The Iraq Thread 2

[Crazysheep 1]

US keeps supporting another brutal regime and later "heroically" tops it?

Brutal? The operation isn't brutal or cruel. The coalition has a just and rightful cause. The only thing brutal  is the resitance fighters killing US soldiers and civilians.

So a war which results in more people dying than would otherwise is not brutal? All wars are brutal...and compared to the Iraqis you killed, you can't call the resistance brutal for killing US soldiers. With civilians, fair enough.......but soldiers? Come on, think for yourself man.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

So whats next? US keeps supporting another brutal regime and later "heroically" tops it?

That's a very one-dimensional way of looking at it. It makes the assumption that the decision to topple Saddam Hussein a year ago stems from the same policy that had us supporting him two decades ago. What you're failing to consider is that as America's leadership and constituency changes, our policy will change in turn. It's a natural side-effect of democracy. I don't suppose that you also believe that England's domestic problems of the 1960s and 70s were just part of an intricate plot by 1950s era Conservatives to cement Margaret Thatcher's rise to power?

[HOBOMAN 0]

All wars are brutal...and compared to the Iraqis you killed, you can't call the resistance brutal for killing US soldiers. With civilians, fair enough.......but soldiers? Come on, think for yourself man.

The resistance is killing us soldiers for no REASON. They randomly shoot and soldiers. The us arrested most iraqi officials, the only iraqi soldiers they killed were the ones who engaged them first. Most iraq soldiers quit the military before the war or were arrested. We did pointlessy kill our enemy unlike the resistance. Are saying the attacks on us soldiers are justified ?

[denoir 0]

The resistance is killing us soldiers for no REASON. They randomly shoot and soldiers.  Most iraq soldiers quit the military before the war or were arrested. We did pointlessy kill our enemy unlike the resistance.

They're killing them for a very good reason: they want their country back.

Quote[/b] ]The us arrested most iraqi officials, the only iraqi soldiers they killed were the ones who engaged them first.

LMAO   Seriously dude, what do you think your cruise missiles and your high-altitude bombers did? But that's all part of war. More disturbing is the 10,000-100,000 civilians that you killed.

Quote[/b] ]

Are saying the attacks on us soldiers are justified ?

Of course they are. You invaded a country - did you really expect everybody there to bend over and take it up the ass? They're fighting somebody occupying their country. In the same way your beloved 'founding fathers' faught the British.

[HOBOMAN 0]

They're fighting somebody occupying their country. In the same way your beloved 'founding fathers' faught the British.

Like i said before iraq isn't the resistances country. They were even part of saddam execututive no the less in the former government. They were never in control of the country. The american revolution has no relation to this war. Colonists rebeling attacked to take control land becuase of unjust rule. Iraq resistance only wantes to kill Us soldier. By the way what nationality are you?

[HOBOMAN 0]

And also if think cowardly attacking at US soldiers who are rebuilding a country with billions of dollars, creating a stable government run by the iraqis, and protecting a nation from tyrants is justiced you have sick mind

[HOBOMAN 0]

But that's all part of war. More disturbing is the 10,000-100,000 civilians that you killed.

We didn't kill that many civilians during bombings; cite your resources

[denoir 0]

Like i said before iraq isn't the resistances country. They were even part of saddam execututive no the less in the former government. They were never in control of the country. The american revolution has no relation to this war. Colonists rebeling attacked to take control land becuase of unjust rule. Iraq resistance only wantes to kill Us soldier.

The rebels are Baathist loyalists, most prominently members of the Fedayeen-Saddam paramilitary forces. It was their country until you came and invaded it. They don't like your rule, just like you didn't like the British rule. And they fight it the same way you faught the British.

Quote[/b] ]By the way what nationality are you?

Swedish

Quote[/b] ]And also if think cowardly attacking at US soldiers  who are rebuilding a country with billions of dollars, creating a stable government run by the iraqis, and protecting a nation from tyrants is justiced you have sick mind

They are occupying another country. The rebuilding is not going well at all, and the government is not run by the Iraqi Council but by the US admisitrator Paul Bremer. How happy would you be if say Russia invaded USA and installed its own government. Would you care if they invested a lot of money in it, or would you be pissed off at them occupying your country?

The Iraqi resistance does what all resistances always do: attack and kill enemy soldiers. That's part of war and is no more imorral than you killing Iraqi soldiers when invading their country.

Quote[/b] ]We didn't kill that many civilians during bombings; cite your resources

Look back in this thread. AP (associated press, US news wire) collected documents from about half of Iraq's hospitals and concluded that slightly more than 3,000 died in the hospitals. These numbers were for half the hospitals in Iraq and only included the mortally wounded that died in the hospital. This did not include those that died on the spot (by far the majority). Most estimates put the number of civilian dead around 50,000. There are estimates that put the number as "low" as 10,000 and as high as 150,000.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

LMAO   Seriously dude, what do you think your cruise missiles and your high-altitude bombers did? But that's all part of war. More disturbing is the 10,000-100,000 civilians that you killed.

Not even that little casualty counter put out anything close to those kind of numbers.

[denoir 0]

Here's a reference for you: [CNN]

Quote[/b] ]No reliable estimate of Iraqi deaths over the course of the conflict is available. The Associated Press reported an estimated 3,240 civilian Iraqi deaths between March 20 and April 20, but the AP said the figure was based on records of only half of Iraq's hospitals and that the actual number was thought to be significantly higher.

Do a simple google search for multiple more extensive descriptions on several sites.

Edit: For those of you that prefer FOX News, here's a link to the same data.

Edit2: International Herald Tribune - more extensive article

Edit3: Oh, yeah and the Iraqi Bodycount project puts the number between 8,000-10,000 - they take however only data from cross-referenced media. I.e if it hasn't been reported in the media it isn't included.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Swedish

Odd, I always thought you were Finnish.

Hoboman, you ask Denoir to state his references. But that brings up the question, where are yours?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/60minutes/main586841.shtml

Quote[/b] ](CBS) When the U.S. invasion came last spring with promises of democracy and self-rule, people in Karbala were among the first to try and take charge of their own affairs.

Religious and community leaders got together and selected a city council to represent them, and a security force to protect them. They had assumed that their experiment in democracy would be applauded by the American military. It was not. U.S. troops disarmed the protection force, arrested popular city councilmen and put back into power some of the same people who had served Saddam.

It has left people here angry and frustrated, including Dr. Hussein Shahristani, one of the most respected exiles to return after the war. The last time 60 Minutes spoke with him was in London just before the war. He was one of Iraq's leading dissidents, a top nuclear scientist who had refused to help Saddam to build a nuclear bomb. At that time, he told Correspondent Steve Kroft about his 11 years in solitary confinement and torture at the hands of Saddam's henchmen.

Quote[/b] ]Even though Ambassador Paul Bremer is on record saying that no high-ranking members of Saddam's old Baath Party will hold power in Iraq, in Karbala, the U.S. government is cooperating with Gen. Abud and has put him in charge of a well-armed force – even though he is a Baathist.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Quite true. Removing that "mini-government" in Karbala seems an odd move... quite contradictory. I can understand concerns about it (fear that they may act to undermine the "Big" picture, national level government, etc), but it seems they could have worked with them on those issues, rather than completely remove what they did. Seems like they were merely attempting to create a little stability in a sea of instability. At the least, it could have been a valuable example later on when national elections are held, to show that it can work, and that Karbala would be "ahead of the game", in having local officials in place, able to work with the national body when created. (and local officials will no doubt be "elected" again when all is said and done.)

Also don't forget, in the US Revolution, the Reblel forces did not indiscriminitely kill anyone and everyone. They fought unconventionaly, but on an open battlefield. They did not kill off civilians, even those that supported the British. (there were no doubt instances where hatred won, and innocents were killed, but any volume on the conflict will show that it was the exception, and hardly the norm) Furthermore, I think that comparing the 2 is fallic to begin with. In one case, you have people attempting to sever ties to their own "nation". The colonists were a part of Britain, and no longer wished to be.

True, Iraq was once a territory of the UK, but that day has long since passed, and there aren't white wigged men running around holding debates about taxation, and such. And since they have long since been out of British control, so has that single similarity passed on, before it was ever relevant.

This is more a case of those that were in power wanting to remain so. They are the minority, and will kill anyone who works against that single goal. Be they US, UK, Iraq, or any other nationality. They don't see people as Nationals, but as Targets, or Allies. If they aren't fighting alongside them, then they are just as valid targets as those fighting against them, because in their eyes, that is what they are doing, even if not using a weapon to do so. Any study of Guerilla warfare will reveal nearly identical circumstances: Cuban revolution, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Columbia, Many Africa conflicts, and most relevant to the US forces, Vietnam. It would seem than many of the lessons that are there to be learned, are ignored by those in command. You don't need howitzers and B52s, but dedicated, well trained men on the ground. Taking tank crewman and putting them on foot patrols better performed by MPs, or trained foot soldiers is only a waste of good tankcrewman, and a half assed solution to the manpower needs. Driving Abrams down the road and blowing up 3 buildings to "show them", does nothing but destroy 3 buildings, possibly leave someone innocent without a home. Any resistance fighters operating from said buildings simply walk across the street into that building, and pick up where they left off. End result? Several homeless people who are left with bitter memories of their house being destroyed, for doing nothing wrong that they were aware of. (Assuming that all buildings destroyed were not used by resistance. And even if they are, if they are more than a single home, this is still applicable. Doubt that they used all of an appartment building, duplex, etc. And did their neighbors know what was going on? Maybee. But, the more important question, did they participate? If they did nothing, can they be blamed? They can inform the coalition, but that is risky business untill better overal security is established. How long will they last if it is found they are an informant? What if they have children, in such an environment, they aren't apt to last too long without their parents to provide for them. So, what can they realisticaly do? Again, this is a classic lesson from Vietnam, that was apparently forgotten by by the top echelons of command.)

Not to say everything being done is done improperly, but each thing that is done poorly, undermines several actions that were otherwise done well. It is much harder to win back someone after they are alienated by such actions. Especially so when that person had iffy faith to start, they just have their fears confirmed, rather than their hopes answered. And once that point is crossed, they are much less likely to be hopefull anymore, even when much progress is made to fulfill the intial needs. As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. It is going to be a tough job to get things stable, and with some of this shit that the upper echelon of command dreams up, gonna be a lot tougher than it has to be.

[Gollum1 0]

All wars are brutal...and compared to the Iraqis you killed, you can't call the resistance brutal for killing US soldiers. With civilians, fair enough.......but soldiers? Come on, think for yourself man.

The resistance is killing us soldiers for no REASON. They randomly shoot and soldiers. The us arrested most iraqi officials, the only iraqi soldiers they killed were the ones who engaged them first. Most iraq soldiers quit the military before the war or were arrested. We did pointlessy kill our enemy unlike the resistance. Are saying the attacks on us soldiers are justified ?

No reason? They have plainly stated their reasons over and over and over again, but maybe you don´t watch the news: To kick the Coalition out of Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Like i said before iraq isn't the resistances country.

Oh, well if you said it then...

They´re Iraqis. Americans are not. No matter how justified the occupation is, it´s more their country than America´s.

[Tamme 0]

They're fighting somebody occupying their country. In the same way your beloved 'founding fathers' faught the British.

Like i said before iraq isn't the resistances country. They were even part of saddam execututive no the less in the former government. They were never in control of the country. The american revolution has no relation to this war. Colonists rebeling attacked to take control land becuase of unjust rule. Iraq resistance only wantes to kill Us soldier. By the way what nationality are you?

So what if you invaded the country, or if the current resistance fighters weren't in control of the country? That doesn't mean they don't have the right to attack the forces occupying their country. USA was never in control of Iraq before the war. You were attacking the iraqis for no reason!

What century are you living BTW? It's war, it doesn't have the kind of rules like some board game. What's next? "Don't attack the officers because that's not how a true gentleman behaves" Rules like that may have existed in the times of the american civil war, but not anymore.

War sucks, deal with it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It makes no difference.  #1 or #10 spot for crimes to humanity.  The Baath regime got what they deserved and the people got their country back.  

That I believe that when the american forces have left, when the Iraqis are free to decide who and what governs them, when the iraqis are free to trade oil in euros or dollars, when Saddam is captured and the Baathist party destroyed, and when a new government is able to control religious diversity as good as Saddam was able to do.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

And also if think cowardly attacking at US soldiers  who are rebuilding a country with billions of dollars, creating a stable government run by the iraqis, and protecting a nation from tyrants is justiced you have sick mind

Quote[/b] ]rebuilding a country with billions of dollars

Is it so expensive to supply Baghdad with electricity? Damn I am in the wrong business!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

.  .

First of all, noone set the two conflicts equal, comparing means highlighting simillarities.

But if you insist then should started with the argument: Iraq is not on the american continent therefore your comparison lacks precision. End of discussion

Secondly, behaviours and war strategies were bound to different codes of honour. If I remember correctly during those days camouflage and seeking cover was considered cowardly and officers were kept prisoners in more luxurious cells than average soldiers. Translating the american independance war into the 21st century would definetly mean a far more brutal conflict and civillians would be considered as terorists rather than resistance fighters.

This is more a case of those that were in power wanting to remain so.

I agree, but that is not the problem. The problem is that this might change. It is only a question of time and continous bad living conditions in Iraq untill you will see real civillian resistance.

It would seem than many of the lessons that are there to be learned, are ignored by those in command.  You don't need howitzers and B52s

They learned their lesson very well. The lesson was: the war is won on the home-front. Showing B-52 and howitzers on TV makes the american at home believe that the enemy is clearly definable and NOT invisible. As if the latest operations (hammer) were any useful. All they did were showing firepower and pretending they were actually engaging the enemy. Nice to watch on TV but fact is they havent got a clue where the resistance underground is hiding.

The rest of your post pretty much corresponds to my point of view!  

[bn880 5]

And also if think cowardly attacking at US soldiers who are rebuilding a country with billions of dollars, creating a stable government run by the iraqis, and protecting a nation from tyrants is justiced you have sick mind

Quote[/b] ]rebuilding a country with billions of dollars

Is it so expensive to supply Baghdad with electricity? Damn I am in the wrong business!

Well actually in a way it is, as you have to first get a grip on the security. So the billions would have to go to sending 3x more troops to Iraq.

Korean contractors hired to rebuild Iraqi power lines inthe Suni triangle quit due to this insecurity:

oops can't find the story, anyway about 15 Korean contractors are leaving Iraq now after refusing to work for a week due to basically a war happening where they are suppost to work. The security descripbed to them by the US appears not to exist.

EDIT: Make that 60 contractors

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1208iraq-contractors08.html

[denoir 0]

AQ shifting focus to Iraq from Afghanistan

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Iraqi Lt. Col. claims that he supplied the '45minutes to launch WMD' claim

Quote[/b] ]An Iraqi army officer has claimed it was he who told UK intelligence that weapons of mass destruction could be used within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein.

The officer, identified as Lt Col al-Dabbagh, told the London-based Sunday Telegraph newspaper he had provided several reports on the president's WMD plans from early 2002.

These included details of how frontline units were supplied with cases of WMD warheads towards the end of last year.

Downing Street has so far refused to comment on the report.

However, a spokesman said anyone with relevant information should contact the Iraq Survey Group as it hunts for WMD.

The 45-minute claim was a key component of the UK government's dossier on the threat posed by Iraq published in the run up to the invasion in March.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," Lt Col al-Dabbagh is quoted by the newspaper as saying after he was shown the dossier.

"It is 100% accurate."

He told the paper how he reported on the deployment of WMD warheads to units such as the air defence command he led in the western desert.

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

The devices were said to have been made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades.

It is not made clear whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents.

Lt Col al-Dabbagh said they were only to be used on personal orders from Saddam. He added that the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The west should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the Telegraph.

He said that he believed that the warheads had now been hidden at secret locations by Saddam's Fedayeen militias still in Iraq.

The Sunday Telegraph said that Lt Col al-Dabbagh had spied for the Iraqi National Accord - a London-based exile group - for several years before the war and was now working as an adviser for the Iraqi Governing Council.

Controversy has surrounded the 45 minute claim ever since it was made.

A BBC report that accused Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier in which it was published triggered a furious row between the Corporation and the government.

During the debate government scientist Dr David Kelly was named as the source of the BBC report, and he was subsequently found dead after apparently committing suicide.

The Hutton Inquiry has been investigating his death and is due to report early next year.

WMD's launched from RPG launchers?

[HOBOMAN 0]

Hoboman, you ask Denoir to state his references. But that brings up the question, where are yours?

Sure I'll give you proof just quote my statements and i find evidence that it is true. I think I have good knowledge of situtation because I am American, and have family stationed in iraq.

[HOBOMAN 0]

No reason? They have plainly stated their reasons over and over and over again, but maybe you don´t watch the news: To kick the Coalition out of Iraq.

They´re Iraqis. Americans are not. No matter how justified the occupation is, it´s more their country than America´s.

To kick the coalition out of iraqi? Do you understand the resistance wants the old governent back! The coalition is trying to prevent that because when saddam was in power he killed his own people and limited their religon. Even in 1998 Saddam suspected of his crimes. Saddam stockpiled chemical weapons for a long time and the us even has to take them away. Do you think it's fair to let the old government come back? For iraqis to kill each other with nerve gas? For religons celebrations not to take place? Do you think it is fair to let the iraqi people suffer from tyrants like saddam?

[Tydium 0]

Quote[/b] ]

He told the paper how he reported on the deployment of WMD warheads to units such as the air defence command he led in the western desert.

Now why would they assing WMDs to air defence troops ? You don't need WMDs to shoot down airplanes. Were iraqi rocket forces under their command ?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Hoboman, you ask Denoir to state his references. But that brings up the question, where are yours?

Sure I'll give you proof just quote my statements and i find evidence that it is true. I think I have good knowledge of situtation because I am American, and have family stationed in iraq.

I mean overall, but you new statement had sources. It's just that you keep talking, but you never pointed out any real references to prove it. That's all.