The Iraq thread 3

[ran 0]

Look seems like the french "army" was caught up in killing innocent africans back in 2002. Backing a pretty bad hombre known for his genocide. Those silly frenchmen, when will they ever learn. Why won't they just give up their colonies?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ivor-d17.shtml

How is that related with the conflict going on in Iraq ?

How is the situation any worst than the pure chaos reigning in both Afghanistan and Iraq ?

How is that any worst than supporting the Saudis ? (ok, they dind't cause genocides but ...)

Now i'll try to word this correctly to avoid to get myself banned or to a getting a warning.

We're bound to act in this place of the world because of our historical and cultural links with these countries.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

It's a fact that our economical bonds with Ivory Coast force us to establish some kind of stability, and you can only do that by "supporting" the power in place, but in this case it's more of maintaining a status quo, because with a single state imploding in the region, you get a single huge venomous spiders nest.

For exemple, early last month, a part of the french troops on spot have been moved to the north in the Férkéssédougou, Korhogo and Katiola triangle to preserve one of the main economical axis between the Burkina Faso and the towns of Bouaké and Abidjan.

By maintaining stability in the country, or trying to reach it, we try to maintain stability in the whole region.

on the subject of french army killing innocents in west and central Africa :

Iv'e taken part in the Licorne operation in I.C. and Artémis in D.R.C., the casualties caused by the French army were almost all if not all completely right full and obeying to strict ROE's, i've had the occasion to be taken in a few skirmishes against hostile Rebel forces (we naturally tried to avoid any confrontation with governmental forces in the preliminary steps of the deployment).

Labelling us as gung-ho or trigger happy is quite wrong. Especially when you have no experience of French military (yes i have served along with US troops on several operation theatres and i'll refrain myself from doing any comment .....)

Just don't project your government's and military's own failures on the rest of the world, will you ?

By the way i wouldn't actually give a fuck about the ramblings of most of the rebels (they have a serious cause to defend, and if they had the money to pay the trip for me, i'd go with them , on my free time, naturally) who are just a bunch of retarded stonies who can't do shit except maiming civilians and playing around the enemy dead bodies. Mind you, the rebels (young ones at least) ask for an american intervention in the region ... while OBL is one of their idols .... contradictions exist everywhere in Africa and we can't wait for anybody to make decisions and get a point in this region, simply because it will either don't work or end up in a civil/tribal war.

Gbagbo in this case is a nasty bastard promoting an ultra-nationalist policy including ethnic cleansing, but he's the lesser of the two evils when it comes to regional stability and economical interests

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Quote[/b] ]Regardless if Bush and Blair end up taking the consequences of their actions or not, one big good thing has come out of this. A new war won't be started as easily as this one. The ideology of pre-emptive wars has failed spectacularly.

Yes and no. It is good that it has increased european consensus.

But as I have said TBA and TBA2 now suffer from

The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!†effect

It is a fable we are all familiar with. TBA and TBA2 Cried “Wolf!†and there was no WMD. I ask, the next time when a real wolf is there will their armed services, citizens and society believe TBA and TBA2?

They either fooled their people or were fooled themselves by their "private intelligence departments"; The Office of Special Plans in the case of TBA and in the case of TBA2 John Scarlett under the influence of non intelegence people: Alastair Campbell, David Manning and Jonathan Powell,  he took their "advice on a range of presentationally linked points regarding the dossier, because this was an unusual project..."

These "commitees" were designed to manufacture evidence of a threat that never existed. To do this they demanded the CIA MI6 and other intelligence services produce every rumour, half truth and even proven lie they had heard. In the normal course of events these doubtful intelligence sources would have been discounted and filtered out by a profesional intelligence service but both TBA and TBA2 politicised their intelligence feed and thus poluted it. It is like a dog s**ting in its own dog bowl.

Such fools as TBA and TBA2 can not be allowed control of atom bombs.

They have clearly failed their respective countries at a time of war. For them to continue in power is very dangerous.

Worried Walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]A new war won't be started as easily as this one. The ideology of pre-emptive wars has failed spectacularly

If Bush wins the next election, then there is absolutely nothing positive to be extracted and projected to the future.

And Bush is very likely to win. IF this happens the polemic propaganda about nations, friends, enemies, terorists and cultures will continue. Staying in power for so many years means that you shape a whole generation of children up to puberty with your "weekly speeches". Teenagers growing up with "terorist threat", "9/11 memorial day" and "iraq war heros" will be less critical than the current generation which grew up in times of peace. It is not a very fair comparison but we had a generation in germany that was brought up in the same way and ready to go to war by the age of 12.

And who changes his political views after the age of 8-9. I didnt. And so it was in the past. Generations that grew in the power periods of the conservatives remained faithful voters. And we all know the consequences: if the republicans are in power, they stay in power.

Good for Iraq, at least they finish the job. A democrat might just decide to withdraw the troops!

[JP226 0]

So let me get this, civilians dying in the french's field is ok... collateral damage. Iraqis civilians dying in the attacks are American's faults. That is rediculous. Alot of you guys don't realize is that Most Americans support the war. Infact Bush may be less popular domestically but nearly 2/3s of the country support him on his foriegn policies. He's following the will of the people so get it in your heads it's not TBA it's Smerica doing this and that. AS far as bullying you guys into the war, what exactly could you do? WE would foot the bulk of the bill, WE would fight the bulk of the fighting and you guys would get credit where it is not due. It's been like that since world war 2. Of course you guys exaggerate the fighting in Iraq why not take a look at the real numbers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402020959.asp

A peice by Michael Novak a fairly well known author over here, infact I don't normally like him because i think some, not all, but some of his beliefs are too far to the left. The only country I fully support outside of the US right now is Israel, they live in the real world not some fantasy land of elitist that think they are better than the rest of the world because they are "open minded." Israel has the balls to stand up against these bastards. That is enough ranting for now.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Good for Iraq, at least they finish the job. A democrat might just decide to withdraw the troops!

Nah, even Dean didnt advocate withdrawing troops in his campaign.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402020959.asp

Quote[/b] ]

These 343 (not 500) combat deaths, furthermore, need to be set in context. During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247.

By comparison there are approx. 130000 troops in Iraq and there are approx. 19 million people in New York City. With this logic there should be 49 049 murders annually in New York City to meet the amount of danger in Iraq. Reminds me more of John Carpenter movies than peaceful daily life in US, doesnt it? But frankly, I dont care much about US combat casualties since you started it anyhows.

And that does not even involve the wounded.

Next time you should show us some more credible sources anyhows, seeing Ann Coulter book ads next to the article is rather disturbing.

[miles teg 1]

JP226, the % of Americans supporting the war in Iraq is not 2/3rds in the last poll I've seen. It was something like 64%. Sure it's the majority, but there are still a VERY large miniority that does NOT support the war so please don't say AMERICA SUPPORTS BUSH, because the fact is a huge percentage of our population does NOT support Bush.

We are a democracy and political opposition is an important part of demcracy not idiots running around screaming at war protesters that they are commie, hippie, traitors to America who should be shot like some conservatives tell me.

That's the kind of talk Hitler used before WWII.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans know jack shit about Iraq or about the Middle East and just go purely on how the media presents the war there.

Those Americans that support the war are the type that want a strong "ass kicker" in the White House without even the foggiest clue about what is actually going on in the world and why so many people in the Middle East and the world hate us.

Also to Albert Schweizer, I don't know what country you are from but what you say about the military deeply offends me. Not all soldiers think that way. That is complete crap.

And as for those notions that Bush should stay in to "finish the job", that is utter nonsence as there is NO clear plan on how they hell we're going to "finish the job". Iraq now stands on the brink of chaos. It will ONLY be held together by a very powerful and probably ruthless central government, not by happy-go-lucky American democracy. You see voting with Kalishnikovs and car bombs seems to have a little more of an effect there then voting booths.

Of coarse the obvious problem is security. And how do you insure that? With the huge borders with hostile nations (to America) the influx of weapons and explosives along with foreign terrorist will continue. American forces are the magnet that draws these terrorists there.

That's what people like yourself don't get and that is one BIG reason why it was so incredibly stupid that we went to war without a massive international force and UN backing.

It looked from the persepective of people in the Middle East as a blatant act of American Imperialism and the sad thing is that there is TONS of evidence that this is indeed the case. Certainly FAR FAR FARE more then evidence suggesting links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and 9/11 or that he had WMD's.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

First of all let me say that I think you did a good post there. Secondly I may have offended you, but did nothing incorrect to be considered an offender. I showed it as it was...just a simple post on a US military forum (officialy owned by the government). You may say that this does not fit into the general picture of army/navy/airforce staff, but I can proof that there is quite a lot of those people abd I could flood this thread with comments that would make you get sick.

Retreating from Iraq is not an issue for the democrats? Please consider that I may not live in the US but I still spent some time to research constant trends and fads in the political underground. Once the next election has started, a very important election, I want to know the essential movements that led to the final result.

The democrats do THINK about retreating from Iraq. The argument starts as follows "we go, the UN comes". You see I am not a typical Bush opposer and I do look at the words of the democrats critically too. And just because the sentence contains the abreviation "UN" doesnt make me happy at all. Lets be honest, I believe that getting voters in the US is not realy about foreign affairs, only if it affects americans at home. What the broad majority of voters wants to hear is "...our soldiers come home".... and what happens to the power vaccum in Iraq? Well any action is kind of tough after 80% of the population believes "the republicans won the war, and the democrats brought our soldiers home".

I am not saying it is about voters only, have you ever sat down and tried to estimate the costs of rebuilding a country over years and years and having to stabilise it? Well this move by the Bush administration was a tough obligation! You may not retreat today or a in year... but you in order to turn Iraq into a "democratic" country (isnt that what you wanted) you need more than a decade! If the people in the US want their soldiers home already now..what will be in a few years? And who is gonna replace a military force fo 180.000 soldiers with top notch technology? Aehm germany can provide maybe 2000 but that is the limit.

The UN force remaining in Iraq will not be able to ensure peace. (we already have problems to secure one city called Kabul)

As far as proofs are concerned

democratic underground about retreating from Iraq)

[JP226 0]

64% to 36% which is pretty much 2/3rds buddy the People support Bush. Excuse me, but these protestors deserve getting the crap they get because 90% protest because they can which is wrong. I have no problem with a someone who knows the facts and disagrees. I have a problem when someone starts spewing out nonsense and tries to pass it off as fact. I have a problem when protestors turn violent and try to stock military equipment from reaching overseas. I have a problem when a certain congressman goes to visit Saddam and Iraq and denounce the war. I have a problem when idiots actively volunteer to be human sheilds and then come back to the west and say how wrong it was for what they did and nothing is said about it. Most of all I have a problem when the moinority tries to push the majority around and distorts the facts with this war.

EiZei what the hell are you talking about? That does not make any sense.

[EiZei 0]

EiZei what the hell are you talking about? That does not make any sense.

It's been like that since world war 2. Of course you guys exaggerate the fighting in Iraq why not take a look at the real numbers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402020959.asp

Emphasis mine.

[Gollum1 0]

Look seems like the french "army" was caught up in killing innocent africans back in 2002. Backing a pretty bad hombre known for his genocide. Those silly frenchmen, when will they ever learn. Why won't they just give up their colonies?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ivor-d17.shtml

Wow that's nice, it seems like you couldn't care less about the actual event but are just using it in your USA vs France pissing contest (that the French here understandably don't seem all that interested on participating in), at least that's how I interpreted your USA smiley.

And how does that have anything to do with the thread?

[walker 0]

Hi JP226

Having a Majority does not mean you are right; otherwise Cristopher Columbus would have sailed off the edge of the world.

I am an anarchist so to me democracy is only slightly better than communism. Majorities can be tyranies too. Hitler after all was voted in.

I do however question your use of Miles Teg's statistics about those supporting the war in the US and using them to say they support George Bush Jnr. The latest polls I have seen show George Bush Jnr. below 50% against the probable Democrat John Kerry. Not suprising Vietnam War Hero versus Vietnam War dodger.

As to nonsence passed off as fact, would you be so kind as to make clear who posted what nonsence as fact that would ease everyones understanding of your post.

Yes I agree politicians should not have ever supported Sadamm and so I join with you in condemming Donald Rumsfeld for suporting Saddam and doing Deals with him along with others in TBA to sell him the WMD and then being so disgusting as to shake his bloody hand after gassing the kurds so they could sell him some more WMD.

As to people becoming human sheilds that is their choice in a free country. I believe Dick Cheyney's Daughter may have offered to be one of them. For or against your politics it is a brave thing to do.

PS I am a Minority of one and will continue to bully the majority when it is wrong and no amount of moaning "majorities" will ever stop me.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402020959.asp

Quote[/b] ]

These 343 (not 500) combat deaths, furthermore, need to be set in context. During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247.

By comparison there are approx. 130000 troops in Iraq and there are approx. 19 million people in New York City. With this logic there should be 49 049 murders annually in New York City to meet the amount of danger in Iraq.

LOL. I was just writing an identical post when I spotted yours.

[Frisbee 0]

AS far as bullying you guys into the war, what exactly could you do? WE would foot the bulk of the bill, WE would fight the bulk of the fighting and you guys would get credit where it is not due. It's been like that since world war 2.

Like right now in Afghanistan I guess,where the mighty US army leaves as soon as high altitude bombing is no longer a viable option,leaving nato (meaning mainly european,like the germans) to try and restore some order in a country fucked over repeatedly in history,last time by the US just abandoning it,going against their promises.

Quote[/b] ]The only country I fully support outside of the US right now is Israel, they live in the real world not some fantasy land of elitist that think they are better than the rest of the world because they are "open minded."

Of course you would support a violent expansionist,right wing governed country,i don't think israel is wrong per say,but stating it as the only other 'realistic' country is wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Israel has the balls to stand up against these bastards. That is enough ranting for now.

Who are 'these' bastards?

A large part of the world,who disagree with them?The terrorists?The terrorists?Or maybe the kids throwing stones at tanks?

Or are 'those bastards' just all muslim people?

Quote[/b] ]Excuse me, but these protestors deserve getting the crap they get because 90% protest because they can which is wrong. I have no problem with a someone who knows the facts and disagrees.

I have a problem with the people who agreed to the war,but still have trouble pointing out this 'Iraq' country on a map,before the war the probably only heard of it as the country 'whose ass got handed back to them in 1991'.

The people who think : muslim = terrorist.

I think that in those 64% (which is FAR from 75%,you do a count on how many people 11% of the US population amounts to) there are,optimistically speaking 80% who don't know what they're talking about,and only trust info from american news (=glorified propaganda),and dismiss the rest as pinko commie liberal bull.

Of course there are idiots in the other camp as well,but a lower percentage,and supporting a war you know jack shit about is more detestable than not supporting one.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The only country I fully support outside of the US right now is Israel, they live in the real world not some fantasy land of elitist that think they are better than the rest of the world because they are "open minded."

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

"e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)

n.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class."

So, who is the elitist? The large group of people with an opinion, or the smaller group that refuses to listen to the rest and goes against the majority?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have a problem when someone starts spewing out nonsense and tries to pass it off as fact.

Well it´s you in this case

Have a problem with yourself then.

Don´t underestimate OFP forum members knowledge on actual world policy, events related to Iraq or the middle east.

We have some well educated dudes here and some military and ex - military people including me who know that what you try to start here is flamatory. This thread is not about the french, the Israeli´s (go to correspondant thread and rufusmac and the god of that thread Bernadotte will enlighten you) it is about the USA in war with Iraq. You don´t even react to the things we tell you but push forward on totally misrelated stuff to put someone else on the blacklist.

Face it ! Your government has done very wrong, intentionally.

You as a citizen are not guilty for that.

Mr. Bush is not the USA in my eyes. I know a lot of US citizens I really like and related to my job I have/had to deal with US forces in variouse countries. I don´t blame them or Citizen Joe for that chaos in the world caused by a texas cowboy-wannabe.

They are the ones who are responsible for all this mess, not the french or someone else.

I have no problem with any USA citizen just because his president did something very wrong. I have a problem with US citizens who know that something went wrong but still think patriotism is the higher goal and therefore will close their eyes and participate as they are told.

"Welcome my son, welcome to the machine...."

Pink Floyd;

nice song; listen to it !

[theavonlady 2]

So, who is the elitist? The large group of people with an opinion, or the smaller group that refuses to listen to the rest and goes against the majority?

Ask Walker:

Hi JP226

Having a Majority does not mean you are right; otherwise Cristopher Columbus would have sailed off the edge of the world.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Nice to see Avon quoting me.

The real question is a simple one

Who was right?

Those such as TBA and TBA2 who said there was WMD and Sadamm could attack coalition countries so we should have a vast expensive war that would kill tens of thousands and destroy a country.

OR

Those such as the French, Germans, Deane, The Rusians and those who protested against war around the world, including members of this forum who all said he was not an iminent threat.

I should point out, though it may suprise many, I suported the war on the false evidence that TBA and TBA2 presented. This is verifiable by the fact that I only commented in this thread from the point where I became worried that we had been duped into a needless war.

History, Fact and Hindsight have judged; TBA and TBA2 are guilty.

Kind Regards Walker

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Ask Walker:

Well, that would be relevant if the question was in regards to being right or wrong. But it wasnt. It was about being elitist.

[miles teg 1]

First of all let me say that I think you did a good post there. Secondly I may have offended you, but did nothing incorrect to be considered an offender. I showed it as it was...just a simple post on a US military forum (officialy owned by the government). You may say that this does not fit into the general picture of army/navy/airforce staff, but I can proof that there is quite a lot of those people abd I could flood this thread with comments that would make you get sick.

Retreating from Iraq is not an issue for the democrats? Please consider that I may not live in the US but I still spent some time to research constant trends and fads in the political underground. Once the next election has started, a very important election, I want to know the essential movements that led to the final result.

The democrats do THINK about retreating from Iraq. The argument starts as follows "we go, the UN comes". You see I am not a typical Bush opposer and I do look at the words of the democrats critically too. And just because the sentence contains the abreviation "UN" doesnt make me happy at all. Lets be honest, I believe that getting voters in the US is not realy about foreign affairs, only if it affects americans at home. What the broad majority of voters wants to hear is "...our soldiers come home".... and what happens to the power vaccum in Iraq? Well any action is kind of tough after 80% of the population believes "the republicans won the war, and the democrats brought our soldiers home".

I am not saying it is about voters only, have you ever sat down and tried to estimate the costs of rebuilding a country over years and years and having to stabilise it? Well this move by the Bush administration was a tough obligation! You may not retreat today or a in year... but you in order to turn Iraq into a "democratic" country (isnt that what you wanted) you need more than a decade! If the people in the US want their soldiers home already now..what will be in a few years? And who is gonna replace a military force fo 180.000 soldiers with top notch technology? Aehm germany can provide maybe 2000 but that is the limit.

The UN force remaining in Iraq will not be able to ensure peace. (we already have problems to secure one city called Kabul)

As far as proofs are concerned

democratic underground about retreating from Iraq)

Yes you are right some soldiers do believe such things, but one quote from one stupid soldier doesn't represent the entire US military. The US military generally reflects the population of the United States with many religions, ethnicities, and political beliefs as well as many different levels of education.

As for as Democrats wanting to get out of Iraq, of coarse they do. Everybody does. Even Bush does. However Bush doesn't seem to have a clue of how to do so other then just doing what we're doing now, wich is patrolling the streets, doing raids, ect.. ect... while we train the Iraqi police force/military which will eventually take over these tasks.

However the morale of these groups are terrible, their pay is terrible (they suffer from a high level of desertions), and they do not have the heavy armor that the United States have nor the air support since we destroyed most of the Iraqi military's fleet of helicopters.

There are various ways in which we can extract ourselves including by using the UN to help supplement US troops or at least to replace US ground troops.

But the UN is currently not very interested and their currently is just simply not enough of funding as a peace keeping operation in Iraq would be the biggest UN operation in history more then likely.

But if the US paid for the UN to do it, I don't see the problem of replacing US troops with UN troops. Already there are many countries doing peacekeeping (in small numbers) in Iraq.

Also the UN has arguably had greater success in Kabul then the US has had doing peacekeeping in Iraq.

Denoir posted an EXCELLENT summary awhile back on why the US armed forces is simply not cut out for peacekeeping due to its operational methods which are designed for conventional warfare.

I do not think ANY Democrat President would simply just order the troops home without either Iraqi or UN troops taking over operations unless they just totally ignored intelligence reports (like Bush did but in the other direction) regarding the fallout of such a premature pullout of troops. It would result certainly in civil war and a fragmentation of Iraq as well as an easier place for Al-Qaeda to gain a foothold. But currently Al-Qaeda has already done so and likely have bases of operations in Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria.

So there are no easy answers which is why I say that the likely solution is to install a very powerful central Iraqi government with a powerful secret police aperatus similar to what Saddam's Baath party used. Iraq is simply NOT ready for democracy.

Is it undemocratic? Yes. But will it insure a stable Iraq? Yes.

Iraq is a prime example why you don't go around on crusades to try and bring "freedom and democracy" around the world without knowing what "freedom and democracy" actually means to people around the world and how they will accept it...especially if they hate the ones who bring it or the manner in which it is brought (or forced) upon them.

So in a nutshell I'm not arguing that the democrats want to bring our troops home because even Bush wants that. But of coarse by then his and Cheney's oil buddies will have made a nice tidy little profit from the whole ugly affair.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

64% to 36% which is pretty much 2/3rds buddy the People support Bush. Excuse me, but these protestors deserve getting the crap they get because 90% protest because they can which is wrong. I have no problem with a someone who knows the facts and disagrees. I have a problem when someone starts spewing out nonsense and tries to pass it off as fact. I have a problem when protestors turn violent and try to stock military equipment from reaching overseas. I have a problem when a certain congressman goes to visit Saddam and Iraq and denounce the war. I have a problem when idiots actively volunteer to be human sheilds and then come back to the west and say how wrong it was for what they did and nothing is said about it. Most of all I have a problem when the moinority tries to push the majority around and distorts the facts with this war.

EiZei what the hell are you talking about? That does not make any sense.

WTF? Please tell me where in the constitution it tells me that you can not voice your views unless you are scholar on the subject??? If so then 90% of the people supporting the war in Iraq need to shut up. But I don't tell them that because they have the constitutional right to voice their ignorance.

You tell me what some of the nonsense is that anti-war protesters "spew out". I can tell you a HELL OF ALOT of nonsense that pro-war supporters spew out.

Also when have anti-war supporters tried to stop equipment going to Iraq???

If this has occured it is an extremely rare occurance, because no anti-war group I have seen here in America has called for trying to stop shipments of equipment to Iraq.

As for that Congressman I don't remember who he was, or why or when he went there, but big deal. Saddam was not a threat to the United States. There has been NOTHING showing this. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... yet people like yourself believe these lies.

If that Congressman had been working to stop this stupid invasion, then more power to him. It's too bad he failed.

As for human shields, yes I agree they were absolute idiots and the majority of them realized this after they started getting ordered around by Saddam Hussein and saw the conditions people were living in with their own eyes.

But they DO NOT REPRESENT ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS.

That's the same damned arguement that conservatives here use when saying that Islam is a religion of terrorists that needs to be faught just because a miniority of Muslims are idiots and get in the news alot for commiting attrocities.

As for distorting the facts, exactly how have they been distorted. Please bless me with your knowledge on "THE FACTS" about this war and I will happily show you how most of your "facts" are either misused or erroneous.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

I wish actually that JP226 would go and read the debate over on the Middle East thread so I don't have to repeat myself discussing Islam. Plus Acecombat and Avon Lady I think provided a very fruitful and educational debate from both sides of the issue that bears reading.

At least I give credit to Avon Lady for engaging feet first into such a dialog even if I disagree with some of her views. Avon Lady also has VERY REAL LIFE reasons for her beliefs which is why I can totally accept why she feels the way she does. However as far as I am aware of, JP226 does not have that real world experience in the Middle East. JP226 you can correct me if I'm wrong and if I am I'd be happy to listen to your experiences in the Middle East or in dealing with Muslims.

I should add that others here also have experience living, working, and in some cases fighting in the Middle East including myself (although not the fighting part fortunately).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

First of all let me say that I think you did a good post there. Secondly I may have offended you, but did nothing incorrect to be considered an offender. I showed it as it was...just a simple post on a US military forum (officialy owned by the government). You may say that this does not fit into the general picture of army/navy/airforce staff, but I can proof that there is quite a lot of those people abd I could flood this thread with comments that would make you get sick.

Retreating from Iraq is not an issue for the democrats? Please consider that I may not live in the US but I still spent some time to research constant trends and fads in the political underground. Once the next election has started, a very important election, I want to know the essential movements that led to the final result.

The democrats do THINK about retreating from Iraq. The argument starts as follows "we go, the UN comes". You see I am not a typical Bush opposer and I do look at the words of the democrats critically too. And just because the sentence contains the abreviation "UN" doesnt make me happy at all. Lets be honest, I believe that getting voters in the US is not realy about foreign affairs, only if it affects americans at home. What the broad majority of voters wants to hear is "...our soldiers come home".... and what happens to the power vaccum in Iraq? Well any action is kind of tough after 80% of the population believes "the republicans won the war, and the democrats brought our soldiers home".

I am not saying it is about voters only, have you ever sat down and tried to estimate the costs of rebuilding a country over years and years and having to stabilise it? Well this move by the Bush administration was a tough obligation! You may not retreat today or a in year... but you in order to turn Iraq into a "democratic" country (isnt that what you wanted) you need more than a decade! If the people in the US want their soldiers home already now..what will be in a few years? And who is gonna replace a military force fo 180.000 soldiers with top notch technology? Aehm germany can provide maybe 2000 but that is the limit.

The UN force remaining in Iraq will not be able to ensure peace. (we already have problems to secure one city called Kabul)

As far as proofs are concerned

democratic underground about retreating from Iraq)

Yes you are right some soldiers do believe such things, but one quote from one stupid soldier doesn't represent the entire US military.  The US military generally reflects the population of the United States with many religions, ethnicities, and political beliefs as well as many different levels of education.

As for as Democrats wanting to get out of Iraq, of coarse they do.  Everybody does.  Even Bush does.   However Bush doesn't seem to have a clue of how to do so other then just doing what we're doing now, wich is patrolling the streets, doing raids, ect.. ect...  while we train the Iraqi police force/military which will eventually take over these tasks.  

However the morale of these groups are terrible, their pay is terrible (they suffer from a high level of desertions), and they do not have the heavy armor that the United States have nor the air support since we destroyed most of the Iraqi military's fleet of helicopters.  

There are various ways in which we can extract ourselves including by using the UN to help supplement US troops or at least to replace US ground troops.  

But the UN is currently not very interested and their currently is just simply not enough of funding as a peace keeping operation in Iraq would be the biggest UN operation in history more then likely.  

But if the US paid for the UN to do it, I don't see the problem of replacing US troops with UN troops.  Already there are many countries doing peacekeeping (in small numbers) in Iraq.  

Also the UN has arguably had greater success in Kabul then the US has had doing peacekeeping in Iraq.  

Denoir posted an EXCELLENT summary awhile back on why the US armed forces is simply not cut out for peacekeeping due to its operational methods which are designed for conventional warfare.

I do not think ANY Democrat President would simply just order the troops home without either Iraqi or UN troops taking over operations unless they just totally ignored intelligence reports (like Bush did but in the other direction) regarding the fallout of such a premature pullout of troops.   It would result certainly in civil war and a fragmentation of Iraq as well as an easier place for Al-Qaeda to gain a foothold.  But currently Al-Qaeda has already done so and likely have bases of operations in Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria.  

So there are no easy answers which is why I say that the likely solution is to install a very powerful central Iraqi government with a powerful secret police aperatus similar to what Saddam's Baath party used.  Iraq is simply NOT ready for democracy.  

Is it undemocratic?  Yes.  But will it insure a stable Iraq?  Yes.

Iraq is a prime example why you don't go around on crusades to try and bring "freedom and democracy" around the world without knowing what "freedom and democracy" actually means to people around the world and how they will accept it...especially if they hate the ones who bring it or the manner in which it is brought (or forced) upon them.

So in a nutshell I'm not arguing that the democrats want to bring our troops home because even Bush wants that.   But of coarse by then his and Cheney's oil buddies will have made a nice tidy little profit from the whole ugly affair.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I agree fully!

Now the question is whether the UN even if supported financially can ever bring troops together that resembel the force of the US? With all the pride in my little tiny german army but we are small, and still considered as big country. What more are the other less rich countries able to contribute.

It would be nice to know how many troops the UN could combine together without letting down other peace missions! Any guesses by anyone?

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]A new war won't be started as easily as this one. The ideology of pre-emptive wars has failed spectacularly

If Bush wins the next election, then there is absolutely nothing positive to be extracted and projected to the future.

And Bush is very likely to win. IF this happens the polemic propaganda about nations, friends, enemies, terorists and cultures will continue. Staying in power for so many years means that you shape a whole generation of children up to puberty with your "weekly speeches". Teenagers growing up with "terorist threat", "9/11 memorial day" and "iraq war heros" will be less critical than the current generation which grew up in times of peace. It is not a very fair comparison but we had a generation in germany that was brought up in the same way and ready to go to war by the age of 12.

And who changes his political views after the age of 8-9. I didnt. And so it was in the past. Generations that grew in the power periods of the conservatives remained faithful voters. And we all know the consequences: if the republicans are in power, they stay in power.

Good for Iraq, at least they finish the job. A democrat might just decide to withdraw the troops!

On a similar note of raising numb skulls to work for you, check out Microsofts starwars game Freelancer. You will see (I guarantee) how much this reflects the centralist view of terrorism that some Neo Cons. have. And kids will play it, learn from it some bad assumptions. This is no joke, it depends on the age of the person.

I can explain further if you try the game and don't understand.

[ericz 0]

I am always a bit cynical of politicians and so I was skeptical of Bush's interest in pursuing the war in Iraq.  Having said that, I was also highly skeptical of France's "official" opposition to the war on Iraq.  

The belief that countries in general develop their international agendas based on strictly altruistic terms is IMO naive.  There are more "important" concerns, such as control of resources, security, economic opportunity, etc.

Here's an interesting article:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Washington Times