Moderator:Æron
Couldn't be arsed mateThat's good, yet why didn't you say it in the first place?
But I also agree with what you say. As for the UK leaving, I think the rest of the world might see that as us "bailing" on something we started...That's why I reckon we'll be there for a few years yet.I personally had not heard that phrase before, and from what the generals said, they knew the amount of time it would take from the get-go.
You want words? Ok bucko, here some words on the war in Iraq right now.
So, 2003 rolled around and the front line set. Forces on both sides geared up and faced each other across the Iraq-Kuwaiti border in anticipation of what the Americans assured would be "like tearing off a bandaid"...however, they must have neglected to mention that said band-aid was covering an artery.
So if terrorism -IS-, then, a problem, and one growing world-wide where major nations are under attack, including the US, the UK, France, etc. etc., then if we get them in one place and eliminate that global threat, isn't that a -good- thing? and Axis of evil? Come to think of it, the only time I seem to hear that is from overzealous fanatics who follow what certain politicians say as if it were like their religion.No sooner than the war declared "won", that casualties started to rise on all sides. The "insurgents" kill everyone it seems, and not even Iraqi comunity leaders seem to know who they are. Most are foreign, and don't give a shit about Iraq (The irony of the war is that it set out to irradicate one section of the "axis of evil" but just managed to put all the terrorists in one place)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and again wrong. The war was 'legal' because of how the treaty was signed back in Gulf 1. Saddam had agreed not to hold certain types of weapons in stock, mainly ones that had certain ranges beyond a defense radius. As far as making deals with the oil companies... eh, shady as that is, once we were told we couldn't use that oil, we still went through with it: logically meaning that was not the point for the war.Also, deals were made allowing companies like Halliburton guarenteed shares in whatever oil and industry Iraq has over the next 25 years...which I guess kind of prooves the war was illigal.
Where might you have gotten the number 172 as being higher than the Persian Gulf War in 1991? In that one year timespan, there were 382 US soldiers alone to get to that point. Secondly, while undesirable, the casualty rates are low for war time numbers.The casualty rates on both sides has been massive when compared to even the first Iraq war. During the actual campaign part, from the start of the push to Bhagdad, to the declaration of "mission accomplished" onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st 2003, the USA and UK lost 172 Men killed.
It is at this time I will point out during Clinton's administration, there were 8404 military casualties for all 8 years. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new ... ts?page=31, which is a higher rate per year than what has happened in Iraq, as we are 4 and 1/4 years in.The figure today stands at 3519 KIA for the US, 150 UK dead, and 127 fatalities from other international countries.
Show me those findings. I happen to have heard very differently. No nuclear weaponry, as was played in the media so much, but from my understanding of the situation back then, he had various missiles banned from Gulf 1. SCUD rockets to be one. The small munitions rounds laced with a variant of mustard gas as well, tend to go against the treaty, as well as the UN (what a bunch of bullcrap that is, now...)And for what? It seems that everyone was well aware that the only thing Saddam could launch in 45 minutes was a frisbee, so why are we there?
Actually, for a war situation, that is still a really low casualty rate. Desirable? Hell no. But that but less than 1000 a year during a wartime? Well, you know, might be lower if the military over there had the proper funding to even run, instead of bills being held up in Congress for an eternity while food supplies dwindle, ammo runs lower, and technology needs repair, if from nothing else, heat damage alone.Also, look at those casualty rates...3796 dead since war started...if you break that down into months it's just over 75 Coalition dead per month...that's worse than some months of the early years of Vietnam for pants's sake.
Source? I've never heard anything one way or the otherAnother problem I have with the war is that the soldiers being sent there have no idea what it's really like. They get told that nothing will happen, that it'll be like Northern Ireland or Bosnia...low combat, occasional snipers, maybe a mine here and there.
They go in not being told the 100% truth, just like Vietnam, and some react badly...how else would you explain the attrocities carried out at that prison and in other places? Sure, sometimes they were ordered to do it, but most armies teach that moral integrity is more important than loyalty...which in my brief army experience is really not the case...you go against a superior on anything and you're an outcast in the unit. Sort of like a grass in prison, or a tell-tale at School.
So we're Nazi's? Thats original thought, there. And if battles carried out with those clear lines, our casualty rates would be lower. This enemy does not follow the Geneva Convention; the do not wear uniforms, they hide among the civilian populus, and they torture anyone they can grab: soldiers, tourists, news reporters, etc., just for attention, and to kill.Iraq is STILL a war-zone with two sides lined up against each other. Think of it less as Vietnam, but more the Nazi Occupation of France. The insurgents see themselves as the Maqui and the US as the Nazi invaders.
Actually, many Iraqi people do to, you know, since they blow themselves up to bits in their own civil disputes.The US see them as "terrorists".
Actually, wasn't France trying to -claim- that land for their own? I've not heard any evidence that actually shows that to be a goal of the US here. Also, the falsified accounts did not come from the source you may think: They came from Iraq themselves. Various missions of espionage uncovered reports of WMD's being created for Saddam. Little did Saddam know that the scientists were pocketing the money for themselves, not spending it as he had thought they were. We did not uncover that portion of it until after we had started moving in.A good parallel is the French occupation of Algeria in the 1950s, and the subsecuent war that ensued for Algerian independence. Looking back at it now, we condem France for their actions there, but at the time there were few protests. Maybe in 50 years people won't believe that the Coalition went in on the evidence they did...falsified accounts and hearsay...
Guess you never see the thank yous coming from those people over there. Many are fed up with the conflict itself, and angry that we have to be there. Oh, and why don't I mention that hundreds upon thousands of people die in the crossfire because the terrorists don't seem to care too much about who their shooting. Logically, would they try to avoid that? Yes, and I believe to some degree they do... but they are so overzealous, they would sacrifice some of their own to kill an infidel or two.Maybe it was worth it...25,000+ Coalition casualties for a war freeing people that really don't want us there anymore...and I haven't even mentioned the multiple thousands of Iraqi dead that have died in the crossfire....
Like the time and money and lives spent to figure out why people fight over "The Holy Land"? People have been trying for years.My point is that surely the time, money, and lives would be better spent figuring out WHY they're angry and pissed off, and then curing that rather than just shooting them and leaving their bodies to bleach in the hot Iraqi sun?
*shrugs**flexes*
pantsless 'av it!
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.
Were these discovered before we entered the war? If so, why didn't we hear about them as a reason?[No nuclear weaponry, as was played in the media so much, but from my understanding of the situation back then, he had various missiles banned from Gulf 1. SCUD rockets to be one. The small munitions rounds laced with a variant of mustard gas as well, tend to go against the treaty, as well as the UN (what a bunch of bullcrap that is, now...)
History repeats itself. Conveying it with originality is optional if even possible.Heh, and I guess Bush is Hitler. Wow, GENIUS. I wish someone had said THAT to me before! What an EYE OPENER.
We usually don't. Remember the Olympic team's reaction?Guess you never see the thank yous coming from those people over there.
I had, but the majority of people hadn't. The US tried to play the politically liberal media, and tried hitting a point they saw as a safe bet for good reason to go in to the publics eye.Were these discovered before we entered the war? If so, why didn't we hear about them as a reason?
Hitler was trying to create the 'Perfect Race', which I don't see that to be the case here. And if it were the case, we'd be invading the nearest countries first, Canada and Mexico, not an area already full of politically unrest.History repeats itself. Conveying it with originality is optional if even possible.Heh, and I guess Bush is Hitler. Wow, GENIUS. I wish someone had said THAT to me before! What an EYE OPENER.
I would almost guarantee that those families somehow benefited from Saddam's rule. And if not, I could be wrong.We usually don't. Remember the Olympic team's reaction?Guess you never see the thank yous coming from those people over there.
With 20 years to hide it, assuming he still had it, do you really think we could uncover it in such a short time? I still hold to the possibility of finding something buried deep underground in silos we've yet to discover sometime in the late game. Rather... if thats where they are, I hope/pray that we find them before someone who'd use them without hesitation.But it does beg the question of IF he had nothing, then just what the pants did he do with all that shit Thatcher and Reagan sold him in the 80s?
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.
At one point among that lengthy among other things response, you mentoned heat damage hurting equipment. Heat damage is among the least of US/"coalition" forces worries.(FC attacks with wall of text! It's super effective!)
Right. Don't stop believing. Hold on to that feeeeeel-ing.With 20 years to hide it, assuming he still had it, do you really think we could uncover it in such a short time? I still hold to the possibility of finding something buried deep underground in silos we've yet to discover sometime in the late game.
It's from first hand knowledge of my brief time in the Teritorial Army, as well as talking to my friend's comrades in the Royal Signal Corps. Everyone sees this as some sort of Northern Ireland "but-a-bit-worse". One said that he'd take Sarejavo over Basra in a heartbeat, as even though they were as restricted to what they could fire at, at least they weren'tSource? I've never heard anything one way or the otherAnother problem I have with the war is that the soldiers being sent there have no idea what it's really like. They get told that nothing will happen, that it'll be like Northern Ireland or Bosnia...low combat, occasional snipers, maybe a mine here and there.
They go in not being told the 100% truth, just like Vietnam, and some react badly...how else would you explain the attrocities carried out at that prison and in other places? Sure, sometimes they were ordered to do it, but most armies teach that moral integrity is more important than loyalty...which in my brief army experience is really not the case...you go against a superior on anything and you're an outcast in the unit. Sort of like a grass in prison, or a tell-tale at School.
People have held debates and discussions in public forums since ancient times. Politics have almost always been an issue discussed among them. Even today on or off the internet in meeting places like cafes, pubs, offices and clubs people converse about contemporary issues. You can't stop it.INTERNET DRAMA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
Show me those findings. I happen to have heard very differently. No nuclear weaponry, as was played in the media so much, but from my understanding of the situation back then, he had various missiles banned from Gulf 1. SCUD rockets to be one. The small munitions rounds laced with a variant of mustard gas as well, tend to go against the treaty, as well as the UN (what a bunch of bullcrap that is, now...)
I believe he was saying the local populace and the terrorists view the American and Coalition troops in the same way that the Free French saw the Nazis. They may not be anything alike, but when you bomb a building and then discover it was a school, the local people may get kinda pissed no matter who you are. Most Iraqis may never have liked the extremists, and up until the war, there weren't any. But now, with their infrastructure destroyed, and tanks in their streets, checkpoints, suicide bombers etc., Many Iraqis say they felt they were better off with Saddam, and those extremists look better and better.So we're Nazi's? Thats original thought, there. And if battles carried out with those clear lines, our casualty rates would be lower. This enemy does not follow the Geneva Convention; the do not wear uniforms, they hide among the civilian populus, and they torture anyone they can grab: soldiers, tourists, news reporters, etc., just for attention, and to kill.
Heh, and I guess Bush is Hitler. Wow, GENIUS. I wish someone had said THAT to me before! What an EYE OPENER.
The problem with discussing politics on the internet is that it always (yes, always... I've been online in one form or another since the mid-80s) devolves into one of two types of discussions:People have held debates and discussions in public forums since ancient times. Politics have almost always been an issue discussed among them. Even today on or off the internet in meeting places like cafes, pubs, offices and clubs people converse about contemporary issues. You can't stop it.INTERNET DRAMA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
Is it the general age span of the participants in most internet forums that makes you feel the discussion is juvenile or cheapening? With the internet people of all age groups now have the ability to reach the sort of information they couldn't before. With that it's not just the professionals of debate or politics that will discuss those issues and thus it's up to you to choose who's ideas and words are most compelling and reasoned if you want to enter the discussion.
As for Iraq; America and allies made it into the situation it is in now, they should fix it and perhaps the debt they're building up now will be a good enough punishment for them for starting this war. That is, until the public can be roused to support another war after the atrocities of this are sufficiently forgotten.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
