Blaegis 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and the representatives of the two firms accused by the US state department of supplying UN-banned hardware to Iraq strongly deny any involvement with Iraq. Russian article Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted March 24, 2003 I don't understand! Did they expect the war over in 2 days? Did they expect no casualties? Anything under a thousand or two I would consider very good for a war like this! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Agree with pitviper, war is bloody, dirty and will involve death, soldiers are trained to kill other human beings, armies are used as a weapon of violence against other human beings. Though I don't support this action that is going on in Iraq, I do belive warfare should not be bogged down in nicities and media-spin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted March 24, 2003 http://www.iht.com/articles/90741.html#91275793 German and French news having problems spinning the war news to their liking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 25 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.iht.com/articles/90741.html#91275793 German and French news having problems spinning the war news to their liking. Â <span id='postcolor'> They just have to look what has happened and what is happening in Basra. The strikes on Baghdad have apparently been reasonably precise and have been targeting the political and military infrastructure. The problem is of course that it kind of backfires because of that. I just listened to a report from a Norwegian reporter who is in Baghdad. She said that the Baghdad citizens were neither shocked nor awed, but have gotten used to the bombings and are actually going out at night watching the fireworks. The buildings hit are military and political targets that had been evacuated weeks before the invasion started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She said that the Baghdad citizens were neither shocked nor awed, but have gotten used to the bombings and are actually going out at night watching the fireworks. The buildings hit are military and political targets that had been evacuated weeks before the invasion started.<span id='postcolor'> The "shock and awe" was not intended for the general population. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 25 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She said that the Baghdad citizens were neither shocked nor awed, but have gotten used to the bombings and are actually going out at night watching the fireworks. The buildings hit are military and political targets that had been evacuated weeks before the invasion started.<span id='postcolor'> The "shock and awe" was not intended for the general population. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> And it's a rather good case in point for those who were whining (yes, that's the word- Bn, I'm looking at you) about how many civilians would be killed in the air campaign. The Red Cross reports a grand total of about 34 civilian casualties, and 1 civilian dead. Talk about indiscriminate carpet bombing, eh? We've even been courteous enough to leave Iraqi state TV on the air. I'd drop a MOAB 30 miles away from the city just to remind them that their lives depend entirely on our decadent society's morals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 25 2003,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it's a rather good case in point for those who were whining (yes, that's the word- Bn, I'm looking at you) about how many civilians would be killed in the air campaign. The Red Cross reports a grand total of about 34 civilian casualties, and 1 civilian dead. Talk about indiscriminate carpet bombing, eh? We've even been courteous enough to leave Iraqi state TV on the air. I'd drop a MOAB 30 miles away from the city just to remind them that their lives depend entirely on our decadent society's morals.<span id='postcolor'> It's a very decent strategy from a humanitarian point of view but a bad one from military point of view. On the other hand large civilian casualties = no political support = bad for the military. I'd hate to be a general these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 25 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.iht.com/articles/90741.html#91275793 German and French news having problems spinning the war news to their liking. Â <span id='postcolor'> They just have to look what has happened and what is happening in Basra. The strikes on Baghdad have apparently been reasonably precise and have been targeting the political and military infrastructure. The problem is of course that it kind of backfires because of that. I just listened to a report from a Norwegian reporter who is in Baghdad. She said that the Baghdad citizens were neither shocked nor awed, but have gotten used to the bombings and are actually going out at night watching the fireworks. The buildings hit are military and political targets that had been evacuated weeks before the invasion started.<span id='postcolor'> She (the donkey that is) also said a bit more lately about sentiments of the citisens of Baghdad. The attack by the coalition force makes ordinary iraqis volonteer for the army and Baath-party. The reason for this is that even though most iraqis hate Saddam the collective hate of an invasion force in their homeland is considered as a greater evil. That could be a particulary nasty factor to consider for the coalition. link is in norwegian: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter....=515402 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 25 2003,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it's a rather good case in point for those who were whining (yes, that's the word- Bn, I'm looking at you) about how many civilians would be killed in the air campaign. The Red Cross reports a grand total of about 34 civilian casualties, and 1 civilian dead. Talk about indiscriminate carpet bombing, eh? We've even been courteous enough to leave Iraqi state TV on the air. I'd drop a MOAB 30 miles away from the city just to remind them that their lives depend entirely on our decadent society's morals.<span id='postcolor'> It's a very decent strategy from a humanitarian point of view but a bad one from military point of view. On the other hand large civilian casualties = no political support = bad for the military. I'd hate to be a general these days.<span id='postcolor'> Well, c'est la vie. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember? And the good guys don't fight dirty. If we have to pick between a cheap, indiscriminate campaign that steamrolled Iraq and earned the US the lasting hatred of every country east of the English Channel, and a more expensive, longer campaign that we are conducting right now; I'd choose the latter. And if we really were more concerned with getting this thing done quickly than liberating the Iraqi people, we would be running Arc Light missions over Basra, Baghdad, and Karbala as we speak. True, they'd be much more effective than our current strategy, but at the end there wouldn't be many Iraqi civilians left to liberate, and I doubt they would be very unenthusiastic about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She (the donkey that is) also said a bit more lately about sentiments of the citisens of Baghdad. The attack by the coalition force makes ordinary iraqis volonteer for the army and Baath-party. The reason for this is that even though most iraqis hate Saddam the collective hate of an invasion force in their homeland is considered as a greater evil. <span id='postcolor'> If someone illegally attacks your country your gonna fight back, maybe not everyone, but I'm sure a large amount of people will do. War isn't solely about figures, statistics, and scenarios, passion, emotion and feelings play a huge role in determination and resolve, which leads to victory or defeat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted March 25, 2003 The U.N. doesn't make things legal. The U.S. and NATO went into Kosovo without a U.N. security counsel resolution, so I guess we should charge Clinton with war crimes, right? I sort of wish that the U.S.S.R. was still in power, they kept the "third world" in line without giving a shit about bad press, do you think Osama bin Laden would still be wasting air if the KGB wasn't writing traffic tickets? Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted March 25, 2003 A reality check </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War ousts sex, music in Web searches LONDON, England (Reuters) -- War toppled sex and music as the most popular search term among Web users as the conflict in Iraq captured the attention of the online crowd. "Iraq" knocked female country music group "Dixie Chicks" out of the top spot on Yahoo's Buzz Index of popular search terms among U.S. Internet users. The Dixie Chicks sank on the Yahoo index behind Iraq and rising rap singing star "50 Cent." The country group Dixie Chicks have had their chart-topping songs, including current number one single "Travelin' Soldier", pulled from many U.S. radio playlists after they criticized President Bush's war plans in Iraq. The Iraq conflict has also apparently lowered libidos of online Britons, top Internet service Freeserve said. "War was our top search term today, taking over from perennial favorites -- sex, Britney [spears] and travel," said Nadia Schofield, a spokeswoman for Freeserve, the U.K.'s largest Internet service provider. Sites such as Freeserve track day-to-day changes in popular search terms as a means of following changing fashions on the Web. Sex-related terms have long dominated the most searched-for subjects on the Web. <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">German and French news having problems spinning the war news to their liking. <span id='postcolor'> What? How rude....Shame on you Pitviper Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I sort of wish that the U.S.S.R. was still in power, they kept the "third world" in line without giving a shit about bad press, do you think Osama bin Laden would still be wasting air if the KGB wasn't writing traffic tickets? <span id='postcolor'> I wish the USSR was around to keep the Americans in line... Legaity is a hard term to define, depending on whether one is objective or subjective, what people's motives are, etc, etc. As far I'm concerned the Uk and US did not get support from the Un to attack iraq because they were meant to have WOMD. We shall see in the next few months which camp was right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 25, 2003 US spies on UN representatives: US spies on UN Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted March 25, 2003 This morning i heard on the news that Bush wants the european countries to "clean" up Iraq after the war... What? Is this really true? Did he really say that? Does he really want us to clean up all the mess while we don't want this war? If so........sheesh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She (the donkey that is) also said a bit more lately about sentiments of the citisens of Baghdad. The attack by the coalition force makes ordinary iraqis volonteer for the army and Baath-party. The reason for this is that even though most iraqis hate Saddam the collective hate of an invasion force in their homeland is considered as a greater evil. <span id='postcolor'> If someone illegally attacks your country your gonna fight back, maybe not everyone, but I'm sure a large amount of people will do. Â War isn't solely about figures, statistics, and scenarios, passion, emotion and feelings play a huge role in determination and resolve, which leads to victory or defeat.<span id='postcolor'> Very true, i've always said this, some ppl can't understand how someone can voluntarely fight against the "liberators" but to me it's rather clear... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 25 2003,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She (the donkey that is) also said a bit more lately about sentiments of the citisens of Baghdad. The attack by the coalition force makes ordinary iraqis volonteer for the army and Baath-party. The reason for this is that even though most iraqis hate Saddam the collective hate of an invasion force in their homeland is considered as a greater evil. <span id='postcolor'> If someone illegally attacks your country your gonna fight back, maybe not everyone, but I'm sure a large amount of people will do. Â War isn't solely about figures, statistics, and scenarios, passion, emotion and feelings play a huge role in determination and resolve, which leads to victory or defeat.<span id='postcolor'> Very true, i've always said this, some ppl can't understand how someone can voluntarely fight against the "liberators" but to me it's rather clear...<span id='postcolor'> .............which is why i posted the link and the quote in the first place. I rather like the headline of the article: "US winning the war - Saddam winning the hearts and minds" - after all, isn't the coalition talking about winning hearts and minds of the iraqi population lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 25, 2003 *ahem* not to break in on your self-congratulating, but there appears to be a large popular uprising in Basrah at the moment, and the Iraqi army is firing on its own citizens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 25 2003,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*ahem* not to break in on your self-congratulating, but there appears to be a large popular uprising in Basrah at the moment, and the Iraqi army is firing on its own citizens.<span id='postcolor'> Ah yes, but the article was about Baghdad. However, Basrah might be another matter. When the tide is turning the shia's would certainly grab their opportunity but what is to be expected after that? I honestly don't know - and I hope the claims for independency or autonomy won't cause unrest and uprising against the occupying force. Things generally turn around quickly in the middle east. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 Plus before the the other side starts with its self-congratulation, this is still unconfirmed rumor. We don't know the scale of the alledged uprising or anything else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus before the the other side starts with its self-congratulation, this is still unconfirmed rumor. We don't know the scale of the alledged uprising or anything else.<span id='postcolor'> True. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 25, 2003 Hmm.....can you find a link to prove what you just wrote Tex? The only thing I can find about the sentiments of the citisens of Basra is this (and it does in no way prove your statement) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
