The Iraq Thread

[WhoCares 0]

About the international backing: Rumsfeld recently said up to 45 countries support the war against Iraq. I can add to the previously mentioned Danmark, Spain, Italy, Germany and Turkey with passing rights for the planes, Kuwait, Jordania, Qatar and Bahrain.

These are countries supporting this war. Now I wonder, in how many of those countries do they have the backing of the citizens? USA, Kuwait and I am not sure about GB.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 28 2003,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But this supports what Denior said:

Missiles only violate limits without warheads, guidance systems.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it was not me who said anything about it but it's true that Iraq claimed that with a guidance system that they would be within range.

Blix thought that it wasn't enough and I trust him making the call.

For those being outraged by Iraq still havning forbidden stuff, remember that the inspections were far from complete and so was the process of destroying known Iraqi weaponry that was in violation of the resolutions.

[Longinius 1]

"Bn880, Denoir, Balschow etc: No matter what you say, it's clear that you take great pleasure in US/Uk casualties, military or otherwise. Have the balls to admit you want the US to lose, and Americans to die! Come now, you've made dozens of insinuations suggesting that the US deserved 9-11 becuase of their "evil Western imperialist pop culture vigilante cowboy arrogance" Go on, say what you feel. It will make you all much less constipated. "

I think you are way out of line. If they take pleasure in anything, it is in finding and sharing information that hasnt been censored or made up by politicians and governments. Unlike most people here Denoir and Balschow have actually been to warzones, worked with both British and Americans and probably have friends in armed units from those nations.

To quote a movie...

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!!"

I think what gets to you is the fact that some people actually give a damn about the truth. About the real amount of troops killed, and not the PR modified numbers that are spewed out to the press.

I also think you are upset about the fact that some people can actually understand why the US is hated in some parts of our world.

You need to get to grips with reality, and understand that its all in the eye of the beholder. To some people, you, me and the rest of us here are the bad guys. To some people, it is OK to attack western civilians, because their civilians have been dying as a result of our actions or inactions for decades.

[Guest]

Villepin refuses to say which side he supports

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's attempt to repair relations with America and Britain over Iraq backfired yesterday when Dominique de Villepin, their foreign minister, refused to say which side he supported.

During a speech in London, M de Villepin said he hoped for "a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties".

But asked by The Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein, he replied angrily: "I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."

M de Villepin had come to London to mend fences after the bitter disputes over the failed attempt to secure a UN resolution authorising war, saying: "We must rebuild the world order shattered by the Iraq crisis."

But his apparent reluctance to choose sides will have done serious damage to his charm offensive. Senior British officials said they were "stunned".

<span id='postcolor'>

Not really going to improve the Anglo-French relationships.

And another interesting article:

What French papers say

The key quoute is this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">President Jacques Chirac and his diplomatic team find themselves in the awkward position of criticising the war, hoping for its swift conclusion and yet knowing that a successful conflict will be seen as a defeat for French foreign policy.

<span id='postcolor'>

Those opposed to a war do not want many people to die. This includes American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Everybody is in agreement that a quick American-British victory would be the least bloody alternative and best for the civilan population. A long drawn-out war will kill a lot more people. So that gives a good reason to hope for a quick US victory.

On the other hand those opposed to the war are mostly in agreement that Bush is a maniac who has no intention letting it stop at Iraq. Who knows what will come then. Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Canda? That in turn will kill a lot more people then those at risk in Iraq. That is a good reason to hope for a US defeat. So it doesn't happen again.

I am pragmatic and I look at it on the short term so I'm still hoping for a quick US victory.

That is however not really a satisfactory answer in general. It's like saying that Britain should have not faught Hitler but accepting an occupation as means of avoiding civilian casualties. Supporting the US in this cause would tuly be politics of appeasement. We must not forget that it is an illegal war of agression; an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Giving such actions full support gives bad precedence for future actions.

Nobody wants the 18 year old US kids in Iraq to be maimed and killed; they are the victims of Bush's politics just as the Iraqi civilians are. In the end, however, they are the Bush regimes tools of choice for this conflict and as such they canot expect much pity, at least not on a collective basis.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

A thousand apologies, denior. It was Warin who made that point.

Sometimes, the avatars don't load, and I only see those crazy Moderator avs; and I guess it threw me off.

Blah, it's late, brain doesn't work.

[Longinius 1]

I found an interesting piece in a Swedish article, that I think kind of sums up the dilemma about what the Iraqis might feel.

" Flaket pĺ pickupen är lastat med tomater. Gabi hoppas kunna sälja skörden för en knapp dollar per trettio kilo. Han tittar pĺ de brittiska soldaterna som spejar längs vägen.

- Ingen här tycker om Saddam Hussein, säger han. Nämn inte ens hans namn!

En av de brittiska soldaterna gĺr förbi pickupen.

- Men det handlar om värdighet, säger Gabi. Vi accepterar inte att amerikaner och britter kommer till vĺrt land sĺ här. De ockuperar oss. Det handlar om känslor."

The pick-up carries a load of tomatoes. Gabi hopes to sell his harvest for close to one dollar per 30 kg. He looks at the british soldiers that are scouting down the road.

- No one here likes Saddam Hussein, he says. Dont even say his name!

One of the british soldiers walk past the pick-up truck.

- But this is about dignity, says Gabi. We do not accept that americans and brits come to our land like this. They are occupying us. It is about feelings.

[Balschoiw 0]

I´ve seen the same when humanitarian aid was given to iraqi people. Maybe it was the same scene. In the background you could see the truck with goods given to people and a guy was interviewed. He said that noone like Saddam here, but they also don´t like the coaltion forces within their country and oppose the way they act against Iraqi people. I wonder how after-war stability should be upheld with that public opinion. Iraqi people will never accept an after-war presence of US or British troops once the war is over. Same with the countries around Iraq.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unlike most people here Denoir and Balschow have actually been to warzones, worked with both British and Americans and probably have friends in armed units from those nations.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I have three British mates in the royal fusiliers regiment and two with the US forces, one Army logistics guy who's still in Kuwait and another who is with the 3rd SFG, who knows where..

These are good buddies that I've served with in Kosovo and I would hate if anything would happen to them.

As for those accusing me and some others of wanting US servicemen to die: piss off. It's you warmonging bastards sitting on your couches watching TV that betray your troops by supporting Bush who is sending these kids to die for a pointless cause. You are the ones responsible for their deaths.

You want to support the troops? Fine! Get your fat ass out of that couch, grab a rifle and go fight Iraq. Then I'll respect your "support". Right now you are just a bunch of blood-thirsty war-mongers dealing in other people's blood.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

By that reasoning, those Iraqis who passively support the Iraqi government against the invasion are bloody warmongers as well holding Saddams bloody hand.

It is simply the case that when countries go to war the people tend to want to support their troops rather than those of the enemy, (the exception being commited socialists or communists if they regard their countries action as 'imperialist' ).

I feel somewhat responisible seeing as i seem to have brought up this whole issue that has become 'europeans wishing american soldiers dead'.

The point i was making was not that people in mainland Europe would wish individual soldiers dead obviously, but that perhaps they would (and some do) take a perverse pleasure in seeing their prophesies ,expectations etc come true at the expense of UK/US policies even if that means ambushes, bombing and carnage. The neoconservatives wanted an easy war but they havent got it. Its hard to deny that because of that there will a few smiling faces in European capitals (even if the consequence is dead soldiers and in time-civilians). They would not be smiling at the death per se, but at themselves being proved right and the americans wrong.

As Denoirs linked article said...

"Here and there, never, of course, officially in the chancelleries, but in the streets and demonstrations, people take pleasure in mocking the American troops for their suffering, their mistakes and reverses as if these obstacles in the path of war prove they are right to be against Bush."

"Pierre Lellouche, the most vocal opponent of President Chirac's stance on Iraq within his parliamentary party, said of his fellow deputies "seeing the Americans and British get a bloody nose makes them happy."

This is both hard to deny and worrying for future transatlantic relationships.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is simply the case that when countries go to war the people tend to want to support their troops rather than those of the enemy.<span id='postcolor'>

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?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Good article Balschoiw (posted in 'dogs of war' ) we can agree!

Especially the last few paragraphs of 'what if' are prescient.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But if a significant part of the population opposed the U.S. presence, then fighting in Baghdad could quickly become a nightmare, officials said. If it went well, planners say, the major fighting in the war could be over in a week. If it went worse than expected, they say, the United States still would prevail, but its victory over the course of two or three months would be seen as a mixed success.

If fighting really bogged down that long, warned retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a veteran planner, it would be time to brace for the worst-case scenario: "protracted and costly fighting, the further mobilization of radical Islam in the region, and the ensuing collapse of one or more U.S.-allied governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan."<span id='postcolor'>

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

As i have said, the Pentagon planners of course have been aware (and planned contingencies for) that it could go to hell, but they have been pushed all along by an overoptimistic clique of war enthusiasts (mention no names Donald).

There is another good article on international relations on another site you link to-

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Article....g1.html

The last answer is a good summary of my own position on the UN and a good rebuttal to the total rejection of the UN advocated by some in the US(+ its uncritical embrace by some europeans) :

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Q:  Last week, columnist Charles Krauthammer advised the president, "Don't go back to the UN", that while the United States need not formally leave, it should allow it to "wither away."  (The Washington Post, March 21, 2003)    

A:  Extremist reactions to complicated processes rarely produce constructive solutions.  The United Nations was never the utopia its uncritical advocates postulated nor the disgraceful failure its critics claimed.  In some respects, the UN is useful.  In other respects, the UN's very concept of universality collides with efficiency."<span id='postcolor'>

[Vikingo 0]

Site with news from the battle front (sure not CNN stuff...)

News from the Front

[sdoc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives called on Thursday for a rare national day of prayer and fasting to secure divine blessings for U.S. troops at war in Iraq and protection for Americans from terrorism.

The non-binding resolution, approved by a vote of 346 to 49, urged President Bush to designate a day....<span id='postcolor'>

full reuters article

my five pence about religious fundamentalists...

[edited a typo]

[Longinius 1]

And they call muslims religious fanatics....geesh.

[interstat 0]

the real worry is if lunatic bush decides to invade somewhere else because they won't play ball and buy the macdonalds line. Say Iran?

Invading Iran would be a big No, No.

Conform to many arabs that islam is under attack, not just extreme muslims, but moderate muslims.

And we all know what happened in Iran when the American backed leader was depsosed, and attempt to impose a US administration on Iran wills et Middle east alight.

All I can say is that i hope the democrats give as good as they can come the next US election.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

interstat- you mentioned this in the other thread as well.

I really think it unlikely (to say the least) that America will pre-emptivly invade Iran or another country in the middle of the ongoing conflict unless there is a MAAJJOORR and very urgent reason to do so. It just would make no sense militarily if nothing else. Now AFTER this war is over is another matter.

But if you think Bush will just in the blink of an eye invade Iran whilst at war with Iraq without massive provocation then ill have to assume you have even less idea than Donald Rumsfeld seems to have.

ps. If he does ill agree with you that hes a lunatic

...at the moment i think hes a lost little boy who somehow ended up as president of the USA

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,07:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for those accusing me and some others of wanting US servicemen to die: piss off. It's you warmonging bastards sitting on your couches watching TV that betray your troops by supporting Bush who is sending these kids to die for a pointless cause. You are the ones responsible for their deaths.

You want to support the troops? Fine! Get your fat ass out of that couch, grab a rifle and go fight Iraq. Then I'll respect your "support". Right now you are just a bunch of blood-thirsty war-mongers dealing in other people's blood. <span id='postcolor'>

I'd like to confirm this is exactly what I wanted to say. I certainly don't like it when 18-40 year old soldiers are killed, that's not what I'm after when I express I am outraged that the Coalition is attacking unjustly. However, I hope the coalition learns a good hard lesson for what crime it is comitting.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...at the moment i think hes a lost little boy who somehow ended up as president of the USA<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. So did I until he started dropping bombs. Then it wasn't as cute any more.

[Winters 1]

Just as bad as the Iraqis shooting thier own and sending missles into market squares.

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,121)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unlike most people here Denoir and Balschow have actually been to warzones, worked with both British and Americans and probably have friends in armed units from those nations.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I have three British mates in the royal fusiliers regiment and two with the US forces, one Army logistics guy who's still in Kuwait and another who is with the 3rd SFG, who knows where..

These are good buddies that I've served with in Kosovo and I would hate if anything would happen to them.

As for those accusing me and some others of wanting US servicemen to die: piss off. It's you warmonging bastards sitting on your couches watching TV that betray your troops by supporting Bush who is sending these kids to die for a pointless cause. You are the ones responsible for their deaths.

You want to support the troops? Fine! Get your fat ass out of that couch, grab a rifle and go fight Iraq. Then I'll respect your "support". Right now you are just a bunch of blood-thirsty war-mongers dealing in other people's blood.  <span id='postcolor'>

It is possible to support the troops from home, come down off that high horse of yours.

[Guest]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,195)</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.

[Longinius 1]

"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)

[foxer 0]

</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 ?

[Longinius 1]

Another marketbombing. 53 dead, some 40 people wounded. In the area of Shula, in Bagdad.

[Winters 1]

</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'>

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.

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

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.

Denoir:

No you didnt need to explain, i am fully aware of how it works. I just meant to point out that Iraq is doing things just as bad as the US is (something that seems to get lost here)