The Iraq thread 4

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]my views of the british military are soley for myself...

Ah, fair enough mate.

Quote[/b] ]You can review the Joint Warfare publication...

Thanks.

[Jinef 2]

In reply to Balschoiw:

Quote[/b] ]

3. Jinef actually has not taken part in peacekeeping/enforcing training.

4. Jinef has no firsthand experiences.

Almost Correct, yet I won't let that stop me posting.

Quote[/b] ]

You´re drawing a wrong picture here.

I am drawing a twisted, fucked up picture called reality.

Quote[/b] ]The British military training teaches it´s soldiers to distinguish and be defensive rather than offensive in situations like the one in the video.

True, they were being very defensive in the video. Dragging the teenagers to an enclosed space with security to ensure they were safe from snipers etc. so they could kick the shit out of their new friends in peace.

Quote[/b] ]

That´s why you have a chain of command. If the grunt is unsure of what to do he has to rely on his squad leader to take the right decisions, while this does not mean that illegal orders have to be followed blindly.

In reality the grunts are usually more confident about what they have to do than the squad leaders, as everything is drilled. Orders are followed blindly, period.

Quote[/b] ] If you receive an illegal order like "Rape this women" it is your obligation not to fulfill this order. This is what you get taught.

Quite a paradox there, as you are also taught to follow without question, with much more emphasis put on the latter. I feel that this bit of teaching is simply in there to satisfy the politicians yet it has no substance. Surely a special forces soldier like yourself should know this dilemma, and the solution ..... 'Fuck the geneva convention, Unit, Mission, Country.'

Quote[/b] ]The british army over the last years had quite a good reputation for it´s peacekeeping abilities and sensitive approach towards local habits and procedures.

Simply because the British Army is very well trained, has a solid base of experience and a strong reputation. Not because the soldiers were civilised sherry-sipping gentleman.

Quote[/b] ]Incidents like the one in the video are not the general modus operandi of british troops.

Correct, normal modus operandi would not include world media.

Quote[/b] ]If psychological influence is directing a team, the team gets worthless and ineffective.

Removing psychological influence would be quite a feat ... so in the mean time ... deal with it.

Quote[/b] ]I guess it´s not the standard behaviour of british troops...

Considering the section leader ordered them to do it, the commentator wasn't exactly suprised and the other section didn't even blink ...... you may want to rethink your position.

Quote[/b] ]The juveniles get released after being badly beaten up, they run to daddy and he calls his friends and they decide to take revenge for what the troops had done to their kids to reinstate their honor.

You will end up in a spiral of violence faster than you can say 1,2,3.

Considering the British Army have had a fairly good grasp of Basra for ..... 2 years .... they must be doing something right.

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi juveniles are not responsible for your own psychological deficits.

Psychological deficits?

What is psychologically deficit about getting pissed off when some nasty little teenagers have the audacity to throw rocks at you? I see that as quite a normal response.

I would say someone is psychologically deficit when they think it is fun when people chuck rocks at them .... like you were stating earlier in this thread.

Quite honestly Bals, I am confused how you can be a Infantry soldier (Special Forces no less) and yet you have the political disposition of a wet sponge. You seem to care a bit too much .....

In reply to Messiah:

Please share your opinions.

My own were founded on my own service in the Military, the people I have met, the books I have read.

In reply to Eizei:

I try to avoid war movies, they are always plagued with perceptions of 'glory' and patriotism, makes me sick.

The individual build up of aggression has been well documented.

Soldiers need to justify to themselves why they need to kill fellow man, usually a soldier like themselves. Some do it via hate for the enemy, other via moral high ground, others via religious beliefs.

Please don't dismiss me as a guy who watched Jarhead and then instantly posted on the BI forums .... I have a bit more to say.

In reply to Tovarish:

Thanks, I could have done a better job however I was tired.

In reply to Daniel:

Find Terox, get him drunk. Chat to him for 5 minutes ........ all you ever need to know about the British Army and more than you wanted to.

[Daniel 0]

Hmm. Thanks Jinef, I think. I'll look into that.

[Balschoiw 0]

@Jinef: I will not take part in a flaming contest. You will have to do that on your own if you feel so. If you can´t keep a discussion factual what is your point then ?

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ][...] Fuck the geneva convention, [...]

You can fuck it as much as you want if it satisfies you. But the geneva convention does not forbid you from raping women or comitting many more war crimes. Nor does the Hague convention and other similar ones. As you see we call them conventions - general agreements, not laws. They have no legal power. It's the thigny you have listed 3rd on that priority list there that annoyingly forbids all those fancy war crimes. Yes it's your country. Your country has made a law out of the convention. So you should put it this way: "Fuck my country, Unit, Mission, the militaristic pighead with political ambitions that is my superior, My very own military dictatorship, ..."

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I try to avoid war movies, they are always plagued with perceptions of 'glory' and patriotism, makes me sick.

No, actually, the films are nowdays fulfilled with jargon how the military tries to brainwash you to a killer, murderer and mindless fighting machine. Your thinking is obviously based on such movies as 'Tigerland', 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Thin Red line'.

Quote[/b] ]In reality the grunts are usually more confident about what they have to do than the squad leaders, as everything is drilled. Orders are followed blindly, period.

I don't know which army you served but this is rubbish. If grunts can't rely on their NCO's and do as they please that's hardly an army anymore. 'Following orders' on commiting atrocities and war crimes is just an excuse if you are not personally threatened with physical harm or at gunpoint.

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers need to justify to themselves why they need to kill fellow man, usually a soldier like themselves. Some do it via hate for the enemy, other via moral high ground, others via religious beliefs.

You are over-emotional about this issue. It only takes you to get shot at and you respond or just anticipate to get shot at. You don't have to go through all this moral dilemma 'geez, how can i pull the trigger...i cannot...i should?' crap thats portrayed in some war movies. You really don't need to back up your fighting with beliefs like many people would think in their armchairs. Troops that are sent to the crisis points in the world are specifically trained and instructed for restraint in face of extreme adversities, i really don't know any army recently who has put effort to encourage trigger-happiness, hatred or aggressiveness against the enemy. In combat the justification for killing comes all by itself.

I smell a dilemma here, how come soldiers who follow orders blindly have to justify the morality of war to themselves as you claim?

Quote[/b] ]Please don't dismiss me as a guy who watched Jarhead and then instantly posted on the BI forums .... I have a bit more to say.

I'd take your views more seriously if it wasn't for your holier-than-thou 'Right on the fucking money' -attitude. And in your case I wouldn't dismiss somebody who obviously has vastly more first-hand experience on these issues with inflammatory remarks.

[Jinef 2]

Well that blew up in my face

@Mr Bals

Quote[/b] ]@Jinef: I will not take part in a flaming contest. You will have to do that on your own if you feel so. If you can´t keep a discussion factual what is your point then?

Since when has any of this been about facts? This entire thread is a bunch of people speculating on stuff and offering their opinions on what they have been shown by their own biased media. Come on Bals, I really am intrigued to know how you can be part of a hardened military unit trained to kill people while you spend your time on the internet decrying acts of violence around the world ....

I find it hard to believe you cannot empathise with these soldiers as you have been in Somalia/Afghanistan yourself.

@Donnervogel

Uhhh ... my point was that soldiers simply will not think of the geneva convention when ordered to beat up a few teenagers. You may also find that there is no British law forbidding our soldiers to harm foreign nationals or even British citizens, in fact quite the opposite exists, our soldiers are intended and even trained to harm said persons ...

Sorry for sounding pretentious however I found your post hard to reply to.

@Blake

"In reality the grunts are usually more confident about what they have to do than the squad leaders, as everything is drilled. Orders are followed blindly, period."

Quote[/b] ]I don't know which army you served but this is rubbish.

Let me clarify. In the British Army a lot of emphasis is placed on clarity of orders on all levels of command, generally getting clearer as you down the chain. So section leaders will simply shout out which drill they want executed or who they want to move. The infantry are drilled in everything they may have to do, from climbing walls, to urban fighting, clearing houses etc.

So when the orders come, there is no doubt in the grunt's minds. However as you move up the chain of command, there is more responsibilty/possiblities for error, so naturally more doubt enters the equation. For example, a company commander ordered to clear a hill has many ways to go about it, many more options to consider compared to a grunt who just has to get up and run.

If you served in the Army where the Generals are absolutely sure of what to do and the basic infantry have no idea whether they are coming or going .... then I am suprised you are still alive

Do you agree now?

Quote[/b] ]It only takes you to get shot at and you respond or just anticipate to get shot at. You don't have to go through all this moral dilemma 'geez, how can i pull the trigger...i cannot...i should?' crap thats portrayed in some war movies.

I dunno, I have never been shot at. However this is what I have read about the subject.

In WW2 Infantry training was simply shooting at static targets. The actual firing rate in soldiers was 15% with maybe 4% intending to kill the enemy.

In Korea they added more stimuli triggering to the training and the firing rate grew.

In Vietnam the training was bases on stimuli conditioning (Training the soldier to do a certain action when certain requirements were fullfiled. i.e A target popping up) and the firing rate grew to 90%.

In the Falklands the British soldiers were trained using stimuli conditioning and had no problems with their soldiers not firing, meanwhile the Argentinians used the WW2 style of training and their soldiers simply did not shoot to kill, apart from the machine gun crews and artillery which is explained for; MG crews have a compulsion to fire because of the presence and expectations of their co gunners and Artillery simply cannot see the enemy so they don't care. There was also a distinct lack of Argentinian leadership/authority figures which also accounts for low firing rates.

(A study of authority figures and human violence is very interesting. Read on the 'Milgram Experiment'.)

You did spot an interesting point in the pages of my blabbering.

Quote[/b] ] I smell a dilemma here, how come soldiers who follow orders blindly have to justify the morality of war to themselves as you claim?

Now my exact words were:

"Soldiers are haunted by what they have done as part of groups, or what they have done under the influence of conditioning and adrenalin."

I should amend that to:

"Soldiers are haunted by what they have done under the influence of a group, conditioning, authority and adrenalin."

In the Milgram experiment people were crying as they administered shocks, showing obvious moral objection yet continuing to 'kill' a fellow human being.

So it is quite acceptable to follow orders blindly "Shoot that person" "Beat those kids" and be compelled to do it because of the authority figure, the group, your own fear and adrenalin yet be completely morally adverse to the idea.

Unfortunately I think I may be chucking too much information all over the place now ... (especially as I am confusing myself at this point.)

Sidenote:

Quote[/b] ]I'd take your views more seriously if it wasn't for your holier-than-thou 'Right on the fucking money' attitude. And in your case I wouldn't dismiss somebody who obviously has vastly more first-hand experience on these issues with inflammatory remarks.

I got a bit worked up admittedly. I was also using evocative language to try and get people in to the mindset of being in riot gear standing in front of a crowd so they could empathise with these soldiers. The attitude I was using comes from the many British service men I have talked with. Sorry if you thought yourself unholy after reading my post, non intentional, honest

Quote[/b] ]And in your case I wouldn't dismiss somebody who obviously has vastly more first-hand experience on these issues with inflammatory remarks.

If something is so obvious it is wise to be skeptical. Anyway, bals responded to my post about psychology and deep emotional conflicts caused in soldiering with a textbook response on doctrinal training of the British Army which is not quite what I was looking for. He then stuck a cherry on top claiming soldiers should deal with stress much like a MacDonald's manager may be asked to deal with it. On top of that he likes having rocks thrown at him ..... so I am giving my 7 or so sources from the British Army a bit more credit than one 'psychologically deficit' personage from the German 'UN Global Special Peacekeeping Command Task Force'.

So my overall point is:

Do not be so quick to condemn these soldiers. They had their reasons and they are under a lot of strain which no amount of 'training' can relieve. They are after all ... human.

[Balschoiw 0]

If you feel like quoting me on something Jinef it would be nice if you actually stayed with what I posted that is:

Quote[/b] ]The only times I felt uncomfortable while driving through rocklobbers was when I had no protective gear on except the helmet. If you wear flak vest or plated armor it´s nothing big.

We have made fun of it sometimes by catching some stones and lobbing them back which left the kids laughing at the streets. It´s like a sport to them. They are kids.

So your "conclusion" is what you like to think but not what I have posted.

Your hearsay does not mean much to me. I prefer debating such issues with people who actually have experiences in that. As you fail to have that experiences you are not different to anyone else who talks about something but actually has to rely on others to form this opinion as he lacks on own experiences.

Period.

[Donnervogel 0]

@Jinef

oh I'm surely not a British law expert but seing that your country has ratified a varity of international "conventions" I am very confident there are such laws as there are in any other european country. Or do your soldiers never hear about the "laws of war"? We were taught those (rather unwillingly on the side of our superiors) in the army.

And of course many soldiers won't think of them in action - but that does not mean they don't apply.

And my point was this: If our soldiers forget to think about those things we will run into serious trouble. I don't know about the british army or any professional army for that matter. I'm (against my will) in the swiss sissy army but even there we were drilled and kept hungry and without sleep. But nobody forgot to think for himself because of that. We were drilled to follow orders what you may call blindly. I call it we were drilled to follow orders no matter if we agree or not. Yet that experience actually encouraged us (yes about 90% there hated to be in the army) to study the military law as it allowed us to make the life of our superiors harder by insisting on our rights whenever possible just to make the whole matter complicated and ineffective - in turn we suffered a lot more as they wanted revenge But it was still fun.

If you ask me. If a soldiers get "broken" to the point where he won't think for himself he's either a weak personality in that area or he does not want to think for himself. Now I do not have experience from any warzone and hopefully never will. I also do not have experience from a professional army but I've seen a lot of people that have such experiences and yet are able to think about their actions. Which does not mean they didn't do wrong things they were ordered to do. They surely did. But they knew it was wrong.

[Jinef 2]

@Mr Bals

Some of the most extensive and comprehensive studies on war and the fighting soldier have been done by the people who simply stood back and watched/interviewed the soldiers, lacking the experience themselves. Unfortunately the Infantry soldiers like yourself are rarely suited to writing theories and dissertations on the subject, as they are rarely comfortable with recounting and describing their moments of utmost emotions and also because they are on trend less academically adept than others. So it is quite acceptable for me to formulate opinions based on the soldiers I have talked to and the books I have read.

If you feel I am drawing a wrong picture please put your memories into words. Surely you were once part of a group that did terrible acts you would never commit as an individual? Maybe as a child you as part of a group thought it fun to kill a injured animal, or bully a weaker child? Surely Bals in your vast experiences you undertook in essentially the same thing these soldiers undertook, especially as you are Infantry yourself. For the benefit of everyone else in this thread please recount these.

Or are you the perfect soldier? No emotions, no anger, simple following of the orders that were within morally acceptable limits? As you would then be quite quite quite rare, unique even.

@Donnervogel

Our soldiers do hear about the laws of warfare.

They are followed as long as the superiors endorse them. I assure you if a platoon leader chooses to turn a cheek towards torture if it will save the lives of his men .... it will happen. Same for beating a few teenagers if it will improve morale/reduce tommorow's crowd by count 5. It is a fine balance, of playing the rules of the very violent game .... and getting the slight upper hand for your side.

The problem of perception.

Now this has been proved to be the case quite a few times in modern warfare, despite how little publicised. In fact what is publicised is quite the opposite:

Hollywood shows soldiers who just follow orders and kill on demand, characters like James Bond etc. who show no remorse or hesitation. The media shows guided missiles and bombs hitting 'targets' with precision, with little thought to the lives that have been ended underneath that cloud of dirt.

The public believes killing to be clean, natural and part of human nature which is totally incorrect. It is suprisingly easy to get a human to go to war, a bit harder to kill, impossible to remove the adverse psychological effects it has on the individual.

What really gets me agitated is people who sit watching conflict and then say things like:

"Oooh I say that's a bit harsh old chap, why are they beating those sweet little children?"

"Oh why did they have to kill him, couldn't they have just shot him in the leg or shoot the gun out of his hand?"

"Ohhh nooo, the animals are getting hurt too!"

What especially agitates me is people who claim to be all knowing on the subject to turn around and say the same naive things .....

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?

If you decide to mobilise the Military in a warfighting role to a foreign land do you really expect them to sit around handing out lollipops and playing games with the children? They are an organisation designed to kill? Who didn't expect to see thousands killed, people tortured and kids beaten? Has anyone got 'experiences' where a military was deployed in a warfighting role and acted like a bunch of social workers?

I am wasting my sunday ....

[Komissar 0]

I am wasting my sunday ....

Of course not, Jinef. You're providing me with amusement as you debate your ginger arse off.

[BigUzi 0]

If you think the whole iraq sectarian bloodbath being played on the 6'0clock news is as worse as its going to get. Its just the tip of the iceberg M8.

Wait until the Iranians finally get around to building their Islalmic bomb. One leading cleric who has the ear of the president in Iran, has already gave it his blessing and said its use against western nations is already justified under islamic law.

Meanwhile over 80 people have died world wide protesting the publication of a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed.

How many mass demostrations in these outraged muslim nations have condemed the blowing up of the golden shrine in Sammara, except for the bloody affairs in Iraq, which have lead to even more death and misery for its people.

BTW theres been another rally in Pakistan planned again over the toons and another is set for March the 3rd.

None at all for the poor musilm buggers portrayed as informers or opponants who have had their heads hacked off while being recorded on DVD by the taliban over in Afganistan during the last few days and weeks, or the suicide bombers driving trucks in market places in Afganistan killing even more innocent cililians.

I suppose being shia they dont really matter much, the sunni are the ones who have the Gulf supplied money,the mouth,the guns and will to want the utter destruction of the Iraq nation, on the premise if they cant run it nobody will, or will want whats left of it when the dust settles.

Biguzi  (supports Jenifs realism view)

[Messiah 2]

In reply to Messiah:

Please share your opinions.

My own were founded on my own service in the Military, the people I have met, the books I have read.

i try to when i think it suits the thread... my own opinions on this video are based on what i believe to be the reality - many people on these forums wont share my idea of relality (sounds like the matrix now)

as for my opinion on the british military, and my knowledge of it - its based on 3 years of research, work, talking to many good friends who are current or ex forces members and generally taking a keen interest in my work. I dont believe, however, that with this knowledge and insight (if you wish to call it that) that i have any more right/credibility in posting comments on how a soldier reacts under those situations, and what he would normaly do etc... i'll leave that to those who have been there

[Donnervogel 0]

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?

@Jinef

What did I expect? I did expect the british government wouldn't be so foolish to go into this unneeded war in first place

I don't need to know war to know that it's stupid and that there is no reason for me that validated to go into a country and kill people when there is no real danger to us and no (realistic) plan and prospect for the future of the country I am going to destroy.

Also you can play your "violent game" but you will have to face the consequences. And if you're doing it then PLEASE don't videotape it and sound on it like a sadistic arsehole.

It's naive but it's also true. War is stupid, violence is stupid. We should really think harder before we make use of it.

[Jinef 2]

Quote[/b] ]What did I expect? I did expect the british government wouldn't be so foolish to go into this unneeded war in first place

We agree completely

Quote[/b] ]Also you can play your "violent game" but you will have to face the consequences. And if you're doing it then PLEASE don't videotape it and sound on it like a sadistic arsehole.

People are scum .... sorry.

Pleasure debating with you sir.

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]I did expect the british government wouldn't be so foolish to go into this unneeded war in first place

Seriously?! You had more faith in my government than  I did.  

[EiZei 0]

This recently leaked confidential 2003 memo that was given to Tony Blair pretty much sums up what went wrong. The contractors were moving too slow, lack of strategy on behalf of the US military leadership, using too conventional methods to address the insurgents, lack of clear policy regarding former baathists and lack of presence among the iraqis themselves.

But hey, it must be media's fault because they did not parrot pentagon's PR bullshit enough.

[HotShot 0]

Concerning the new assault in Iraq, i like this comment from the world services' website from a reader:

Quote[/b] ]The phrase "a major show of force is being carried out in the hope of breaking a cycle of escalating violence" neatly encapsulates the spectacular kind of insanity that characterizes this conflict, like some kind of unhinged zen koan. We'll just bomb our way into peace! What could go wrong?

It does seem kind of odd to go hammer and tong with military force to stop violence. I realise they dont have many options, and i dont have a better one, but i cant see how this is going to stop the bombs and attacks as its not as if they could hope they are going to kill enough of them to radically stem the flow?? And they can just base themseleves elsewhere if they bomb a present base.

[JdB 151]

A precise strike, targeting only the insurgents, carried out by Iraqi troops is likely to create much less resistance as a US siege of a city with civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Bombing villages that contain 1 or 2 insurgents is overexcessive use of force. If any civilians die you will create more insurgents instead of disable the resistance movement. Areas where US forces operate have far more active resistance in them then in areas controlled by the other international forces.

[sr4470 0]

A precise strike, targeting only the insurgents, carried out by Iraqi troops is likely to create much less resistance as a US siege of a city with civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Bombing villages that contain 1 or 2 insurgents is overexcessive use of force. If any civilians die you will create more insurgents instead of disable the resistance movement. Areas where US forces operate have far more active resistance in them then in areas controlled by the other international forces.

Before Fallujah was besieged, there were estimated to be 4,000 resistance fighters - after word of the events in Fallujah spread, the numbers multiplied to over 100,000.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

A precise strike, targeting only the insurgents, carried out by Iraqi troops is likely to create much less resistance as a US siege of a city with civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Bombing villages that contain 1 or 2 insurgents is overexcessive use of force. If any civilians die you will create more insurgents instead of disable the resistance movement. Areas where US forces operate have far more active resistance in them then in areas controlled by the other international forces.

Before Fallujah was besieged, there were estimated to be 4,000 resistance fighters - after word of the events in Fallujah spread, the numbers multiplied to over 100,000.

Source that.

[b_ringer25 0]

I don't see how we can criticize this war, the US and UK liberated the people of Iraq from a dictator that should have been removed in 1991...  But thanks to politicians they always leave us another war to fight...  After recent events we will be at war with N. Korea soon too...  Back to the topic.  We have 2318 dead right now and 16653 wounded.

War - KIA - Wounded - Years @ War

Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2,318 - 16,653 - 3

Operation Desert Storm - 529 - 1,000 - Ground war was 72 hours

Vietnam - 51,000 - 153,303 - 9

Korea - 36,000 - 103,284 - 3

WWII - 295,000 - 671,846 - 5

WWI - 53,402 - 204,002 - 1

Seriously, he is pretty much Hitler of our time and the douche bag in North Korea is worst than Saddam.  To many treehuggers in America.  Don't tell me Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.  Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was in Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda was in Iran, Al QAEDA was in South Florida and you wanna tell me they where not in Iraq, lol.  We definately know its not for oil because i'm paying 2.50 right now.  I have only 1 problem about this war, how can you fight an enemy that is not afraid to die. I'm just sick to hear that people are protesting. Especially the assholes that did it at the funeral. That was not right. They are burying a US soldier that was killed in Iraq. Horrible, I see those people as bad as AlQaeda.

[j w 0]

Did you know that the war in Iraq cost american taxpayers 120 million dollars? Oh, and add to that; a day.

[b_ringer25 0]

we are already in debt before the war. The economy has been pretty good.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Back to the topic.  We have 2318 dead right now and 16653 wounded.

And certain people were screaming bloody murder when 18 troops got killed in Somalia. And the beauty of urban insurgency of course being that it will probably go on and on unless the economy really improves and those weekend warriors get proper jobs (unlikely), US leaves (pretty damn unlikely) or they get another wannabe-Saddam to keep all the ethnic groups from each other's throats (rather likely).

Quote[/b] ]the US and UK liberated the people of Iraq from a dictator that should have been removed in 1991...  But thanks to politicians they always leave us another war to fight...

George senior fought an incredible effective war on political and military fronts that drove Iraq out of Kuwait in matter of days. Must have sucked for the iraqis to be left alone with the moustache man and sanctions, but hey, like we had cared before.

Remember back then when the newscasts were showing iraqis begging to surrender rather than dragging torched contractors around the streets of Fallujah screaming allahu akbar?

Quote[/b] ]

I don't see how we can criticize this war,   After recent events we will be at war with N. Korea soon too...  

Especially because of that. Now that the united states military is drawn out to sort this mess out countries like Iran and N. Korea are running around swinging their dicks in the air knowing their chance to get nukes without being attacked is far bigger now than before.

Quote[/b] ]

War - KIA - Wounded - Years @ War

Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2,318 - 16,653 - 3

Operation Desert Storm - 529 - 1,000 - Ground war was 72 hours

Vietnam - 51,000 - 153,303 - 9

Korea - 36,000 - 103,284 - 3

WWII - 295,000 - 671,846 - 5

WWI - 53,402 - 204,002 - 1

Some neo-colonial counter-insurgency not killing as much troops as some of the bloodiest conflicts (indochina war, world wars) on this planet? Oh joy.

Quote[/b] ]

Don't tell me Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.  Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was in Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda was in Iran, Al QAEDA was in South Florida and you wanna tell me they where not in Iraq, lol.

So, is southern florida going to get bombed now?

Quote[/b] ]

Seriously, he is pretty much Hitler of our time and the douche bag in North Korea is worst than Saddam.  To many treehuggers in America.

A middle-eastern strongman who decides to fight a war against it's neighbors backed by the west, underestimates his enemy and ends up invading another much smaller neighbor in order to cover the huge economical damages caused by the Iran-Iraq war is hardly my idea of Hitler. More like business as usual.

Quote[/b] ]

We definately know its not for oil because i'm paying 2.50 right now.

This argument keeps popping up, yet I do'nt know why.