The Iraq Thread 2

[Warin 0]

It also gets you a one week PR.

I warned people to stop with the bickering, and you've just given yourself a nice vacation for not being able to use PM's.

The next person who feels the need to unburden themselves in this thread like that can look forward to 2 weeks...

M'kay?

Edit:

FSPilot, the last time you were post restricted was because of your childish response to someone flipping out at you. You can take 72 hours off to consider being the bigger man next time.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Ok, back on topic since this has now become "Silence the weak minded American thread."

Christian Science Monitor

It seems Saddam Hussien, who I firmly believe is alive is making leaks to the media. I can say that we did know where he was during most of GWI and that's all I can say...why is it so difficult now? Perhaps the overt presence of troops in Iraq are causing him to be much more cautious, who knows? It seems a disregard for security is getting troops killed. What are U.S. soldiers doing walking around Bagdad alone or in small groups shopping? Obviously they are not in a secure area, hell Siagon was more secure than this during the Vietnam conflict (Pre-Tet Offensive), and the enemy was everywhere. Are coalition troops armed at all times? Even off-duty? They should be. No one in my unit went anywhere in Afghanistan with out at least a sidearm. The coalition on all levels needs to do something about this before the media completely Vietnamizes this war.

[Schoeler 0]

Ok, back on topic since this has now become "Silence the weak minded American thread."

Christian Science Monitor

It seems Saddam Hussien, who I firmly believe is alive is making leaks to the media. I can say that we did know where he was during most of GWI and that's all I can say...why is it so difficult now? Perhaps the overt presence of troops in Iraq are causing him to be much more cautious, who knows? It seems a disregard for security is getting troops killed. What are U.S. soldiers doing walking around Bagdad alone or in small groups shopping? Obviously they are not in a secure area, hell Siagon was more secure than this during the Vietnam conflict (Pre-Tet Offensive), and the enemy was everywhere. Are coalition troops armed at all times? Even off-duty? They should be. No one in my unit went anywhere in Afghanistan with out at least a sidearm. The coalition on all levels needs to do something about this before the media completely Vietnamizes this war.

I agree, troops should be made to travel in threes and should all be armed at leat with sidearms. Two guys should be nearby watching out for the other guy at all times until things settle down.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You mean we aren't doing that already? Damn. Sometimes I worry less about any shadowy intentions our government may have than common sense that many of our soldiers obviously lack.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the Baghdad University death seems to be caused by lack of partners. from what i read, it seemed to imply that the soldier was in line by himself.

and personally, I'd suggest taking things on Christian Science monitor with a ton of salt.

daily telegraph

CSM

Quote[/b] ]An American newspaper has apologised to Glasgow Labour MP George Galloway after alleging that he accepted millions of pounds from Saddam Hussein.

The Christian Science Monitor has admitted that a set of documents upon which it based its story on were "almost certainly" fake.

Mr Galloway has always strenuously denied that he took any money from the Iraqi regime.

The newspaper said two of the "oldest" documents - dated between 1992 and 1993 - were actually written within the past few months.

[USSoldier11B 0]

I agree dude, but it's still better than the NY Times.

[FallenPaladin 0]

the Baghdad University death seems to be caused by lack of partners. from what i read, it seemed to imply that the soldier was in line by himself.

Leaving someone alone in a town like Baghdad under the given circumstances is very dangerous and not very smart. The best way to move around would always be in groups, like mentioned 3-5 armed soldiers. If then an armored vehicle would be ready to be called in for assistance in a few seconds or if that armored vehicle would just be in sight that would tighten up security a little, too.

In general I think it`s damn hard and nearly impossible to give the US troops in Baghdad or somewhere else security for their lifes, because their attackers usually don`t care for their own lifes which improves the possibility of "success" of their guerilla tactics.

[NurEinMensch 0]

You're forgetting the most important right of socialists- the right to be seperated from your money!

[...]

Hmm I wonder what you want to tell the world with that comment.

A far as I know, could be wrong of course, you do pay taxes, right?

Maybe you pay a bit less. I got no idea.

At least I have the right to have my tax money _not_ being spend for the roman legions.... uhm.. I mean the US military.

Sorry for that rant.

Btw we're going to get tax cuts in Germany soon. And more military spendings. So I guess the difference is shrinking.

Now how can I make this post Iraq related...?

[Tamme 0]

You're forgetting the most important right of socialists- the right to be seperated from your money!

[...]

No dude that's communism you're talking about.

[Tamme 0]

@ July 08 2003,23:57)]

Quote[/b] ]Why doed USA go to war in every place on Earth?

Come on now, you may not like us, but why exxagerate like that?

I don't hate you. We just have difference of opinion. And yes I exxagerated, there's no reason to, sorry.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Other thing that bothers me is that USA goes to war and leaves it's troops there (Germany, South Korea, Afganistan) why can't they just kill the enemy and leave?

Because then y'all would be on our case for leaving these countries in the lurch. Let's take your examples point by point.

1) Germany. I suppose it really would have been decent of us to have left all of Germany to the Soviet Union- that would've worked out real well. And now that the Eastern Bloc has collapsed, we're still there because we can't find a speculator who's interested in a large piece of real-estate like Ramstein AFB. (that was a joke)

2) South Korea. We were asked to hang around plus, technically, the Korean War never ended. That means that the day the US leaves South Korea will be the day before North Korea invades.

3) Afghanistan. You're joking- we got picked to pieces because we didn't help Afghanistan out post-Soviet invasion, and now you're bitching because we're trying to make ammends? Honestly.

Quote[/b] ]I know that there must be some kind of an explanation for all this, but I don't see any reason for USA to act this way.

Well, there you go. Maybe you should read it a couple times.

The problem is me not being born when these things happened and the fact that I've been interested in politics for under a year. That is why I sometimes have stupid comments. It's the lack of knowledge.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Plus I managed to misspell 'exaggerated', lol. Make a note of that

[Tamme 0]

@ July 09 2003,16:18)]Plus I managed to misspell 'exaggerated', lol. Make a note of that  

And because I was too lazy to check the dictionary I just copied you and made the same mistake

Hmmm. I actually had something to say, but I forgot it...

[ralphwiggum 6]

stay on topic.

[bn880 5]

Hmm, it appears the U.S. death toll is nearing the GW1 mark. And I don't have any articles, but I have heard the U.S. population is getting a little peeved at this.

[Tamme 0]

Hmm, it appears the U.S. death toll is nearing the GW1 mark.  And I don't have any articles, but I have heard the U.S. population is getting a little peeved at this.  

Didn't most of the americans support war with Iraq? Now when soldiers are dying they are bitching about it. It's war soldiers die. What did they expect? A war without casualties?

[bn880 5]

Hmm, it appears the U.S. death toll is nearing the GW1 mark. And I don't have any articles, but I have heard the U.S. population is getting a little peeved at this.

Didn't most of the americans support war with Iraq? Now when soldiers are dying they are bitching about it. It's war soldiers die. What did they expect? A war without casualties?

Well some people yes, for sure. I don't know the precentages, as many people that do not support the war don't get a voice in the media.

[Schoeler 0]

I wouldn't say we are getting upset yet, but we are getting concerned. I think the general attitude about the war here in America is that we knew it would cost us (and personally I think most of us were actually surprised the casualties were so low) and we were committed to doing the right thing by Iraq. What we expected was that the casualty rates would go down, not up, so this is what concerns us. I think right now, most people have a wait and see attitude about things because we can't ell if the resistance is of a general nature, or if it is being done by Saddam loyalists etc... I think its hard for most of us to tell if this is real or some overhyped media orgasm trying to make Iraq seem like another Vietnam. OUr media is so crappy, you kind of have to pick the truth out of the hyped up, overblown bullshit stories they give us.

[raedor 8]

i think all commercial medias are like that. the non-commercial are owned by the state, thats why you cant trust in them, too...  

[ralphwiggum 6]

good point schoeler.

but i'm less optimistic. my perception is that people basically FORGOT about the whole war and rhetorics. they saw the military action, now they are saying, 'It's over!' when in fact this is just the beginning.

[Crazysheep 1]

I think its hard for most of us to tell if this is real or some overhyped media orgasm trying to make Iraq seem like another Vietnam.  OUr media is so crappy, you kind of have to pick the truth out of the hyped up, overblown bullshit stories they give us.

Best thing is read 3 media sources-centrist, far left and far right. Then you can pick out the common facts and form your own opinion.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

good point schoeler.

but i'm less optimistic. my perception is that people basically FORGOT about the whole war and rhetorics. they saw the military action, now they are saying, 'It's over!' when in fact this is just the beginning.

Actually, that was something I wanted to ask. Do the general (widespread) American news agencies report these, almost daily now, deaths? Or are they sort of swept under the carpet? Does this then, in turn, reinforce the general publics view that when Bush proclaimed the war was over, all the troops had finished and come home?

[Schoeler 0]

good point schoeler.

but i'm less optimistic. my perception is that people basically FORGOT about the whole war and rhetorics. they saw the military action, now they are saying, 'It's over!' when in fact this is just the beginning.

Actually, that was something I wanted to ask. Do the general (widespread) American news agencies report these, almost daily now, deaths? Or are they sort of swept under the carpet? Does this then, in turn, reinforce the general publics view that when Bush proclaimed the war was over, all the troops had finished and come home?

No, the deaths are reported, but they are so patchy, here and there and your average American, the guy with the blue-collar job and high school education whom Tex once referred to as "Joe Six-Pack" is easily distracted by news stories of Lakers Basketball star Kobe Bryant being arrested, or the death of the actor from the Beverly Hillbillies TV show. So, at this point, the killings haven't had a major impact. Among informed Americans, the deaths aren't a major cause for concern yet because we expected to take considerable casualties in this war, and we committed to Iraq for the long term, so we are all still eager to see this through to success. I'd say that what concerns us most is whether or not the resistance in Iraq is of a general nature, or whether it is being conducted by a few thousand Baath Party hard-liners and Saddam loyalists. If it's of a general nature, then you are going to start to see Americans blaming the Bush Administration for managing to screw up the rebuilding of Iraq, and heads will roll. I'd bet that if that happens, old Uncle Donald (Rumsfeld) gets fired.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Rumsfeld being fired would be a good thing I guess. Right now he`s desperately trying to get other countries to send troops to Iraq, so the USA can pull back some of their units and spare some money. He even asked the Old Europe, France and Germany, for help. Our ministers just said there will neither be German nor French troops in Iraq unless there`s an UN mandate. Not long ago they cursed us and now they want us to clean up their mess. Hehe, it`ll be fucking hard to get an UN mandate for a war which had no justification in the first place. Seems like Donny and his Hawks are getting a little nervous and desparate because of the fact that Iraq is still hot and because of the costs. The USA has to pay 4 billions each month for Donny`s and George W.`s nice little adventure. It`s just fair: they are now falling into the pit they digged themselves.  

[Bernadotte 0]

From the other Iraq thread:

Anyone who thought that GW1's "Kuwaiti incubator scam" couldn't happen again should read this article about the false basis of Washington's nuclear WMD claims.

Last paragraph:

Quote[/b] ]On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents.  Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall.  Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.†He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.†A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.

It's a very good article. The current working theory that the information was originally planted by the MI6 in the mid '90s as a part of a desinformation campaign is very interesting. In the Swedish intelligence business there is a term called "the Karamazov syndrome" which is used to decribe a process where you begin to believe your own lies. (Refering to the "Karamazov brothers" book by Dostojevski)

That's of course the kind interpretation of the Niger report: a combination of wishful thinking and incompetence.

Another interesting thing is that this was the primary evidence presented to the US senate in september after which they voted in favour of a war. Fortunatly for Bush, senators, just like the average population have a very short term memory.

So, why is this story becoming news nearly 4 months later?

In my opinion the news organisations decided to "market" this story at a time when Iraqi war news would start to slow down.  Let's not forget that a news organisation's primary goal is profit.  It is not about informing their audience.

[hellfish6 7]

In my opinion the news organisations decided to "market" this story at a time when Iraqi war news would start to slow down.  Let's not forget that a news organisation's primary goal is profit.  It is not about informing their audience.

YES! Exactly what I've been wanting to hear somebody else say!