The Iraq Thread

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"It is possible to support the troops from home, come down off that high horse of yours."

Yeah, it also happens to be the easiest, least risky way of doing it. From your home, in front of the TV with a case of beer and a Big Mac, watching CNN's latest soap "Showdown Iraq" while chanting...

- Go USA, I support our troops!!

I reckon Hipp Hipp could make a lovely and humerous clip about that... (Hipp Hipp = A swedish comedy show)<span id='postcolor'>

That's it.I hate how you damn euros stereotype us americans.We all hate mcdonalds.So it wouldn't be a damn big mac.It would probably be a taco or something.Only reason mcdonalds is still alive in the US is because of little kids,i haven't ate there in like a year or 2.Also there is another stereo type thing you said in your post.CNN,do you think we watch all watch CNN ? Atleast on my tv we have Foxnews,cnn,msnbc,bbc,international news channel(which has french,brits,german,japan,chinese,other other  news).Would you like it if i stereotype you as little wimps,and never show any force and always have to call in the americans to get you guys outta a jam.

What's wrong with supporting the troops anyways ? Is it better to support the iraqi one then the american ones ?

--edit

also we do have the internet,So we can get more coverage then most europeans can.Why ? Because there are like 60% of americans are connected to the internet.Plus there are public places that has free internet use.

[Die Alive 0]

Sooooo only soldiers and ex-military are allowed to support wars and their own (and other nations' ) troops?

Well then. Guess I'm not walking in that pro choice march since i'm not a woman.

And that Gay Pride parade, nope, gonna sit home and watch lezbie porn, oops, cant watch that anymore, can I?

And I was looking forward to that anti-******* march too.

I'm happy I just don't give a shit.

-=Die Alive=-

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,19:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,19<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just as bad as the Iraqis shooting thier own and sending missles into market squares.<span id='postcolor'>

Sending missiles into market squares? USA did that, not Iraq. Any amateur can see that the damage at the market could not have been caused by a SAM.

I feel silly for having to explain this since this is really basic stuff.

Anti aircraft missiles don't have significant explosive warheads - they have a fragmentation warheads. They don't make large holes - they spray the area with shrapnel. In that market place, a significant part of the building was destroyed. There was a large crater. There were very little or no signs of shrapnel damage. This the most obvious proof, anybody who has seen the effects on buildings of a fragmentation warhead knows what I'm talking about.

There is no way in hell that it was a SAM that misfired. It was a cruise missile alright. The damage shows that.

It's a damn shame that reporters are so militarily illiterate. The Pentagon insinuations that it might have been a SAM could have been easily dismissed directly when the first reports came in.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have a picture of it ?<span id='postcolor'>

http://reuters.feedroom.com/

Browse back to "Damage inside Baghdad" segment.

Also, which I forgot to add, I'm pretty certain (not 100% though) that SAMs have altimeters that prevent the warhead going off under a certain height.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's wrong with supporting the troops anyways ? Is it better to support the iraqi one then the american ones ?<span id='postcolor'>

I'd like to get an answer to the question that I asked earlier:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Would sombody mind telling me what this "supporting the troops" means exactly?

"I support the war because I support our troops"

"I'm against this war because I support our troops"

"I think Michael Jackson should get a new nose because I support the troops"

Could somebody explain this elusive term to an old soldier, or is this just another I'm-a-good-politically-correct-boy platitude?

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also we do have the internet,So we can get more coverage then most europeans can.Why ? Because there are like 60% of americans are connected to the internet.Plus there are public places that has free internet use.

<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong answer. EU is more internet dense than USA. Finland and Sweden are the top two internet dense countries in the world.

I'm on a 100 Mbit line. And you?

[Winters 1]

I cant believe i have to explain something so simple as this.

Supporting the Troops means just that. That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible. You can still protest against the war (after all the soldiers did not decide to declare war on Iraq the Govt. did) AND you can still go to a Pro-Troops Rally. It has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness. If you wanted to be PC you would say something like "I support the war because my gov't says its right"

You can be Anti-Government and still be Pro-Troops. This is not rocket science people.

[Longinius 1]

"Excuse me Mr. Longinus but i served in '91 and i got a hunk of lead in my back to prove it (what the hell did you ever do excpet for acting like a smart ass on a forum?) so i am not able to go back and fight now."

And we werent talking about you. We were talking about couch potatoes in general, who like to talk much about their "commitment but dont really do anything at all to back it up. If you are not one of them, you are not one of the people who should feel targeted by the generalisation I made. The fact is though, that most of these prowar, "I back our troops" people ARE couch potatoes.

"Does this mean that i am not entitled to support our troops? i don't think so."

And I never said anything about YOU or YOUR situation.

"So before you open your mouth think about what you are saying first. There are those of us who are NOT fat AND do NOT drink beer AND do NOT watch CNN but we DO support our troops."

Yes, and I havent said that there werent.

"Would you like it if i stereotype you as little wimps,and never show any force and always have to call in the americans to get you guys outta a jam."

No, by all means do that. It would be completely wrong, but I really wouldn't care about it.

"What's wrong with supporting the troops anyways ? Is it better to support the iraqi one then the american ones ?"

No, but if you are going to support your troops you might actually want to go out and DO something. Not just talk about it. You, as a person, might all ready be doing something. I wouldnt know. But the fact still remains that a majority will CLAIM to support the troops but not actually do anything. Then what use are their support?

At any rate, there is an old saying...

God and soldier we adore

In times of danger, not before

When war is over and all things righted

God is forgotten and the soldier slighted

The same people that "support" your troops now, and are eager to stop eating for a day in the name of God, will not give a rats ass once this war is done. What good is their support then?

"also we do have the internet,So we can get more coverage then most europeans can.Why ? Because there are like 60% of americans are connected to the internet.Plus there are public places that has free internet use."

And most of Europe actually has the same or better access to internet as you do. So that doesnt really matter.

[foxer 0]

I'm on Cable.But speed doesn't matter.If it did i think japan would be number 1,i heard everyone over there has cable modems.

I don't think the war should be going on,i believe they should have waited for next year.But see how it is,i rather us soldiers win it.War is fought with bullets,you know this. If us soldiers aren't winning it ,their dying.

So i support the troops.

[bn880 5]

Winters:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant believe i have to explain something so simple as this.

Supporting the Troops means just that. That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible. You can still protest against the war (after all the soldiers did not decide to declare war on Iraq the Govt. did) AND you can still go to a Pro-Troops Rally. It has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness. If you wanted to be PC you would say something like "I support the war because my gov't says its right"

You can be Anti-Government and still be Pro-Troops. This is not rocket science people.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you Winters, that's hopefully what so many Americans will realize. The major argument coming out of Pro-War peoples mouths is that people asking for peace do NOT support the troops. It's the main beef families of deployed soldiers have with protesters. Quite illogical.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,14:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact is though, that most of these prowar, "I back our troops" people ARE couch potatoes.<span id='postcolor'>

You got links? Reports? Studies? Statistics? Interviews?

-=Die Alive=-

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,20:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And we werent talking about you. We were talking about couch potatoes in general, who like to talk much about their "commitment but dont really do anything at all to back it up. If you are not one of them, you are not one of the people who should feel targeted by the generalisation I made. The fact is though, that most of these prowar, "I back our troops" people ARE couch potatoes.<span id='postcolor'>

So according to you, if you are not able to fight, because of ohhhhh lets say your overweight (not exactly fat, but overweight to join the service) that means you have no right to support whats going on?

The problem when you make vague generalisations is that they are just that "Vague"

If you want to gripe about something how about griping about the people who don't even bother to register to vote and then want to complain about the Gov't. THOSE people deserve my size 10 jump boots to be planted firmly on thier arse.

But i know i am prolly taking this way too personally, But having been thier already i am sure you can understand the kinship i feel to the troops today.

In short:

Vague Generalisations = Bad

People Who dont vote but complain = Even Worse

Statements supported by cold hard facts = Good (but kinda rare)

Winters = Angry that he got shot and cant fight now, but supports the troops.

[Winters 1]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 28 2003,209)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Winters:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant believe i have to explain something so simple as this.

Supporting the Troops means just that. That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible. You can still protest against the war (after all the soldiers did not decide to declare war on Iraq the Govt. did) AND you can still go to a Pro-Troops Rally. It has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness. If you wanted to be PC you would say something like "I support the war because my gov't says its right"

You can be Anti-Government and still be Pro-Troops. This is not rocket science people.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you Winters, that's hopefully what so many Americans will realize.  The major argument coming out of Pro-War peoples mouths is that people asking for peace do NOT support the troops.  It's the main beef families of deployed soldiers have with protesters.  Quite illogical.<span id='postcolor'>

They make me mad also  

Last week i went to a big protest near my job, and i agreed with some of what they said and disagreed with other things they said.

And then some dumbasses wander by screaming that they should go to Iraq and why don't you love your country.

Little do they know that they prolly love this country as much as the next person and that because we are a free society they can protest as much as the like (as long as it is within the confines of the law) or show support as much as they like.

I like to tell people who tend to forget this one simple line:

"if you give freedom to one group, you must give it to all, no matter if you agree with them or not"

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,20:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.

It's an extreme overtrivialization of the issue. If you disagree with the war, do you then tell your troops that they are doing a good job and that they should continue doing it? Or are you giving your support by demonstrating agianst the war with the hope of saving the lives of the troops? Those are both ways of "support" and they are as I see it mutually exclusive.

[Winters 1]

If you disagree with the war you take it up with the gov't and not the troops. Maybe they just didnt have the breaks in life to have a career outside the service.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,205)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.

It's an extreme overtrivialization of the issue. If you disagree with the war, do you then tell your troops that they are doing a good job and that they should continue doing it? Or are you giving your support by demonstrating agianst the war with the hope of saving the lives of the troops?  Those are both ways of "support" and they are as I see it mutually exclusive.<span id='postcolor'>

US does give an option for them to surrender though.Iraq shots the allies soldiers in the head,and take some pows.So i'm hoping that all the iraqis surrender.I mean you gotta give props to the US military and some people in the white house.They didn't bomb iraqi soldiers for a month and then move in.They sent in the troops first.

Winters,i don't want to be nosey or anything.But how did you get shot ?

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.<span id='postcolor'>

You wanna support both sides troops go right ahead. its the same as saying "I hope this ends quick so everyone can go about their lives" Iraqis included.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.<span id='postcolor'>

Yea, that's right. <!--emo& That's all that supporting the troops is suppost to mean. It's a problem when you try to use it for or against the war.

Basically if you want to help them out by bringing them home just say "save the troops, bring them home", get away from this support the troops line.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you disagree with the war you take it up with the gov't and not the troops.<span id='postcolor'>

Vermont anti-war teens throw stones and call a female National Guardsman a "Baby Killer"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under Vermont law, assaulting or abusing a soldier because of membership in the military is a hate crime. Conviction could bring up to five years in prison.<span id='postcolor'>

-=Die Alive=-

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,20<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.

It's an extreme overtrivialization of the issue. If you disagree with the war, do you then tell your troops that they are doing a good job and that they should continue doing it? Or are you giving your support by demonstrating agianst the war with the hope of saving the lives of the troops?  Those are both ways of "support" and they are as I see it mutually exclusive.<span id='postcolor'>

US does give an option for them to surrender though.Iraq shots the allies soldiers in the head,and take some pows.So i'm hoping that all the iraqis surrender.I mean you gotta give props to the US military and some people in the white house.They didn't bomb iraqi soldiers for a month and then move in.They sent in the troops first.

Winters,i don't want to be nosey or anything.But how did you get shot ?<span id='postcolor'>

I was on guard duty and some cowards went speeding past in some beat up piece of crap and fired off some shots at us. One of them got me in the side/back i didnt even realize i was shot until my buddy told me.

But the nurses were really nice

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 28 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That you support the troops. It has no political implications, you just realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job and you support that and want them to come home as fast as possible.<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a lame-ass platitude. I that case I support both US and Iraqi troops since I realize that their are soldiers who have families and are doing their job.<span id='postcolor'>

Yea, that's right.  <!--emo&   That's all that supporting the troops is suppost to mean.  It's a problem when you try to use it for or against the war.

Basically if you want to help them out by bringing them home just say "save the troops, bring them home", get away from this support the troops line.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok i respect that,

Its like when i here people say "No blood for oil" and i think "that sounds dumb, if you want them back home why not chant "Bring our kids home now" instead"

[Longinius 1]

"You got links? Reports? Studies? Statistics? Interviews?"

No, I am just using common sense. The majority of people will do the leat amount of work possible, especially if they can't gain anything from it themselves. Otherwise, you'd see people supporting various causes all the time. (Yes, there are those that dedicate their lifes to various causes that dont really concern them, but they are a minority)

"So according to you, if you are not able to fight, because of ohhhhh lets say your overweight (not exactly fat, but overweight to join the service) that means you have no right to support whats going on?"

Nope, I havent mentioned fighting. Supporting isnt about fighting.

"If you want to gripe about something how about griping about the people who don't even bother to register to vote and then want to complain about the Gov't. THOSE people deserve my size 10 jump boots to be planted firmly on thier arse."

I constantly gripe about that, but not here, this is not the proper forum for that.

"Vague Generalisations = Bad

People Who dont vote but complain = Even Worse

Statements supported by cold hard facts = Good (but kinda rare)

Winters = Angry that he got shot and cant fight now, but supports the troops."

I am quite happy that you are not fighting and able to support the troops. Because that means atleast one supporter seems to have his shit together.

[Longinius 1]

"US does give an option for them to surrender though."

Would you surrender if Iraq invaded the US?

"Iraq shots the allies soldiers in the head,and take some pows.So i'm hoping that all the iraqis surrender.I mean you gotta give props to the US military and some people in the white house.They didn't bomb iraqi soldiers for a month and then move in.They sent in the troops first."

The only reason they didnt bomb for a month was because they thought the Iraqis would surrender and be happy when "liberated". This obviously was not the case. As stated many times, most of the Iraqis hate Saddam. But they hate being invaded even more. And I can't blaim them.

[Winters 1]

They don't trust the US and after GWB Sr. abandoned them in '91 after his big "rise up against saddam" speech i would have a hard time trusting them as well.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Would you surrender if Iraq invaded the US?

Depends.If my gov't was saddam,yes i would.There would be no reason to fight for someone that is going die in a year time.Plus if i hated saddam,and knew he was never going leave or voted out,and his sons would take over after he died of old age,yes i would really surrender then.I think these people are blind though.We should be dropping the truth.About how the us/brits/other countries (allies) in the first gulf war went in to kuwait and kick saddam soldiers out.Then gave it back to the kuwaiti gov't.With really no special treatment ask from them.Except a military base in the area.Which gives them defense.

The only reason they didnt bomb for a month was because they thought the Iraqis would surrender and be happy when "liberated". This obviously was not the case. As stated many times, most of the Iraqis hate Saddam. But they hate being invaded even more. And I can't blaim them.

Atleast the US gave them a chance to surrender.Even though they didn't want to.But i guess you can't give props to the US for that ?

[Longinius 1]

"Depends.If my gov't was saddam,yes i would.There would be no reason to fight for someone that is going die in a year time."

But they arent fighting in defence of Saddam. They are defending their way of life, their lives, their families and their homes.

"Plus if i hated saddam,and knew he was never going leave or voted out,and his sons would take over after he died of old age,yes i would really surrender then."

To what use? Do you think the average Iraqi citizen will have much say in the government chosen after the war? Afghanistan is a brilliant example. They didnt have much say there.

"Then gave it back to the kuwaiti gov't.With really no special treatment ask from them.Except a military base in the area.Which gives them defense."

Uh, you DO know that if Kuwait hadnt had any oil, it would be Iraqi right now, right? We gave Kuwait back to the Pro western government all ready in power. If needed, that government would have been replaced. Kuwait was all ready a quite western society, compared to much of Iraq.

""Atleast the US gave them a chance to surrender.Even though they didn't want to.But i guess you can't give props to the US for that ? "

I should give props to the US for doing what is expected of them? You usually offer the opposition a chance to surrender. Its a part of common sense and even as old as Sun Tzus teachings. You always offer a way out, so the enemy doesnt feel cornered and forced to fight.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Would you surrender if Iraq invaded the US?

Depends.If my gov't was saddam,yes i would.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry but this is one of the social issues I discuss with people quite often. You can not predict what you would do in that case because you would have also grown up in Iraq. You would actually be someone else... putting yourself into someone elses shoes is not very possible when you grow up in 2 different worlds.