Soldiers Protect Civilians. Cowards Hide

[ne1GotZardoz]

Oh...And the weapons we are finding over their are mostly from Jordon and France.
The extensive presence of French made weaponry in Iraq renders Chiraq's fanatical resistance to this war, suspect.

[Jonne]

what are you trying to say? In almost every big country there are companies that sold weapons and/or accessories to Iraq, and the US is no exception...

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Jonne@7 April 2003 - 13:47
what are you trying to say? In almost every big country there are companies that sold weapons and/or accessories to Iraq, and the US is no exception...
You know, usually when the UN imposes sanctions, it is pretty much understood that weapons should not be traded for oil.

They pretty much used up all the weapons, ammunition, etc, that we gave them, in the gulf war.

They've got a pretty extensive stash over there.
All the stuff they've used so far and we still find large caches scattered in schools and mosques, chem factories and hospitals around the country.

Where did it all come from?

And when?

You're the first person to reply on this one though.

Brave man. :)

Perhaps others will follow your fine example.

:rolleyes:

[enorme]

Thi Iraq&#39;s are defending their land.and if someone is hiding look at the pilots that are bombing inocent civilian fron 25,000 feet and the soldiers sending tomahauk cruisers fron 1500 miles away killing people without even looking at their lose of limbs or belogings.So please reserve your malicious coments war is ogly nobody wins, <_< we lost already close to 100 marines,one marine is not worth any number of oil barrels.

[4play]

we lost already close to 100 marines,one marine is not worth any number of oil barrels.

IT is alright taking the moral high ground but in all honesty these people did not die for oil. America has big oil reserves and so does/did britain ( before thatcher used it for nothing more then dole money during the recession). it is places like china that really need oil.

A hundread soldiers died to protect are way of life. The fact we are just barbourous people who have no respect for other peoples way of life is neither here nor there.

The real and only reason we went into iraq was fear of saddam and his abilites to aquire nuclear weapons. The goverment realised he would have no problem using them and that is very dangerous.

Are goverment did not care about any mistreatment of civilians out there this was just propaganda and rightly so. why should we care the truth is most people don&#39;t care or want to. :ph34r:

[soopaman]

Last time I checked I lived in a Democracy, where the Government is elected to serve the populations best interests. If that population wants to continue to maintain the same standard of living, then the Government is duty bound to make our "wishes" happen. We need oil to make petroleum, paint, plastics, solvents, etc. We need these things to maintain our standard of living, so if our Government has to acquire these materials by questionable methods - so be it. It is a harsh reality of history that if a population wants something badly enough it&#39;ll find a way of getting it by fair means or foul. This&#39;ll probably get flamed but I don&#39;t mean to implicate any specific country in this argument - it applies to all of them&#33;&#33;

Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???

Take it easy. :)

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by soopaman@14 April 2003 - 09:03
Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???


Zeig heil &#33;&#33;&#33;.....you pathetic twat.

[soopaman]

Originally posted by DiogenesUK+14 April 2003 - 10:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DiogenesUK @ 14 April 2003 - 10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@14 April 2003 - 09:03
Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???


Zeig heil &#33;&#33;&#33;.....you pathetic twat. [/b][/quote]

You are missing my point Diogenes. I mean why are people, seemingly, solely focusing on the plight of children. What about ALL the innocent victims regardless of age??

As for your predictable insult - :lol: :lol: :lol: You ain&#39;t even worth flaming for that.

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by soopaman+15 April 2003 - 07:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (soopaman @ 15 April 2003 - 07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -DiogenesUK@14 April 2003 - 10:38
<!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@14 April 2003 - 09:03
Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???


Zeig heil &#33;&#33;&#33;.....you pathetic twat.

You are missing my point Diogenes. I mean why are people, seemingly, solely focusing on the plight of children. What about ALL the innocent victims regardless of age??

As for your predictable insult - :lol: :lol: :lol: You ain&#39;t even worth flaming for that. [/b][/quote]
Fair comment,I&#39;m sorry for the insult,it was maybe uncalled for.

Take care.

[Birdy]

Originally posted by soopaman@14 April 2003 - 09:03
Last time I checked I lived in a Democracy, where the Government is elected to serve the populations best interests. If that population wants to continue to maintain the same standard of living, then the Government is duty bound to make our "wishes" happen. We need oil to make petroleum, paint, plastics, solvents, etc. We need these things to maintain our standard of living, so if our Government has to acquire these materials by questionable methods - so be it. It is a harsh reality of history that if a population wants something badly enough it&#39;ll find a way of getting it by fair means or foul. This&#39;ll probably get flamed but I don&#39;t mean to implicate any specific country in this argument - it applies to all of them&#33;&#33;

Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???

Take it easy. :)
It is because bin-Laden can point to people like you and convince others that this is what Americans generally think that people support him and are prepared to die for his cause.


Also, for the benefit of a lot of Americans, no doubt including yourself I would like to point out that the president of America has a mandate from the American people (well, in this case even that is doubtful), to run America. He does NOT have a mandate to run the world. If the president of the USA wants to run the whole planet then the whole planet should get a vote when he is elected.

Successive presidents of the USA, whether Democrat or Republican, have been democrats at home but abroad are simply dictators and terrorists on a par with Saddam Hussein, Stalin, bin-Laden etc. etc..

To say so is usually sneered at as being "anti-American." This is the same tactic Sharon uses when he dismisses critics as "anti-jewish" if they dare to question his murder of children for throwing stones. I am not "anti-American" I am anti-terrorist and anti-dictatorship and anti the people who support those things. By the way, Hitler used to use the "anti-German" label for his opponents too.

[myfiles3000]

there is no single reason for the states to invade iraq -- reality is never so neatly compartmentalized. single bullet theories are for fools, those who believe lee harvey oswald is the only person repsonsible for JFK&#39;s death. So i don&#39;t think you&#39;re doing yourself any favours with the "the only reason that X did Y is because of Z" approach.

I&#39;m afraid soopaman&#39;s comment is all too accurate. too big a topic to get into, but...yeah.

Also, being "anti-terrorist" may sound good on the surface, but remember that americans who fought for and won independence from the brits were branded with the same label. The term is so ideologically charged as to be nearly useless for rational discourse. Persuasive communication aimed at the masses is a different story.

I echo birdy&#39;s comment about the unfair use of the term &#39;anti-semite&#39;...the fact is that the guilt and horror and shame and rage and pain of the holocaust has tainted public debate about israel in unparalleled fashion. it prevents valid criticism of israel, and valid criticism is the lifeblood of public life -- it prevents the oppressed from becoming the oppressor. ironically, israel could learn a lot from modern german society.

its a similar phenomenon that shields Japan from the much-deserved criticism they deserve for their actions in WW2 - and which few dare to raise because of hiroshima and nagasaki......

[soopaman]

Originally posted by Birdy+27 April 2003 - 18:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Birdy @ 27 April 2003 - 18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@14 April 2003 - 09:03
Last time I checked I lived in a Democracy, where the Government is elected to serve the populations best interests. If that population wants to continue to maintain the same standard of living, then the Government is duty bound to make our "wishes" happen. We need oil to make petroleum, paint, plastics, solvents, etc. We need these things to maintain our standard of living, so if our Government has to acquire these materials by questionable methods - so be it. It is a harsh reality of history that if a population wants something badly enough it&#39;ll find a way of getting it by fair means or foul. This&#39;ll probably get flamed but I don&#39;t mean to implicate any specific country in this argument - it applies to all of them&#33;&#33;

Also, with all this bleeting about injured children in Iraq at what age do they come off your "love list"???

Take it easy. :)
It is because bin-Laden can point to people like you and convince others that this is what Americans generally think that people support him and are prepared to die for his cause.


Also, for the benefit of a lot of Americans, no doubt including yourself I would like to point out that the president of America has a mandate from the American people (well, in this case even that is doubtful), to run America. He does NOT have a mandate to run the world. If the president of the USA wants to run the whole planet then the whole planet should get a vote when he is elected.

Successive presidents of the USA, whether Democrat or Republican, have been democrats at home but abroad are simply dictators and terrorists on a par with Saddam Hussein, Stalin, bin-Laden etc. etc..

To say so is usually sneered at as being "anti-American." This is the same tactic Sharon uses when he dismisses critics as "anti-jewish" if they dare to question his murder of children for throwing stones. I am not "anti-American" I am anti-terrorist and anti-dictatorship and anti the people who support those things. By the way, Hitler used to use the "anti-German" label for his opponents too. [/b][/quote]


I hate to disappoint you but I&#39;M NOT AMERICAN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Also, comparing ANY American President with Stalin is way off the mark. I can&#39;t recall all the details but didn&#39;t Stalin kill more of his own people than Hitler did?? Which US President did anything like that?? No US President has ever purged the intellectual population to the extent of Stalinist Russia, although the Communist Witch hunts in the film industry came close.

I was just pointing out that historically a ruling government does what it has to do to keep it&#39;s citizens content. Whether for good or bad only history will be able to judge&#33;&#33;

Birdy...............................you suck. :P

[Birdy]

Originally posted by soopaman@29 April 2003 - 09:04
Also, comparing ANY American President with Stalin is way off the mark. I can&#39;t recall all the details but didn&#39;t Stalin kill more of his own people than Hitler did??
You seem to have not read my post. I clearly stated that American presidents are democrats AT HOME and dictators ABROAD. They don&#39;t kill their own people. They kill foreigners who they clearly see as being of less significance, perhaps because they can&#39;t vote them out of office.

American leaders have supported genocide and terrorism throughout the world. They backed Pol Pot, whose main henchman, Thiounn Prasith, now lives happily in Mount Vernon, New York.They backed Suharto who exterminated a third of the population of East Timor with American and British weapons. The list goes on, and on, it is way too long to type out here.

Forget Osama bin-Laden&#39;s terrorist training camps, they are kindergartens compared to Fort Benning in Georgia. 40% of cabinet members in the genocidal regimes of Garcia, Montt and Victores in Guatamala were trained at Fort Benning. 2/3 of the army officers who commited the worst atrocities in El Salvador, (when the US was helping the fascist dictatorship murder anyone who dared call for democracy) were graduates of Fort Benning, as was the leader of the death squads.

Fort Benning gradutes trained the Contra terrorists who murdered 30000 civilians in their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government in Nicaragua in the 80s and impose fascism. The democratically elected governments economic policies were not to the liking of the US. (They failed, though the US succeeded, years later, in buying the election with massive financial support for their chosen canditate and, of course, the knowledge that the terrorism would continue if the people did not vote the way the US wanted them to)

In Chile, where democracy had been overthrown by the CIA once they realised that the economic policies of the democratically chosen leader did not suit the US, Fort Benning graduates ran Pinochet&#39;s secret police and 3 main concentration camps.

When the Shah of Iran was overthrown CIA training videos in torture techniques were found. In 1996 the US governments was forced to release copies of the schools training manuals. They recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses relatives.



Here is a quote from George Monbiot writing in the UK newspaper "The Guardian" a little while ago, which I think is pretty spot on:


"Given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking al-Qua&#39;ida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the &#39;evil doers&#39; in Fort Benning, Georgia?. Well we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure and seek extradition of the school&#39;s commmanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity.

Alternatively we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration administered by the UN.

In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag"

Almost every dictatorial genocidal regime in the world is a client of the US. I will grant you that the US does get rid of those few that do not bow to its will, or, like Saddam, were ex-clients who slipped the leash.

The US likes to claim the moral high ground and say that they are "promoting democracy"when the country they want to attack HAPPENS to be a dictatorship. Whether Iraq becomes a democracy or not will depend entirely on whether they vote for someone who is friendly towards the US (and, of course, Israel). If they vote for someone who decides to nationalise the oil industry and take back the rebuilding contracts and hand them to Iraqi companies, or indeed, any companies not chosen by the US, then the graduates of Fort Benning terrorist training camp will be back, and the Iraqis will get a new Saddam.

[myfiles3000]

the latest edition of harper&#39;s has a good article on how the US, IMF and World Bank (allegedly) impose control on the developing world. Essentially, they loan desperately needed money with conditions that favour the economies of the west, above all the US, not the debtor state, justified on the notion of free trade. Fundamentally challenges the notion that free trade is good for all. I don&#39;t know enough about macro-economics to make any independent judgement of the article, but I get the impression the interpretation is merely controversial, not flamingly marxist.

the article, by the way, is what i would call "good bias" -- ideologically slanted, but well-researched and presenting a reasonable argument. as opposed to something bill o&#39;reilly would say.

Economics-Of-Empire May03 Harpers, Finnegan (http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Economics-Of-EmpireMay03.htm)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Birdy+29 April 2003 - 10:39--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Birdy @ 29 April 2003 - 10:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@29 April 2003 - 09:04
Also, comparing ANY American President with Stalin is way off the mark. I can&#39;t recall all the details but didn&#39;t Stalin kill more of his own people than Hitler did??
You seem to have not read my post. I clearly stated that American presidents are democrats AT HOME and dictators ABROAD. They don&#39;t kill their own people. They kill foreigners who they clearly see as being of less significance, perhaps because they can&#39;t vote them out of office.

.






[/b][/quote]
Unforunately, this is a very sobering and intelligent post. It can help the objective American to understand how other countries can be anti-American, as we sit over here thinking we are the good guys.

We just don&#39;t see or care how our country exploits other nations in pursuit of American ends.

I like the discussion of Fort Benning.

We call it training freedom fighters to liberate their country from oppression. The other side sees it as terrorist training. All about perspective.

This is just a quick 2 minute post, really just to give credit to an objective post which might broaden the world view of the willing. Great opening paragraph.

[clocker]

Originally posted by soopaman@29 April 2003 - 02:04
No US President has ever purged the intellectual population to the extent of Stalinist Russia, although the Communist Witch hunts in the film industry came close.


As shameful as the McCarthy era was, to compare it to Stalin&#39;s actions is ludicrous.

Stalin "purged" millions.

[soopaman]

Originally posted by clocker+30 April 2003 - 15:21--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 April 2003 - 15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@29 April 2003 - 02:04
No US President has ever purged the intellectual population to the extent of Stalinist Russia, although the Communist Witch hunts in the film industry came close.


As shameful as the McCarthy era was, to compare it to Stalin&#39;s actions is ludicrous.

Stalin "purged" millions. [/b][/quote]


Sorry if I didn&#39;t make myself clear. I meant the McCarthy Witchhunts could&#39;ve been the first step on a long and unpleasant road. I don&#39;t think I did a very good job of pointing that out.

Cheers. :D

[ne1GotZardoz]

Well, I find myself being guilty of apathy now.

Thanks for the post about Fort Benning.

Its information that most Americans who survived the 70&#39;s are aware of, but have pushed to the backs of our minds.

Many of the war and post-war movies of the 80&#39;s and 90&#39;s have some reference to the training there and what resulted from that training.

Joseph Mengale&#39; didn&#39;t hold a candle to what those men could do to a man to extract information.

And of our presence now in Iraq...Who was it that wrote,

"This last transgression is mans greatest treason:
To do the right deed,
for the wrong reason".

[LedZipline]

I may get yelled at for saying this, but it&#39;s really lame when people start whining and crying because we of all the people we lost in Iraq. WTF&#33; Im not saying that our soldiers are unimportant, or disregarding the pain felt by thier families, but the amount of people we have lost is nothing to the amount of people that we kill, or are killed by others. We made such a big deal over those POWs that got back to the USA. It was like six freakin guys, and they wernt even hurt&#33;&#33;&#33; They were on the news for over a week. What about all those Iraqis that got bombed? Why are they any less important than Americans? It makes me sick. ;)

[MagicNakor]

They certainly were, to the Americans. Funny thing with war is that the world reverts into black and white. There is no room for gray, because if there are varying shades, popular support takes a nosedive.

:ninja:

[clocker]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@4 May 2003 - 19:22
They certainly were, to the Americans. Funny thing with war is that the world reverts into black and white. There is no room for gray, because if there are varying shades, popular support takes a nosedive.

:ninja:
Correctomundo&#33;....

Which explains why Bush is so fond of referring to 9/11 and the war in Iraq in the same sentence.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by LedZipline@4 May 2003 - 19:33
Im not saying that our soldiers are unimportant, or disregarding the pain felt by thier families, but the amount of people we have lost is nothing to the amount of people that we kill, or are killed by others. We made such a big deal over those POWs that got back to the USA. It was like six freakin guys, and they wernt even hurt&#33;&#33;&#33; They were on the news for over a week.
I think alot of this had to do with the live coverage that we watched 24/7 from Iraq. The word &#39;videophone&#39; became a part of mainstream culture faster than &#39;TIVO&#39; did. The coverage on television was truly live from the battlefield, so they had little time to edit and spin things as they would have in years past. A story like of that caliber is a blessing in disguise for them. CNN has to sell advertising space too. :huh:

[echidna]

Bushes war is pure terrorism
he and his clan are gangster thugs [not the hip (hop) kind]
the target is the provocation of fear in the rest of the world

from what i could gather in the first week around 600-700 tomahawks were used the normal armory quantaty for the USA is approx 2000
this against a nation which has been under constant aerial incusions by USA UK since &#39;91, [as we know USA has an allergy to body bags coming back so there has been no real aerial defence left]
the land of the free and the home of the brave likes to shoot fish in barrels [i mean civilians in automobiles]
i mean N Korea say they have atomic bombs and they they have ICBMs why is Bush not valiantly disarming them?
because they might be able to match the USA threat with their own terrible threat, put up a credible fight. That would be too difficult for bush to handle.
USA has 13 and 15 year old kids held prisoner by marines without charge or representation in Cuba for over 18 months now :huh:

Free? Brave?
- jesus i hope USA never liberates me it seems to hurt lots of people you know - [notice how we usually are only told death figures, military weapons and training aren&#39;t designed to kill people outright rather to inflict debilitating injury is the aim of military weapon use, as it consumes more of the adversaries resources ie. stretcher bearers, medics, ambulance drivers, medical logistics etc. - so it is likely thet the number of injured is five to ten times higher than death toll]

i heard &#39;journalists&#39; &#39;embedded&#39; speaking of "American and Coalition Forces" &#39;engaging "The Enemy"
They are called Iraqis [note it&#39;s pronounced Irark & Irarky not Irack & iracky] the enemy is what the USA teaches it&#39;s [child? alot of military high schools] soldiers to depersonalise the people thay are ordered to hurt and kill [i mean target and neutralise]
These &#39;jounalists&#39; wondered "when the impression the the Coalition Forces were liberators would take hold&#39; asking people obviously in turmoil is they thought that the Cats dropping bombs on their street were the &#39;good guys&#39; :o

Why can&#39;t the USA realise that killing and maiming peoples friends and family is not a good way to make them like you
Is Homer S really the archetype?
And i highly recomed looking at indymedia.org in regard to the USA targeting of non embedded jounalists repeatedly

too much truth is real bad for a war
for instance i don&#39;t beleive bush would ever have gone to war if they actually thought that there was likelihood of chem or bio munitions coming into play, it&#39;s all an excuse for a pathetic costly macho stunt
international bully smashes the loud mouthed uppity kids glasses and teeth again

Most USA citizens i&#39;ve met have little idea of the world out side of their expectations, if this is how the only rogue state is going to run it&#39;s foreign policy USA should expect a lot more insecurity, its not alqida or saddam it is the administration and the big money in security and weapons which will get USA attacked again and again and again :ph34r:

btw i wonder how much bush I & II cheney rummy rice are personally making from this bush II has direct firearm investments i&#39;m sure that rice still gets a nice little oil stipend for her influence upon its price fluctuation

unless you stand to inherit alot of this fortune i&#39;d get out of USA apart from making more enemies than any other nation state in the twentieth century, like 3 guns per person [not including military firearms] and 2%+ of the population in prison [mostly for smoking or selling a hit - maybe for using P2P] makes me think civil war followed by southern invasion is very likely
alot of people will die and North America will mostly speak spanish :ph34r:

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by echidna@6 May 2003 - 10:07
i heard &#39;journalists&#39; &#39;embedded&#39; speaking of "American and Coalition Forces" &#39;engaging "The Enemy"
They are called Iraqis
Well, without enemies, we&#39;d all be the good guys. BTW, the Iraqis weren&#39;t the enemy, Saddam Housain and his army were the "enemies". One could also say that those who harbor terrorists are our enemies. Syria anyone? Lets not discredit what they do because they had to dodge bullets from the &#39;enemy&#39; while giving their news brief. :huh:

[echidna]

They are supposed to be &#39;journalists&#39; and retain at least a semblance of objectivity
BTW Iraqis aren&#39;t my enemies neither are Syrians
so if their your enemies that&#39;s fine, you know that just as i know that they aren&#39;t my enemies
that&#39;s also why the jounalists should use the &#39;names&#39; of the combatants rather than emotive depersonalising euphamisms - so that we can know what they reporting ;)

They were dodging US munitions too, see. www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html)