Flame Wars forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 03:44:03 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Iraq... a new Vietnam?Message: Unfortunately, the majority of soldiers that has been surrending are chiites. In Iraq there are three ethnic groups, curds, chiites and sunites. If I'm not mistaken, Saddam and the core of Iraq's regime is made of sunites wich are a minority. The chiites are present in the periferic regions like southern iraq. They have low loyalty to the regime. But as US and British troops move up north, closer to Bagdag, they will begin to face Saddams national guard wich far more loyall, far more well equiped and trained, particulary to urban guerrilla. In urban guerilla, strong massive airpower is almost irrelevant unless Bush is willing to lose suport of US population. You canot drop MOABS in a 5 million habitants city. In urban guerrilla things always get ugly, like they did in Somalia. I dont question US and british troops will win, but at what price? If you see the footage of the US prisoners you will see a woman, a black female. Now... this seems strange. There are no women in front line marine troops. The group that was captured belonged to a logistic convoy that was ambushed. The troops are pushing further up north trying to reach Bagdad. They now that if they conquer Bagdag, the rest will fall. But they canot do it without a massive logistic backup. I think the coalition forces are been pressured to win this war as quick as possible. They are leaving behind some pockets of resistance. This ambush hapened in an area that they probably thought was secure. In operation Desert Storm the troops advance was much slower. For 15 days massive bombings ocured and then, only then, ground troups began moving and at a much slower rate (less miles per day). Now, as soon as the bombings began, troops entered Iraq. Of course bombings have been daily for the last 11 years but still, it's clear that the coalition forces want to win this war fast! Can Blair and Bush keep national suport if the war drags for bloody months? They already started it from a fragile position, and this is the price to pay for not having international and popular suport. If the war drags and becomes highly costly in human lifes, the coalitions forces lose the war. US and British troops are paying the price of this race against time. I'm shure that without mediatic pressure of cameras constantly filming the action live and without the time constraint, this war could be won without many casualties. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 04:59:19 [ report this post ] | Compared to Vietnam Message: The amount of US/British casualties has been nonexistent so far, perhaps more than expected though. It seems most US people are used of almost casualty-free wars that last days, not weeks. It is true Iraq managed to capture those soldiers mainly because attacking forces advance fast, leaving supply lines a bit vulnerable. Their strategy is exactly what military experts here and everywhere expected - they try to slow down the coalition forces and use small units for surprise attacks, concentrating elite forces to defend Baghdad. They know the only little hope they have is causing casualties on coalition side and trying to make the war as long as possible. Nevertheless I cant see the possibility of new Vietnam, even in Baghdad US forces are in much better position than they were in jungles of Vietnam. Then again people are even less willing to accept casualties than they were at that time. I agree time is a crucial factor and in many ways Bush & co must make a choice between two evils - advancing fast means more own casualties...heavy bombing means civilian casualties. Slow war means risking the loss of support at home (OTOH own casualties have similar effect too). Nevertheless the final assault to Baghdad will be the critical phase of the war, not only how fast coalition forces prevail, but how - and yes, on what price? If there will be heavy casualties in Baghdad - especially civilians - the consequenses might be catastrophic. |
| deathray (#) 3/24/2003 05:37:18 [ report this post ] | An article in Message: www.newsmax.com by Christopher Ruddy kind of addresses this, and makes comparisons to Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because military objections took second place to political considerations. He fears this is happening again. We could be bombing infrastructure--power plants, water pumping stations, TV and radio, etc. But it as though we are determined to do as little collateral damage as possible in our quest to remove Saddam and Co. Is it endangering the lives of our military personnel? Should we have just bombed the crap out of all military targets instead of hoping they just surrender? Is the ground war of the campaign coming too soon? I don't know. I trust our military planners. But I am concerned that military objectives are taking the back seat to political concerns. That is a recipe for defeat, as we should well know. We need three pictures to declare a victory. 1) Saddam dead or in handcuffs 2) Iraqi civilians welcoming US soldiers as liberators 3) Caches of WMD. This war is less than a week old. I'm going to wait for at least a month or two before I decide if it is a success or a failure. |
| zeox (#) 3/24/2003 05:56:55 [ report this post ] | SORRY MATE... Message: But you cannot compare it to Nam. In war people die and due to the overwhelming military majority we WILL win, it is only the amount of time that can change. In Somalia there were a small amount of casualties (i think around 20marines?). Although 1 American dead is too many, the Somalian death toll was well over 800. I have heard its closer to 1000. Now that is a pretty good ratio in a hot urban environment dont you think? I think Bagdad will the crux of the war. I think if America is properly supplies and supported, it will be victorious. America as long as it is well supplied, and well supported can be victorious over ANY country ANYWHERE. J |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 06:12:47 [ report this post ] | Deathray Message: "We could be bombing infrastructure--power plants, water pumping stations, TV and radio, etc." This strategy (that has been used in the past) is also called bombing civilians, and I am happy to see that isnt happening this time. The water is already cut in the city of Basra and chances for humanitarian catastrophe are there. "We need three pictures to declare a victory. 1) Saddam dead or in handcuffs 2) Iraqi civilians welcoming US soldiers as liberators 3) Caches of WMD." I agree. But so far you have 1) Saddam alive and kicking, speaking in TV 2) Iraqi civilians in hospitals, wrecked houses in residential areas, anti-US demonstrations, Saddam having more support among Iraqi people than before the threat of military conflict. 3) No signs of WMDs Basically you can have picture 1 if you only get Saddam, but not picture 2. Sure you can make it look like that if you want, all you need is to show some pictures of Iraqi people who actually support the war and throw the pictures of people who oppose to the trash can :-) But since you value freedom and justice, I suppose you oppose propaganda? Picture 3 depends on whether Iraq has WMDs or not...that I guess we will find out after or even during the war. Overall, if you can get both 1 & 3, its a big moral victory. But if you get only 1, or 1 and "media version" of 2 (American TV giving an impression that Iraqis see you as liberators, everyone else showing...erhm, different story), its not looking good IMO. Of course you can hope that after Saddam is gone the support to USA will increase among Iraqi civilians, but so far "Iraqis see US soldiers as liberators" theory looks anything but realistic, and it is unlikely things will change when coalition forces advance to Baghdad. About war being success or failure as a military operation (forgetting politics or justification), I agree. We have to wait and see how it goes, we will be much wiser after its over. |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 06:18:06 [ report this post ] | peppe Message: The reason I'm comparing this war to vientam, or at least asking a question, is that vietnam, like deathray says, was a war lost in the public opinion batlefield. I also said coalition forces a certain to win the war on the ground but supose heavy casualties in US ranks start to occour? Bush could lose popular suport. |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 06:19:51 [ report this post ] | zeox Message: 20 KIA americans was all it took to declare americans had lost Somalia war. The war lords continued there and US troops had to leave. Why? How could you justify to the american people that US soldiers are dying to rescue people who... want to kill them...? |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 06:30:28 [ report this post ] | Iraqui liberators Message: Like I said, a sunite minority rules Iraq. I can assure you that curds (obviously) and chiites are not found of Saddam Hussein. I have already seen footage of US troops being recieved with kisses and praises while Saddam posters are riped apart. Iraqui refugees living in Portugal hate Saddam. They show scars of tortures, they say everyone is pressured to praise Saddam. One revieved electric shocks until he admited that he had "insulted saddam". And these people also dont like USA. The people of Iraq are not stupid. They dont like Saddam Hussein. Problem is that they hate America as well. And why? They would bring us to another debate about Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only international support Saddam gets is because he suports Palestinians in their cause. This is an hipocrit and fake suport but it seems to work well. Everyone should know that Saddam is an laic man. Nobody in the arab world liked his regime in the 80's, USA and UK where is allies. But when the tables turned and times demanded it, he even got a Coran writen with his blood. He knows that under the flag of muslim and religion, he can unite eforts against USA and Israel, thus suporting him. If this war was better prepared, made in a context outside of this clash between USA and Arab world, it would be easier. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 06:50:50 [ report this post ] | The opposition Message: Of Saddam is highest among Kurds and refugees. You saw US soldiers being received with kisses and praises. So what? There are 26 million people in Iraq, how many of them you saw in that footage? I have seen pictures of Iraqis killing your soldiers, massive demonstrations where Iraqis burn American flags, angry mobs seeking American soldiers from Tigris river etc etc etc. So far US troops have encountered massive hostility even in areas where Saddam is LEAST popular. I can only guess how much "kisses and praises" there will be when they enter Baghdad, the home terrain of Saddam. Of course I agree there are many Iraqis who dislike Saddam but still see him as "minor evil" compared to USA or war. What worries me is many people who werent his supporters before the war, are now swearing to his name. If you ask me he doesnt deserve such popularity. About reasons why they hate USA, yes Palestinia is one of them. But there are other reasons as well, like the fact that currently your troops are occupying their country... Yes SOME Iraqis see US army as a liberator, but so far everything suggests that majority of Iraqis do not. |
| zeox (#) 3/24/2003 06:56:35 [ report this post ] | RIDER... Message: We did not declare we lost the war my friend. Public support wavered and we pulled out because the public support fell. Just like Vietnam mate, we would never have ''lost'' if public opinion wasnt such a huge factor. The actual fighting and the situation on the ground was as follows. 1.around 20 marines died, for around 800-1000 Somalian casualties 2.the losses in Vietnam were far greater for the US but the death toll for the invading army was far far greater. Wars these days are not ruled by engadgements and if you actually win, but if the public WANTS you to win. J |
| deathray (#) 3/24/2003 07:06:09 [ report this post ] | I believe Message: that we will get all three pictures. Saddam may well already be dead. The ambulance that came to the bunker after it was bombed was in no hurry to go anywhere. And a number of high ranking Iraqis apparently came to the bunker afterwards. Nobody has seen him, all we have seen is tape, which we can't confirm whether it is him or doubles, and we don't know when these things were taped. The Iraqis in places are welcoming us, but as long as fear of Saddam is there, we're not going to see any large outpouring of support. When you have entire divisions surrendering, that would seem to me to be an indication that at least some people are happy we are there. And as for WMD, we shall see, we shall see. |
| zeox (#) 3/24/2003 07:14:31 [ report this post ] | PEPPE... Message: I understand your arguments but if people who before dislike Sadam and are now all of a sudden singing his praise, should we really be taking them seriously?? J |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 07:38:46 [ report this post ] | Deathray Message: Yes I too read about it (after posting about Saddam being alive and kicking), some reports today suggested that he was seriously injured but saved in an operation. He looked fine when he appeared in TV though, so that makes me wonder was he really injured or does he have some sort of special gift to heal quickly? :-) It is true there are Saddam copies, although he does have somewhat distinct voice that may be hard to copy. So far in none of his TV appearances he has referred to the specific events after his rumoured death. That does suggest perhaps everything was taped beforehand? About support...you know surrendering isnt always a sign of Iraqi soldiers being happy about you being there, it can simply be about facing a superior enemy and realizing that the only chance to see friends and families again is to surrender. Obviously it can be about being against Saddam too, but at least for now we can only guess. |
| drcorbett (#) 3/24/2003 08:00:47 [ report this post ] | Yeah... Message: #1: Well, we don't know. Intelligence suggests Hussein on a stretcher, and taped messages -- big deal. #2: Well, it's been all of, what, five days now? They've been in one urban area that we've seen. Anti-US protests? Easy_rider could point out to me that 75% of the people there just plain hate the US, and would be whining and complaining regardless of what was going on. There are affirmation rallies too. Now, remember, what some 18-year-old neocommie stoned out on pot thinks is NOT indicitive to what the average person things. #3: What a surprise. I know, look, "Hi, I'm Saddam Hussein, and I was STUPID ENOUGH TO USE WMD's ON THE AMERICANS. That would be one heck of a bad move. World opinion instantly leaves him (except for afformentioned neocommies) and joins the US. The Americans proceed to go on a mad romp around Iraq. |
| tbmbuzz (#) 3/24/2003 08:38:17 [ report this post ] | Vietnam Message: For the past quarter century, every time the U.S. has been involved in some military conflict, the same cockroaches come scurrying out whining that "it's another Vietnam". Besides the reasons mentioned in this thread that the Vietnam conflict was unique, there is one other fact about that war that is never mentioned, namely that it was a proxy war between the U.S. and USSR. North Vietnam would never have lasted were it not for the massive logistical and military support it received from the USSR (and Red China). Thus any comparisons of Vietnam to Gulf War I or Bosnia or Kosovo or now are bogus and irrelevant. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 08:39:23 [ report this post ] | Drcorbett Message: This "anti-americans who hate us regardless what we do" theory is ridiculous. The whole point of this theory is to oversimplify and tell American people that you can send food or bombs but the amount of people who hate USA remains the same - you know, almost like you are born anti-american/or not. Yeah SOME people will propably always hate USA anyway, but not all. Your every single action has a tremendous effect on how many people will hate you - and how much they will hate you. Obvious? Apparently not for everyone. Hey why not drop bombs to France too? Afterall they spoke against you (having different opinion = being anti-american). According to "anti-american theory" it wont change the way they feel about USA, because some people just are anti-americans, and some are not. |
| astinkyfart (#) 3/24/2003 08:50:04 [ report this post ] | vietnam was way different Message: the u.s. put restrictions on the military. there were there mainly to police the area many places werent even bombed. in my opinion they never intended to actually win the vietnam war. |
| drcorbett (#) 3/24/2003 09:07:19 [ report this post ] | Hey Message: I was saying that there were some people who were taught to hate Americans regardless of whatever they were doing. There certainly appears to be some people like that where I come from, where every other word out of their mouth is one slamming the US. I know what it's like, I used to be one of those people. (Maybe it had to do with Clinton, or the fact that your companies were taking over mine, or the fact that your morals were taking over ours, or your culture leeching across the border.) |
| zeox (#) 3/24/2003 09:10:11 [ report this post ] | NO.... Message: Some people (the french) are arrogant, ignorant, winging, whining, pathetic, cowardly, argumentative, useless, weak, unable to be victorious on a firing range let alone an actual war, hairy, attention seeking, and well....French. I think I let a little too much out, sorry people I actually like the french, (well at least their women, as long as they shave) J Note from webmaster: this post is borderline racist, please let's keep all discussions here civilized. |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 09:28:22 [ report this post ] | Message: Acording to CNN oficial American sources rose to 56 the number of american and british victims. I think that is alot. The war will agravate for sure arround bagdag and at this rate more than 1000 casualties could hapen no? zeox: It doesnt mater if you declare or not that you have lost. If you set yourself for a goal and fail it, you have lost. Like you lost Vietnam or Somalia. tbmbuzz: the comparasion to vietnam is merely in the delicate media suport and dificulty of fighting it.Also it is in a far place and suposely to free a people that somewhat blends with the enemies. Like in vietnam. If the casualties are imense, I think Bush will have trouble justifying the price for oil in young american lives. astinkyfart: perhaps watching to many Chuck Norris movies. Something like 70 000 americans died in Vietnam and hundreds of thousands were wounded. What was the restrition to american military? You couldn't use nukes? Napalm wasnt enough? peppe_l: You are wrong. The majority of Iraqui people does not suport Saddam. They are just as rational as you and me. This is what everyone that can get out of there says and I believe them. Tomy Franks knows this and he knows that the more iraqui civilians you kill, the more dificult it wil be to win the war and particulary to keep the situation under control afterwards. Deathray: CIA as already said that it was saddam in those tapes, but it's true that they could be pre-recorded. |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 09:29:25 [ report this post ] | deja vu Message: www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.apache.attack/index. CNN's Karl Penhaul who was with helicopter regiment involved in the attack said the helicopters encountered a "heavy, heavy barrage" of anti-aircraft fire in the battle. He could not immediately say whether all of the U.S. helicopters returned safely to their base at an airfield in northern Kuwait. Most pilots said they were unable to achieve the objectives of the mission -- to hit the Republican Guard armored brigade, knock out its tanks and pierce its artillery. They spent a few hours in the air defending themselves and trying to get out of the area. The attack force did not expect such strong resistance from what they thought were mostly civilian areas, Penhaul reported. He added that pilots were "somewhat dazed, somewhat stunned" by the level of Iraqi resistance they encountered. Some of the elements the Apaches tried to strike were Iraqi T-72 battle tanks, the most advanced tank used by the Iraqi forces. The Republican Guard was estimated to have at least 90 of those tanks, along with "multiple" pieces of field artillery and armored personnel carriers, Penhaul said. The attack started after midnight (4 p.m. ET) and lasted about three hours, said Penhaul, who was aboard a Black Hawk helicopter that served as the command and control craft of a unit of Apache attack helicopters. The helicopter in which Penhaul was riding was about 15-20 miles from the scene of the strike. The Apache unit went up against the 2nd Armored Brigade of the Medina Division, which is part of the Republican Guard, the troops most loyal to Saddam Hussein, Penhaul said. They also attacked positions between Karbala and Hillah, which straddle the Euphrates River south of Baghdad. Narrow escape Some of the U.S. aircraft flying in the mission reported taking fire. Helmets found at the site One pilot described the situation as "a hornet's nest," as small arms fire and anti-aircraft fire came from "all sides." Most pilots said they sustained 15 to 20 rounds. One pilot said his helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, which took out one of the engines, Penhaul reported. He managed to fly back to the air base in Northern Kuwait, with one engine intact. At one stage, the pilot said, his aircraft dropped down 15-20 feet above an urban area before he could regain control. Penhaul is embedded with the U.S. Army's V Corps, 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/24/2003 09:37:57 [ report this post ] | There is a difference Message: Between supporting Saddam and being against the war. Pls read my post more carefully. Zeox, Most European countries are against the war, not just France. In fact you can claim that French have more "guts" then others because they have the courage to speak up and oppose USA. For example our president is against the war (she was willing to accept it only with UN approval) but guess 2 times will she risk good relationship with USA by opposing a superpower :-) |
| easy_rider (#) 3/24/2003 09:39:54 [ report this post ] | to be clear Message: I am 100% in suport of American and British and Australian troops. I am still against war (like I think we all are in a way) but it started. Nothing can stop it now. In all bad things I try to see positive things. I dont buy the crap that Iraq as mass destruction weapons, or that Saddam poses a threath to me or to western countries. But it is shamefull dictatorship. It's people is opressed. While Saddam has 10 palaces and his sons live despotic lives, the people lives in misery, it's army out of charity. A teacher, or an engineer makes about 4$ a month. No one likes Saddam, only perhaps the closest to him. The others are scared. The only reason why there is no aparent oposition to him is due to a repression compared to Stalin's. Saddam and it's party Baas simply eliminated all military top ranks in the 80's. They replaced them. Thats why Saddam and other party members wear an uniform. In all revolutions... ALL.. the army plays an important role. When the army declares it will no longer suport a leader, but it will suport the peoples will, then the leader falls. In Iraq, there IS NO ARMY as an governemnt independent force like in normal countries. It also makes it more fragile, because if Saddam dies, the body loses it's head for good. Simple facts is that just a few moments ago he instigated Iraq population to kill the invasors and walk for a certain death. Human life has litle or now value to him. He is willing to sacrify his poor people to a slaughter only to make him a martyr and turn public opinions against USA. |
| vietnamese_girl_18 (#) 3/24/2003 10:40:11 [ report this post ] | ...comment on vietnam Message: Some people have a slight misunderstanding of the Vietnam War. Firstly, it was a relatively popular war in the US until the Tet offensive. Even though, in military terms, the Viet Cong were turned back then, it brought to the American people that they were fighting a war in which victory was not so close as the U.S. military was leading Americans to believe. The Tet offensive showed that the American military was dealing with an enemy that had the ability to strike even in the heart of Saigon. The Viet Cong were clearly stronger than the American public had been lead to believe. It was perhaps the incompetence, or downright deception, by military leaders that created an atmosphere of cynicism among Americans towards the war. Additionally, a massive amount of military force WAS used, if not fully. North Vietnam was utterly devastated by American bombing. There were nearly NO bridges left in all of N. Vietnam. The infrastructure was wiped out. You can still see massive B-52 craters all over the North. For the 58,000 Americans who died, several hundred thousand Viet Cong and N. Vietnamese died, with extremely large civilian casualties. There were constraints, but many of those constraints were imposed for practical military reasons: for example, America feared that a direct invasion could trigger direct intervention by the Chinese (a repeat of the Korean war). Yes, America would most certainly have won the Vietnam war given time and more military force, but the 58,000 dead would probably be closer to 80,000, if not more -- and for what purpose??? Keep in mind, those of you who talk about the Vietnam War being lost because of "political" interference, that without this interference, many more thousands of Americans would have died needlessly. My family, and myself, are anti-communist and would have preferred America to prevail; however, anyone who thinks that it would have been easy "if the politicians got out of the way" are sadly mistaken and are just buying into the self-serving propaganda of General Westmoreland and others-- and I'm not sure that thousands of additional deaths would have been justified. Sarah Tran |
| tbmbuzz (#) 3/24/2003 11:09:17 [ report this post ] | Sarah... Message: All very true what you have written. The U.S. was in an untenable position for a long time in Vietnam with things just getting worse and worse. What I would add is that the South Vietnamese government was consistently corrupt, unable to stand on its own, and the 'Vietnamization' policy of the U.S. was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Yes, Communism is evil and the Soviets and Red Chinese bear their share of the blame for the rape of Vietnam as a whole, but IMO American policy makers way back during the Eisenhower administration underestimated the power of nationalism that could actually trump the Communism being exported from Moscow at the time. The U.S. could have supported Ho Chi Minh against the French and seen a nice buffer state set up against China - a natural and historic enemy of Vietnam. |
| shoshin (#) 3/24/2003 15:05:41 [ report this post ] | a couple of notes Message: Somalia was not a war. It was a humanatariam mission. Vietnam was a disaster because the democratic presidents involved did not have the will to fight to win. Public opinion did affect their decisions. The same people who protested that war were also the people who treated our returning soldiers like stray dogs. The possibility of the latter happening again is the only thing these two wars have in common. The distinct difference in these two wars is; the threat of Hussein is far more apparent than the perceived threat of Ho Chi Minh |
| outinspace69 (#) 3/24/2003 18:36:59 [ report this post ] | I'm not sure if this was said Message: the people who were killed and captured from the logistic group went ahead of the convoy inot what they thought was a secured area, but armored ddivsion had not yet entered or even tryed to secure. |
| midknightwarrior (#) 3/24/2003 19:21:25 [ report this post ] | Sarah...all Message: I was a Vietnam era vet a US Marine and we could have won the War had we invaded the North. We might not have lost as much life on both sides because it may have ended quicker. The fear as Sarah points out was China and another Korea. However, we did not completely lose. The US today has a very large population of Vietnamese most over came major obstacles to have contributed to our American society in the most positive fashion. I have worked side by side with many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodians, now as an engineering manager many have worked for me. All are dedicated and hard working and understand better then most Americans the importance of freedom. Sarah you are a wise young woman I wish you the best. A correction for some of you on Somalia, that was an Army venture not the Marines. The commander of the operation didn�t want to go in without tank support. Washington, in this case, Clinton himself gave the order no tanks, as a result 20 Americans died and 1000 Somalia�s. Had the tanks gone in there�s a good the resistance would not have been there. After the failure to capture the warlord Clinton let that commander, take the full blame� typical of Clinton, since the whole operation was to distract attention from his screwing around. I know several of the solders who took part in that operation I will not state here what they have told me of their thoughts on Clinton. As for the 20 to 1000, one thing about Marines and I�m sure all US service members is that we don�t want to die for our country, religion, or leaders. Our training is to give our enemy that honor. A sign at the Marine Corp rife training states �We dedicate our marksmanship training to the enemy so that we may give them every opportunity to die for there cause.� As a Marine, we are taught to fight to carry out our mission and orders and to survive at all cost, to fight another day. War is hell I hated to see us go to war but now that we are, I give my full support. Just let the military do their job and keep the politics out of it. A warning to all the American haters out there; an old revolutionary slogan was a flag with a rattlesnake and the words �Don�t tread on me� because if you dare tread on this country we will strike back. |
| tbmbuzz (#) 3/24/2003 19:50:57 [ report this post ] | midknightwarrior Message: >>if you dare tread on this country we will strike back. << Correction: We ARE striking back! One outlaw regime for each Twin Tower! The world has been subjected to half a century of crap from the most f--ed up part of the world and enough is enough. If they try more of the same, they will be tread on even harder. Semper fi! |
| midknightwarrior (#) 3/24/2003 20:21:40 [ report this post ] | Deepsouth Message: I'm with you! Another 49 year old here, 1954 was a very good year :) Semper fi! |
| drgandalf (#) 3/24/2003 21:24:16 [ report this post ] | Public Support Message: How many casualties of coalition forces will it take before public sentiment starts to turn against this war? I believe Poland has sent 200 troops. So, there are at least four nations with miltary force in Iraq. It is my understanding that the Vietnamese lost 3.8 million lives during the post French period. Harry Truman was the first US president to provide aid to the French in Indochina (Vietnam). |
| wolfstrike (#) 3/25/2003 00:42:14 [ report this post ] | Message: iraq will not be a vietnam because we have bombs that burrow under ground. |
| hamlet (#) 3/25/2003 01:23:02 [ report this post ] | ah I see... Message: burrowing bombs...solve all the world's problems...and how does this help in urban campaigns, or in the public opinion polls? In truth though I am a fan of those burrowing bombs. I've actually written the Pentagon requesting about a dozen of them. I'm positive that these bombs will solve the gopher problem on my grandparents' farm... |
| wolfstrike (#) 3/25/2003 01:58:34 [ report this post ] | Message: its a really nice thought that everyone is going to "drop thier guns and lawsuits" and dance around the rainbow,but its not going to happen. the countries that produce suicide bombers will soon have nuclear weapons,what do you think will happen then? |
| pawntificator (#) 3/25/2003 02:03:41 [ report this post ] | luckily Message: the people who have the power and technology aren't suicide bombers themselves. Otherwise that WOULD be a big problem. Nuclear suicide! Creepy. |
| easy_rider (#) 3/25/2003 02:21:47 [ report this post ] | Message: Barry McCaffrey, ex comander of the Gulf War says he estimates between 2000 and 3000 american casualties in the batle to conquer Bagdad. And if it's true that Iraqi officers have orders to fire chemical weapons if coalition troops cross a red line perimeter arround Bagdad (and then blame US) it will be hell. Yesterday I saw dead Iraqui soldiers and they had modern gas masks distributed to them by the army. I know It doesn't prove anything but it is a bad sign. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 02:30:20 [ report this post ] | Cambodia Message: Was a nice way to "fight for freedom"... The only reason Henry Kissinger isnt where Slobodan Milosevic is today is the fact that hes American. Also makes me wonder why Bush continues to oppose ICC... The following is not about any specific person here or anywhere else, As I recall semper fi (semper fidelis = "always faithful") is a slogan of US marines, yes? Ironically it describes the connection between army and politics as well - soldiers are supposed to have blind faith that USA is always "the good guy", fighting for freedom and justice. Army has its own politicians, priests, everything. They will explain why killing your enemies will save (or saveD, in case you have any doubts about missions in the past) many lives in the future, and how God himself supports you when you pull the trigger. Army is kept separate from politics for good reasons. It is necessary - if soldiers begin to question the justification of their mission, everything falls apart. One question though - is US army the only place where patriotism often leads to blind faith and heavily biased way of thinking? Tbmbuzz "Correction: We ARE striking back! One outlaw regime for each Twin Tower! The world has been subjected to half a century of crap from the most f--ed up part of the world and enough is enough. If they try more of the same, they will be tread on even harder." Thats great news - for Al Qaeda that is! Attack American civilians and US army will attack another country, causing even more hatred and helping Al Qaeda draft more and more members. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 02:38:35 [ report this post ] | Easy_rider Message: Gas mask is a part of standard equipment of a foot soldier... Then again, imagine someone occupying USA - troops conquering New York, Los Angeles etc and preparing for a final assault against Washington DC. Would Bush use WMDs to stop the invaders? |
| pawntificator (#) 3/25/2003 03:08:56 [ report this post ] | NY and LA!! Message: Yeah right! There is no way troops would conquer NY or LA. Those cities don't even need soldiers to defend themselves. So many people there with guns. Washington is just as bad too. The enemy would have to use wmd to conquer the us. But give me a break, would bush use wmd to stop the invasion of DC? Of course not. Bush might be insane, but he's no Hussein. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 03:20:15 [ report this post ] | Or Message: Harry Truman :-) |
| bartlebie (#) 3/25/2003 03:54:42 [ report this post ] | Hehe pawnti, Message: why should Bush not use WMDs? As I remember he was willing to use nuklear bunker-breakers in Iraq, so what should keep him from using WMDs? If he talks about pre-emptive war strategies against other countries on the axis of evil (North Korea and I think Pakistan will come on the list in the next year) how will he do without using WMDs? As you know Pakistan and North Korea definitively have nuclear weapons. It won't be so easy invading North Korea as invading Iraq. |
| fooey (#) 3/25/2003 04:12:13 [ report this post ] | WMD Message: If this stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction, rather than Weapon of Mad Dictator, then wake up and smell the coffee, the US and the UK are using WMDs on Iraq at the moment. Come to think about it, bush is definitely using WMDs, regardless of the above definition. I don't think the US or the UK are in a position to ban anyone else having WMDs, they probably have more than the rest of the world put together. The reason why Saddam should be disarmed is because WMDs have been used on innocents (let's hope we're accurate). |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 05:01:57 [ report this post ] | So, Pawntificator Message: In a situation where Bush has to make a choice between giving his country to the hands of enemy or using WMDs to keep USA free, he will choose the first option? |
| tbmbuzz (#) 3/25/2003 05:06:09 [ report this post ] | easy_rider Message: >>>And if it's true that Iraqi officers have orders to fire chemical weapons if coalition troops cross a red line perimeter arround Bagdad (and then blame US) it will be hell. <<< I doubt it. For their chemical attack to be effective they would need to fire a concentrated barrage of chemical artillery. Their artillery would be taken out immediately. Furthermore, the weather would have to cooperate also. Frankly, it would be no more than a nuisance, as has the Iraqi "resistance" been so far. |
| fooey (#) 3/25/2003 05:06:35 [ report this post ] | but... Message: saddam doesn't threaten the US, just their oil reserves. |
| tbmbuzz (#) 3/25/2003 05:15:32 [ report this post ] | peppe_l Message: >>>Thats great news - for Al Qaeda that is! Attack American civilians and US army will attack another country, causing even more hatred and helping Al Qaeda draft more and more members. <<<< Yes, this is the standard bogus argument I hear all the time. First, the hatred already exists, so there won't be "more" hatred. Second, Al Qaeda's back is pretty much broken. Third, and most crucial, global terrorist groups need STATE SUPPORT to carry out their activities on an international scale. Two of the worst states have now been taken out and the others are now on notice. I am always incredulous at your types who are willing to accept violence and atrocities from uncivilized scumbags but refuse to let the civilized world defend itself. This is especially true for you Finns. I'm of Central European descent and my parents barely survived both Fascism and Communism. My whole family vividly understands the difference between tyranny and the values of the West, warts and all. So do today's East Europeans. Why don't you? (Thousands of dead Yugoslavs, killed in the last decade, ask the same question of you West Europeans from their graves). |
| deathray (#) 3/25/2003 05:41:48 [ report this post ] | Peppe_l Message: No one is going to occupy LA or New York. That's the point I'm trying to make. I guess that when you are a member of a nation of people that has been frequently subjugated, it is easier to imagine. |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 07:13:13 [ report this post ] | Deathray Message: You havent heard the term "hypothetical question" or saw an another opportunity to mock the "3rd rate" country where I live? :-) |
| peppe_l (#) 3/25/2003 07:40:55 [ report this post ] | Tbmbuzz Message: Strange arguments I have to say. * Yes, this is the standard bogus argument I hear all the time. First, the hatred already exists, so there won't be "more" hatred.* ??? So if there is already hatred, that means there cant be more hatred in the future? Very...interesting theory. * Second, Al Qaeda's back is pretty much broken. * Perhaps, but IMO they are still dangerous. * I am always incredulous at your types who are willing to accept violence and atrocities from uncivilized scumbags but refuse to let the civilized world defend itself. * This rather insulting statement really tells more about your level of intelligence than about me. * This is especially true for you Finns. * This comment is very amusing if its read after the best part of your post, where you show your impressive knowledge about Finland :-) * I'm of Central European descent and my parents barely survived both Fascism and Communism. My whole family vividly understands the difference between tyranny and the values of the West, warts and all. So do today's East Europeans. Why don't you? (Thousands of dead Yugoslavs, killed in the last decade, ask the same question of you West Europeans from their graves). * LOL Have you ever seen a thing called map? Please check out the location of Finland before embarrassing yourself any further. Lets continue the discussion after that, ok? |
| pawntificator (#) 3/28/2003 07:50:34 [ report this post ] | blar!! Message: enough with the war! I'm against the war because it ruined the forums! |
| pawntificator (#) 3/28/2003 07:50:47 [ report this post ] | wooooo Message: last post ha ha! |
| Maximum number of reply messages has been reached | |