The Iraq thread 4

[Hoot1988 0]

Quote[/b] ]Shit! just look at the numbers. US Highway Deaths compared to all 4 years of the Iraq War. Well look around. There was more alcohol related crashes that occurred from 6 to noon in the US then there has been Iraqi War Casualties. Damn! we should ban alcohol- wait, DONT DO THAT!!!

(cough cough)All caused by jack bauer(cough cough)

as my late granddad put it there are no wars today, what we call wars are skirmishes compared to WWI +WWII.

as for a civil war it depends what you see it as. if they are directly targeting iraqi army on its own then it is. if they are attacking a occupying force, then its a insurgency.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Does it sound like the United States is cracking down on crazy teen drivers or old farts who cant see over the dash? Why not? in everyone else's eyes they should be banning automobiles all together and start suing the car factories. Shit! just look at the numbers. US Highway Deaths compared to all 4 years of the Iraq War. Well look around. There was more alcohol related crashes that occurred from 6 to noon in the US then there has been Iraqi War Casualties. Damn! we should ban alcohol- wait, DONT DO THAT!!!

Anyways, I'm off for chow.

In 2003 17,229 people died by simply falling off things.  Maybe congress will mandate that the country be covered in a soft Nerf foam.

Would save $ for "universal healthcare" right?  

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Sorry couldn't help myself.

Ok seriously.  I a bit concerned about the fact that "the war" seems less on the minds of many these days.  For whatever reason its even less reported in the media.  I guess when bad news decreases, theres less to report?

The whole "things gettting better vs. things getting worse/staying the same" debate just kind of fizzled out.

Oh well, the brilliant politicians will make sure things are dreary enough to report on again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]But seriously, if you think Iraq is going through a civil war now then you're overdramatizing this way too much. You have a better chance of being in a car wreck in the United States than being injured by an IED in Iraq. Not to mention that the incidents are becoming even more isolated.

No.

It´s just plain numbers, not science fiction.

4 million iraquis are on the run and have fled the country by now.

Iraqiyun, a non-governmental institution in Iraq estimated a total of 128.000 deaths among civillians from the beginning of the invasion to July 2005.

Iraq body Count, who only count those victims who are documented by cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents.

They offer a number of 75.000 - 81.000 civillian deaths while the Iraqui Interior ministry itself offers numbers that are 75 percent higher than the iraq body count ones.

The level of civillian deaths is constantly rising, not dropping as you suggest.

Apart from that, you are comparing apples with stones here as these are only violent deaths that are a direct result of the US invasion.

Traffic accidents also do happen in Iraq, but unless Republicans begin to blow up Liberals in the US on a daily base in the US there is no comparison to be drawn between those two methods of dying. If there are at least 5 reported bombblasts a day in the US you can come in again.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention that the incidents are becoming even more isolated.

Source ?

You are comparing total numbers of a country with over 300 million citizens with a country that has a population of 26 million people ?

Funny.

In this context it should be interesting for you that almost 7 percent of Iraq´s population have already left the country and are touring the ME and the rest of the world on their refugee tour.

If you have missed that there is a civil war going on in Iraq you have to be living somewhere near the moon.

Quote[/b] ]

Sorry couldn't help myself.

I guess that´s the essence of your post anyway.

Quote[/b] ]I guess when bad news decreases, theres less to report?

The bad news do not decrease, they increase, they are just not getting reported unless a single bomb kills more than 20 instantly. You just have to check the right sources. Check Iraq daily to get yourself up-to-date.

[martinovic 0]

What you forget when comparing friggin car accidents to Iraq IED deaths is that IRAQ ONLY HAS A POPULATION OF 20 MILLION AS OPPOSED TO 300 MILLION IN THE USA!

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I agree with Balschoiw, Iraq is in a state of civil war, albeit a limited one, but it seems that there are agreements being made between warring factions to reduce fighting, probably to prompt a faster withdrawal of US and british forces from Iraq, so that they can go at it again when there's nobody there anymore... Because neither the british nor the US forces are going to stay there forever, whilst the iraqis aren't going anywhere (except those fleeing their own country) and those who stay will probably solve the problem by force...

As for the war itself being news issue, the problem is even with the bomb attacks that kill more than 20 people, they've become so regular, it's hardly news-worthy, since such attacks have been going on... for years now...

[Necromancer- 0]

Now that Turkey will get involved in the Iraq war, the EU is disappointed in Turkey.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11456194.htm

I find it hypocrite of the EU to label the PKK a "terrorist organisation" while Turkey, the main target of the PKK, is "not allowed" to do something about it.

[Black Sphere 0]

Now that Turkey will get involved in the Iraq war, the EU is disappointed in Turkey.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11456194.htm

I find it hypocrite of the EU to label the PKK a "terrorist organisation" while Turkey, the main target of the PKK, is "not allowed" to do something about it.

EU is not a political but economical union. Practice and history tells us they have no clue about the politics, and how to pose themselves, and to react in such situations.

Before editing you've mentioned EU's reaction in your post. What reaction? In critical situations EU's reaction time is of a dead corpse, backed with efficiency and credibility of an infant. As always all they can do is that brief Solana's blah blah blah, and back to managing a mastodont burocracy in Brussels.

[Sophion-Black 0]

*sigh* and here i thought four months would be enough time for people to see the light...

Quote[/b] ]4 million iraquis are on the run and have fled the country by now.

My God a bizarre event for a country just torn from war  

Look, I don't see how displacement shows a correlation to a civil war. Not all the numbered can be labeled as "afraid of a civil war" some could be labeled as "Saddam is gone now we have the chance to live in Europe or America." It just seems irrelevant. Significant, a little; but not enough to convince someone with logical reasoning to deduct that there's a civil war going on.

Quote[/b] ]Iraqiyun, a non-governmental institution in Iraq estimated a total of 128.000 deaths among civillians from the beginning of the invasion to July 2005.

do they list a percentage on who is to blame? Could most of them be killed by soldiers still under Saddam's control? could it also be from Al Qaeda attacks? Again, your using an abstract statistic to squeeze in a theory.

Quote[/b] ]The level of civillian deaths is constantly rising, not dropping as you suggest.

Damn, I Google "Iraqi Body Count" and get to their homepage only to see this:

Looks like its going up ok... maybe you should tell the graph which way is up. Because from what it looks like the count has been going down for the past year.

Quote[/b] ]Apart from that, you are comparing apples with stones here as these are only violent deaths that are a direct result of the US invasion.

An insurgency is a direct result of an invasion not a civil war. A faction unhappy with their conditions simply, and logical, cannot attack the other faction of the same social population simply because one or the other is an analog of the invading/occupying force. So therefore, the faction within the country is conducting asymmetric warfare against the occupying force to present their ideas. Do you understand that?

Quote[/b] ]Traffic accidents also do happen in Iraq, but unless Republicans begin to blow up Liberals in the US on a daily base in the US there is no comparison to be drawn between those two methods of dying.

Your missing my point. I gave numbers to support me saying that successful IED attacks aren't as common as people presume.

Quote[/b] ]Source ?

Too many to list. this ranges from international news all the way down to local and from all political factions. The majority of the attacks are now concentrated more and more to two provinces. Baghdad and Al Anbar. Why? Baghdad is obvious, but Al Anbar isn't. The Al Anbar province boarders Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Something less known is that since it is open it leaves more room for insurgents to settle and longer strips of highway motor T has to traverse. Common since should put these two together.

Quote[/b] ]If you have missed that there is a civil war going on in Iraq you have to be living somewhere near the moon.

Actually I've been on an island Ive been off it a few days and now talking to people who just came back from a sandy village... sad little kid. If only you knew.

Quote[/b] ]You just have to check the right sources. Check Iraq daily to get yourself up-to-date.

or how about you do what I'm probably going to do within the year and get off that chair your sitting on, grab a rifle and get your ass over there! Shit! Maybe you'll see little kids throwing IEDs everywhere!

You all have to stop sucking on some tits and look around. Its quite sad that everyone is overdramatizing the situation in Iraq. I guess its because simply its gotten that way from people that are too afraid to go over there and start making excuses no to go.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

An insurgency is a direct result of an invasion not a civil war. A faction unhappy with their conditions simply, and logical, cannot attack the other faction of the same social population simply because one or the other is an analog of the invading/occupying force. So therefore, the faction within the country is conducting asymmetric warfare against the occupying force to present their ideas. Do you understand that?

AFAIK the percentage of people that actually do like the fact that US and other foreign troops are in their country is insignificant - so according to your theory, all the iraquis fighting each other, excluding the attacks of Al-Qaeda terror trainees, are just insurging themselves against the minority that likes the invaders? That's a good one...

They are fighting amongst themselves because Iraq is a country with many ethnic and political groups which took a heavy-handed dictator to put under control and in line, kind of like Yugoslavia under Tito. When he left, things pretty much got out of control there, as we know it. In the case of Iraq, it's even worse, because the dictator was ousted from power by a foreign invasion...

[baddo 0]

or how about you do what I'm probably going to do within the year and get off that chair your sitting on, grab a rifle and get your ass over there! Shit! Maybe you'll see little kids throwing IEDs everywhere!

You all have to stop sucking on some tits and look around. Its quite sad that everyone is overdramatizing the situation in Iraq. I guess its because simply its gotten that way from people that are too afraid to go over there and start making excuses no to go.

I'm sure you can do better in your life than to go to Iraq as a soldier.

If you do that, you must be a firm supporter of the war, otherwise it really doesn't make sense. Have you really had a good thought about the reasons why the war was started? If yes, and you still think it's a good idea, then go for it. No one here is going to stop you. You are serving your country as you see the best.

Your comment sounds to me like you really think you can make the situation in Iraq better by going there as part of the U.S. Military. And if people aren't ready to do that, they are cowards? That's how your comment sounds to me. Just remember, if you do go to Iraq as a soldier of the U.S. Military, bear in mind that you were not invited. Thus, Improvised Explosive Devices are to be expected!

It isn't a surprise that an American says that people are "overdramatizing" the current situation in Iraq. That's what people/nations often do when they f****d up in front of a big crowd, they try to play it down and make it look like it's nothing.

Seriously, wasn't it the Americans who overdramatized the situation in Iraq? Weapons of Mass- what? MOBILE weapons laboratories? Where?

You need to consider very carefully if you want to be a part of the destruction going on in the Middle East.

Your life would be much better if you took part in something constructive.

Best Wishes,

Baddo.

[Sophion-Black 0]

OK Buzzard, look...

Iraq isn't battling one major faction, its battling several. All of which have various views on what Iraq should be. Including some communist ideas. Since this is varied it is rated as an unrest. Since there is engagements it makes it warfare. But since the engagements are used to exploit the weaknesses of a larger force it becomes asymmetric warfare; an insurgency.

For a civil war to be a civil war there has to be at least one strong voice to influence the actions a certain way to achieve a certain goal. so far the prominent goal that is presented is that Iraq should be left alone. That the US and coalition forces should leave. That is a goal of an insurgency to deny a larger force control over an area

Yes there is many different sides in Iraq. But are they fighting for the same goal; Baghdad? Really it looks like they are just looking for peace, together. But there is some bad apples in the basket.

@Baddo:

I am NOT A SOLDIER! I'm a Marine. There is a difference between a Marine and a soldier. For one thing confusing a Marine to be in the army is an insult. Marines go through more training and the training is a much more strenuous. A little secret: In the United States there is an unofficial competition between branches of the military. It's bad between Marines and soldiers. Apparently it's worse between sailors and soldiers.

Also, about the reasons for the war:

Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

Intelligence and Security Committee, Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction – Intelligence and Assessments

Inquiry into Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Take your pick.

Quote[/b] ]Your comment sounds to me like you really think you can make the situation in Iraq better by going there as part of the U.S. Military. And if people aren't ready to do that, they are cowards?

Not standing up for something someone believes in defines a coward to me.

Quote[/b] ]Just remember, if you do go to Iraq as a soldier of the U.S. Military, bear in mind that you were not invited. Thus, Improvised Explosive Devices are to be expected!

I'm not worried about IEDs I'm worried about the person who is going to be in the same sh!t I'll be in. Worrying if he'll make it home alive.

Quote[/b] ]You need to consider very carefully if you want to be a part of the destruction going on in the Middle East.

Your life would be much better if you took part in something constructive.

I'm actually doing something instead of sitting and watching whats going on. I feel better off knowing first-hand whats going on there and being able to influence at the same time than getting some chopped up report from someone who goes home and sleeps miles away from what they just talked about. Since I got a few welding certificates, I might be able to help out on constructing something like a bridge. The chances are slim but it isn't as slim as being part of a working party over there.

[baddo 0]

Sophion-Black,

it is great that you have found the reasons for the war... I prefer to hear it from the White House though, and as far as I know, the White House has been unable to prove that the reasons they gave to the public were true.  If they could have proved that the reasons were true, they would certainly have done it already, don't you think?

I am sorry I used the word "soldier". Now that I look at it again, and think about what you said, I understand I should not have done so. My sincerest apologies.

Best Regards,

Baddo.

[simba 0]

sol·dier

n.

1. One who serves in an army.

2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.

3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

4.

1. A sexually undeveloped form of certain ants and termites, having large heads and powerful jaws.

2. One of a group of honeybees that swarm in defense of a hive.

I think that's the right definition

no seriously, marines are soldiers, who cares about the marines jargon.

[wex-q 0]

I am NOT A SOLDIER! I'm a Marine.

Ah, the beauty of the US is their belief of always being the best. Even when comparing each other.

Now that's civilized!

I see a soldier as a guy who carry a gun and shoot people if his mission demands it (which can be taken to a far extent of what the mission is, so don't bother). So in my eyes, a Soldier (note large S) and a Marine are both soldiers (note small s),but there is the same kind of difference between a chef and a waitor, as a soldier and a marine.

Just depends on how we see it.

Also, keep in mind, Baddo is from Finland, and not a overproud immigrant serving for a country not really his (no offence), so he might not know of the difference. Seemingly you do, and why not, you are a marine, not a soldier, right?

Not meaning to trash you or anything, or trash any US citizen, but I think the whole "I aint no soldier, I'm a Marine" thingie is just ridiculous. And before you say anything, I know that Marines go through more extensive training, and have higher demands on both mental and physical strenght, as well as education, but from the bottom down, you are still two humans, carrying guns and shooting people in what you are believing is good.

Again, I am not trashing this, I have a very one-sided view on many conflicts, in where I belive that war is the only solution. So I am not saying "Peace in the world/USA is the root of all evil"-bla bla bla and so on, but, again, the difference between a soldier and a marine is to small for me to make any difference.

Even so, I do call a marine; "marine", and a soldier; "soldier". It's just a matter of pride.

What is the difference between a suicide bomber, who's killing for what he believes is right and what he belives he is protecting, to you, who stands and say:

"Shut up, you fool, I'm no soldier. I am a marine!"?

no seriously, marines are soldiers, who cares about the marines jargon.

Can't agree more with that.

[-Snafu- 77]

I am NOT A SOLDIER! I'm a Marine. There is a difference between a Marine and a soldier.  

Since I got a few welding certificates, I might be able to help out on constructing something like a bridge. The chances are slim but it isn't as slim as being part of a working party over there.

There certainly is a difference between a Marine and a soldier. The big, major difference is that the Marine can count on his own aircraft flown by Marines who's purpose is to provide air support for the Marines on the ground. Meanwhile the poor soldier is stuck with the Air Force, a seperate entity that is not interested in gunships or CAS aircraft for supporting the army. They want sleek and shiny jets to fight other jets and big useless bombers.

A soldier is just as good as a Marine but the Army can't help the fact that they have to rely on a seperate force for air support thus hampering their combat capabilities.

You would not have had to do a lot of rebuilding if it had not been for the Air Force bombing uneccesary targets like bridges which the troops would need later on for their advance. They also bombed 'HQ' buildings in population centres causing collateral damage and thus pissing off some young lads who are now seething for revenge. These young men are then further enraged that power stations were bombed causing them to have no electricity, making life harder for their families. The ground forces now arriving late because of bombed out bridges enter the city which now has some angry men armed with AK's hiding in the shadows.

The reason the Air Force did all this pointless bombing of vital Iraqi infrastructure was to try and justify their existence as a seperate force in the US Military so all the Air Force commanders can keep their big fat salaries. And that they hate working for the Army.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your comment sounds to me like you really think you can make the situation in Iraq better by going there as part of the U.S. Military. And if people aren't ready to do that, they are cowards?

Not standing up for something someone believes in defines a coward to me.

Poor americans who actually think that their country has no business being there in the first place (just like the rest of the world, remember, the UN didn't give any green light for the invasion)...

As for your reasons, so far no WMDs have been found, nor any other substantial reason proven correct as to why Iraq should have been... "liberated". Well, at least now the iraqi people is now "free" to be blown up on their streets at any given time, and not the entire U.S. Armed Forces collective there present can do a damn thing about it... I have seen so many testimonies now from iraqi people actually wishing Saddam back... I bet you must be proud about that too... I just wonder what the heck your army is thinking that it's going to achieve... it'll all go to hell when you leave anyway, bet on it...

[Baff1 0]

The U.N. also didn't give any green light for the invasion of Kosovo.  

The U.N. isn't in a position to "green light" anything. It is a diplomatic institution, not the world government.

On the civil war in Iraq, there clearly is a civil "war" to some extent.

However labelling it a "civil war" seems inflamatory and a little bit disengenuous.

It is closer to anarchy than civil war.

It is not two or even three major sides facing off with each other for ultimate control of the country, it is a series of isolated local factions facing off with each other for control over their respective villages.

It isn't for example Sunni against Shia against Kurd in a civil war.

Althought the fights clearly are denominated by clan and each clan denomitated by religion, it isn't a nation wide movement but rather a whole load of isolated uncontroled factional disputes.

Local Warlord vs Local Warlord.

Fuedalism or an anarchy.

(In the absence of centralised goverment, this is how nations are traditionally born).

@ the marine guy. A marine is a soldier. Get over yourself.

Specifically it is the the type of soldier that is attached to a naval vessel.

(As opposed to a paratrooper who is detached from a plane).

The EU.

The EU is not just a trade federation. (That's all Darth Vaders lot were too).

The EU has a charter of human rights and policies on immigration and policing. It is a legal entity complete with it's own law court.

The EEC used to be a an "Economic Community", but the E for economic was dropped when it became the EC. Since the Masstricht treaty it has become the EU. The European Union.

cf the State of the Union speech. The Union Jack.

The EU has it's own flag, it's own parliament, it's own judiciary, it's own elections and elected ministers, and even has it's own army, (which is currently deployed in the baltic states). The EU hasn't been an economic federation only for at least 15 years now. In fact strictly speaking it has never been one.

It is however as you suggest very fractious and I wouldn't count on any collaboration from the EU in Iraq. About half of it's member states got involved and about half did not.

As for the armies acheivements. Speaking as a Brit. I'm proud.

Saddam is deposed. Iraq n o longer militarily threatens our intrests in Kuwait and Saudi. The trade embargoes are now over so we can make money in Iraq again.

We've sent a very clear message to Iran and even Syria and Libia that we can and will intervene anytime we don't like what we see.

Our mission has been a massive success. Minimal friendly casualties.

We are holding the ports and airports we wanted. Our troops aren't mired in the cities fighting the Stalingrad Saddam had planned for us.

Quite honestly it couldn't really have gone much better than it has.

We managed to stick around in the centre of Basra policing and peacekeeping for a few pointless years to appease all the left wing bleeding hearts at home. We even stuck around for a half a year to appease our allies in the Whitehouse.

Job done. Massive success.

The Americans will be next.

 

The hardest part of winning this war has been appeasing domestic public opinion.

You see Bush never thought there were any WMD. Nor did Blair.  That wasn't their reasons for going to war. That was their way of appeasing domestic public opinion.

It's not them who were idiots for saying it.

It is those who thought it mattered that are the fools.

Fools with votes.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]civil war

n.

A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Multiple factions (religious, political, military)....check

Iraqi on Iraqi violence due to factions....check

Breakdown of political boundries and controls....check

Not sure what else you want to call it what it is.

What exactly do you expect from a civil war?

Quote[/b] ]Not standing up for something someone believes in defines a coward to me.

Well good. I full-heartedly oppose this war and the Bush Administration and I am sticking by my beliefs by 1) not going to a Iraq and 2) Not voting last election for Dumbass McPresident.

Course it is also a brave man that can see he is being made a fool of by those who are playing on his beliefs.

[-Snafu- 77]

As for the armies acheivements. Speaking as a Brit. I'm proud.

Saddam is deposed. Iraq n o longer militarily threatens our intrests in Kuwait and Saudi. The trade embargoes are now over so we can make money in Iraq again.

We've sent a very clear message to Iran and even Syria and Libia that we can and will intervene anytime we don't like what we see.

Our mission has been a massive success. Minimal friendly casualties.

We are holding the ports and airports we wanted. Our troops aren't mired in the cities fighting the Stalingrad Saddam had planned for us.

Quite honestly it couldn't really have gone much better than it has.

We managed to stick around in the centre of Basra policing and peacekeeping for a few pointless years to appease all the left wing bleeding hearts at home. We even stuck around for a half a year to appease our allies in the Whitehouse.

Job done. Massive success.

You are a fool with a vote. You clearly do not know the state that the British Armed Forces are in (go here if you want to know more www.lewispage.co.uk - brilliant book with a wealth of information) . They are in no position to challenge any other country at this point in time.

Moreover 'our mission' was not a 'massive success' and it definitely could have gone a fuckin helluva lot better. We have soldiers dying out there so the rich and powerful can earn even more cash than they already have from various interests that are now in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure a lot of soldiers in the Army would disagree - and I'm putting that politely - with the statement you have just made here.

[chops 111]

The U.N. also didn't give any green light for the invasion of Kosovo.

The U.N. isn't in a position to "green light" anything. It is a diplomatic institution, not the world government.

Obviously you're right in the fact that the UN is not a world government, it is however a forum for the rest of humanity to voice their opinions on what's happening.

It's also disturbing to note how the US used non-compliance with UN security council resolutions as justification to "Disarm Sadam", then invaded despite no backing from the very same UN security council .

Not to mention the gross double standards applied by the US, considering the much higher number of UN resolutions Israel has defied with impunity.

You see Bush never thought there were any WMD. Nor did Blair. That wasn't their reasons for going to war. That was their way of appeasing domestic public opinion.

It's not them who were idiots for saying it.

It is those who thought it mattered that are the fools.

Fools with votes.

So it's fine to be a lying warmonger then? As long as you don't believe your own lies? I'd hardly call it foolish to expect elected representatives conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. If democracy is just a vehicle for the rich, powerful and disgraceful to get obtain more power still, if it is so flawed, why is it so vital it be forced upon Iraq?

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

So it's fine to be a lying warmonger then? As long as you don't believe your own lies? I'd hardly call it foolish to expect elected representatives conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. If democracy is just a vehicle for the rich, powerful and disgraceful to get obtain more power still, if it is so flawed, why is it so vital it be forced upon Iraq?

I stand corrected, and Chops, you posted what I actually meant (that the US and british went into Iraq without any UN baking).

But I must say Baff1 is right on the issue of political righteousness. Politicians in any democracy are bullshitters by nature because the only interest they work for is their own - everything they do is for their gain, in one way or the other. Why it is necessary to bring democracy to Iraq, in the view of the U.S. and U.K., methinks, was because since it wasn't a democracy, it was an important country (due to the oil) that could not be "manipulated" by the most powerful democracies as much as if it were a democracy itself. That's the only truth of it. And Saddam was even against the power of the western democracies, so in order for the west to be able to secure their hold on Iraq's oil, they had to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam. It is so true as to be proven by 1. the lack of bogey WMDs that were supposed to be found and 2. the lack of any realistic knowledge and planning of what would happen to Iraq once it got "liberated" from Saddam. For once, the "Forces of Freedom and Liberty" found no simpathizers (spelling?) amongst the people they were sent to "liberate"...

[-Snafu- 77]

BUZZARD @ Oct. 24 2007,17:21)]

So it's fine to be a lying warmonger then? As long as you don't believe your own lies? I'd hardly call it foolish to expect elected representatives conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. If democracy is just a vehicle for the rich, powerful and disgraceful to get obtain more power still, if it is so flawed, why is it so vital it be forced upon Iraq?

I stand corrected, and Chops, you posted what I actually meant (that the US and british went into Iraq without any UN baking).

But I must say Baff1 is right on the issue of political righteousness. Politicians in any democracy are bullshitters by nature because the only interest they work for is their own - everything they do is for their gain, in one way or the other. Why it is necessary to bring democracy to Iraq, in the view of the U.S. and U.K., methinks, was because since it wasn't a democracy, it was an important country (due to the oil) that could not be "manipulated" by the most powerful democracies as much as if it were a democracy itself. That's the only truth of it. And Saddam was even against the power of the western democracies, so in order for the west to be able to secure their hold on Iraq's oil, they had to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam. It is so true as to be proven by 1. the lack of bogey WMDs that were supposed to be found and 2. the lack of any realistic knowledge and planning of what would happen to Iraq once it got "liberated" from Saddam. For once, the "Forces of Freedom and Libertyâ„¢" found no simpathizers (spelling?) amongst the people they were sent to "liberate"...

It's not just an oil boom in Iraq but also a 'security boom'. Private Military Companies are earning millions of dollars from 'protecting' the interests of companies and governments. I believe it was The Times that said 'it was not an oil boom in Iraq, but a security boom' and how right they are. Blackwater USA are now a force to be reckoned with. They are rich, powerful and headed by a Christian/Catholic neo-con called Erik Prince. They now excercise a fair amount of power in US politics. An end to the Iraq conflict would mean a huge loss in profit and power for various PMC's. If you want to know more Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army provides a brilliant insight into the lucrative world of security.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

You are a fool with a vote. You clearly do not know the state that the British Armed Forces are in (go here if you want to know more www.lewispage.co.uk - brilliant book with a wealth of information) . They are in no position to challenge any other country at this point in time.

Moreover 'our mission' was not a 'massive success' and it definitely could have gone a fuckin helluva lot better. We have soldiers dying out there so the rich and powerful can earn even more cash than they already have from various interests that are now in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure a lot of soldiers in the Army would disagree - and I'm putting that politely - with the statement you have just made here.

i think however alot of soldiers would also agree with Baff1.  The armys shape is not brilliant, but its also not as bad as the major newspapers like to make out.  Everyones open to there view, theres no point arguing on a forum, and there is especially no point in petty insults (in my view theres no such thing as a fool with a vote, only fools who dont use votes), your point is valid, as is his.  

anyway i wanted to talk a little on Turkey.  Personally i think there perfectly entitled to protect there borders,  afterall they are definatly facing 'terrorists' or itleast gurilla style fighters.  However i also think if Turkey want to actually solve this problem they need to start treating the kurds a hell of alot better.  Whats your guys take?

[-Snafu- 77]

You are a fool with a vote. You clearly do not know the state that the British Armed Forces are in (go here if you want to know more www.lewispage.co.uk - brilliant book with a wealth of information) . They are in no position to challenge any other country at this point in time.

Moreover 'our mission' was not a 'massive success' and it definitely could have gone a fuckin helluva lot better. We have soldiers dying out there so the rich and powerful can earn even more cash than they already have from various interests that are now in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure a lot of soldiers in the Army would disagree - and I'm putting that politely - with the statement you have just made here.

i think however alot of soldiers would also agree with Baff1.  The armys shape is not brilliant, but its also not as bad as the major newspapers like to make out.  Everyones open to there view, theres no point arguing on a forum, and there is especially no point in petty insults (in my view theres no such thing as a fool with a vote,  only fools who dont use votes), your point is valid, as is his.  

anyway i wanted to talk a little on Turkey.  Personally i think there perfectly entitled to protect there borders,  afterall they are definatly facing 'terrorists' or itleast gurilla style fighters.  However i also think if Turkey want to actually solve this problem they need to start treating the kurds a hell of alot better.  Whats your guys take?

Agree? With what? The mission being a success? Britain earning money out of it? I doubt it. After all they are still there in the line of fire, pretty sure they don't want to be there. The vast majority hate Blair's guts for sending them there. Britain may be making money out of it, but what do the soldiers get in return? Nothing.

My point about the army's shape is not taken from the media. The only stories that the media cling onto are simple ones. For example the Snatch Landrover not being armoured enough and the media suggesting that the soldiers needed big, slow and impossible armoured vehicles (like an APC - Chally 2 crossover - logistically impossible and extremely expensive). While most soldiers preffered the Snatch for it's ability to get out of a situation quickly.

My opinions are taken from an extremely well researched book that actually takes a critical look at the present composition and organisation of HM Forces. The author is also a veteran of the forces himself.

He argues that the forces are not equipped to fight the types of wars we are fighting now. For example the Navy keeps ordering expensive and useless frigates. How are they supposed to help fight low intensity urban conflicts? Not to mention the fact they are useless for fighting subs. I could cite a lot more examples.

There is a point in arguing over defence. It NEEDS to be under proper public scrutiny. Not the media type ie the Snatch Landrover.

I strongly suggest you buy Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the military by Lewis Page (www.lewispage.co.uk). It is a very recent book and it will open your eyes to how corrupt defence procurement is. If you care the slightest bit about the forces then you should buy it. After all, don't you want the Army to have the best chance of winning this war?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i dont want to get into this argument but ill give my opinion, then i think we should leave it at that.  The army has spent millions in recent times.  The Apache Longbow was purchased specificly for close air infantry support.  The Snatch Landrover may not be armored enough, but one advantage is that it is fast.  Ive talked to many of my friends who have served in Iraq and they have mentioned how they have managed to get out of sticky situations by stepping on it.  Also we have all seen the vidios of what can still happen to armored veicles, eg.  The Warrior.  The strange thing is, this general view of the army is poorly equipped,  led by incapable leaders and is failing its job is not the general view of the people who serve in it,  the people who know it best.

A word on the Navy,  Frigates are increasingly important in modern warfare.  What ships do you think are protecting the sea bound oil platforms off the coast of Kuwait,  or carrying out searches on ships smuggeling drugs.  What is the point in purchasing extremely expencive ships to combat submarines when a conflict where that is percivable simply dosnt yet exist.  That would be a real waste of money  (particlularly when much cheaper air alternatives are available and just as capable at doint the job : EH-101 Merlin).  To me the Navy has done EXACTLY what your complaining is not being done,  its adapting itself to the modern world, and its modern roles.

The navys job is not to deal with Urban Conflicts, thats not a fair comment.  That is specificly for the Army and to a degree the RAF (though with US air support there protity in iraq is logistical sorties).  That is the equivilant of having a boiler break down and complaining that a bricklayer dosnt have the skills to fix it.  Better still its like complaining that the Army does not have the capability to quickly lauch a task force half-way across the earth.  Alas the navy does.

There are two sides to every argumant.  One thing i will say that i believe needs to be done.  I think the RAF is failing in one of its roles.  I believe it can no longer provide effective close air support.  It has the swankie jet power for strategic strikes,  or dealing with enemy armor positons, however it has nothing to help the infantry in the modern conflict.  As a result the army air corp's resorces are stretched to the max in the operation theatre.  I think the purchase of a new attack helicopter would be a positive move.