thing, the bombing and sanctions against Iraq until this latest episode have not been specifically US, but more of an international thing (or at least perceived as such). Furthermore, it's not the same as actually invading a country for such cynical motivations.

I know there were some who have consistently opposed military action by any president, but the vast numbers of democrats who supported Clinton's military campaigns but oppose Bush's is simply astounding.
Like I say, as someone who has never even been to the US I am neither a democrat nor a republican. To be honest I find it very hard to actually tell the difference from over here. America just keeps on being America no matter who has the keys to the whitehouse. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

So opposition to Bush for the sake of his party is nonsense. Opposition to the individual though, is entirely true and entirely valid and justified: He has the world's only superpower at his command and he doesn't care what or who he f**ks up in order to make money.

Sure, the world is full of politicians like that, but it's not often you see one taking it to these extremes. I'm not sure what he's got that lets him get away with it (although I think his manipulation of 9/11 has a lot to do with that) but there are plenty of people in this world who see him as a monster that has to be stopped. We've already seen the parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler. I really hope they turn out to be nothing more than a coincidence.

Here's something to think about: I wonder if this was inevitable after the fall of the Soviet Union- does anyone think that without a balancing force to keep it in check, the US was bound to go on the rampage like this?

[ April 16, 2003, 16:13: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

MegaTrain

April 16th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
So opposition to Bush for the sake of his party is nonsense. Opposition to the individual though, is entirely true and entirely valid and justified: He has the world's only superpower at his command and he doesn't care what or who he f**ks up in order to make money.
(snip)
...monster that has to be stopped...
...parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler...
...the US was bound to go on the rampage...OMG do you actually belive this??
If these positions are held by more than a handful around the world then that is some scary sh**, and doesn't bode well for the future of the planet.

I admit I haven't read all 95 pages of this thread, but I really can't imagine a defensible argument saying that Bush and Hitler are moral equivalents.

A couple of points:
1) Motivation of individuals is both impossible to determine and largely irrelevant. There are plenty of situations where good motivations have led to evil actions or policies (communism), or selfish motivation has lead to good results (capitalism).

I happen to believe that Bush is motivated by a desire to protect the US of today and for our children from terrorism and WMD, and a desire to rid the world and the Iraqi citizens of an evil oppressive regime. You don't belive that to be true, but as I said motivation is not the key issue.

2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--and I'm the first to say that our record isn't spotless. But I definitely agree with the following address by Colin Powell: (in response to a question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, about the US relying too much on "Hard Power" of military might vs the "Soft Power" of diplomacy") The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the Last hundred years and we�ve done this as recently as the Last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.
Ultimately, we will have to wait and see who's view of the current situation will play out. Will the US "take over" Iraqi oil production and reap vast wealth from them? Will the US occupy Iraq indefinitely? Will it become the 51st US State?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

My views:
Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so. We have already spent billions, and the US taxpayers will likely pour billions more into Iraq in aid, rebuilding, and keeping the peace while a leadership structure is determined. This is not and cannot possibly be a profitable action for the US.

US Occupation: We will be there as long as we need, and no longer. We will likely maintain a military base in Iraq indefinitely, but certainly you don't view that as "occupation of the country", otherwise we'd be "occupying" many dozens of countries throughout the world.

jimbob

April 16th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Hmmm...

Seems to me that Jesus was born into a war-torn and forcibly occupied land - sort of like Iraq, Palestine (though it's not a country yet), Afghanistan, Liberia, etc etc. Isreal had been undergoing civil unrest since the military conquest of the land by the Greeks right up until the Maccabees, and then went to war when the Romans arrived. Having been under various foreign dictators for a good long time, it has been estimated that at the time of Jesus birth a good 20% of capable men had been killed by foreign occupiers in one way or another (via out-and-out war, uprisings, civil disobedience, etc)

Then there were the ones who continued to want to overthrow the Romans, the Zealots. Jesus had at least one (two I think) of this political persuasion in his closest knit group, but yet he consistantly avoided proclaiming for or against the Romans. Instead he stressed the need for internal spiritual renewal, which could only be brought about by (i) repentance from sin, (2) acceptance of himself, and (3) worship of God.

So what would Jesus do? He'd likely move to a smaller outlying town outside of Baghdad and proclaim that, regardless of the circumstances, every member of humankind is duty bound to turn back to God. Would he pretend to like Sadam? No, I doubt this, because Jesus mocked the political leaders of his time. Would he encourage revolt? I think he wouldn't, because another rebellion - the one in people's hearts - was more important to him.

Now that's what I think Jesus would do. Does that mean that no followers of Jesus should ever enter politics or pursue positions of power? I personally don't think that Jesus would have a problem with people choosing one of these "lesser careers" vs. what he and his cousin did (essentially evangelism). There is at least one example of a Roman centurian coming to Jesus for help, and Jesus helped him. At no point did Jesus tell him to leave the army though...

Well, that's my biblical scholarship for the day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Take it for what it's worth, I'm a microbiologist, not a priest.

Edit: OOOPS. I was a little behind and reading on page two, then decided to post a reply. I didn't realize that the discussion had moved on from WWJD and back to the evil that is Bush. Sorry if my "out of the blue" response confused anyone.

Edit2: and Askan, I'm sorry about your alergic reaction to anything g*d related. You really should see a specialist about that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 16, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Baron Munchausen

April 16th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally written by Dogscoff:
Here's something to think about: I wonder if this was inevitable after the fall of the Soviet Union- does anyone think that without a balancing force to keep it in check, the US was bound to go on the rampage like this?
Well, there are some interesting assumptions in this. Ask some Latin Americans, especially from Central America, if the US hasn't been 'on the rampage' since well before there was a Soviet Union to 'balance' it...

But yes, a pretty well established law of psychology is that you become what you dwell on, and whether you dwell on it in admiration or opposition does not matter. After more than 2 decades of fear and loathing of 'communists' prior to WW II and then a bit more than 4 more decades of direct opposition in the 'Cold War' we do have a pretty well entrenched habit in the US institutions (and society! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) of viewing the external world in a militaristic way as something needing to be controlled. But even before this, as the Central Americans will tell you, we already had pretty noticeable Imperialistic tendencies.

So on the one hand, I'd say yes it was fairly predictable that the US would become more difficult to live with once the 'Big Enemy' was gone and all that energy was freed up from opposition to one target. But on the other hand we were never a very good neighbor, and advanced technology has made everyone neighbors in the contemporary world.

But you seem to have ignored my earlier question about the direction of British politics. Do you really think Britain is more strongly allied with Europe than the US? (The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.) Or is it just possible that the 'far right' segment of the British political spectrum wants ro reclaim Imperial glory by proxy, in alliance with the US? Under a similar 'rationalization' of defending against those evil terrorists, of course. This seems to be a phenomena sweeping the English speaking world. There are major anti-immigrant sentiments in Australia as well. And they were one of very few nations other than the US and Britain to send actual combat troops to Iraq. We may see the development of a US/British/Australian axis along the lines of George Orwell's Oceana...

[ April 16, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Fyron, before the Florida debacle would you have said that the people of America would never had sat idly by and let that sort of thing happen? If that happened in Australia I don't think I could ever talk about our democracy with a straight face.

AskanLet what sort of thing happen? Gore and crew whine for weeks about losing fair and square?

jimbob

April 16th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Waaayyy OT but,

Seems to me that Florida has a pretty dumb voting system. We've got a "complete the arrow" system in Canada. The poll-operators give you a pencil, you go to the booth, and then select your candidate by filling in the correct broken arrow with said pencil. No hanging chits, no accidental chit removals, etc.

That said, a teacher in Florida made a test for grade 1 students in which they identified their favorite cartoon character using the chit system, and not a single error in his class! Does this indicate that the problem isn't with the system, but with the voter? Perhaps the "debacle" isn't with the system or the electee, perhaps the debacle is the electorate.

[ April 16, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Well the whiners were mostly complaining about senile old people that couldn't figure out how to use the self-explanatory ballot...

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 09:48 PM

I don't think you can take a single class that most likely is composed of less than 100 children and say that that is proportional to bad election results in an state of millions where only thousands of ballots where off. Percentage wise the number of off ballots was quite small. The problem was that the race was so damn close that those small numbers off could throw it one way or another.

People put way too much emphasis on the whole ballot thing. Missed results etc happen everywhere at almost every election, but it only gets attention when the election is decided because of it.

MegaTrain

April 16th, 2003, 09:54 PM

But those small numbers ALWAYS threw it TOWARD Bush and not Gore. EVERY vote count and re-count that was done, including by different media outlets at later times said that BUSH was the victor.

And I shudder to think what it would have been like with Gore in the White House after September 11.

Fyron

April 16th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Actually, no ballots were off. The recounts never actually came to the conclusion that more than a handful of ballots were miscounted against Gore.

[ April 16, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Cyrien

April 16th, 2003, 09:59 PM

The U.S. isn't on a rampage. The U.S. hasn't been on a rampage. Yes the U.S. has done some bad things. And so did Englang, and France, and Germany, and Italy, and Russia, and the Soviet Union, and CHina, and Japan, and Rome, and Persia, and every single other powerful nation in the world that also dealt with weaker nations.

It may be harsh to think of it in those terms but that is the way it has been historically. Stronger nations do have a tendency to be harsh and use strong arm tactics when faced by opposition from weaker opponents.

After all if you are the boss and someone beneath you objects to your plan AND you feel that that view point is entirely wrong as a matter of principle... do you just overrule them and use your authority or do you go down and talk it out?

In the modern world increasingly you talk it out. But that is a VERY new trend. Historically you use your authority and simply overrule them, often militarily.

Personally I think an approach right in the middle of the two is best. You need to apply military power at times. It is unavoidable in the real world. But you also don't want to leave to many hard feelings behind so you need to ballance it out with talk and not just absorbing the others, something which hasn't been done for quite awhile but which Iraq under Sadam tried to do.

I feel that the war is justified. Maybe the motivations for it are wrong. But you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, you just have to make sure those wrong reasons don't taint the process.

Just for the record I am against Bush I did vote for Gore but I support the War because it is the right thing to do. Getting rid of Sadam that is.
Most would consider me a Democrat and I probably am but I also almost always vote for several Republicans because I agree with them in areas. I vote for who I believe is best for the job, it just happens that most of the time that seems to be a Democrat for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif