deep
Blue Crack Addict
I do not believe in "Us against Them"
It is only "Us against Us"
It is only "Us against Us"
The Toll Grows Higher and Higher -6,100 to 7,800 have been killed.
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
There are no translators in Iraq! That's crazy. How can we communicate with them without people who speak Arabic?
There is no reliable statistic on the number of Iraqi civilians killed in fighting. Prior to the fall of Baghdad, the Saddam's regime figure was 1,400 , a figure bound to be inflated. In addition, any simple list from a hospital often will not be able to reliably say whether the victim died as a result of Iraqi Military, Civilian, Coalition forces, or some other factor.
Republican Guard forces often herded civilians into area's around potential targets as the coalition advanced on Baghdad.
One of my best friends who is a Cobra Helicopter Pilot and is stationed in Southern Iraq and Kuwait, just recently got the opportunity to do some flying over Baghdad. He was amazed at the remains of the precision bombing strikes that left Government buildings totally destroyed, but left buildings next to them totally unscathed.
Mass graves containing the estimated 1 million Iraqi's murdered during Saddam's reign in power continue to be found.
Republican Guard forces often herded civilians into area's around potential targets as the coalition advanced on Baghdad.
One of my best friends who is a Cobra Helicopter Pilot and is stationed in Southern Iraq and Kuwait, just recently got the opportunity to do some flying over Baghdad. He was amazed at the remains of the precision bombing strikes that left Government buildings totally destroyed, but left buildings next to them totally unscathed.
Mass graves containing the estimated 1 million Iraqi's murdered during Saddam's reign in power continue to be found.
Klaus
Refugee
STING2: you are right, Mr. Hussein was much worse than Mr. Bush.
But you know that precicion bombing isn't 100% acurate, as far as i remember it was about 70% of the precicion bombs who hit their target exactly. The other 30% can result in colateral damage.
Also there is the risk of bad information. If your Missile hits exactly where you targeted it to but the target was based on wrong or outdated informations you can still kill hundreds of civilians.
Then there were cluster bombs which arn't precicion bombing at all.
And - not to forget - the terrible accidents. For example the killed Policemen where US troops thought they were attacked while the Policemen tried to hunt down a terrorist (Trikkit).
A war without killing innocent civilians is still a hope for the future. This war was much better than some of us expected, but it was still worse than the things we could see at the US-Military propaganda videos.
Anyway, we can't turn back time and undo the mistakes which have bin made. The only thing we can do is analyze the things that went wrong to make them less likely in the future.
Klaus
But you know that precicion bombing isn't 100% acurate, as far as i remember it was about 70% of the precicion bombs who hit their target exactly. The other 30% can result in colateral damage.
Also there is the risk of bad information. If your Missile hits exactly where you targeted it to but the target was based on wrong or outdated informations you can still kill hundreds of civilians.
Then there were cluster bombs which arn't precicion bombing at all.
And - not to forget - the terrible accidents. For example the killed Policemen where US troops thought they were attacked while the Policemen tried to hunt down a terrorist (Trikkit).
A war without killing innocent civilians is still a hope for the future. This war was much better than some of us expected, but it was still worse than the things we could see at the US-Military propaganda videos.
Anyway, we can't turn back time and undo the mistakes which have bin made. The only thing we can do is analyze the things that went wrong to make them less likely in the future.
Klaus
"please, please, why did you shoot my son? We are celebrating his sister's wedding? What threat was he?"
"Sorry about the mistake ma'am, you have my heartfelt condolances. Ma'am you must realise that Saddam killed 1 million people. So do you understand why you child is an acceptable casualty? I have a nice chart with all the numbers and figures, it should explain everything and ease your suffering. This is why it's okay that I killed your son."
"Oh, sorry to bother you soldier. I didn't realise. Thanks for the liberation!"
"Sorry about the mistake ma'am, you have my heartfelt condolances. Ma'am you must realise that Saddam killed 1 million people. So do you understand why you child is an acceptable casualty? I have a nice chart with all the numbers and figures, it should explain everything and ease your suffering. This is why it's okay that I killed your son."
"Oh, sorry to bother you soldier. I didn't realise. Thanks for the liberation!"
Scarletwine
New Yorker
I tend to believe IraqiBodyCount and personal observations over anyone else.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4793.htm
On the walls of the city mortuary, families have for weeks left photographs of those who have simply disappeared. "We lost Mr Abdul-emir al-Noor al-Moussawi last Wednesday, 11 June, 2003, in Baghdad," it says beneath the photograph of a dignified man in suit and tie. "He is 71 years old. Hair white. Wearing a grey dishdash. A reward will be paid to anyone with information." Or there is 16-year-old Beida Jaffer Sadr, a schoolgirl apparently kidnapped in Baghdad - her story has already been told in The Independent - whose father's telephone number is printed below her picture. "Blond hair, brown eyes, wearing a black skirt," it says.
The occupation powers, the so-called "Provisional Coalition Authority", love statistics when they are useful. They can tell you the number of newly re-opened schools, newly appointed doctors and the previous day's oil production in seconds. The daily slaughter of Iraq's innocents, needless to say, is not among their figures. So here are a few statistics. On Wednesday of last week, the Baghdad city morgue received 19 corpses, of which 11 were victims of gunfire. The next day, the morticians received 11 dead, of whom five had been killed by bullets. In May, approximately 300 murder victims were brought to the morgue, in June around 500, in July 600, last month about 700. In all of July of last year - under Saddam's regime - Dr Abdullah Razak, the deputy head of the morgue, says that only 21 gunshot victims were brought in.
Of course, it's possible to put a gloss on all this. Saddam ruled through terror. If there was security in Baghdad under his regime, there was mass murder in Kurdistan and in the Shia south of Iraq. Tens of thousands have been found in the mass graves of Iraq, men - and women - who had no death certificates, no funerals, no justice. At the Abu Ghraib prison, the head doctor, Hussain Majid - who has been reappointed by the prison's new American guards - told me that when "security prisoners" were hanged at night, he was ordered not to issue death certificates.
It might be argued that under the previous regime, the government committed the crimes. Now, the people commit them. How can the Americans be held to account for honour killings? But they are accountable, for it is the duty of the occupying power to protect the people under their control. The mandate of the CPA requires it to care for the people of Iraq. And they don't care.
None of the above statistics take into account the hundreds of shooting incidents in which the victims are wounded rather than killed. In the Kindi hospital, for example, I come across a man whose father was caretaker of a factory. "Looters came and he opened fire on them and then the Americans came and shot my father because he was holding his gun," he said. "He's had two operations, and he'll live. But no one came to see us. No one came to say sorry. Nobody cared."
One of the most recent corpses to arrive is that of Saad Mohamed Sultan. He was an official interpreter for the occupying powers and was, incredibly, shot dead by an American soldier on a convoy as he travelled with an Italian diplomat to Mosul. After shooting him, the Americans drove calmly on. They didn't bother to stop to find out who they'd killed. Saad was 35. He had a wife and two children.
This doesn't take into account those dying from bad water, lack of food and medicines.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4793.htm
On the walls of the city mortuary, families have for weeks left photographs of those who have simply disappeared. "We lost Mr Abdul-emir al-Noor al-Moussawi last Wednesday, 11 June, 2003, in Baghdad," it says beneath the photograph of a dignified man in suit and tie. "He is 71 years old. Hair white. Wearing a grey dishdash. A reward will be paid to anyone with information." Or there is 16-year-old Beida Jaffer Sadr, a schoolgirl apparently kidnapped in Baghdad - her story has already been told in The Independent - whose father's telephone number is printed below her picture. "Blond hair, brown eyes, wearing a black skirt," it says.
The occupation powers, the so-called "Provisional Coalition Authority", love statistics when they are useful. They can tell you the number of newly re-opened schools, newly appointed doctors and the previous day's oil production in seconds. The daily slaughter of Iraq's innocents, needless to say, is not among their figures. So here are a few statistics. On Wednesday of last week, the Baghdad city morgue received 19 corpses, of which 11 were victims of gunfire. The next day, the morticians received 11 dead, of whom five had been killed by bullets. In May, approximately 300 murder victims were brought to the morgue, in June around 500, in July 600, last month about 700. In all of July of last year - under Saddam's regime - Dr Abdullah Razak, the deputy head of the morgue, says that only 21 gunshot victims were brought in.
Of course, it's possible to put a gloss on all this. Saddam ruled through terror. If there was security in Baghdad under his regime, there was mass murder in Kurdistan and in the Shia south of Iraq. Tens of thousands have been found in the mass graves of Iraq, men - and women - who had no death certificates, no funerals, no justice. At the Abu Ghraib prison, the head doctor, Hussain Majid - who has been reappointed by the prison's new American guards - told me that when "security prisoners" were hanged at night, he was ordered not to issue death certificates.
It might be argued that under the previous regime, the government committed the crimes. Now, the people commit them. How can the Americans be held to account for honour killings? But they are accountable, for it is the duty of the occupying power to protect the people under their control. The mandate of the CPA requires it to care for the people of Iraq. And they don't care.
None of the above statistics take into account the hundreds of shooting incidents in which the victims are wounded rather than killed. In the Kindi hospital, for example, I come across a man whose father was caretaker of a factory. "Looters came and he opened fire on them and then the Americans came and shot my father because he was holding his gun," he said. "He's had two operations, and he'll live. But no one came to see us. No one came to say sorry. Nobody cared."
One of the most recent corpses to arrive is that of Saad Mohamed Sultan. He was an official interpreter for the occupying powers and was, incredibly, shot dead by an American soldier on a convoy as he travelled with an Italian diplomat to Mosul. After shooting him, the Americans drove calmly on. They didn't bother to stop to find out who they'd killed. Saad was 35. He had a wife and two children.
This doesn't take into account those dying from bad water, lack of food and medicines.
Klaus
Refugee
I think some people in the US simply can't imagine these high number of death civilians, because the media dosn't report about many "accidents" in the US which are reported in other countries.
Many people trust their government (which isn't a bad thing in general). And as long as the government dosn't publish any numbers of the "colaterale damage" they don't think about the thousands of dead men, women and children - so the tactics of the Pentagon works
Klaus
Many people trust their government (which isn't a bad thing in general). And as long as the government dosn't publish any numbers of the "colaterale damage" they don't think about the thousands of dead men, women and children - so the tactics of the Pentagon works
Klaus
iacrobat,
Detailed forensic studies of the victims can help to determine how they died and from what. This was done in Jenin back in the Spring of 2002. Palestinians, Europeans and others claimed that Israel had massacred 7,000 Civilians at Jenin. The UN forensic teams later determined that only 48 civilians had been killed, and none had been executed but appeared to have died as result of being caught in the crossfire between Israely troops and Palestinian terrorist. Its not perfect, but news media reports are so often inaccurate. A Mass Grave with thousands of bodies tells the real story. These are being found in multiple area's of Iraq and tell the true story of Saddam's brutality which is too often ignored by many.
Detailed forensic studies of the victims can help to determine how they died and from what. This was done in Jenin back in the Spring of 2002. Palestinians, Europeans and others claimed that Israel had massacred 7,000 Civilians at Jenin. The UN forensic teams later determined that only 48 civilians had been killed, and none had been executed but appeared to have died as result of being caught in the crossfire between Israely troops and Palestinian terrorist. Its not perfect, but news media reports are so often inaccurate. A Mass Grave with thousands of bodies tells the real story. These are being found in multiple area's of Iraq and tell the true story of Saddam's brutality which is too often ignored by many.
Klaus,
"you are right, Mr. Hussein was much worse than Mr. Bush."
I'm shocked you would even compare the two.
"But you know that precicion bombing isn't 100% acurate, as far as i remember it was about 70% of the precicion bombs who hit their target exactly. The other 30% can result in colateral damage."
"Also there is the risk of bad information. If your Missile hits exactly where you targeted it to but the target was based on wrong or outdated informations you can still kill hundreds of civilians."
This is true to a certain extent but the accuracy of precicion bombing has improved greatly since the 1991 Gulf War and in the War in 2003, the accuracy of the precision weapons appears to have been above 99%. Thanks to those who voted for increase in defense spending which allowed for new and more accurate technology to be used in these precision weapons there by saving more civilian lives.
"Then there were cluster bombs which arn't precicion bombing at all."
This is not entirely true since the scatter area for cluster bomb units is not that large compared to the entire battlefield. Cluster Bombs will be used on a specific area targeting an enemy force in that area. Also, depending on the type of cluster bomb used, some seek out armored targets specifically.
"And - not to forget - the terrible accidents. For example the killed Policemen where US troops thought they were attacked while the Policemen tried to hunt down a terrorist (Trikkit)."
This was a terrible accident that could have happened in any setting, time or place.
"A war without killing innocent civilians is still a hope for the future. This war was much better than some of us expected, but it was still worse than the things we could see at the US-Military propaganda videos."
The US Military is not engaged in propaganda. The US Military has shown video's of friendly fire incidents contrary to liberals who believe the Military only shows one side of the story.
"I think some people in the US simply can't imagine these high number of death civilians, because the media dosn't report about many "accidents" in the US which are reported in other countries.
Many people trust their government (which isn't a bad thing in general). And as long as the government dosn't publish any numbers of the "colaterale damage" they don't think about the thousands of dead men, women and children - so the tactics of the Pentagon works"
In terms of war, even the alleged claims by "Iraqibodycount.com", are very low. Far lower than most European and Anti-War advocates predicted prior to the start of the war. Most of them were projecting that over 900,000 Iraqi civilians would die in the war. They were grossly wrong on this point. Rather than Americans not being able to imagine the number of people that have died, it seems to be liberal organizations and Europeans can't imagine that there projections were so widely off the mark.
The allegations made against the Israely Defense Force and its conduct in Jenin and the results of the Jenin actions closely follow the same allegations made against the US Government and US military. These organizations and groups were proven wrong in the Jenin case as well as their pre-Iraq war predictions.
"you are right, Mr. Hussein was much worse than Mr. Bush."
I'm shocked you would even compare the two.
"But you know that precicion bombing isn't 100% acurate, as far as i remember it was about 70% of the precicion bombs who hit their target exactly. The other 30% can result in colateral damage."
"Also there is the risk of bad information. If your Missile hits exactly where you targeted it to but the target was based on wrong or outdated informations you can still kill hundreds of civilians."
This is true to a certain extent but the accuracy of precicion bombing has improved greatly since the 1991 Gulf War and in the War in 2003, the accuracy of the precision weapons appears to have been above 99%. Thanks to those who voted for increase in defense spending which allowed for new and more accurate technology to be used in these precision weapons there by saving more civilian lives.
"Then there were cluster bombs which arn't precicion bombing at all."
This is not entirely true since the scatter area for cluster bomb units is not that large compared to the entire battlefield. Cluster Bombs will be used on a specific area targeting an enemy force in that area. Also, depending on the type of cluster bomb used, some seek out armored targets specifically.
"And - not to forget - the terrible accidents. For example the killed Policemen where US troops thought they were attacked while the Policemen tried to hunt down a terrorist (Trikkit)."
This was a terrible accident that could have happened in any setting, time or place.
"A war without killing innocent civilians is still a hope for the future. This war was much better than some of us expected, but it was still worse than the things we could see at the US-Military propaganda videos."
The US Military is not engaged in propaganda. The US Military has shown video's of friendly fire incidents contrary to liberals who believe the Military only shows one side of the story.
"I think some people in the US simply can't imagine these high number of death civilians, because the media dosn't report about many "accidents" in the US which are reported in other countries.
Many people trust their government (which isn't a bad thing in general). And as long as the government dosn't publish any numbers of the "colaterale damage" they don't think about the thousands of dead men, women and children - so the tactics of the Pentagon works"
In terms of war, even the alleged claims by "Iraqibodycount.com", are very low. Far lower than most European and Anti-War advocates predicted prior to the start of the war. Most of them were projecting that over 900,000 Iraqi civilians would die in the war. They were grossly wrong on this point. Rather than Americans not being able to imagine the number of people that have died, it seems to be liberal organizations and Europeans can't imagine that there projections were so widely off the mark.
The allegations made against the Israely Defense Force and its conduct in Jenin and the results of the Jenin actions closely follow the same allegations made against the US Government and US military. These organizations and groups were proven wrong in the Jenin case as well as their pre-Iraq war predictions.
Scarletwine,
1.7 million died because of Saddam's rule. Have you ever thought about how many Iraqi's would have died if Saddam had continued to rule for the past 6 months? The statistics for murder cited in Baghdad currently would be a tiny fraction of the number.
The idea that Iraq was supposed to turn into Orlando Florida when Saddam was overthrown is the greatest myth being spread by those opposed to the invasion to begin with. Iraq was a third world country with all the problems many third world countries have. In addition it had been subjected to Saddam's brutal rule over the past 24 years that killed over a million Iraqi's.
The place where my good friend is stationed in Iraq, the people don't have electricity, plumbing, or any of the things most people have taken for granted in the 20th century. But this is the way life has always been in these area's. People live the same way their ancestors did over a thousand years ago. Thats the reality outside of Baghdad. The one person to blame for this is Saddam. Saddam could have invested in development of these area's, but he put the countries resources into fighting and attacking his neighbors instead of that.
Because of the Bush Administrations polices, these people have the best opportunity to become apart of the 21st century that they ever had. Had the opponents of the war succeeding in their goals of preventing it, Saddam would have continued his reign in power and the suffering of the people, primarily outside of Baghdad would have continued.
"This doesn't take into account those dying from bad water, lack of food and medicines."
Most Iraqi people have been dealing with this for centuries. It is not something that can be fixed overnight. Nation building and all that it requires is something that takes years if not decades.
1.7 million died because of Saddam's rule. Have you ever thought about how many Iraqi's would have died if Saddam had continued to rule for the past 6 months? The statistics for murder cited in Baghdad currently would be a tiny fraction of the number.
The idea that Iraq was supposed to turn into Orlando Florida when Saddam was overthrown is the greatest myth being spread by those opposed to the invasion to begin with. Iraq was a third world country with all the problems many third world countries have. In addition it had been subjected to Saddam's brutal rule over the past 24 years that killed over a million Iraqi's.
The place where my good friend is stationed in Iraq, the people don't have electricity, plumbing, or any of the things most people have taken for granted in the 20th century. But this is the way life has always been in these area's. People live the same way their ancestors did over a thousand years ago. Thats the reality outside of Baghdad. The one person to blame for this is Saddam. Saddam could have invested in development of these area's, but he put the countries resources into fighting and attacking his neighbors instead of that.
Because of the Bush Administrations polices, these people have the best opportunity to become apart of the 21st century that they ever had. Had the opponents of the war succeeding in their goals of preventing it, Saddam would have continued his reign in power and the suffering of the people, primarily outside of Baghdad would have continued.
"This doesn't take into account those dying from bad water, lack of food and medicines."
Most Iraqi people have been dealing with this for centuries. It is not something that can be fixed overnight. Nation building and all that it requires is something that takes years if not decades.
Klaus
Refugee
STING2:
" I'm shocked you would even compare the two. "
The reason why i compared these people is that you allways start to talk about Mr. Husseins cruelties against humans when we find another human rights violation in iraq or innocent civilians who were shot.
So it looked to me that you were the one who wants to compare.
" This is true to a certain extent but the accuracy of precicion bombing has improved..."
The acuracy of precicion bombs increased, but from my informations it's far from 99%. Anyway, every percentace is important, because it might save a life.
Anyway, it's the wrong thread to discuss about the exact % (we could start a weapons-tech thread for it) i think we can agree that it's below 100% and it's much much better than conventional weapons.
So i can see that the US army tries to avoid colateral damage, but there will still be innocent people dying in a war.
" This is not entirely true since the scatter area for cluster bomb units is not that large compared to the entire battlefield."
How big do you define the Battlefield? the area where there can't be civilists or the entire iraq?
There were Children who lost their life, or some "just" their arms or legs. So it seems to me that the are which was choosen was too big.
" This was a terrible accident that could have happened in any setting, time or place."
Yes, and Accidents like these change the climate at the civilians verry much.
I think that you lost the public support this town when US Soldiers shot into the the masses of the demonstrating people.
And you are right, it can hapen anytime in any setting. But if the whole situation is critical allready (people down there didn't trust the US verry much before the war) it can get out of control completely. That's why the UN tries to get blue helmets from "historical-friendly" countries.
Not like this time in iraq, where the mayority are US soldiers (Iraqis remember that country from things like "who supported the Baath party to get the power in the country" and "who encouraged us to rebell against S.Hussein and left quietly after that"
They remember Great Brtitain as cononisation power from the past, so they haven't been too much in a cheering moode.
"The US Military is not engaged in propaganda..:"
Ok, let me say it in some friendlier words:
the truth of the war was somewhere inbetween the Pentagon-version and the Aljazeera-version.
You're right, there weren't much dead civilians in this war compared to WW1 or WW2. You can feel lucky that this war ended as long as there were enough precicion bombs. You can feel lucky that Saddam wasn't able to arm and use the WMDs in 40 minutes..
And i'm glad for every person who didn't die.
But i feel sad of every person who died.
And the blood of every single person there is on Americas hands, even if you stoped Saddam Huessein from killing other innocent people.
You simply can't say colateraldamage - torturevictiims_of_mr_hussein=?
It was a tragic situation there for a long time. Since the dictator was installed and armed there was no easy way out of this situation.
I never was one of the "numberplayers" before the war.
I know some of them - and they were completely wrong in some parts but they were also right in other things (for expample when they said that the masses won't be cheering with flowers in their hands when you liberate them)
The pentagon was proven wrong several times also, that dosn't mean that they are allwys wrong, just that we should be verry sceptical with their "truth"
Klaus
" I'm shocked you would even compare the two. "
The reason why i compared these people is that you allways start to talk about Mr. Husseins cruelties against humans when we find another human rights violation in iraq or innocent civilians who were shot.
So it looked to me that you were the one who wants to compare.
" This is true to a certain extent but the accuracy of precicion bombing has improved..."
The acuracy of precicion bombs increased, but from my informations it's far from 99%. Anyway, every percentace is important, because it might save a life.
Anyway, it's the wrong thread to discuss about the exact % (we could start a weapons-tech thread for it) i think we can agree that it's below 100% and it's much much better than conventional weapons.
So i can see that the US army tries to avoid colateral damage, but there will still be innocent people dying in a war.
" This is not entirely true since the scatter area for cluster bomb units is not that large compared to the entire battlefield."
How big do you define the Battlefield? the area where there can't be civilists or the entire iraq?
There were Children who lost their life, or some "just" their arms or legs. So it seems to me that the are which was choosen was too big.
" This was a terrible accident that could have happened in any setting, time or place."
Yes, and Accidents like these change the climate at the civilians verry much.
I think that you lost the public support this town when US Soldiers shot into the the masses of the demonstrating people.
And you are right, it can hapen anytime in any setting. But if the whole situation is critical allready (people down there didn't trust the US verry much before the war) it can get out of control completely. That's why the UN tries to get blue helmets from "historical-friendly" countries.
Not like this time in iraq, where the mayority are US soldiers (Iraqis remember that country from things like "who supported the Baath party to get the power in the country" and "who encouraged us to rebell against S.Hussein and left quietly after that"
They remember Great Brtitain as cononisation power from the past, so they haven't been too much in a cheering moode.
"The US Military is not engaged in propaganda..:"
Ok, let me say it in some friendlier words:
the truth of the war was somewhere inbetween the Pentagon-version and the Aljazeera-version.
You're right, there weren't much dead civilians in this war compared to WW1 or WW2. You can feel lucky that this war ended as long as there were enough precicion bombs. You can feel lucky that Saddam wasn't able to arm and use the WMDs in 40 minutes..
And i'm glad for every person who didn't die.
But i feel sad of every person who died.
And the blood of every single person there is on Americas hands, even if you stoped Saddam Huessein from killing other innocent people.
You simply can't say colateraldamage - torturevictiims_of_mr_hussein=?
It was a tragic situation there for a long time. Since the dictator was installed and armed there was no easy way out of this situation.
I never was one of the "numberplayers" before the war.
I know some of them - and they were completely wrong in some parts but they were also right in other things (for expample when they said that the masses won't be cheering with flowers in their hands when you liberate them)
The pentagon was proven wrong several times also, that dosn't mean that they are allwys wrong, just that we should be verry sceptical with their "truth"
Klaus
Klaus,
The person most responsible for the current conditions in Iraq is Saddam Hussein. The difficulties that currently exist in Iraq existed there prior to the war. Saddam used terror and pay backs to his Sunni tribes to keep various people and the country in check.
The reason the people in Iraq have a chance for a brighter future is because of the policies of the Bush administration. The policies of the French and German governments would have left them under the brutal rule of Saddam.
"That's why the UN tries to get blue helmets from "historical-friendly" countries."
We know how the Blue Helmets did in Bosnia. That sat around and watched 250,000 people be slaughtered until the United States took action to stop the war. Security and enforcement of the rule of law require more than lightly armed Blue Helmets.
"the truth of the war was somewhere inbetween the Pentagon-version and the Aljazeera-version."
Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet. None of them profit from their analyses and reporting. Their responsibility is defending the American people.
"You're right, there weren't much dead civilians in this war compared to WW1 or WW2. You can feel lucky that this war ended as long as there were enough precicion bombs. You can feel lucky that Saddam wasn't able to arm and use the WMDs in 40 minutes"
More French Civilians died in August from the heat than Iraqi civilians did in the war. You would be hard pressed to find a war that had a smaller number of civilian losses given the size of the population and the size of the military forces involved in the conflict. Its and amazing success and it was not luck. It was the professionalism, skill, and technology of the US military which kept civilian losses in Iraq so amazingly low.
"And the blood of every single person there is on Americas hands, even if you stoped Saddam Huessein from killing other innocent people.
You simply can't say colateraldamage - torturevictiims_of_mr_hussein=?
It was a tragic situation there for a long time. Since the dictator was installed and armed there was no easy way out of this situation."
There is only blood on Saddam's hands and its amazing how many in the anti-war crowd give him on pass on this by never mentioning him. The colateral damage that happened in this war was TINY. My friends involved in the fighting through out Iraq have reported this. My good friend still there who is a helicopter pilot had flown hundreds of hours over vast stretches of Iraq and has seen more of the country than most people.
"I never was one of the "numberplayers" before the war.
I know some of them - and they were completely wrong in some parts but they were also right in other things (for expample when they said that the masses won't be cheering with flowers in their hands when you liberate them)"
There were large numbers of people in Iraq that celebrated the liberation if you remember what happened with the Saddam statute. Also, most media coverage has focused on Baghdad rather than Shia and Kurdish area's. Many childern in Kurdish North are often named after Bush or Cheney. Its the Sunni minority around Baghdad where the problems and have been but everyone must learn that they do not represent the majority of Iraq.
"The pentagon was proven wrong several times also, that dosn't mean that they are allwys wrong, just that we should be verry sceptical with their "truth""
Where was the Pentagon proven wrong in the latest war?
The person most responsible for the current conditions in Iraq is Saddam Hussein. The difficulties that currently exist in Iraq existed there prior to the war. Saddam used terror and pay backs to his Sunni tribes to keep various people and the country in check.
The reason the people in Iraq have a chance for a brighter future is because of the policies of the Bush administration. The policies of the French and German governments would have left them under the brutal rule of Saddam.
"That's why the UN tries to get blue helmets from "historical-friendly" countries."
We know how the Blue Helmets did in Bosnia. That sat around and watched 250,000 people be slaughtered until the United States took action to stop the war. Security and enforcement of the rule of law require more than lightly armed Blue Helmets.
"the truth of the war was somewhere inbetween the Pentagon-version and the Aljazeera-version."
Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet. None of them profit from their analyses and reporting. Their responsibility is defending the American people.
"You're right, there weren't much dead civilians in this war compared to WW1 or WW2. You can feel lucky that this war ended as long as there were enough precicion bombs. You can feel lucky that Saddam wasn't able to arm and use the WMDs in 40 minutes"
More French Civilians died in August from the heat than Iraqi civilians did in the war. You would be hard pressed to find a war that had a smaller number of civilian losses given the size of the population and the size of the military forces involved in the conflict. Its and amazing success and it was not luck. It was the professionalism, skill, and technology of the US military which kept civilian losses in Iraq so amazingly low.
"And the blood of every single person there is on Americas hands, even if you stoped Saddam Huessein from killing other innocent people.
You simply can't say colateraldamage - torturevictiims_of_mr_hussein=?
It was a tragic situation there for a long time. Since the dictator was installed and armed there was no easy way out of this situation."
There is only blood on Saddam's hands and its amazing how many in the anti-war crowd give him on pass on this by never mentioning him. The colateral damage that happened in this war was TINY. My friends involved in the fighting through out Iraq have reported this. My good friend still there who is a helicopter pilot had flown hundreds of hours over vast stretches of Iraq and has seen more of the country than most people.
"I never was one of the "numberplayers" before the war.
I know some of them - and they were completely wrong in some parts but they were also right in other things (for expample when they said that the masses won't be cheering with flowers in their hands when you liberate them)"
There were large numbers of people in Iraq that celebrated the liberation if you remember what happened with the Saddam statute. Also, most media coverage has focused on Baghdad rather than Shia and Kurdish area's. Many childern in Kurdish North are often named after Bush or Cheney. Its the Sunni minority around Baghdad where the problems and have been but everyone must learn that they do not represent the majority of Iraq.
"The pentagon was proven wrong several times also, that dosn't mean that they are allwys wrong, just that we should be verry sceptical with their "truth""
Where was the Pentagon proven wrong in the latest war?
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Sting, you're right, it's not realistic to expect Iraq, as you say, to become "Orlando, Florida in six months." The hell of the situation is that Iraq has been either under a dictatorship or a complete mess for centuries. But now, there's a power vacuum, and unfortunately terrorist outfits have gotten power. Just today the pseudo-Wahhabists attacked the U.N. people *again*. 
These people are making me really nervous. They are Sunnis, and they seem to have teamed up with Saddam's buddies, also Sunnis, to terrorize both Shias and U.S. and British troops. It seems to me that it's possible that the best trained corps on the planet might not be able to pacify this mess. These people don't give a damn about democratically elected governments. They only understand brute force and terror. This is what makes them so damn dangerous. Can terrorists be tamed? You could say it's worth a try with more of a security apparatus. But you also can't guarantee them success as long as the terrorists have access to guns and bombs.
These people are making me really nervous. They are Sunnis, and they seem to have teamed up with Saddam's buddies, also Sunnis, to terrorize both Shias and U.S. and British troops. It seems to me that it's possible that the best trained corps on the planet might not be able to pacify this mess. These people don't give a damn about democratically elected governments. They only understand brute force and terror. This is what makes them so damn dangerous. Can terrorists be tamed? You could say it's worth a try with more of a security apparatus. But you also can't guarantee them success as long as the terrorists have access to guns and bombs. 
It is not a generalization that there were Europeans, Palestinians and various human rights organizations that claimed that the Israely Defense force massacred civilians, as many as 7,000 by some estimates, at Jenin. The UN investigation prove their allegations to be wrong and way off the mark. Only 48 civilians died at Jenin, none from execution.
STING2 said:
Hmmm...then how do you choose what to believe?
And I think Klaus is right when he says that the truth lies between the pentagon and al-jazeera. I am inclined to trust al-jazeera more than the pentagon.
Al-jazeera has political motives, but not the pentagon, not CNN and every other American network??
I think it is incredibly naive to think that pentagon has only the peace and prosperity of the world in mind. I you meant to say the peace and properity of America, and I add, at every expense.
It is easy for us to sit here and measure evil, we kill less, so we aren't so bad. Less civilians are dying during American rule, so America is not so bad as Saddam.
Try to explain our paper logic to the mother of that boy (let's assume it is true that there is at least on civilian dead). To us there is a difference, to her there is no difference. I have difficulty reconciling this with the measurements of evil that we make.
There should not be anything we say that can justify that child's death. If you are going to justify it to me, you must imagine justifying it to the mother.
Klaus
Refugee
Sthing:
You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation.
"
The reason the people in Iraq have a chance for a brighter future is because of the policies of the Bush administration. The policies of the French and German governments would have left them under the brutal rule of Saddam. "
I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion
And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money.
" We know how the Blue Helmets did in Bosnia. That sat around and watched 250,000 people be slaughtered until the United States took action to stop the war. Security and enforcement of the rule of law require more than lightly armed Blue Helmets. "
I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect.
" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?
"There is only blood on Saddam's hands ...
No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way.
""and its amazing how many in the anti-war crowd give him on pass on this by never mentioning him."
If you look at the past of the ai-urgent actions ai tried to focus on Saddam for a verry long time, i think he's an issue since i am a member of ai.
Just because the public didn't want to hear our Saddam Bashing in the past dosn't mean that we ignored him.
Now Saddam is without big influence on the future. So i'll mention his crimes if anyone would tell me that he wasn't that bad. But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time.
" There were large numbers of people in Iraq that celebrated the liberation if you remember what happened with the Saddam statute"
I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference.
"Where was the Pentagon proven wrong in the latest war?"
I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong
Klaus
You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation.
"
The reason the people in Iraq have a chance for a brighter future is because of the policies of the Bush administration. The policies of the French and German governments would have left them under the brutal rule of Saddam. "
I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion
And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money.
" We know how the Blue Helmets did in Bosnia. That sat around and watched 250,000 people be slaughtered until the United States took action to stop the war. Security and enforcement of the rule of law require more than lightly armed Blue Helmets. "
I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect.
" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?
"There is only blood on Saddam's hands ...
No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way.
""and its amazing how many in the anti-war crowd give him on pass on this by never mentioning him."
If you look at the past of the ai-urgent actions ai tried to focus on Saddam for a verry long time, i think he's an issue since i am a member of ai.
Just because the public didn't want to hear our Saddam Bashing in the past dosn't mean that we ignored him.
Now Saddam is without big influence on the future. So i'll mention his crimes if anyone would tell me that he wasn't that bad. But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time.
" There were large numbers of people in Iraq that celebrated the liberation if you remember what happened with the Saddam statute"
I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference.
"Where was the Pentagon proven wrong in the latest war?"
I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong
Klaus
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:
1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority.
2. American superiority on earth.
They could give a shit about Burma for example, unless it worked into their plans.
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:
1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority.
2. American superiority on earth.
They could give a shit about Burma for example, unless it worked into their plans.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Sting,
I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east.
Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally)
My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east.
Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally)
My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
Klaus,
"You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation."
The only guilt the USA should have is that it did not act sooner to bring down the regime of Saddam
"I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion"
This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. In any event, even if he was old by 21st century standards, that issue is irrelevant. The one thing worse than Saddam leading Iraq would be Iraq led by one of his sons or senior level officials. Barring that the only other possibility would have been a civil war which would be just as terrible a senerio for regional and global security. Saddam's regime would have stayed in place with or without him. The only thing that could remove his regime was outside military force. The events of the past 24 years prove that. To better understand Saddam's regime and what made it so powerfull and impossible to overthrow from within, I suggest you read the "Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack.
"And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money."
The USA did not start the war for Iraq to sell oil at any price. Iraq has often turned off the pumps entirely during the 1990s. The issue was Saddams behavior + WMD and how failing to disarm Saddam would have tragic consequences for the whole region and the world economy. War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living. It is a war to prevent poverty! In this case, a level of global poverty not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It would be one of the most immoral and tragic events to allow Saddam to re-arm and potentially throw the world into a vast economic depression not seen since the 1930s, through invasions and attacks using WMD or other means in this vital energy resource rich region of the world. A War for economic reasons in this part of the world is in fact, on a large scale, an attempt to head of a humanitarian disaster, which is what 1930s economic depression would be for the planet.
"I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect."
The US did not take a unilateral approach in regards to Iraq. Unilateral means ALONE! There are currently 29 countries contributing troops, civil affairs personal, and other things to situation in Iraq. In the war, British, Australian troops fought along side US troops. This was not a unilateral action. In addition, United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all backed the military operation. Just because Germany was not apart of the operation does not mean it was unilateral.
"As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?"
The Pentagon does not decide US foreign Policy. That is the job of the US State Department and the Executive Branch of the US government with the approval of the Congressional Branch. The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government. The Men and Women of the US military serve their country and often risk their lives. They do so for low pay that is not based on any sort of profit. Members of the US military obey the orders of the President and US State Department. The only influence they have is on how to fight a war or what forces and weapons are needed to fight this war or that war. The Pentagon does not make the decision to go to war or not to go to war. They are in the business of serving the United States and the international security and have done more for Peace, prosperity, and the stability of the world than any other organization in history over the past 60 years.
"No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way."
WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands. If there were anyone else with blood on their hands besides him, it would be the countries that decided to stand and do nothing when they had the oportunity to solve the problem. Its not the first time Europe has failed to act. Europe started two World Wars and allowed the massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo to happen. It appears that many European countries have failed to learn these lessons.
"But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time."
Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail.
"I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference."
My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day.
"I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong"
This is not proof of anything. Every war has with information that initially seems credible but later proves inaccurate. The Men and Women of the US military would be the first people to tell you this is what happens in war. But as an organization, the Pentagon is more accurate and correct, on various events than any other media organization. It is constant source of laughter to watch Media organizations get simple military matters incorrect and then report them that way. Its not funny though when people take that as the truth and fail to understand what is really going. The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from.
"You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation."
The only guilt the USA should have is that it did not act sooner to bring down the regime of Saddam
"I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion"
This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. In any event, even if he was old by 21st century standards, that issue is irrelevant. The one thing worse than Saddam leading Iraq would be Iraq led by one of his sons or senior level officials. Barring that the only other possibility would have been a civil war which would be just as terrible a senerio for regional and global security. Saddam's regime would have stayed in place with or without him. The only thing that could remove his regime was outside military force. The events of the past 24 years prove that. To better understand Saddam's regime and what made it so powerfull and impossible to overthrow from within, I suggest you read the "Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack.
"And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money."
The USA did not start the war for Iraq to sell oil at any price. Iraq has often turned off the pumps entirely during the 1990s. The issue was Saddams behavior + WMD and how failing to disarm Saddam would have tragic consequences for the whole region and the world economy. War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living. It is a war to prevent poverty! In this case, a level of global poverty not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It would be one of the most immoral and tragic events to allow Saddam to re-arm and potentially throw the world into a vast economic depression not seen since the 1930s, through invasions and attacks using WMD or other means in this vital energy resource rich region of the world. A War for economic reasons in this part of the world is in fact, on a large scale, an attempt to head of a humanitarian disaster, which is what 1930s economic depression would be for the planet.
"I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect."
The US did not take a unilateral approach in regards to Iraq. Unilateral means ALONE! There are currently 29 countries contributing troops, civil affairs personal, and other things to situation in Iraq. In the war, British, Australian troops fought along side US troops. This was not a unilateral action. In addition, United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all backed the military operation. Just because Germany was not apart of the operation does not mean it was unilateral.
"As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?"
The Pentagon does not decide US foreign Policy. That is the job of the US State Department and the Executive Branch of the US government with the approval of the Congressional Branch. The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government. The Men and Women of the US military serve their country and often risk their lives. They do so for low pay that is not based on any sort of profit. Members of the US military obey the orders of the President and US State Department. The only influence they have is on how to fight a war or what forces and weapons are needed to fight this war or that war. The Pentagon does not make the decision to go to war or not to go to war. They are in the business of serving the United States and the international security and have done more for Peace, prosperity, and the stability of the world than any other organization in history over the past 60 years.
"No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way."
WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands. If there were anyone else with blood on their hands besides him, it would be the countries that decided to stand and do nothing when they had the oportunity to solve the problem. Its not the first time Europe has failed to act. Europe started two World Wars and allowed the massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo to happen. It appears that many European countries have failed to learn these lessons.
"But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time."
Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail.
"I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference."
My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day.
"I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong"
This is not proof of anything. Every war has with information that initially seems credible but later proves inaccurate. The Men and Women of the US military would be the first people to tell you this is what happens in war. But as an organization, the Pentagon is more accurate and correct, on various events than any other media organization. It is constant source of laughter to watch Media organizations get simple military matters incorrect and then report them that way. Its not funny though when people take that as the truth and fail to understand what is really going. The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from.
"" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:"
"1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority."
Men and Women working at the Pentagon work for to little pay compared to the job they do and the enormous contributions that they make to this country. Defense spending is vital not only to the nations security but also to the men and women putting their lives on the line for their country. Heavier Defense spending means more money for better weapons that help win wars with less cost of life. It means more money for training which means less cost of life. It means more money for pay which means a better standard of living for the men and women who serve our country. More defense spending means a better standard of living for the families of service personal.
Maintaining a strong military increases the likely hood of resolving conflicts quickly with less loss of life and also of preventing future conflicts from beginning in the first place.
"2. American superiority on earth"
The Men and Women serving at the Pentagon care about the values of freedom, democracy, and Capitalism, being available to the world because these things give the average person options and abilities to do things to improve their lives that have not existed in the past.
There are certainly organizations like Al Quada who are opposed to this and the men and women serving in the Pentagon. They crashed a plane into the Pentagon killing over 100 people working there on 9/11. But those at the Pentagon have pulled together and continue to work hard to help make the world a better place despite what other organizations may think about them.
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:"
"1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority."
Men and Women working at the Pentagon work for to little pay compared to the job they do and the enormous contributions that they make to this country. Defense spending is vital not only to the nations security but also to the men and women putting their lives on the line for their country. Heavier Defense spending means more money for better weapons that help win wars with less cost of life. It means more money for training which means less cost of life. It means more money for pay which means a better standard of living for the men and women who serve our country. More defense spending means a better standard of living for the families of service personal.
Maintaining a strong military increases the likely hood of resolving conflicts quickly with less loss of life and also of preventing future conflicts from beginning in the first place.
"2. American superiority on earth"
The Men and Women serving at the Pentagon care about the values of freedom, democracy, and Capitalism, being available to the world because these things give the average person options and abilities to do things to improve their lives that have not existed in the past.
There are certainly organizations like Al Quada who are opposed to this and the men and women serving in the Pentagon. They crashed a plane into the Pentagon killing over 100 people working there on 9/11. But those at the Pentagon have pulled together and continue to work hard to help make the world a better place despite what other organizations may think about them.
Womenfish,
"I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east."
This is democratic campaign talk. Can you please give me exact quotes. The President never set a timetable for troops being in Iraq or give level of funding that would be required. These things would be impossible to accurately know until one was on the ground. It was impossible to know prior to the war since Iraq was a police state controlled by Saddam how bad conditions in certain area's of the country were.
I don't recall congress asking Franklin Roosevelt to know the cost of World War II or the cost of rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan before the USA entered World War II in 1941. Knowing such things as it is now, was impossible.
US troops have been in Bosnia for nearly 8 years now. Everyone knows that a similar occupation time frame is in store for Iraq and no one in the administration said ALL US troops will be home by this date or that date. That idea is simply democratic political campaign talk, or an over generalization suggested by those that opposed the war.
"Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally"
Whats bullshit is the idea that the Administration said US troops would all be home in months. The Administration never said that. By the way, what was President Roosevelt's exist strategy for World War II?
The USA has been an important partner in the Persian Gulf Region ever since Truman was President and it is not leaving any time soon.
"My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep."
The 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the Gulf War was signed in March 1991. The USA, Saddam, the international community had 12 years to prepare for every possible contingency. Saddam for his part had over 12 years to disarm, a process that most countries can achieve in under a year. The USA and international community had 12 years to deal with Saddam's cheat and retreat strategies and to disarm Saddam without military force, or to in fact to prepare for the use of military force and the aftermath.
But what would your plan of been precisely, and what would it of achieved over the past 6 months? Would Saddam still be in power? If not what would the post war occupation look like and why?
Its the easiest thing for people to criticize. Most talk of the war consist of criticism rather than people actually stating how they could have done things better.
Rebuilding Iraq is NOT a waste of money, but is in fact vital to the National Security of this country. One has to ask what risk to US Security and Iraqi lives was continuing to wait have been? What would waiting of accomplished. Conditions in Iraq would in fact be even worse and require more money to fix, if some indefinite wait had been chosen. The international community had already waited for 12 years and failed to insure that Saddam was disarmed? What would 6 months, a year, two years or more accomplished, accept risk regional security and allow Saddam to kill thousands of more Iraqi's and make any reconstruction effort following a war more difficult and costly.
"I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east."
This is democratic campaign talk. Can you please give me exact quotes. The President never set a timetable for troops being in Iraq or give level of funding that would be required. These things would be impossible to accurately know until one was on the ground. It was impossible to know prior to the war since Iraq was a police state controlled by Saddam how bad conditions in certain area's of the country were.
I don't recall congress asking Franklin Roosevelt to know the cost of World War II or the cost of rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan before the USA entered World War II in 1941. Knowing such things as it is now, was impossible.
US troops have been in Bosnia for nearly 8 years now. Everyone knows that a similar occupation time frame is in store for Iraq and no one in the administration said ALL US troops will be home by this date or that date. That idea is simply democratic political campaign talk, or an over generalization suggested by those that opposed the war.
"Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally"
Whats bullshit is the idea that the Administration said US troops would all be home in months. The Administration never said that. By the way, what was President Roosevelt's exist strategy for World War II?
The USA has been an important partner in the Persian Gulf Region ever since Truman was President and it is not leaving any time soon.
"My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep."
The 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the Gulf War was signed in March 1991. The USA, Saddam, the international community had 12 years to prepare for every possible contingency. Saddam for his part had over 12 years to disarm, a process that most countries can achieve in under a year. The USA and international community had 12 years to deal with Saddam's cheat and retreat strategies and to disarm Saddam without military force, or to in fact to prepare for the use of military force and the aftermath.
But what would your plan of been precisely, and what would it of achieved over the past 6 months? Would Saddam still be in power? If not what would the post war occupation look like and why?
Its the easiest thing for people to criticize. Most talk of the war consist of criticism rather than people actually stating how they could have done things better.
Rebuilding Iraq is NOT a waste of money, but is in fact vital to the National Security of this country. One has to ask what risk to US Security and Iraqi lives was continuing to wait have been? What would waiting of accomplished. Conditions in Iraq would in fact be even worse and require more money to fix, if some indefinite wait had been chosen. The international community had already waited for 12 years and failed to insure that Saddam was disarmed? What would 6 months, a year, two years or more accomplished, accept risk regional security and allow Saddam to kill thousands of more Iraqi's and make any reconstruction effort following a war more difficult and costly.
Klaus
Refugee
" The only guilt the USA should have is that it did not act sooner to bring down the regime of Saddam "
So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree.
"This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. "
There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)
"one of his sons or senior level officials"
..right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing.
"War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living."
Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too
Oil is yesturdays energy. If you take a look what hapened today at the north pole your government should realize that it would be the best to change to new technologies emediately.
For example Fuel/Oil out of plants.
With technic mainly developed in Germany in WW II (they didn't have enough Oil and needed alternatives) plus the new technology developed in the last 5 years it would be possible to go new ways.
The "trick" of fuel out of plants is that it blasts as much CO2 in the air as it takes out of the air while growing.
The "high living standards" are worth nothing if our children will suffer in life because of the destroyed nature.
" The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government."
And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!
" WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands."
the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand.
"Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail."
I'm sure that the average ai-member is pretty well educated by the monthly ai-journals what hapens in these countries. And it's shocking to see how much of this pain is ignored and is done by nations who are our "friends".
For example Pakistan:
Because someone did something religious wrong it is an official punishment from the clerics there to punish his sister she was raped by a group of males in front of the whole vilage. And the leaders of our countries don't even complain officially because - hey they help in our war against terror.
In 5 year old ai yournals i could quote you lots of cruelties from Saddam.
Different from the above, but much worse than i could imagine before i read about them.
" My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day. "
I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad.
If the world would be easy like that and the US military didn't do anything wrong in their whole history the best thing for the world would be a military dictatorship from the US-troops in the whole world.
"The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from."
You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?
I neither think that all people at the Pentagon and the US troops are bad people nor i think all of them are good.
They are HUMANS, some good, some excelent, some with a imperfect personality, some even evil or cruel
Klaus
So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree.
"This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. "
There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)
"one of his sons or senior level officials"
..right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing.
"War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living."
Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too
Oil is yesturdays energy. If you take a look what hapened today at the north pole your government should realize that it would be the best to change to new technologies emediately.
For example Fuel/Oil out of plants.
With technic mainly developed in Germany in WW II (they didn't have enough Oil and needed alternatives) plus the new technology developed in the last 5 years it would be possible to go new ways.
The "trick" of fuel out of plants is that it blasts as much CO2 in the air as it takes out of the air while growing.
The "high living standards" are worth nothing if our children will suffer in life because of the destroyed nature.
" The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government."
And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!
" WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands."
the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand.
"Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail."
I'm sure that the average ai-member is pretty well educated by the monthly ai-journals what hapens in these countries. And it's shocking to see how much of this pain is ignored and is done by nations who are our "friends".
For example Pakistan:
Because someone did something religious wrong it is an official punishment from the clerics there to punish his sister she was raped by a group of males in front of the whole vilage. And the leaders of our countries don't even complain officially because - hey they help in our war against terror.
In 5 year old ai yournals i could quote you lots of cruelties from Saddam.
Different from the above, but much worse than i could imagine before i read about them.
" My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day. "
I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad.
If the world would be easy like that and the US military didn't do anything wrong in their whole history the best thing for the world would be a military dictatorship from the US-troops in the whole world.
"The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from."
You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?
I neither think that all people at the Pentagon and the US troops are bad people nor i think all of them are good.
They are HUMANS, some good, some excelent, some with a imperfect personality, some even evil or cruel
Klaus
Last edited:
STING2 said:
Okay, here we go again.
I don't know what kind of Europhobia you have, but now you're just being plain offensive.
So we went from Hitler starting WW2 to Europe? Sorry, go back and read the history books. Europeans like the Polish, the French and yes, the European Jews, are they the Europe that "started" two world wars? Is England? Is Ireland? Is Scandinavia?
I have no words.
Klaus,
"So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree."
Both points are false. US have maintained over 30,000 troops in the region since the end of the first Gulf War. The USA would have continued onto Baghdad in 1991, but the international community was only willing to support the liberation of Kuwait. It is countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, and others who did not support going to Baghdad who are at fault if anyone is for the massacres that occured. But I blame Saddam and Saddam alone.
Saddam and Iraq were a client state of the Soviet Union. If your interested in looking at the Weapons Table I have put up hear I can copy and paste it to this thread.
"There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)"
Really, and where was he going to go, The Moon? There is about as much truth to that story as there is to any story about a possible David Lee Roth/Bono duet.
.".right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing."
I strongly suggest you take another look at Saddam's regime. Its one that Saddam had carefully caculated every senerio for. Saddam early on new that he had many enemies and was prepared to deal with plans to deal with things if he was murdered. The Regime would have survived intact because everyone in the regime had a stake in its survival. His sons are far more unbalanced than he is, presenting a greater threat to regional security.
" Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too"
No one is robbing anyone of anything except Saddam.
As far as new technology and energy, when Germany has successfully converted to a new energy source and no longer uses oil please tell me. I'm sure if I rent a car in Germany I'll have to fill her up with oil.
A new energy resource will only be possible and a good alternative when the technology successfully develops an energy resource that is more efficient and cheaper than oil. Once you have that, oil will then be replaced. The USA is not the only country that uses oil. The entire Planet does, and until the Planet changes that fact, oil in the Persian Gulf Region will continue to be vital to the lives of people around the world.
An economic depression(worse than the 1930s) started because of a disruption or cut off of oil supplies from the middle east will make developing any alternative source of energy nearly impossible do to lack of funds.
"And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!"
The Pentagon does not raise money or get more power. It sets up a military strategy to help provide the countries national security needs. It conducts military operations by order of the President.
"the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand."
One has blood on their hands when they target and kill innocent civilians. The US military does not target innocent civilians. It does target terrorist. Hitler and Saddam and those that worked for them targeted innocent civilians. It was their policy.
US soldiers do everything in their power to prevent civilian deaths. They risk their own lives to do this. US soldiers perform life saving medical treatment on Iraqi soldiers and terrorist who only moments before were trying to kill them. A terrorist from Syria who was shot was taken to an American military hospital where doctors worked for days to save his life and bring his health back. The Syrian was brought to tears. He could not believe how people he had try to kill could be so nice to them. Of course this is not a story that will get much press in countries like France and Germany.
US soldiers do not have blood on their hands unless a soldier specifically targeted a non-threatening civilian. Police, Firefighters, doctors all make mistakes, but no one says they have blood on their hands as long as they did the best they could to insure the mistake did not happen.
Its sad to see people accuse US soldiers who are performing life saving work in Iraq right now be accused of being blood thirsty murders. Thats totally false and shows a lack of respect for the brave work these men and women are performing.
Its true human rights abuses happen in Pakistan. But its also true that Pakistan has been vital in rolling up Al Quada and could be the key in finally catching Bin Ladin. We could choose not to work with Pakistan on this and isolate them for human rights abuses, but did you ever think what the consequences of that would be? The USA has chosen the right course of action in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even most European countries support the USA on this.
"I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad"
The problem with the media many people watch is that it only shows the bad things that happen and not any of the good things that are happening. This produces a totally inaccurate picture that the situation is hopeless. It is far from hopeless and things get better everyday.
Civilians in Tikrit do not represent the majority of Iraqi's, but some here in FYM and other media outlets seem to think they do.
"You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?"
It is not the Pentagon's job to campaign for public support for anything. The Pentagon serves the public. The Pentagon serves the US government.
I suspect many Europeans don't realize the incredible and amazing things US troops are doing in Iraq and that is a shame. These men and women are working hard risking their lives to make a better life for Iraqi civilians while countries like France balk and stall in sending money or troops to help out.
"some even evil or cruel"
You've accused some US troops of being evil? Can you prove they have done anything evil though in Iraq?
"So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree."
Both points are false. US have maintained over 30,000 troops in the region since the end of the first Gulf War. The USA would have continued onto Baghdad in 1991, but the international community was only willing to support the liberation of Kuwait. It is countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, and others who did not support going to Baghdad who are at fault if anyone is for the massacres that occured. But I blame Saddam and Saddam alone.
Saddam and Iraq were a client state of the Soviet Union. If your interested in looking at the Weapons Table I have put up hear I can copy and paste it to this thread.
"There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)"
Really, and where was he going to go, The Moon? There is about as much truth to that story as there is to any story about a possible David Lee Roth/Bono duet.
.".right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing."
I strongly suggest you take another look at Saddam's regime. Its one that Saddam had carefully caculated every senerio for. Saddam early on new that he had many enemies and was prepared to deal with plans to deal with things if he was murdered. The Regime would have survived intact because everyone in the regime had a stake in its survival. His sons are far more unbalanced than he is, presenting a greater threat to regional security.
" Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too"
No one is robbing anyone of anything except Saddam.
As far as new technology and energy, when Germany has successfully converted to a new energy source and no longer uses oil please tell me. I'm sure if I rent a car in Germany I'll have to fill her up with oil.
A new energy resource will only be possible and a good alternative when the technology successfully develops an energy resource that is more efficient and cheaper than oil. Once you have that, oil will then be replaced. The USA is not the only country that uses oil. The entire Planet does, and until the Planet changes that fact, oil in the Persian Gulf Region will continue to be vital to the lives of people around the world.
An economic depression(worse than the 1930s) started because of a disruption or cut off of oil supplies from the middle east will make developing any alternative source of energy nearly impossible do to lack of funds.
"And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!"
The Pentagon does not raise money or get more power. It sets up a military strategy to help provide the countries national security needs. It conducts military operations by order of the President.
"the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand."
One has blood on their hands when they target and kill innocent civilians. The US military does not target innocent civilians. It does target terrorist. Hitler and Saddam and those that worked for them targeted innocent civilians. It was their policy.
US soldiers do everything in their power to prevent civilian deaths. They risk their own lives to do this. US soldiers perform life saving medical treatment on Iraqi soldiers and terrorist who only moments before were trying to kill them. A terrorist from Syria who was shot was taken to an American military hospital where doctors worked for days to save his life and bring his health back. The Syrian was brought to tears. He could not believe how people he had try to kill could be so nice to them. Of course this is not a story that will get much press in countries like France and Germany.
US soldiers do not have blood on their hands unless a soldier specifically targeted a non-threatening civilian. Police, Firefighters, doctors all make mistakes, but no one says they have blood on their hands as long as they did the best they could to insure the mistake did not happen.
Its sad to see people accuse US soldiers who are performing life saving work in Iraq right now be accused of being blood thirsty murders. Thats totally false and shows a lack of respect for the brave work these men and women are performing.
Its true human rights abuses happen in Pakistan. But its also true that Pakistan has been vital in rolling up Al Quada and could be the key in finally catching Bin Ladin. We could choose not to work with Pakistan on this and isolate them for human rights abuses, but did you ever think what the consequences of that would be? The USA has chosen the right course of action in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even most European countries support the USA on this.
"I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad"
The problem with the media many people watch is that it only shows the bad things that happen and not any of the good things that are happening. This produces a totally inaccurate picture that the situation is hopeless. It is far from hopeless and things get better everyday.
Civilians in Tikrit do not represent the majority of Iraqi's, but some here in FYM and other media outlets seem to think they do.
"You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?"
It is not the Pentagon's job to campaign for public support for anything. The Pentagon serves the public. The Pentagon serves the US government.
I suspect many Europeans don't realize the incredible and amazing things US troops are doing in Iraq and that is a shame. These men and women are working hard risking their lives to make a better life for Iraqi civilians while countries like France balk and stall in sending money or troops to help out.
"some even evil or cruel"
You've accused some US troops of being evil? Can you prove they have done anything evil though in Iraq?
Antrim,
"Okay, here we go again."
"I don't know what kind of Europhobia you have, but now you're just being plain offensive."
"So we went from Hitler starting WW2 to Europe? Sorry, go back and read the history books. Europeans like the Polish, the French and yes, the European Jews, are they the Europe that "started" two world wars? Is England? Is Ireland? Is Scandinavia?"
"I have no words."
Blame does not only go to Hitler but also to those that had to power to stop him and did not. England and France could have taken action in the 1930s to stop Hitler but did not. Europeans in various countries all over Europe allowed and helped the SS to hunt down and kill Jews.
The USA also deserves some blame to for not helping out and preventing these events. But the responsibility falls more on Europe to have prevented both World Wars from happening in the first place.
Blood is not on their hands, just that their foreign policies and policies of non-intervention were ineffective in preventing what happened. US foreign policy dramatically changed after 1945 because the US correctly understood the cost of inaction. As Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate, most European Governments don't seem to have learned how important it can be to intervene in crises before they spin out of control.
"Okay, here we go again."
"I don't know what kind of Europhobia you have, but now you're just being plain offensive."
"So we went from Hitler starting WW2 to Europe? Sorry, go back and read the history books. Europeans like the Polish, the French and yes, the European Jews, are they the Europe that "started" two world wars? Is England? Is Ireland? Is Scandinavia?"
"I have no words."
Blame does not only go to Hitler but also to those that had to power to stop him and did not. England and France could have taken action in the 1930s to stop Hitler but did not. Europeans in various countries all over Europe allowed and helped the SS to hunt down and kill Jews.
The USA also deserves some blame to for not helping out and preventing these events. But the responsibility falls more on Europe to have prevented both World Wars from happening in the first place.
Blood is not on their hands, just that their foreign policies and policies of non-intervention were ineffective in preventing what happened. US foreign policy dramatically changed after 1945 because the US correctly understood the cost of inaction. As Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate, most European Governments don't seem to have learned how important it can be to intervene in crises before they spin out of control.
Klaus
Refugee
In Iraq war 1 Germany stood behind the US and didn't question their decision, we payed a fortune to the US, because Mr. Kohl didn't want to participate with troops, just with money (His infamous checkbook diplomacy)
Saddam was installed by the US, we thought he was "our bastard" until we realized that bastards are bastards and don't care about who gave them the power. I know the list you posted about the Weapons he bought, i had some questions, but finaly it wasn't important enough for me to spend more time with checking this.
Do you want a discussion or do you only want to see what fits your point of view?
The western world stole the goods of the 3rd world for centuries, remember the colonaliasation? Where europe defacto stole The Gold and the Goods they wanted to?
Remember that we stole an entire contient called USA from the native americans?
Definition of "steal" from the American Heritage Dictionary:
steal
to take (the proplerty of another) without right or permission
You fill it up with gasonline, not oil. And that's the trick, you can manufacture the same gasoline out of trash or plants.
With the same standards you could have defended slavery.
"We only stop slavery if we find a cheaper way to maintain our cotonfields."
If we'd put the same amount of money in regenerative energy it will become much cheaper.
We have to do it anyway. If we would raise the "3rd" world to the american standards of living traditional oil resources will be gone in our lifespan.
The EU and the US should spend more money in future technologies and energies rather than to give it to farmers. From the money the farmers of the 3rd world earn they can buy our new shiny products
So it's even more important that our future dosn't only rely on oil. Even if we manage that the poor will stay poor and the 3rd world won't have any access to oil it will be gone in the next generations. - So wars for oil are short sighted
The more money they get from the government the more they are able to present the President good or risky stratetgies. The more the President relies on these strategies the more money they get.
So you tell me that there is no interest for the Pentagon to get money to enlargen his troops and by that to increase their relevance in the world?
Imagine a 100% peaceful world . what would hapen to the job of the Pentagon employees?
So you think a driver has only blood on his hands when he is "targeteting" a child on a road and tries to kill it, he has no blood on his hands when he just drives to fast (and thereby risks the death) and tries to avoid collision with the kid on the road?
I defenetly see 2 different qualities here. I don't think that the US military is a bunch of murders - they would be murders if they were targeting innocent civilians. They "just" have blood on their hands.
I didn't call the US soldiers murder, and i won't call all the US soldiers murders in the future. There might be single murders, but that dosn't have to do much with the US military in general.
i explained the difference between blood on your hands and a murder above.
I'm glad that we agree that there are human right abuses in Pakistan.
All i'm asking that we don't close our eyes at the human right abuses in Pakistan. Also Pakistan is a ally i think our political leaders should criticize their ally in public. Germany did that with china also we want good economical relaitons. I think if the US president does that with some of his new friends the public can see that the wars against terror are not a war for american interests but a war for western values.
you are right, massmedia loves the sensation more than the truth.
And since the public expected a short successful war and then a new democratic iraq in a verry short time (like Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair told us before the war) it's now a sensation that the people who were liberated try to kill the soldiers who liberated them.
We expect that the US troops help wounded enemies and therefore it's no sensation -> no big news
The mayority of the EU citizens didn't want this war, so you shouldn't be surprised that the politicians (who's job it is to represent the will of their citizens) don't want to send troops and money for the US to help with a war they also didn't want.
Also don't forget that it's highly controversal debated if this war violates international rights and therefore is a kind of war where you will be imprisoned for lifetime if you are german and support it.
I have accused some people, there are cruel people everywhere, so it's impossible to find any profession (even US soldier) where you don't have any evil or cruel persons.
And i can't proof it, but your military justice did allready. You removed a military m.d. from iraq because he was torturing his muslimic pows he should cure.
Klaus
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
