The Iraq Thread

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 20 2003,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">back on topic,b52s based here are getting set to go or so the news says.

Do they still use laser guided bombs,the same style as how ofp ones work,spec ops paint target then the bomb locks onto it? in modern times and will they be used now?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think I have ever heard of B-52S using 'smart' bombs, but thats not to say that they don't. From my knowlage B-52s tend to either carry lots of cruise missiles or lots of 'dumb' bombs for carpet bombing.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mora2 @ Mar. 19 2003,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 19 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Mar. 19 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,03:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The bad thing is that we won't be getting any reliable info on this war. In Kosovo one could average out US and Yugoslav propaganda to get some form of objective picture.

I don't think however that Iraq is capable of getting out their point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

most IRAQ citizens dont even know whats going on in there own country<span id='postcolor'>

and u do ?<span id='postcolor'>

He is not iraqui.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said which country, i could of meant either in his own country or in iraq which the original statement remains the same.

col.kurtz i meant in general if they still use and are going to use,in iraq,those type of guidance for bombs.

I wasn`t meaning specificly being launched from b-52s,i was just curious if spec ops would already be in iraq or be moved in at a later date ready to paint targets

[Jinef 2]

Okay instead of just constantly critiscising the Americans i think people should embrace the advantages of this upcoming (next few hours) war.

I'll list them when i can think of some.

[Renagade 0]

good tv for once ??

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 19 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think the U.S. Army is capable of keeping thousands of its soldiers from talking about what they see (such as the U.S. planting WMD) then you ARE fucking nuts.  We have the first Amendment here in the U.S., and our army isn't some totalitarian hitleresque body capable of silencing its troops.  I think you have some serious misconceptions about the nature of American society and government, which is interesting because its a well known fact of psychology that we judge outsiders from our own frame of reference, which means that your governments too, would be capable of such a deception.

Do you really believe that someone in the military wouldn't sell his story to all the talkshows, have a book written for him and act as a consultant on the made for TV movie about the U.S. faking evidence of WMD in Iraq?  

Do you really believe that the U.S. is some sort of totalitarian government capable of silencing ALL of its citizens?

Do you really believe that the U.S. is going to go about buying up 122mm rocket warheads and fill them with VX or mustard and then ask its troops to tote them along with them in case we need to plant fake evidence?

If you do, you don't understand us, our society, our government or how we operate at all, and I find that sad.  You are spouting off an irrational and inaccurate point of view worthy only of ridicule, and you will find out how wrong you were.  Why do you think France has offered to go in if the U.S. is attacked with chemical weapons?  Do you suppose its because their intelligence services might have caught a whiff of the reports that Saddam issued VX and mustard to his Republican Guard units at AL Kut for use against the U.S.?  He's going to attack us with chemical weapons, and when it happens those of you making this silly argument are going to feel like jackasses even if you don't have the balls to admit it.<span id='postcolor'>

So you don't think military black op organisations or the CIA could pull something that your average GI Joe on the frontline wouldn't know about?

Dunno about "fucking nuts", but that certainly is a naieve view.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 19 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,2109)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the capabilities of hiding some nasty things from the public, I have two words for you: My Lai.<span id='postcolor'>

Once again, this points out the impossibility of keeping stuff like that hidden.  BTW, who blew the whistle about Mai Lai?  U.S. Army Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson.

And re. small teams of SF or CIA planting the WMD's, I hope they make two trips, 'cause carrying 10,000 gallons of anthrax at one time can hurt your back.  Remember, bend at the knees!  

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Impossible to hide or not, they still did it.

Planting WMD evidence in Iraq might be "impossible to hide", but who's to say they still won't try it?

Or is lying and espionage acceptable if there is a good chance you will be caught out after the fact?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 19 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so then its "feel free to bash the US but dont dare bash anyone else or i will lock the topic"<span id='postcolor'>

Can I have some of what you're smoking please?

Get that gigantic chip of your shoulder sweetheart, Europe, France etc. etc. have been bashed in this (and other) threads, not to mention almost every non allied country in the middle east.

Maybe you should build a biridge, and get over it

[Warin 0]

I dont for a moment doubt that certain elements in the Bush Administration would happily fake whatever evidence they want. Why? Because they have already proven that they are fully willing to embrace non factual evidence to justify their actions.

Will the US military be involved? I actually doubt that a lot. The way I see it is that the US military establishment KNOWS that things like that tend to blow up in the faces of the perpatrators... and from past experiences they know that they cant afford that sort of thing.

At this point I am not so sure they would bother faking evidence. After all, Bush has basically said that eidence doesnt really matter and Saddam has to go. So why would they need to fake evidence.

Or am I just being overly optomistic?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Impossible to hide or not, they still did it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Planting WMD evidence in Iraq might be "impossible to hide", but who's to say they still won't try it?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, you are entitled to your opinion.  My opinion, and I suspect the opinion of many service members, is that planting fake evidence would be stupid, pointless, and ultimately would be discovered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or is lying and espionage acceptable if there is a good chance you will be caught out after the fact?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, as has been said about twenty times already, "a good chance you will be caught out after the fact" is a good argument against these types of activities.

Semper Fi

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 19 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An Iraqi's conversation with an anti-war protester

I agree with him though, there is far to much ping-ponging and simplistic Nikolodean diplomacy going on!<span id='postcolor'>

that dude (mohammed guy) is quite rude, but yes, he's right about the ping-pong stuff.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 20 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Impossible to hide or not, they still did it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Planting WMD evidence in Iraq might be "impossible to hide", but who's to say they still won't try it?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, you are entitled to your opinion.  My opinion, and I suspect the opinion of many service members, is that planting fake evidence would be stupid, pointless, and ultimately would be discovered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or is lying and espionage acceptable if there is a good chance you will be caught out after the fact?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, as has been said about twenty times already, "a good chance you will be caught out after the fact" is a good argument against these types of activities.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

I think you're missing my point.

My point is if this type of falsified facts have been manufactured in the past (despite being "stupid, pointless, and ultimately to be discovered"), why not now?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 20 2003,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay instead of just constantly critiscising the Americans i think people should embrace the advantages of this upcoming (next few hours) war.

I'll list them when i can think of some.<span id='postcolor'>

Well... Suddam Hussein and his regime will probably be dead at the end of it and that is a good thing, but I think thats the only good thing. I don't expect there to be an immediate end to terror or for the Middle East to suddenly be filled with peace and happiness. But if Hussein goes, that is a good thing.

[Schoeler 0]

1. Have facts been falsified in the past?

Yes, they have and not just by the U.S. as previously mentioned.

2. Has the U.S. been caught falsifying facts?

Yep, that too is true.

3. Could facts be falsified in this war?

Certainly they could.

4. Is there a risk of being caught doing it?

Yes, and a substantial one at that, namely the credibility and re-election chances of the Bush administration and the future of the Republican Party.

5. Is it worth the risk?

Probably not.

6. Is it likely that the U.S. will fake evidence of WMD?

I would say highly unlikely as the U.S. has already shown it doesn't really give a damn about the opinions ofothers by initiating the war. Why would it assume enormous risks and go to great lengths to try and curry favor now? It simply too risky and too difficult to pull off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont for a moment doubt that certain elements in the Bush Administration would happily fake whatever evidence they want. Why? Because they have already proven that they are fully willing to embrace non factual evidence to justify their actions.

Will the US military be involved? I actually doubt that a lot. The way I see it is that the US military establishment KNOWS that things like that tend to blow up in the faces of the perpatrators... and from past experiences they know that they cant afford that sort of thing.

At this point I am not so sure they would bother faking evidence. After all, Bush has basically said that eidence doesnt really matter and Saddam has to go. So why would they need to fake evidence.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you Warin, the point I've been trying to make all along. These guys know they could be caught doing something like this and it would be political suicide. Imagine the political and moral capital the Democrats would gain by catching them in the act.

And, I still hold firm to the position that the U.S. military is NOT going to go along with such a thing. The military doesn't try and justify its actions, it follows the orders of its Commander in Chief. The military is interested in doing its job quickly and efficiently and that is all. It doesn't concern itself with the politics behind the job. The politicians supply the justification or lack thereof.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 20 2003,01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thank you Warin, the point I've been trying to make all along.  These guys know they could be caught doing something like this and it would be political suicide.  Imagine the political and moral capital the Democrats would gain by catching them in the act.

And, I still hold firm to the position that the U.S. military is NOT going to go along with such a thing.  The military doesn't try and justify its actions, it follows the orders of its Commander in Chief.  The military is interested in doing its job quickly and efficiently and that is all.  It doesn't concern itself with the politics behind the job.  The politicians supply the justification or lack thereof.<span id='postcolor'>

Just so you know, I wouldnt put it past Bush et al to fake up some evidence 'proving' that Iraq still possesed WMD.

What I dont believe is that it will be done by the regular army.

I dont trust anyone in the Bush Administration any farther than I can throw them.  The only man that i believe has even a shred of integrity is Colin Powell, and as I see it he's going to be the fall guy if the war goes poorly for US forces.  Namely he didnt do his job well enough to avoid a conflict, and off he goes. Shame really

For the last few days I have been oppresively sad...a feeling I havent had for many years.  I realized the last time I felt this way was well before the fall of the USSR.  It's the feeling that the world really isnt as safe and peaceable as I might like.  And there is one man that I can point to as the villain in this, and it isnt Saddam.  Saddam is a petty dictator... but Bush is something far worse.  And his advisors arent any better.

[Akira 0]

Well...

The deadline has passed now...

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Just a few more minutes until the deadline for Suddam Hussein and his sons to leave. Doesn't look like its going to happne. Last hours of peace maybe...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 20 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the last few days I have been oppresively sad...a feeling I havent had for many years.  I realized the last time I felt this way was well before the fall of the USSR.  It's the feeling that the world really isnt as safe and peaceable as I might like.  <span id='postcolor'>

I've been having that nasty feeling for a while now. Yugoslavia, 11/9, Iraq,..?...

I have a vision of a united world where petty national agendas and differences in religious beliefs could be set aside to form a global community based on mutual respect. No, I'm not talking about some communist utopia, but a real political, market economy system. I've always known that we were far from that goal, but I hoped that we were going into the right direction. When the WTC attacks happened I hoped that it would spark an understanding of the differences we have now and take actions to prevent them in the future. This of course includes fighting terrorists and extremists but more of all it includes a deeper understanding of the root causes behind it. A world globalization that would be defined by long term cultural exchange and understanding, not short term elimination of they symptoms of the real problem.

Bush seems to disagree. Or Wolfowitz, I should say perhaps since he is the one who already years ago outlined the policy that Bush currently is implementing. It's based on enforcing US/western beilefs by any means necessary with the ultimate goal of remaining the only influence in the world. It might work in the short run but there is a major flaw in that theory: we are outnumbered and the number of those who have a different culture is rapidly growing. USA has a high birth rate (14.1 births /1,000 population), but that's nothing compared to the Mid East countries (Iraq : 34.2 births/1,000 population) or the African countries ( Somalia: 46.83 births/1,000 population). EU has an average of 8 births/1,000 population. Eastern Europe has an average of 3 birhts /1,000 population. Se what I am gaining at?

We westerners will be in a forseable future very outnumbered and if we don't start showing respect for other cultures, they won't show it to us and will in the end run us over. Unless Bush has a plan of invading just about any Mid East and African country.

[OxPecker 0]

I always get a laugh from Star Trek, how in the future, humans don't have internal wars or worry about money any more.

I can't see that happening in the next 5,000 years, let alone 500.

[Renagade 0]

So when do u thiink we`ll see the start of this?From my end bush hasn`t been on declaring war any of u lot get anything over there?

[Warin 0]

I love how 17 border guards surrendering is being lauded as proof that the US propoganda campaign is working and that Iraqis will surrender en masse.

Wishful thinking at it's best, to some extent.

I see a LOT of Iraqi forces on the front liens surrendering in short order. It appears that most of the Republican Guards units are farther back, so I would fully expect the front line troops to be less than willing to be rolled over The true test is whether the RG starts surrendering once they are engaged in combat with US/UK forces. And I am not sure how long that will be.

The time has passed, and I suppose the war will happen now... but part of me thinks it wont until late next week some time. Why? Full moon. Let it wane a little before attacking.

Of course, bombs could be falling on Baghdad and I am wrong

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,02:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always get a laugh from Star Trek, how in the future, humans don't have internal wars or worry about money any more.

I can't see that happening in the next 5,000 years, let alone 500.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats cos they have spock

[Milkman 1]

The 48 hour Deadline is up. Just to let you guys know.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 20 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love how 17 border guards surrendering is being lauded as proof that the US propoganda campaign is working and that Iraqis will surrender en masse.

Wishful thinking at it's best, to some extent.

I see a LOT of Iraqi forces on the front liens surrendering in short order.  It appears that most of the Republican Guards units are farther back, so I would fully expect the front line troops to be less than willing to be rolled over  The true test is whether the RG starts surrendering once they are engaged in combat with US/UK forces.  And I am not sure how long that will be.

The time has passed, and I suppose the war will happen now... but part of me thinks it wont until late next week some time.  Why? Full moon.  Let it wane a little before attacking.

Of course, bombs could be falling on Baghdad and I am wrong <span id='postcolor'>

What would u lot do if u were supreme commander, a blitzkrieg style of attack at a random time or would have a limited aairstrike to soften them up then a period later let em have a full whack from the air to flatten them before a slower systematic attack??

Any protesters over there as thee stil seems to be a faair bit of it going on here but its news footage from earlier on.

one more thing why did italy pull out was it due to protesting and any links?

[Balschoiw 0]

Michael Moore´s open letter to G.W. Bush on the Eve of war:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 20 2003,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What would u lot do if u were supreme commander, a blitzkrieg style of attack at a random time or would have a limited aairstrike to soften them up then a period later let em have a full whack from the air to flatten them before a slower systematic attack??

Any protesters over there as thee stil seems to be a faair bit of it going on here but its news footage from earlier on.

one more thing why did italy pull out was it due to protesting and  any links?<span id='postcolor'>

If I was in charge I'd continue taking out arty sites in the south for the next two weeks until a no moon period, and then go for the full blitzkreig.

I figure by the time the ground troops reach Baghdad, the air assault will have pretty much done all it can. Then it's just how much fight there is in the Iraqi army.

I am just afraid of the toll this war is going to have on people who cant really do anything..the civilians in and around Baghdad.