|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
posted July 24, 2003 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
in my opinion soccer, i feel the US has lost this war, they did not win the support of the world, they did not win the support of the Iraqi people, and they are now facing 3 new wars. this is not a victory it is a loss.
Damn, you must have some tough criteria for winning. I think if you believe we don't have support of the people, you are looking at a few trees and ignoring the forest. The great silent majority of Iraq!
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 24, 2003 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All those weapons, no-one can find them though can they?
Might take awhile. Haven't found Saddam or Osama yet either and they can't be buried unless they're dead. Everyone sure seems to have thought he had them. U.N thought he did. Either way, it's good that he's gone. I see no reason to regret it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 24, 2003 09:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I maintain that we are being even-handed in our actions and we are trying to restore service in as efficient a manner as possible.
Not having seen enough news recently to determine either way I will reserve judgement on this issue. I've seen reports claiming otherwise to what you've claimed, and reports backing your claims. I think though that if even one or two incidents occur like I mentioned it will put back relations with the people of Iraq a considerable way, and jeprodise the moral justification of US/UK control of the country. Also it may just be me, but I've yet to hear much of a plan of action for the future of the country and timetable for future action, which would be preferable to an indefinate period of control by what may increasingly become seen as an occupying power.
Quote:
Do you deny that they limited the destruction in the 3 weeks of the war?
Comparitively no I don't deny this, never recall doing so.
Quote:
Do you deny that sometimes in some instances it may be necessary to use tougher tactics?
Against those responsible I would reccomend tough tactics. Against what may (or may not be, no-one knew) innocent villagers it's reprehensible.
Quote:
Do you think this is the norm?
I genuinely have no idea.
Quote:
The great silent majority of Iraq!
Perhaps, but one thing I did note from reading some recent news reports is that, by and large the coallition is eager to assert that the current geurilla attacks are remnants of Fedayeen etc. When reporters talk to many of those present though, even some common people with no former connections are less than amused with the coallition occupation. Whilst the "silent majority" (a term in itself which is doubtful as it's a little arrogant to presume to talk for a country's population if they never speak out) may or may not back your claims, from what I have seen and read, the vast majority of Iraquis are grateful to the removal of Hussain, they also are not at all happy at what they see as an occupying force in their midst.
Quote:
Might take awhile. Haven't found Saddam or Osama yet either and they can't be buried unless they're dead. Everyone sure seems to have thought he had them. U.N thought he did.
HAD being an appropriate term here, though we were almost certainly lied to by our Governments as to their capability, numbers and Hussain's ability to deliver them. I don't regret his fall from power either, but I find the lies spouted by my PM in relation to this will probably hint towards reasons other than WMD's and the moral argument for the war.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 25, 2003 01:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you deny that they limited the destruction in the 3 weeks of the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparitively no I don't deny this, never recall doing so.
"Not take revenge on an entire village for the isolated action of a few who may have used that village for a temporary base."-private hudson
You seem to implying that we are mowing down whole villages willy-nilly. The point is, why are you so willing to believe we are going to do that when you admit to the fact that we were moderate in our approach to the war throughout.
I think our forces have earned the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
Perhaps, but one thing I did note from reading some recent news reports is that, by and large the coallition is eager to assert that the current geurilla attacks are remnants of Fedayeen etc. When reporters talk to many of those present though, even some common people with no former connections are less than amused with the coallition occupation. Whilst the "silent majority" (a term in itself which is doubtful as it's a little arrogant to presume to talk for a country's population if they never speak out) may or may not back your claims, from what I have seen and read, the vast majority of Iraquis are grateful to the removal of Hussain, they also are not at all happy at what they see as an occupying force in their midst.
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek on that one. We basically agree here, I'm sure noone likes to have foreign troops. It's an occupation as much as it was a liberation. It's not Germany post-WWII but it's not a pure relief effort either.
Quote:
HAD being an appropriate term here, though we were almost certainly lied to by our Governments as to their capability, numbers and Hussain's ability to deliver them. I don't regret his fall from power either, but I find the lies spouted by my PM in relation to this will probably hint towards reasons other than WMD's and the moral argument for the war.
You and others like you probably never believed it from the start, so at no point did you not think you were being lied to. You just see this as justification for that belief. Don't pretend to be hurt now. I prefer to wait, and I don't think I was lied to. You use the terms "almost certainly lied" and "lied" in the same paragraph, which is it? As my president said, the burden was on him, and he didn't rise to the occasion. It was not a treasure hunt. We shouldn't have to send carrier groups to get him to comply with inspectors. He could've definitely had no WMD and I was still ok with it but I'm willing to talk WMD since it's so important to you. How many reasons do we need to take this guy down? Tried to assasinate former president of the U.S. Should've taken him for that if nothing else.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 25, 2003 01:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You seem to implying that we are mowing down whole villages willy-nilly. The point is, why are you so willing to believe we are going to do that when you admit to the fact that we were moderate in our approach to the war throughout.
I think our forces have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I'm implying that threatening to do so is both counter-productive and simply pointless. I never intended to imply they carried out the action. My argument was not on what had been done, but what was being threatened, something which can only cause negative feeling amongst the innocent Iraquis in that village. For the record I doubt they'd actually do it, as the press would be all over it in minutes, but the threat of the action will spread like wildfire amongst their population as being "American Justice" and feeling will turn against you for the callous and moronic remark of a officer.
Quote:
I'm sure noone likes to have foreign troops.
My point is, unlike what is often claimed by our governments, it is not only the former supporters of the old regime trying to fight our forces, the population at large is showing some quite angry reactions to US/UK occupation, and the deaths is just one aspect of this. You sometimes get the impression from our government that the Iraquis love the British, and the trouble there is down to an isolated few, which is quite clearly rubbish.
Quote:
You and others like you probably never believed it from the start, so at no point did you not think you were being lied to.
Uhmmm no, I've always thought he had them I have indeed said as much, but the claims of the US and UK as to his danger to either country through their use, his ability to launch them within 45 minutes, his attempts to gain nuclear material from Niger and many other matters are clearly either outright fabricated lies (niger document) or considerably spun reports to mislead the public by increasing the threat posed, which is why I said both lied and possibly lied. I meant more lied, and embelished the truth in their favour. WMD's aren't a black and white did he have them issue, which is why they can both lie, and possibly lie.
Quote:
How many reasons do we need to take this guy down?
Again, you're not understanding my point, which was not an argument against his removal, which I stated I agreed with. My argument was, since WMDs are at the very least a questionable reason, and given the morality of the US and UK governments when it comes to their foreign policies rules out the notion of benevolent whilst also fair peacekeeping, the reasons for war become much narrower. I don't believe either were more than a cursory excuse used by both powers to justify something they agreed on long before the offers were made to hussain to stand down. I believe that war was agreed on long ago as the only solution and the diplomatic posturing and downright lies told since then were nothing more than attempts to put a moral face on the action rather than admitting their true reasons for the conflict.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 25, 2003 03:11 AM |
|
|
Dunno if this has been said, but thought I'd mention some facts about Private Lynch that we all discussed some time ago.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/07/22/lynch.homecoming/index.html
It would seem she was not:
Fired upon by small arms after she gave herself up
Shot in the legs or had them broken
Beaten
Nor did she "fire off every round in the building" or anything of the sort. She appears to have got lost, her vehicle took an RPG round and it crashed, breaking her legs.
Oh and it would also seem that the "rescue" attempt was a little spun as the Hospital wasn't even guarded....
Also, whilst I would not suggest she was in any way a coward or incompetent, to award her a Bronze Star for such a thing clearly has more to do with politics than merit
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 25, 2003 09:32 PM |
|
|
Casualties
Khayman!! I was Including accidents. It is Now 276 Troops dead, Thats Including 44 Birtish Troops. And thats Inclludig Chopper Accidents Car Accidetns Etc.
|
|
murl_the_spoon
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 28, 2003 05:45 PM |
|
|
Don't say that the hospital was not guarded. There is video, showing the guards shooting at American troops. We were led to her by an Iraqi infromant, who at the risk of his own life continually went inside the hospital, mapping it all out.
____________
"Thieves are people too, Diane. If you p r i c k a thieves finger, does he not leave a blood trail back to his lair?" -Mafia
Murl the Spoon
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 28, 2003 10:25 PM |
|
|
Perhaps, just maybe you might have helped your point if you'd bothered to read the link and specifically this part:
Quote:
U.S. Central Command said the military never claimed the rescue force came under fire when it burst into the hospital, but U.S. troops supporting the mission did exchange fire in a nearby area.
Hardly quite the same as fighting in and out of the city in a dangerous series of firefights as you sometimes got the impression from various news people at the time.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2003 09:49 PM |
|
|
what's all this petty arguing about? It now is shown that the war was a fiasco and undefined by normal standarts. No weapons of mass destruction, no crowds of people greating the americans, no dancing in the streets. What is now the future of iraq? The 52. nd state? Or an oil producing colony?
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 31, 2003 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My point is, unlike what is often claimed by our governments, it is not only the former supporters of the old regime trying to fight our forces, the population at large is showing some quite angry reactions to US/UK occupation, and the deaths is just one aspect of this. You sometimes get the impression from our government that the Iraquis love the British, and the trouble there is down to an isolated few, which is quite clearly rubbish.
I don't know anymore, I don't see enough of the population at large to judge. What do reporters say? They have to be good for something. Are there conflicting reports from independent news? I don't get a spin from the U.S. at this point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many reasons do we need to take this guy down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Again, you're not understanding my point, which was not an argument against his removal, which I stated I agreed with. My argument was, since WMDs are at the very least a questionable reason, and given the morality of the US and UK governments when it comes to their foreign policies rules out the notion of benevolent whilst also fair peacekeeping, the reasons for war become much narrower. I don't believe either were more than a cursory excuse used by both powers to justify something they agreed on long before the offers were made to hussain to stand down. I believe that war was agreed on long ago as the only solution and the diplomatic posturing and downright lies told since then were nothing more than attempts to put a moral face on the action rather than admitting their true reasons for the conflict.
Well, I think from the start they gave several other reasons but WMD was definitely the focus. Bush said very very early on that he was committed to regime change. This is when Saddam could still have complied but hadn't yet. It did sound like he had no options from that statement but the fact remains that he was given time. I'm just not prepared to count WMDs out yet because they haven't been found. Intelligence can be wrong. Government isn't perfect, and if something slipped in that shouldn't I'm not surprised. There was a whole ton of evidence besides the disputed portions. It's your right to think it was all planned ahead of time, I lean more the other way. True reasons were? Apologies for missing your point.
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 31, 2003 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It would seem she was not:
Fired upon by small arms after she gave herself up
Shot in the legs or had them broken
Beaten
Nor did she "fire off every round in the building" or anything of the sort. She appears to have got lost, her vehicle took an RPG round and it crashed, breaking her legs.Quote:
She wasn't driving
Quote:
Oh and it would also seem that the "rescue" attempt was a little spun as the Hospital wasn't even guarded....
Also, whilst I would not suggest she was in any way a coward or incompetent, to award her a Bronze Star for such a thing clearly has more to do with politics than merit
It was a rescue, not a "rescue" and it wasn't an attempt. It succeeded. Disrespectful of you to characterize it as a cakewalk, that couldn't have been certain until they were on the scene.
Quote:
Perhaps, just maybe you might have helped your point if you'd bothered to read the link and specifically this part:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Central Command said the military never claimed the rescue force came under fire when it burst into the hospital, but U.S. troops supporting the mission did exchange fire in a nearby area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly quite the same as fighting in and out of the city in a dangerous series of firefights as you sometimes got the impression from various news people at the time
I watched the news, and I never got that impression. I got the impression that they went in fast while Marines provided a security and a distraction nearby.
____________
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted July 31, 2003 10:15 PM |
|
|
The Bottom Line...
Quote:
what's all this petty arguing about? It now is shown that the war was a fiasco and undefined by normal standarts. No weapons of mass destruction, no crowds of people greating the americans, no dancing in the streets. What is now the future of iraq? The 52. nd state? Or an oil producing colony?
Khayman: "You want answers?"
Sir Dunco: "I want the truth!"
Khayman: "You can't handle the truth!"
Here is my mathematical analysis of the war:
War with Iraq - UN Support = lower gas prices for Americans and their SUVs
Here is another good question...What do you think is the motive for US involvement in Liberia? Anyone have a good theory on this (Hudson, Lews, Grave)?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 01, 2003 08:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is another good question...What do you think is the motive for US involvement in Liberia? Anyone have a good theory on this (Hudson, Lews, Grave)?
Well, depending on your level of cynicism, it's either altruistic or caving into pressure to look better to the opposition and the international community. I'd say it's at least some of the latter. I just hope the news bureau chief i saw is right, and they are just waiting for us to come in and things will calm right down. The pessimist in me sees: minimal forces=maximum Mogadishu like problems. Oh well, I guess we needed a sequel to the movie anyway.
|
|
soccerfeva
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
banned
|
|
posted August 02, 2003 05:22 PM |
|
|
Ya people!
Attack Iraq!!!
I'm all for it!!
Goo US soldiers,go US troops!GO UK,go go..everybody go! Dance to the tune of the US anthem..go go..add some rock n roll to the beat of that..anthem..go ya..go... !!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 03, 2003 01:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know anymore, I don't see enough of the population at large to judge. What do reporters say? They have to be good for something. Are there conflicting reports from independent news? I don't get a spin from the U.S. at this point.
As you're no doubt aware, reporters can often be a little biased, but what I have seen of the news here, whenever a report of something violent happening in Iraq is on the news, most bystanders vary between neutral towards both blame and whom they support, to outright hatred of the US and UK. Very few I see tend to support the co-allition forces when something of a violent nature occurs nearby, blaming them for a variety of reasons. I'm not trying to say every single person in Iraq hates the coallition, what I'm trying to point out is that, from the reports I've seen, those questioned, even what you might consider bystanders DO show a will to have the coallition forces removed. I doubt that in most cases this will lead to violent actions to remove them, but the population at large is showing signs of unrest, which probably doesn't solely come from ex-regime people.
Quote:
There was a whole ton of evidence besides the disputed portions.
Yes, but there's also a whole load of fabricated evidence in with this. We might never know which of this "evidence" is true, false, or blown out of all proportion in respect of the dangers posed. The very fact that we fabricated evidence brings into question the WMD issue, and our respective foreign policies are questionable to say the least. Therefore whilst I'm not entirely sure of the motives, if they are claiming either of these, they are simply either liars or hypocrites.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 03, 2003 01:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
She wasn't driving
Never said she was.
Quote:
Disrespectful of you to characterize it as a cakewalk, that couldn't have been certain until they were on the scene.
I wasn't commenting on the before action scenes, but the post action scenes, especially in some sections of the press that I saw here which reacted like it was close to the equivalent of a major rescue with constant harrassment and battles. I can't comment on american news naturally.
Quote:
Here is another good question...What do you think is the motive for US involvement in Liberia? Anyone have a good theory on this (Hudson, Lews, Grave)?
Well firstly, it's nowhere near the same as the iraq situation as it's an anarchy ridden country in the grasp of a civil war, not invading a soveriegn nation. I'm guessing that given that it's mostly rebuilding bridges with the UN in an attempt to appear like a nice obedient nation again, coupled with something of a debt thing, due to liberia being partly set up by the US. I only hope they get it right, as Grave pointed out, with somalia as an example, lets hope this one is better and the forces remain to ensure stability, and not depart at the first sign of a screwed up mission like clinton did.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2003 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
what's all this petty arguing about? It now is shown that the war was a fiasco and undefined by normal standarts. No weapons of mass destruction, no crowds of people greating the americans, no dancing in the streets. What is now the future of iraq? The 52. nd state? Or an oil producing colony?
Khayman: "You want answers?"
Sir Dunco: "I want the truth!"
Khayman: "You can't handle the truth!"
Here is my mathematical analysis of the war:
War with Iraq - UN Support = lower gas prices for Americans and their SUVs
Here is another good question...What do you think is the motive for US involvement in Liberia? Anyone have a good theory on this (Hudson, Lews, Grave)?
a quick answer #1- trade: Liberia exports rubber and cork to the US.
#2- political influence
#3- a center of chrisitianity- by it's suroundings it is the only state that has a christian majority unlike the mostly islam states
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 04, 2003 07:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well firstly, it's nowhere near the same as the iraq situation as it's an anarchy ridden country in the grasp of a civil war, not invading a soveriegn nation. I'm guessing that given that it's mostly rebuilding bridges with the UN in an attempt to appear like a nice obedient nation again, coupled with something of a debt thing, due to liberia being partly set up by the US. I only hope they get it right, as Grave pointed out, with somalia as an example, lets hope this one is better and the forces remain to ensure stability, and not depart at the first sign of a screwed up mission like clinton did.
WMD arguments aside, Iraq was only sovereign in the sense that one guy oppressed most of the people. I don't see one as morally better than the other.
|
|
soccerfeva
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
banned
|
|
posted August 04, 2003 03:50 PM |
|
|
Ya people!
Attack Iraq!!!
I'm all for it!!
Goo US soldiers,go US troops!GO UK,go go..everybody go! Dance to the tune of the US anthem..go go..add some rock n roll to the beat of that..anthem..go ya..go... !!
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
