War is Imminent

[Dutchy]

BTW, I think it's Koran, not Qu'ran. Or maybe they're both correct. Koran sure is.


Personally, I'd want someone to correct me.

Same here. Correctly, though. ;)

[Figrin D'an]

Both spellings are correct.

[Dutchy]

I kinda figured. :)

[Dutchy]

Peter Arnett was fired by NBC for criticising US war plans.

Was it because he revealed the strategy or because the US is angry he called the strategy a faillure so far?

[Princess Sunflower]

Reports are NBC and National Geographic who he works for had no prior knowledge of the interview and would not have given permission if they had known ahead of time.

Here is CNN's story:
Here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html)

He did apologize on a morning talk show to the American people for his misjudgment but I still feel they were right in firing him.

[Dutchy]

Firing him for giving an interview to Iraqi television, I can image. Firing him for the things he said, I can't. It's still not clear to me on what ground they fired him.

[JediBoricua]

About the war expectations. I don't think it's fair to call the invasion a complete failure, but it is certainly not going as planned. I am a realist and I know that you cannot conquer Iraq in two weeks, but the administration gave us those expectations. Where are the mass surrenders we heard so much about before the war and in the first two days, even here we talked about the 53rd iraqui army division surrendering, something that then turned out to be false.

Then you have this mad drive to take Baghdad, now on halt because the army did not rellocate nor secured it's supply line. Going to war before they had enough men, on '91 the war begun with 500K men on the area. 500K men just to liberate Kuwait, a much smaller country, and the ground forces did not enter until the air force had bombed for over a month. It's clear the administration is doing something wrong.

This is not a popular war, and every more day it last, the more Bush looses in the political arena. BTW Bush seems awfully quiet, the only people talking right now are Rumsfeld and Cheney, strange.

[JediBoricua]

Todays funny protestor sign:

"Bush is a moron, he has an excuse!"


:lol

[Wei Wu Wei]

They put a bunch of Iraqi children on TV today. I thought it was interesting to see the children's viewpoint on the war, but I don't think it was necessary to put them on TV. I'd hate to see Saddam go whoop up on those kids for saying that the Coalition Forces were the good guys.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
About the war expectations. I don't think it's fair to call the invasion a complete failure, but it is certainly not going as planned. I am a realist and I know that you cannot conquer Iraq in two weeks, but the administration gave us those expectations. Where are the mass surrenders we heard so much about before the war and in the first two days, even here we talked about the 53rd iraqui army division surrendering, something that then turned out to be false.

Then you have this mad drive to take Baghdad, now on halt because the army did not rellocate nor secured it's supply line. Going to war before they had enough men, on '91 the war begun with 500K men on the area. 500K men just to liberate Kuwait, a much smaller country, and the ground forces did not enter until the air force had bombed for over a month. It's clear the administration is doing something wrong.

This is not a popular war, and every more day it last, the more Bush looses in the political arena. BTW Bush seems awfully quiet, the only people talking right now are Rumsfeld and Cheney, strange.

Please, it's Iraqi, not iraqui. I'm sorry, but you have mispelled a 5-letter word....several times now. The punishment is death! :spank

Your arguments show serious signs of taint.

You speak of the 51st Mechanized Division (III Corps) and its surrender at the beginning of the war. Yes, they surrendered. The Feyadeen Saddam may have taken control of some of their vehicles (they left the motors running and abandoned them) and used them in Basrah. Who knows. Fog of war. We do know that we took thousands of 51st mech-div prisoners, and paroled thousands more of them so they could go home. Probably not a good idea on our part, because they might have passed a Feyadeen patrol on the way home and been put right back into circulation. We won't know what's really happened with the members of II, III and IV Corps (most of the guys in these corps seem to be deserting...Feyadeen are stretched really thin, corps just fading away) until after the war, most likely, because of the fog of war.

The drive to Baghdad is still on, apparently the 4-6 day ground pause was a false alarm. Our troops advanced into Hindiyah today, which is a stone's throw away from the holy city of Karbala. We needed 541,000 men in 1991 to counter Iraq's 7,000 tanks, its 1.2 million-man army, etc. Before this war started, they only had 1,800 working tanks, and at most 400,000 men (many of whom have deserted by now). We simply don't need half a million guys to take him out this time, and with the II, III and IV Corps fading away, the 3 divisions (4 in 2 weeks, when 4 ID comes online), 1 brigade and 3 british brigades we have in Iraq should certainly be enough to take Baghdad. The administration is prosecuting this war exquisitely. Better yet, they're mostly leaving it to the Generals.

This is a very popular war, with 80% U.S. support, and perhaps 55% British support now that we have our troops' feelings to consider.

[Jedi Master Carr]

What are you the spelling nazi.

[Princess Sunflower]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Firing him for giving an interview to Iraqi television, I can image. Firing him for the things he said, I can't. It's still not clear to me on what ground they fired him.

Well first of all what he did could border on treason but since this invasion has not officially been declared a war I don't know if he could actually be held accountable in that way.

By the nature of what he said it could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the Iraqi people but that is just the surface of the problem. In the 1991 Gulf War I think a number of Iraqis expected the US to go all the way to Baghdad, finish the job, and eliminate Hussein. There were some Iraqis who started to revolt and when he wasn't taken out he quelled the revolt. I am sure this is remembered and I am guessing that the Iraqi people are waiting until they feel that our conviction will finish the job this time before they take the chance and again try to rise up against him. What Peter Arnett said made us look like we were faltering and that would definitely send a shiver up the spine of any Iraqi who was hoping for freedom and waiting for their chance to join in. Anything at this point in time that makes us look weak puts our military in more danger because it gives a psychological boost to the enemy. If they think they have a chance of winning they'll fight harder and the harder they fight the more casualties there will be.

As far as NBC and National Geographic they really had no choice because there was no support for Arnet coming from any direction and I am sure that if they did not distance themselves from him they would fast feel the repercussions from the American people by boycotting their station, magazine etc.

[Jedi Master Carr]

There is no way what he said was treason, I get tired of people calling people tratiors if they say something against the war, treason is the act of selling secerts like Bendict Arnold, or somehow helping the countries enemies. Saying that the war is going well or interview people from the other side isn't really treasonous. He got fired because he caused a huge stink, really they should have realized that when they hired, Arnat doesn't give a damn what he says.

[Princess Sunflower]

I didn't actually call him a traitor but it's pretty darn close. What he said on Iraqi TV was very dangerous.. No..he didn't tell any secrets but I really don't care about the basic fact that he appeared on the show. Normally I wouldn't care if he spoke for or against the Uniited States, it's his right to say what he feels. As an American he should not be talking in a negative way directly to our enemy on their television station since he does not represent the US government. It's one thing to protest the war on American soil but it's another to look directly into the face of our enemy and talk up what he incorrectly perceived to be our weakness. My main concern is that his statements could cause any Iraqi resistance to hesitate in helping our servicemen as we enter Baghdad and any hesitation could cause more American casualties. If Peter Arnett's big mouth and "I don't give a damn what I say attitude" causes even one American serviceman's life to be forfeited would that not be a fine line between freedom of speech and a treasonous act?

[Figrin D'an]

Regardless of the political fallout of Arnett's comments... NBC and National Geographic never granted permission for him to appear on Iraqi TV. That's a breech of his contract... so he got canned. No, I'm not being naive and accepting that as THE explanation... his comments were a great part of the decision as well... but he sure made it easy for NBC and NG to cut their ties with him.

[Jedi Master Carr]

What about Geraldo then he gave away American positions on TV, he got kicked out of Iraq, but Fox hasn't fired him yet. Still I don't consider Arnat a Traitor he did not sell secerts or didn't give away anything useful and I personally don't think he will help Iraqi moral any more than the protest in the US have.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
About the war expectations. I don't think it's fair to call the invasion a complete failure, but it is certainly not going as planned. I am a realist and I know that you cannot conquer Iraq in two weeks, but the administration gave us those expectations. Where are the mass surrenders we heard so much about before the war and in the first two days, even here we talked about the 53rd iraqui army division surrendering, something that then turned out to be false.

Then you have this mad drive to take Baghdad, now on halt because the army did not rellocate nor secured it's supply line. Going to war before they had enough men, on '91 the war begun with 500K men on the area. 500K men just to liberate Kuwait, a much smaller country, and the ground forces did not enter until the air force had bombed for over a month. It's clear the administration is doing something wrong.

This is not a popular war, and every more day it last, the more Bush looses in the political arena. BTW Bush seems awfully quiet, the only people talking right now are Rumsfeld and Cheney, strange.

I'd say a favorable approval in the 70's makes this a popular war. I don't know why you insinuate otherwise. Furthermore, the "setbacks" are being seen by the american public as of little or no concern. This also correlates in the 70's. Not sure where you're getting your alarmist information, but this war is on track. Allocating divisions north that we were going to send through Turkey anyway is not a sign that we're undermanned in our present situation. Its using what we have, and adapting to a changing situation. How many real disruptions have occurred down the length of ambush alley. One. One. One. And it occurred due to navigational error. Furthermore, I don't recall ever being told by the administration that this would be a "quick" or "easy" war. Despite being cut down a notch in '91, Iraq still has a sizeable army. What I see that they've done is that they've been perceptive of opportunities that they could take to drastically decrease the time this war takes. The decapitation strike against Saddam, the spearhead to Baghdad, etc. Yes, they could slog it up the mesopotamian marshlands with 10-20 divisions, and put numerics out there to an extent that wouldn't leave the issue in doubt. But that way would last longer, cost more, and almost assuredly be paid for in more instances of friendly fire. Currently, we've prosecuted this campaign in three times the amount of time that Desert Storm's ground campaign required...we've operated across nearly 60% of Iraq, and that's boots on the ground, much less air support. We've also sustained a fraction of the casualties. Tell me why this is not going well, and give me an actual "reason".

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
This is a very popular war, with 80% U.S. support, and perhaps 55% British support now that we have our troops' feelings to consider.

This is not a popular war, not even remotely close. The world is bigger than the U.S. and Britain.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Well first of all what he did could border on treason

So... saying something he believed to be the truth could constued as Treason?

Give me a break


This is not a popular war, not even remotely close. The world is bigger than the U.S. and Britain.

Thank you. That is the truth and maybe those who think this war is popular should be looking outside of the USA and UK, where there is a great deal of anger at the allies actions.

In the country of the third ally, Australia, war definantly is NOT popular. Remember the huge protests Australia had on 15th February, where nearly 1 million of the population marched - when less then 20 million live here?

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Dutchy
This is not a popular war, not even remotely close. The world is bigger than the U.S. and Britain.

Well then, if you want to stand by that, point me in the direction of the last war that met your criteria (worldwide popular support).

They will change their ignorant, murderous tunes when they get to know the new democratic Iraq. The poor Iraqis will cast down their chains and weep that they did not earlier acquire the blessing of our enlightened protection. Saddam Hussein will be thrown off his miserable thrown as soon as is practicable, world opinion be damned. Someone has to have the courage to stand up to that beast.

[Dutchy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Well then, if you want to stand by that, point me in the direction

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Dutchy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Well then, if you want to stand by that, point me in the direction

:huh

[Dutchy]

Damn, where is my post? :\ I'll repost it.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Well then, if you want to stand by that, point me in the direction of the last war that met your criteria (worldwide popular support).

I didn't say worldwide support, I was talking about more than U.S. and Britain. Gulf War 1 had much more support, e.g.


The poor Iraqis will cast down their chains and weep that they did not earlier acquire the blessing of our enlightened protection.

How 'enlightened' do you think the Afghanistan women are?


Saddam Hussein will be thrown off his miserable thrown as soon as is practicable, world opinion be damned.

Sure, who cares about the world?


Someone has to have the courage to stand up to that beast.

It's definitely a good thing the world gets rid off Saddam, but you can't bomb a country to democracy just like that.

[Sanis Prent]

Sorry, but when it boils down to an issue of national security...world opinion be damned. Vis brings up an interesting point, which is to say that I wonder how many wars have had the majority blessing of the international community. Not very damn many, if any. Its already a multilateral operation, and yet its not "multilateral enough"? Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Sorry, but when it boils down to an issue of national security...world opinion be damned.

I don't consider Saddam a threat of national (USA) security, but let's not get back to that discussion again, I guess.


Vis brings up an interesting point, which is to say that I wonder how many wars have had the majority blessing of the international community. Not very damn many, if any.

Maybe not many, but a hell of lot more than just two.


Its already a multilateral operation, and yet its not "multilateral enough"? Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

Only 2, or maybe 3, is not exactly multilateral, nope. Or do you consider: "Ah well, now that it's started we'll support the allies and not Saddam" multilateral support?

[ReaperFett]

Its a Paradox though. Stop a Saddam, create 10 new Bin Ladens. Overthrowing a dictator will hardly save the world.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Princess Sunflower
If Peter Arnett's big mouth and "I don't give a damn what I say attitude"

At least he has one thing in common with Rumsfeld. :)

I agree, by the way, that he shouldn't have given that interview on the enemy's TV station. On the other hand I agree with Carr that I don't think it had much of an impact on the Iraqi moral.

[ReaperFett]

Whos Peter Arnett?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Overthrowing a dictator will hardly save the world.


Tell that to the 2 million people Saddam has had killed in his tenure as Iraq's "president."

[Figrin D'an]

Peter Arnett is a rather well known war reporter... he used to work for ABC, back in Gulf War I... he'd been working for National Geographic, and NG had optioned out his services to NBC as well to cover the invasion from Baghdad. But, because of his little interview on Iraqi TV, he's now out of a job again.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Only 2, or maybe 3, is not exactly multilateral, nope. Or do you consider: "Ah well, now that it's started we'll support the allies and not Saddam" multilateral support?

Try 30-40.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
Tell that to the 2 million people Saddam has had killed in his tenure as Iraq's "president."

Or to Bin Laden, who's still hiding out in his cave.

Or to the seven Iraqi children and women who were shot to death in their car this morning.

Or to all the other dictators still dictating their countries.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Try 30-40.

30-40 what?

[Sanis Prent]

30 to 40 nations that have given support to this campaign against the Iraqi regime.

[Dutchy]

Yes, AFTER it started.

[Dutchy]

Oh, with the 2 or 3 I meant US, Britain and Australia, btw. As for military support.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Or to Bin Laden, who's still hiding out in his cave.

Or to the seven Iraqi children and women who were shot to death in their car this morning.

Or to all the other dictators still dictating their countries.

1. Apparently too busy hiding in a cave to do much else. Haven't heard so much as a mouse fart from him, sans al Jazeera tapes that have been periodically delivered. Meanwhile, we're dismantling his organization around him. Thwarted a few hundred plots, arrested key members, killed more, etc. Though we don't have him yet, we've actually furthered his ineffectiveness.

2. You see people in the middle of the roads with guns, and their hands held out, beckoning that you stop. You see big signs in Arabic that say "CHECKPOINT, PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY". You choose to gun it, you take your life in your hands. Its tragic, but you can't fault the soldiers for that. They did all they could to prevent such a thing.

3. Of which Saddam is by far the worst, in geopolitical and human rights violations. Priority falls to him.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Yes, AFTER it started.

Wrong.

[ReaperFett]

30-40 which we assume includes Arab nations who voted against the War recently.


Or to the seven Iraqi children and women who were shot to death in their car this morning.
Prove they werent going to blow the car up. Noone has any facts yet, so give it time.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Oh, with the 2 or 3 I meant US, Britain and Australia, btw. As for military support.

I know exactly what you meant. BTW, how many nations assisted in military operations in Desert Storm? Not many. Didn't see the Dutch Army there, nor did I see many other nations in military operations. This is a normal thing.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
1. Apparently too busy hiding in a cave to do much else. Haven't heard so much as a mouse fart from him, sans al Jazeera tapes that have been periodically delivered. Meanwhile, we're dismantling his organization around him. Thwarted a few hundred plots, arrested key members, killed more, etc. Though we don't have him yet, we've actually furthered his ineffectiveness.

True, but he's the grand prize for sure. BTW, how many people had heard of Bin Laden prior to 9/11?


3. Of which Saddam is by far the worst, in geopolitical and human rights violations. Priority falls to him.

Fair enough. The US has a lot more countries to bomb to democracies, though.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Prove they werent going to blow the car up. Noone has any facts yet, so give it time.

So they better blow up every Iraqi car now? But I agree that they should be careful. It's just a sad story.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Wrong.

The support is just small, very small. This is an unpopular war. Of course everyone wants the allies to win now that it's started, but they didn't want them to start it to begin with.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
True, but he's the grand prize for sure. BTW, how many people had heard of Bin Laden prior to 9/11?


First heard of him when news broke of the Saud family banishing a "multimillionaire mujehedeen" from Saudi Arabia. That was early nineties. Kept tabs on him during the Kenyan embassy attack, U.S.S. Cole, and Yemeni incidents. If you're trying to make some inference as to the narrow perception of American worldview, you've failed. Failed.

[ReaperFett]

I'd heard of Bin Laden.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
The support is just small, very small. This is an unpopular war. Of course everyone wants the allies to win now that it's started, but they didn't want them to start it to begin with.

So first its "unilateral", now its "not multilateral enough"? What a crock. Sorry, but quantifying multilateralism is silly. In reference to bandwagon-jumping on the eve of war, this is a common effect (see, the French in Gulf War 1, among others).

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
If you're trying to make some inference as to the narrow perception of American worldview, you've failed. Failed.

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
So first its "unilateral", now its "not multilateral enough"? What a crock. Sorry, but quantifying multilateralism is silly. In reference to bandwagon-jumping on the eve of war, this is a common effect (see, the French in Gulf War 1, among others).

I never said it's unilateral. Doh.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Key word "If"

As for you not saying unilateral, you've implied your feelings enough on the matter. "Oh nos this war is unpopular, and nobody else is agreeing with it, etc"

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Key word "If"

Well, the answer is no. No.


As for you not saying unilateral, you've implied your feelings enough on the matter. "Oh nos this war is unpopular, and nobody else is agreeing with it, etc"

I know, and I said this war is about the US, Britain and Australia. So, yes, that's a multilateral ally, but a tiny one.

And I never said "nobody else" is agreeing with it.

[JediBoricua]

Let's get things straight, I spelled 'iraqui' because that's how you spell it in spanish, stupid me.

About the expectations of the war, it is clear the administration was making the public believe of the massive iraqui dessertion, the millions of refugees, and the thousands that would uprise in every city. None of it is happening. I'm not being an alarmist, read my first sentence, I'm merely stating that all is not going as planned. Plain and simple.

And about these 40 countries. Great each countrie's parliament/congress has passed a resolution in favor of the war! Wow! Where were these countries when the debate took place at the UN. Nowhere. All of these countries are heavily dependant on US aids (hey my country too, or governor is also 'behind' the war, and of course there are close to 20K prican soldiers on the field, almost as many brits). The main issue is that there is no arab support (minus Kuwait), no UN support, not even NATO support for crying out loud. The US/UK are doing this unilaterally, no way around that.

[Sanis Prent]

So we'll discount the few thousand who have surrendered or been captured, as well as the Basra uprising? Thats a big oversight.

Why must you discount Kuwait? To give credit to what you're trying to argue? What makes Kuwait's concerns illegitimate? Furthermore, you seem to conveniently ignore support in NATO, via the Vilinius group, and Turkey. In addition, non-anglo countries on the list have done more than simply "sign a resolution". Japan is supporting with intelligence. South Korea has pledged after-conflict support. I believe the Czechs have a chemical warfare team deployed, and there are other eastern european nations that have done things beyond "signing a resolution". Again, how is this any different from the first Gulf War? Also, what is your warped definition of unilateral, and since when was Puerto Rico a country :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Gee, Turkey is great support. They were holding out for more dollars before allowing ground troops.

It is clear, even from the butt end of the planet that Australia is, there is little real support ofr this Iraq action. Argue it any way you will sanis, but the fact remains that only in the USA and Kuwait is this anywhere near a "popular" act. If there was a more effective opposition in Australia, Howard would be almost done as Prime Minister, the political damage should eb a great deal more. But, Simon Crean, the opposition leader in Parliment is a goose.

Stop watching FOX and seeing things are rosy. Get into the BBC and see what the level of disquiet around the world really is.

[Sanis Prent]

Considering that I pereuse over a dozen news sites on four continents a week, kindly step off whatever "bias" you think I get from my media.

[Darth Viscera]

Marcus, you have yet to present a non-dubious argument to support your assessment that Fox News Live is unkosher. It's very refreshing to find a news station that is fair and balanced and leaves the anti-american undertones where they belong-on CNN and Worldlink International and Al Jazeera. Unlike Al Jazeera, which changes Donald Rumsfeld's phrase "Coalition forces" to "occupying forces" during the real-time translation and operates under the assumption that the ultimate goal of the coalition is to commit genocide against the Iraqi people, Fox News reports without murderous brainwashed anti-american taint.

Have you seen the CENTCOM briefings? More than half of the reporters ask questions that amount to "We all know that the American unilateral forces, armed with their illegal weapons of mass destruction, are embarking on this campaign of misinformation and brutal invasion in order to murder Iraqi civilians en masse. When will you halt your savage campaign and give the poor Iraqi civilians some respite from this illegal massacre?"

There is a lot of taint coming out of the news media. I daresay that you, Marcus, are FAR more tainted than Sanis could be. Turn off the tainted news stations and turn on fox news for once. Fair and balanced.

[Admiral Lebron]

Syria has said it will support Saddam.

[Darth Viscera]

Hey, who took your duct tape off?

[Admiral Lebron]

I'm just giving facts.. as the opinion of a 15 year old male isn't favored.

[Admiral Lebron]

double post

[CMJ]

Lebron alot of people's opinion's aren't favored. That's why you see this thread dominated by just a few individuals.

[Admiral Lebron]

Its quite sad.

[Princess Sunflower]

The news just reported that a 19 year US service woman was rescued by a "Special Ops" team. She was injured in the rescue but is expected to recover.

It's also being reported that 4 journalists who were held in prison were released and found near the Iraqi/Jordanian border. They appeared to just look very shaken up.

This story has made it all the way to the troops in Iraq. Now a local radio station has responded by having a contest for the most and least patriotic town in the state:

"N.J. town bans war tributes on public property"

The Associated Press
Last Updated 10:09 a.m. PST Friday, March 28, 2003
FIELDSBORO, N.J. (AP) - Yellow ribbons and all other war memorials have been banned from public property here, a decision that has drawn criticism from residents and business owners who want to show their support for American troops fighting in Iraq.

The Fieldsboro Borough Council approved the ban last week, but Mayor Edward "Buddy" Tyler said it does not prohibit residents from placing memorials on their own property. He said that while town officials "certainly recommend" that residents show their support for the troops, there were other concerns that must be recognized.

"Where would you draw a line if you started allowing the use of public property to exhibit whatever cause anyone wanted?" Tyler told The Trentonian of Trenton for Friday's editions. "Suppose someone wants to tie pink ribbons, or black flags, or a Confederate flag or a Nazi flag on public property?"

Diane Johnson, who along with her husband owns a liquor store in this Burlington County town, said she was unaware of the new rule until the township told her to remove the yellow ribbons she placed on a sign that welcomes travelers to the borough.

"I'm shocked and outraged," Johnson said. "They didn't obstruct the sign in any way, and a lot of people with family members in the war came into the store to tell me how seeing the ribbons gave them a lift."

[Stardust]

Tigris River is now bridged. The battle of Bagdad will begin soon.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I disagree you charlie about Saddam being the worst dictator to me Kim is way more insane and more of Tyrant more have died under his regime than Saddam, it is in the millions, zure it is because they are starving to death but it is the mans fault. Also their is a dictator in Burma who is a monster, he butchers people daily and then their is the leader of half of the Sudan who has had POWS from the opposition executed so why are we in those three countries? That is my problem with this whole thing to me if we don't go into the Sudan, North Korea or Burma we will look like hypocrites because those men are no better than Saddam and they could be worse.

[Marcus Telcontar]

[quote] Marcus, you have yet to present a non-dubious argument to support your assessment that Fox News Live is unkosher. It's very refreshing to find a news station that is fair and balanced [/quote}

WHAT? PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON????? Fox is owned by Murdoch, who is the most pro war media owner out there right now! Not a single paper or editorial that is owned by him has come out in an anti war stance... 149 editors in all sprouting exactly the same line. In fact, Murdoch press bias is so pronounced, it's become a standing joke in all other Aust media. ALL. That's Fairfax, PBL (Packers), ABC and other independants. It's a standard statement for ABC to say if somethign has come from FOX or other Murdoch media and qualify it as such.

What absolute rot you can claim Fox is unbias! It's the worst of a poor lot by condierable margin. Murdoch allows no editor to go against his views. that's not even a anedotal story - it's a fact of Aust Media life. Murdoch after all started here with News Corp. It's highly noticable smh.com.au (Fairfax) and news.com.au (News Holdings) are vey different - and if you read The daily Telegraph, there is hardly a shred of war critique. Again, News Holdings. If you want decent reporting, Fairfax is a start, tho ABC is miles ahead. ABC Aust is, along with the BBC, some of the best credentialed and well known reporting - BBC for northern hemisphere, ABC for Asia. The ABC tells it as it is. ABC is also Govt owned. Does it say somethign for editorial independance that the ABC dont mind biting the hand that feeds it and does it better than any other news source? Maybe if you listen to ABC National over the web, you will hear them skewer News Holding once again. And put to air the things FOX wouldnt dare unless they wanted a career termination. Anything you get from FOX will be dismissed by me with all the distain it deserves.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Stardust
Tigris River is now bridged. The battle of Bagdad will begin soon.

Nah, those are the 1st marines on the right flank out near Al Kut. The left flank (3 ID, 101 AMD) is where all the important action will take place. We're taking Karbala(or already have taken it, depending on who your source is and how up to date they are) and crossing into Babil province. Look for the battle of Baghdad to begin along the left flank, with the 1st marines on the right flank coming up in support.

[FireKat]

Fox is the right wing al Jazeera. It caters to a certain group. While there are good points made there, some of its stuff has to be taken with a grain of salt. I tend to stick to the talkshows on Fox, which are a bit more insightful, rather than relying on "news" from them. I find that most of my news intake comes from the Wall Street Journal, and european publications, and I nevertheless justify my position in all matters.

Carr, you'll have to cite numbers to do your argument any creedence. Otherwise, its conjecture. Kim Jong Il has ground his nation into poverty, in order to provide for his large military. This is true. He is engaged in nuclear brinksmanship. This is true. However, Saddam has done both of these, willfully oppressed his own ethnic minorities, invaded two neighbors, USED WMD's in anger, and maintained the most fearsome police state since East Germany. At the time of the first Gulf War, the Iraqi army was the fourth largest in the world, behind the Chinese, Soviets, and North Koreans, I believe. Yet, they were not held in check, and have shown such willingness to spark attacks, as to give Saddam more infamy than any other nation's dictator. While Kim Jong Il is evil, his rap sheet is simply not nearly as thick, nor is anyone else's. Their time will come, but it will come at our discretion, and in such a manner that will minimize risk.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Marcus, you have yet to present a non-dubious argument to support your assessment that Fox News Live is unkosher.

And you have yet to present an argument that this is a "very popular" war.

[ReaperFett]

Got to agree with Dutchy there :)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Dutchy
And you have yet to present an argument that this is a "very popular" war.

:rolleyes :zzz

You know, it's a dangerous thing when a person starts to slave their vision to their sense of politics. Just because you don't accept my argument doesn't mean I haven't presented it. My breath will remain saved.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am sorry North Korea could take out LA that to me is a huge threat as far as the other two nations, I read some of that in Newsweek or time probably would have to go to Anmiesty international to find out more but both countries have bad track records, IMO.

[Sanis Prent]

Canada could take out LA, and about 400 more cities. It isn't simply having a weapon. It is also the compunction to use such a weapon. Kim Jong Il does not have such a record. Saddam Hussein does. While the Stalinist North Koreans are big on saber rattling, I'm skeptical of their rhetoric.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but Canada doesn't have an evil regime in power, Kim is a madman he has made his people slaves plus in a starving country anything could happen. I am not calling for war but more should be done by now the US should send somebody to talk to them otherwise the situation is just going to get worse.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is a site on information on Burma

http://www.ibiblio.org/freeburma/

I think its run by animisty international but it shows the human rights violations that has been done there, they have put most of the population into slave labor camps and are making children work as well. Also they have forced children into the military tortured their people and done other brutal acts. To me this regime is no better than Iraq, the only difference is location. Burma is in SE asia and has no political importance but Iraq is in the center of the middle East near all the oil which to some might make it seem more important. Still my point is the administration has made a big deal about the human rights violations and that seems to be one of the main reasons they are doing this. So if they don't go into a place like Burma which has dictator just as bad as Saddam than it makes us seem like hypocrites.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is a little more I didn't realize that a lot of the heroin trade came from there

This small South-East Asian country, also known as Myanmar, has a democratically elected government, elected in May 1990 by 82% of the vote. The government, however, was prevented from taking office by a group of generals who call themselves SLORC, or State Law and Order Restoration Council. SLORC enforces its will by rape, forced labor, and torture. The democratically elected Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, was under house-arrest until 1996 (she remains under virtual house arrest, with her phone lines cut periodically, and unable to leave her house without fear of being physically attacked).
Burma has been a closed country for decades. In recent years, SLORC has begun encouraging both foreign investment and tourism. 1996 was declared "Visit Myanmar Year," and western and Japanese companies, particularly oil companies, began pouring money into the country. Unocal, along with the French oil company Total, is building a major gas pipeline there. SLORC is helping keep costs low for the pipeline by using forced labor to build access roads. And SLORC either turns a blind eye, or more likely, actively helps while heroin pours out of Burma and onto our streets. Burma is the world's #1 producer of heroin.

[Sanis Prent]

Thats rather dubious, as Afghanistan is (or was) the largest producer of heroin, to my knowledge.

Yes, these are bad regimes, and there are more, but Iraq is clearly at the forefront, not only for humanitarian abuses, but for a plethora of other reasons, that I have addressed ad nauseum in many posts in this thread and otherwise. Once the situation in Baghdad is resolved, and we leave the country in better shape than we found it, we'll address these other issues, no doubt.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I have to believe Anemisy international about the Heroin thing they must know it could be that they became #1 after the Talbin was kicked out.

[Sanis Prent]

Most likely, I'd think. Which isn't to imply that the heroin trade is massive, though. They might simply be the "distant second". Its all conjecture without hard statistics.

[JediBoricua]

Fast cause I don't have much time, Puerto Rico is not a country, although we are nation, because of an unjust war led by the US when it began to forge it's empire over a hundred years ago. General Miles landed in our southern coast with the same rethoric as general Franks talks from Quatar, "We have brought you freedom, justice, democracy...". Yet we lived under a military government for three years, and then under a presidential designed governor for 49 more years. Over that period we were the poorest region of Latin America, poorer than Haiti, and it wasn't until some sort of self-government was given to my people that we have had some progress. Just to get that out of the way, and I'm willing to bet that we are per capita the region/state/possesion sending more soldiers to the war. The same thing happened in 'Nam and the Korean War. 20,000 soldiers out of a 4 million pop. That's why I don't trust this unilateral invasion, I have seen it happen before. It also happened in the Dom. Rep. that was under US rule for 19 years, until the US appointed Trujillo as dictator, and like Saddam were forced to assasinate him 25 years later. Or in Cuba, that 'freedom' was given, but the cubans had to write a constitution approved by Congress. Or in Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile. It has happened before (as recently as the failed attempt to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela, an attempt which was applauded by Bush), and it could happen in Iraq now.

I'll talk about the war later tonight.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Are there hard statistic about the Heroin trade? I mean its not like cocaine which everybody knows comes from Columbia. Heroin is different and comes from a lot of different countries, it does seem that Burma is a big supplier of it how big who knows.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I just found a site they site government sources that says Burma is #1

http://www.web.net/~claihr/business/selectivep/burma_heroin.htm

Most of the data seems to be late 90's it seems the Clinton administration was trying to go after the Burma dictatorship not sure what is going on with that now. I had heard some talk of sanctions and maybe a UN resolution but neither has really happened yet I think.

[Jackson DeWitt]

Afghanistan, when allowed, dwarfs other heroin-producing nations. It is legalized and forbidden randomly though. I know that prior to our action against the Taliban, they lead in its production.

[Jackson DeWitt]

We could always start up a "Heroin for Food" program at the UN, to help line the pockets of UN workers even more. I'm sure that would be fun :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Maybe there is some type of competition thing going between Burma and Afghanstan over this :p Really probably it is possible to find out I don't think we can open up the books of either country to find out. I would guess its easier in Burma to produce the Heroin since its 100% legal and sanctioned by the govt.

[Jackson DeWitt]

Well, it was in Afghanistan too. Its just that the various regimes have been wishy-washy about it. The Taliban even outlawed it when they came to power, and then changed their mind later on.

[Darth Viscera]

The II, III and IV Corps seem to have faded away completely. The 2nd Baghdad ID (1st RG Corps) has been eliminated, as has the Al Madina AD (2nd RG Corps). The Hamurabi MD (2nd RG Corps) and the al Nida AD (1st RG Corps) are still manning the defenses around Baghdad (presumably covering the northern entrances), and then there's the SpRG division, which is inside Baghdad.

Good God, we were presented with 50,000 armored troops, and in a few days we've turned that into 20,000 effectives.

The Nebuchadnezzer ID (2nd RG Corps) and the 1st Adnan MD (1st RG Corps) are still up north. I hope they don't try to make a move southward, though even if they did, we'd cut them up from the air.

The southern door to Baghdad has now swung wide open, or rather, we've kicked it in. We should engage the Nida and Hamurabi divisions outside of Baghdad so we won't have to confront them inside the city.

[Stardust]

And now unconfermed reports of us taking the Saddam International Airport.....

Plus the lights are out in Bagdad...


And they are no longer unconfermed reports now.

We have the Airfield.

[Darth Viscera]

We've taken Saddam International Airport.

[Stardust]

I thought I said that?

What was I thinking!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_main030403.html
Here's the link!

[JediBoricua]

Today's funny protestor sign

Blondes against war! (see attachment)

:crack

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Stardust
I thought I said that?


Yeah, that's very un-Viscera, to repeat something. :)

[Darth Viscera]

I thought I said that?


Yeah, that's very un-Viscera, to repeat something.

Sooner or later, you guys are going to discover that my post came in 16 seconds after post #588.

And that protest sign is upside down!

[JediBoricua]

Precisely!!!

[Darth Viscera]

The adventures of Human Shield Man!

http://www.flashbunny.org/content/humanshieldman.html

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

:lol I was watching this one human shield in an interview, and he had the funniest facial expressions. Of course, he was one of those Haight-Ashbury staybehinds, so far removed from the workings of planet earth that whatever ideology he follows is obviously martian. In all, it was comedy gold. I laughed at him very much. I don't know what I'd do for comedy without idiots like him and Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf. Those guys crack me up.

[Wei Wu Wei]

BLondes against war, eh? Well, considering her sign said that, she might have been holding it upside down on purpose. but I doubt it.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by Commander Zemil Vymes
:lol I was watching this one human shield in an interview, and he had the funniest facial expressions. Of course, he was one of those Haight-Ashbury staybehinds, so far removed from the workings of planet earth that whatever ideology he follows is obviously martian. In all, it was comedy gold. I laughed at him very much. I don't know what I'd do for comedy without idiots like him and Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf. Those guys crack me up.

I don't know, watching Fox News always lightens up my day.

[Darth Viscera]

Here's another noteworthy blog:

http://saddamhussein.blogspot.com/

Edit:

And another one:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__

[Sanis Prent]

To whoever said the Iraqi's wouldn't welcome us with open arms....whoops!

Seems once the guns of the Fedayeen aren't pointed at the back of their heads, they're a bit more jubilant.

[ReaperFett]

Can I point out that once the Iraqi government isnt pointing a gun at them, someone else is ;)


As an aside, there may now be some problems with the Kurds, as the convoy of Kurds and US Spec forces that were hit in friendly fire included their leaders brother, who is critical last I heard. Pretty reliable information, considering an improtant reporter from the BBC was injured too.

[William Neir]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Can I point out that once the Iraqi government isnt pointing a gun at them, someone else is ;)


As an aside, there may now be some problems with the Kurds, as the convoy of Kurds and US Spec forces that were hit in friendly fire included their leaders brother, who is critical last I heard. Pretty reliable information, considering an improtant reporter from the BBC was injured too.

Hey wow, you're uninformed...unless you've got some hot info that we're using death squads and conscripting Iraqis into work via gunpoint. In fact, I can find a direct example of this NOT happening, in al Najaf.

The Kurdish friendly fire incident is tragic, but not damaging to Kurdish relations, from the mouth of the very same leader whose brother & son were injured.

[ReaperFett]

Hey wow, you seem to miss what is an obvious joke.


And it's not damaging relations while they live. If one dies, it may be different.

[William Neir]

The leader addressed that issue plainly. Why make such an unfounded hypothesis?

[ReaperFett]

Because things change. Allies can become enemies at the blink of an eye. I'm not naive enough to think that someone will keep their word if circumstances change.

[Sanis Prent]

If Kurdistan were ruled by despots, maybe. However, its not. Its run by two democratically-elected representative groups. That idea doesn't hold water.

[JediBoricua]

Granted I have only seen an hour of news this weekend (been playing too much Zelda).

Can you please point me out where are those grateful iraquis? I haven't seen them. The only thing I saw was a 20 foot Saddam statue going down. When I saw that I said, well I was wrong, the people are welcoming the american/british forces. But then I realized that it was the British Marines taking the statue down with a tank.

Please understand I am asking a question Sanis, since I don't have the data of the last couple of days to agree or disagree with you.

[JediBoricua]

And about the blogs Viscera posted.

The Saddam one is not that funny, it seems he got all his ideas from the South Park movie.

But the Kim one got me in tears! Those Aol convos between Bush and Kim are comedy gold! :lol

[Sanis Prent]

Ayatollah Sistani (the highest Shiite religious leader) issued a fatwah (Muslim edict) to the faithful, urging them to cooperate with Coallition troops.

The British push into Basrah has been full of cheering crowds and jubilation, as the Desert Rats have begun to sweep into the city, after days of bolstering the perimeter.

The seventh cavalry, upon approach toward southwestern Baghdad, were met by cheering throngs, smiling and saying "I love USA" in broken english, among other signs of gratitude.

etc, etc, etc

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Ayatollah Sistani (the highest Shiite religious leader) issued a fatwah (Muslim edict) to the faithful, urging them to cooperate with Coallition troops.

The British push into Basrah has been full of cheering crowds and jubilation, as the Desert Rats have begun to sweep into the city, after days of bolstering the perimeter.

The seventh cavalry, upon approach toward southwestern Baghdad, were met by cheering throngs, smiling and saying "I love USA" in broken english, among other signs of gratitude.

etc, etc, etc

Seems the idea the population was waiting to make sure saddam was truly gone was right.

Confirmed form a variety of news source. Also, it's noted the British has some adirmation for the resitance that has been put up.

[CMJ]

Not mentioned, but David Bloom's death was a blow to me. He was the best war correspondent on TV I thought.

[Sanis Prent]

Yeah that was out of the blue. He died of a pulmonary embulism (sp) I think, not sure what caused it though.

[Darth Viscera]

We've taken two of Saddam's Baghdad palaces, and in a little while a brigade commander from the 3 ID is going to take a shower (his first shower in 17 days) in Saddam's personal bathroom. Gold-plated faucets. w00t! These are the finest fighting men in the world.

Nice to see a live picture of Saddam's palace guarded by an M1A2 :D

[Sanis Prent]

That was awesome. Especially funny since across the street, Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf is STILL denying our progress :lol

[Keerrourri Feessaarro]

7th Cav armored brigade took 2 palaces, the great parade grounds (ie, twin saber statue) and blew up the famous statue of Saddam on a horse.

And in Basrah, it is confirmed. Ali Hassan al Majeed (Chemical Ali, butcher of Helabjah, and one of Saddam's cousins) is dead.

[ReaperFett]

JB, I cant confirm the US side of things, but the British have been getting a warm reception. Not neccesarily screaming crowds of well-wishers, but a lot nearer to that than hostile.

[Darth Viscera]

Though the reception towards the U.S. forces has not been hostile, either. Cheering civilians, thumbs up signs, a fatwa from the Grand Ayatollah, etc.

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to Al-Jazeera's new english website (Al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net), it only likes IE browsers) because it's totally taint. I was reading through an article about the incident with the Russian ambassador (http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=1978&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258) and it seemed impartial, except for a little paragraph at the very end which seemed to be just slapped in by the editor at the last minute to add a bit of anti-americanism.


“She has come to Moscow to discuss post-war Iraq with the Russians. Moscow has been refusing such an approach and insists on immediate cease fire and returning the case to the UN Security Council. Rice will try to convince the Russians to drop their demand and to let them know that the US is going to enter each Iraqi city even if it has to burn them. She will tell the Russians that their objection is of no value as the Germans and French have changed their positions lately.”

Jesus. Burn them? You mean, after having spent billions of dollars on smart bombs that'll fly through your window, vaporize your resident dictating male or female, tip its hat to you and say "sorry for the noise, ma'am", then zoom off, we're suddenly going to say to heck with it and napalm the remaining Iraqi villages? Well now, aren't we tricky little invading infidels! :rolleyes

Oy vey ismier.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Oh yeah, some places in the West are any better. FOX is every bit as bad. Here's just one more example of Murdoch and News Corp's bias :-

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/1049567619708.html

Al-Jaeera is BS, but FOX and NEWS Corp is just as bad. I point out Murdoch , while his passports says USA, he is Aussie and NEWS Corp is an Australian company. So.... I guess I'm bashing the whatzit out of an Aussie news source. But anyway, NEVER believe what FOX or NEWS Corp media says.

[Keerrourri Feessaarro]

101st Airborne, in Hillah, may have found chemical weapon stockpiles. They found materials in a facility that tested positive for tabun, sarin, and mustard gas, respectively. The materials are being sent elsewhere for further testing.

[Jackson DeWitt]

Airstrike against possible location of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay. Maybe this one is the money shot.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Just jheard that too and tryign to catch up with it. They certainly sound optimistic

[Jedi Master Carr]

Who knows if they got him, also anybody else think its possible that Saddam could have got out of the country and into Syria or Lebanon before the war started? Just wondering if its possible Syria seems to like him or at would probably hide him from us and Hezebula(sp) would defintely hide him, though could he have gotten out, he had that deadline. When was he last spoted in public?

[Sanis Prent]

He could have gotten out legally if he wanted, and wouldn't have to duck and hide. That option's out.

[Marcus Telcontar]

He was spotted on Friday - they are pretty sure that was him in the marketplace - interestingly, that's jus tthe place the USA hit

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but then he could make everybody think he is dead which is a smarter thing. Also who knows if that was him he has a lot of look a likes.

[Sanis Prent]

Yeah, from what I heard...residential district, Saddam City. Fitting.

And about that tape, there's some rumblings that it was made in early march. I've got no opinions either way, but they say that looking at the vegetation, and the clothing worn, it isn't fitting of early april. The conjecture is early march or late febuary.

(shrug)

They have that oddball Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf being the government mouthpiece. Hell, that's good enough for me. With a goofball like that calling the shots, it makes the Baathists look oooh so irrelevant.

[Darth Viscera]

Al-Jazeera has basically stated that the U.S. has declared war on it. (http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2115&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258)

Another "objective and balanced" article from Al-Jazeera. Do they know what balanced means? Here's a nice little incriminating tidbit, straight from the dictionary:


Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Distortion by personal feelings: check.
Distortion by prejudices: check.
Interpretational distortion: check.

What part of their diatribe is objective?

It is deeply regrettable that Al-Jazeera feels it has to resort to using the tragic death of Tariq Ayoub to further its political agenda.

[Marcus Telcontar]

It's tragic FOX uses the war to further it's right wing agenda. Why oh why are you heaving into Al Jazeera and letting the BS FOX and other News Corp outlets slide?

[Darth Viscera]

Probably the same reason that you're heaving into Fox/News Corp and letting Al Jazeera slide?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Already said elsewhere Al Jazeera is too bias to listen to. I fail however to see your point - I'm only pointing out FOX / News is just as bad. given News is Austrlaian, I'm plenty annoyed somethign so wrong could have originated here.

I'd say I pity you for FOX, but we have the Telegraph, which is worse. Somehow.

[Darth Viscera]

Well, I'm not going to up and agree with your Fox News assessment, simply because of my own FNL opinions.

[Dutchy]

The allies are making some damn good progress. :)

BTW, did anyone see any biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMD's yet?

[ReaperFett]

ITN had an exclusive report in a Basra secret police place, where there were bottles of chemicals and a gas mask in a room. Doesnt mean a confirmation, but is a possibility.


Probably the same reason that you're heaving into Fox/News Corp and letting Al Jazeera slide?

Just to back Marcus up, he has been negative over AJ.

[ReaperFett]

Im unsure about the story about the US tank killing the journalist hotel. They say small arm fire was hitting them. So why did noone in the building actually notice it? Why was the ITN crew on their balcony filming in an area that actually had them see the tank if there was someone firing above their heads? It just doesnt fit.

[Taataani Meorrrei]

You can see shots of the hotel, and like half a dozen windows are full of small arms flashes. They were all in there, firing away. If they didn't notice, they're rather daft for not doing so, or distorting the report intentionally.

As for the secret police station, I saw that also. Not sure if that is anything conclusive at all. Reports from the mass spectrometer on the substances captured at Hindiya report negative.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
ITN had an exclusive report in a Basra secret police place, where there were bottles of chemicals and a gas mask in a room. Doesnt mean a confirmation, but is a possibility.

That's a pretty pathetic excuse for a smocking gun, I'd say. :)

[Sanis Prent]

That wasn't the "smoking gun", Dutchy. That was conjecture on Fett's part. Nobody else made such a supposition.

[ReaperFett]

I think all it will prove is that they use chemicals in torture. I doubt theyd release some major chemical in a building they will be staying in.

[Sanis Prent]

I don't even know if it proves that much. Seems more likely that the Iraqi army reoccupied the position when elements of the 51st regulars moved back into the city. Those chemical vials could very well be atrizene (sp), the nerve agent antidote that they have in abundance.

Evidence of Iraqi torture is in abundance, even without using chemicals. People left and right are revisiting these horror cells, and removing their shirts to show the scars, and how they were hung from hooks, and other fun things :x

[ReaperFett]

Just going back a bit to that convoy that was hit by FF.


They were meant to hit an Iraqi tank. Instead, they hit a convoy of clearly marked (Ive seen a picture just before the attack, they didnt look Iraqi one bit) and a MILE away from the target.

Now, generally Ill stick up for the people involved, it's hard to define friend from foe all the time, like when the tank company hit the US convoy instead of the Iraqi troops nearby. But to me, this one was just careless.

And here's a nice comment I found. You know the "Go-Pills" the US pilots are given?

The Federal Aviation Administration does not allow commercial and private pilots to fly while under the influence of the drug, and the manufacturer warns that the drug may impair the ability to ''engage in potentially hazardous activities such as operating machinery or vehicles.''

Apparently, dropping bombs isnt potentially hazardous these days :|

[Sanis Prent]

Private Pilots.

Also...the converse is that you don't use said pills, combat effectiveness plummets, and the lack of air support gets people killed. Combat amphetamine usage is not a new thing, and its been happening for over 65 years, at least. Yes, its less safe than without, but its also less safe to drive down a road with people shooting at you.

[ReaperFett]

No, commercial and private pilots.

[Sanis Prent]

Military aren't commercial either.

[ReaperFett]

Yes, but its considered dangerous for flying to A to B. How does flying from A to B and bombing C make it safe?

And as an aside, the US had banned this stuff until '96.

[Sanis Prent]

alternatively, how's it safer to cut back on missions you can fly by not taking this, and having guys on the ground get wasted due to lack of air support? You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, and quite frankly, I'd rather take my chances with them taking this than not.

[ReaperFett]

Id rather efficient air support. One Iraqi tank wouldnt have done as much damage as the A-10 did.

[JediBoricua]

Something I've cooking up in my brain for the past couple of days.

At the beggining of this campaign we were going to disarm iraq, now we are going to liberate it.

You don't hear gvmnt. officials talking about disarmament anymore. Quoting Obi Wan: "Curious".


And yes the allies seem to be kicking some major booty, good gas price is already 8 cents down!

[ReaperFett]

At the beginning I heard disarm AND liberate. Yeah, they seem to have gone quiet on the disarm part, but they dont need to mention it. Liberation is enough.

[Sanis Prent]

Considering that you can do both at the same time, it isn't at all that curious. Operations at Hindiya show that plainly enough.

[ReaperFett]

Oh, and Ive now heard two British reports and an American (ABC), all saying that they were in the building hit due to "small arms fire", all saying they didnt see or hear any fire, nor know anyone who did.

[Sanis Prent]

Yet you can see kalashnikov's going off in half a dozen windows, plain as day!

[ReaperFett]

Why were reporters filming their own hotel? Why would the cameraman be on the balcony? Im sorry, but people outside on the building are going to be more reliable than what you saw. And this is from pro-war sources, so dont give me any negative slant rubbish.

[JediBoricua]

I seriously doubt that American forces would have fired at the building housing the intl. press if they weren't being fired at. AJ is using this for other purposes.

But I think the US has to be more careful handling AJ. It is the only major independent news corp. in the Arab World, and I'm led to believe that it has a lot of influence on Arab public opinion. It is not wise to pick a fight with the intl. press, especially when it is the only major press resource the arabs have.

[Sanis Prent]

I'd consider pictures of gunfire from the palestine hotel as pretty convincing.

[Admiral Lebron]

Now, Sanis, we down at Al-Jazeera in association with Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf clearly have pointed out that the "kalashnikovs" that you think you see are really mosquitos. The bright light is the mosquitos reflecting light off the moons of venus.


Get the picture?

[Sanis Prent]

|I

Considering that the very same Al Jazeera have been dubbed "Western Spies" by Comedy Man al Sahaf, and forbidden to make news reports in Iraq, your joke isn't very funny.

[Admiral Lebron]

aww :(

[ReaperFett]

I seriously doubt that American forces would have fired at the building housing the intl. press if they weren't being fired at. AJ is using this for other purposes.
BBC
ITN
ABC

Which one of them is AJ?

[Darth Viscera]

Fett, what makes you think that a reporter whose movements are restricted by an iraqi minder escort when he's placed in Human Shield© hotel knows more about what gunfire is leaving the building than a guy near an APC with binoculars who's being shot at?

If you're trying to prove beyond a doubt that Amerikkka's army likes shooting reporters whenever they get the chance, then I'm sorry, but that pig just won't fly.

[Admiral Lebron]

Theres no K in america?:huh

[Darth Viscera]

DUCT TAPE!

[Sanis Prent]

There is at <a href=http://www.indymedia.com>Indymedia</a>

[Admiral Lebron]

Oh... kay... freaky college people.

[Darth Viscera]

Much of Baghdad is erupting in jubilation now, and Iraqis are shouting in broken english "Thank you thank you Mr. Bush".

Also reports of widespread looting of government offices and stores and warehouses.

Heck, all of Iraq seems to be jumping for joy, and the mass jubilation has spread into Arbil in Kurdistan. People are bringing out large paintings of Saddam and destroying them in public.

It would really be a piece of historical irony if April 9th, our Remembrance Day, becomes a national liberation day in the new Iraq.

It's turning out to be a beautiful day today, as I watch all these cheering Iraqi crowds celebrate the freedom that we've given them. :)

Preliminary reports indicate that govt. minders have not shown up today at the palestine hotel, and that Sahaf hasn't given a scheduled briefing. I hope we never see that jerk on TV again.

[ReaperFett]

SHUT UP! He's the best thing to come out of TV in years! They would meet the AMericans with shoes man, SHOES!!!!! :D


Fett, what makes you think that a reporter whose movements are restricted by an iraqi minder escort when he's placed in Human Shield© hotel knows more about what gunfire is leaving the building than a guy near an APC with binoculars who's being shot at?
The escorts dont tell them what to say. What they do is restrict thigns being said. There was no need for three reporters to say they didnt notice any gunfire, nor did any of their colleagues.


But lets face it, you wont ever admit that the military can make a mistake, so whats the point in arguing?

[Marcus Telcontar]

The last point is clear indication the Baath Party is finished and the regime is all but gone. It may also be an indication that whatever the USA hit a few days ago, was important - they may not have got Saddam, but I feel, just liek the first spectaclar go they had, they got somethign very, very signifigant.

When things are looked over, the first strike the USA did seemed to have a surprisingly effective result. Clearly, there was no real command of Iraqi troops after that point. This whole war, there has been an obvious lack of control. Basic military planning and actions - like destroying bridges to stop advancing USA troops - wasnt done. The tatics made absolutly no sense.

The first strike should be recrded as the unexpected stroke that really set the course of the war and may well have changed it. I suspect that the man we saw, who was clearly shaken and not coherent in the first Saddam announcement WAS the real thing. What we saw was a man in shock. He never recovered.

Is he dead now? The UK dont think so, tho the CIA are saying no one came out before the place was turned into a hole. That was quite an alarmingly big hole too. If there was anoyone near ground zero, you wont be able to find enough to scrape onto a piece of toast.

Maybe the real evidence is the sudden no show of Iraqi minders for the journalists.

[ReaperFett]

Well, they reckon that that restaurant would be linked to Saddam's tunnel system, so he could have got out that way.


And about the info minister. Remember, he isnt what you would call an inner-circle member. He was dumped in that job after an argument with Hussain's sun, he was froegin minister (I think) before that. It's likely that even if Saddam was dead, he wouldnt know.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And if he did know, he woud say that Saddam had killed 100 Americans in their tanks with his bare hands and forced the US and their allies back in a sea of blood. That guy was, as you said, one of the best parts of this war. How could you not laugh at some of the stuff he said?

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
And if he did know, he woud say that Saddam had killed 100 Americans in their tanks with his bare hands and forced the US and their allies back in a sea of blood. That guy was, as you said, one of the best parts of this war. How could you not laugh at some of the stuff he said?

Because 200 million middle easterners were believing him, word for word!

[Darth Viscera]

A huge iron statue of Saddam Hussein has been cast down by a huge crowd of freedom-loving Iraqis, who were assisted by a U.S. M-88 Tank Retriever and a large man with a sledge hammer.

6 Pictures in one, in chronological order. 960x480

You really missed something if you weren't watching the news for the hour and a half of this little drama. It was like watching the Berlin Wall coming down.

First the crowd tried to take down the statue themselves using a ladder and a long stretch of rope (by hooking the rope around Saddam's neck lynch-style and trying to pull), but it was a heavy iron statue and they weren't able to make any headway.

Then a large Iraqi man came in with a sledge hammer and just started banging away with the sledge at the foundation of the statue, making serious dents in the foundation. They took turns pounding away, but didn't really make serious progress.

Then the Iraqis asked the U.S. military guys for help, and the army sent up an M-88 from the rear. The M-88 is used to tow several damaged tanks at a time, so it's suited to hauling down a puny saddamite statue.

The M-88 hooked a steel rope around the statue, got the crowd to back up to stay safe, and the statue came tumbling down. The huge crowd then went and jumped on the statue, smacking it with shoes, spitting on it, and the head was severed and a guy rode on it (the head) through the streets of Baghdad. The Iraqis put an Iraqi flag on the statue's foundation.

There should be an emoticon for tears of joy.

[CMJ]

I agree...it was pretty impressive.

[Hayes Muirso]

It was awesome to watch :) Very symbolic, IMO.

[Dutchy]

Yeah, awesome sight. :)

[Sanis Prent]

I've been waiting for this day for 13 years! I don't have the words...this is simply amazing.

[Jedi Master Carr]

There is a report on CNN that Saddam might be hiding out in the Russian Embasy, they would hide him I think the Russians would do it just to spite the US. If they have their is nothing the US can do they can't go to war with Russia that would lead to the end of the world. Also what is next this report worries me

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_saddam_9

Are they going to think about going into Iran or Syria next?? That to me is risky first Syria would fight a lot harder than Iraq I tell you that, they will use their weapons and probably send some down to Israel why they are at that could start a war with the Arab world, Iran is also risky they could do more damage to the US than Iraq could. And don't even get me started with North Korea first they could launch a nuke that would wipe out LA and second and if they invade I think the US could lose those North Korean army is huge more than 2x what are army is. So that would mean their have to be a draft. Then their troops would fight to the bitter end they aren't like Iraqis they believe in their country and would not roll over, plus even if we were starting to win they would wipe out Tokyo and LA that to me is not a win. To me this sets a bad precident first since it looks like we went their to liberate the people now we will be expected by some to go into other nations like the ones I said along with Burma, the Sudan, the Congo, etc where the situation is just or bad or worse. And if we don't the world community will call the US hypocrites because we are helping other nations that are under the same situtaion. I don't think we should be the world policeman, I feel that every country should fend for their own why should have to bail somebody out in Nigeria or Burma, it might be cruel but we would have to conquer half the world to do that and then we become like the Roman Empire or something which I think is not something we should be doing.

[Sanis Prent]

You don't know much about military potency. Iraq had a much stronger military than either Syria or Iran, possibly combined, even. The only threat from the North Koreans is the immediate threat to the region of Seoul. Yes, they have a big army, but if you learn anything from our military campaigns it is that NUMBERS DON'T MEAN JACK. Especially when you send large numbers in hand-me-down soviet era equipment against a modern army. Even if they have a warhead...they have to carry it on a Taepodong 2, a delivery system that can be intercepted. Even if they have it, I HIGHLY doubt it would be used. When you let the genie out of the bottle, its hard to put it back in.

You repeatedly state that Burma, Sudan, and the Congo are worse than Iraq. Prove it. I'm really interested to see why you think these are worse than the Iraqi regime. Yes they are bad, and their time will come, but at a time of our choosing, and in a matter that is the most expedient. For twelve years, we've tried diplomacy in Iraq. Diplomacy failed, and we acted. Hopefully, diplomacy can find a means to work elsewhere.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Those places are bad because they do horrible things to their people. The Sudan has had huge massacres in recent years, their are thousands missing in the Congo that is apart of Ethnic Cleansing and in Burma they use Slave labor and rape the women to keep them under their thumb they are also one of the largest suppliers of heroin. Personally we shouldn't be going into these countries let the populations handle it if they want to get out of it they can revolt and do it themselves I don't think it is our right to be doing their dirty work.

Also about North Korea numbers do matter also things could get worse with them here is an article I read

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-op.korea08apr08,0,1956951.story?coll=bal%2Dpe%2Dop inion

To me if their is a war in North Korea the US will have the largest casualities ever at least more than WW2, also Millions would die, Soeul would be gone, they will use their nukes sure you say they could be intercepetated but there only a small chance of that. Also if there regime is coming to an end they will use Kim, is a monster he would do it before he dies and at least one city would be gone and sure North Korea would be nuked too and that would mean the death toll would be in the millions.

[Sanis Prent]

We should've let those Jews oust that Hitler guy, too!

And Carr, I highly doubt that. We know what they have arranged on the parallel. Those artillery units would be the first things hit in a strike.

Nuke(s)? Ohhhkay :) If you think we don't have a capacity to intercept limited ballistics, you're deluding yourself.

Let me see...there's been a history of such last gasp desperation. Hitler wanted Paris destroyed rather than surrendered. Didn't happen. He wanted the Fatherland razed to the ground, so the allies would get nothing. Didn't happen. And you think that Kim's followers will nuke their own country? Nice try.

[Jedi Master Carr]

If Hitler had a nuke he would have used it, Hitler had no weapons to destroy German, also he pretty much destroyed German it was in ruins for years if it wasn't for the Allies building it back up it would be a third world country by now. Also it is the risk, do you want to risk millions of deaths and maybe a nuke taking out a major city over a war with North Korea personally I say no its too big of a gamble. If the US hadn't been so stupid and negotiated with them this wouldn't be a problem now.

And I don't find that crack about the Jews amusing its a different situation really, Hitler was conquerer countries and wiping out the Jews in those countries. In Burma for example they have a tyrant in power that is doing bad things yes, but it is their country and it is none of our business and it has no importance in the world affairs the same with the Sudan and the Congo all of those places are remote and won't spill over the boarders so their is no need to get involved.

[Sanis Prent]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Listen to me....the plans he had to ruin Paris and Germany were diabolical and total in scope. Within a decade, it was back on its feet. Had he gotten what he wanted, it would've taken DECADES.

Negotiate? Go for Nuclear blackmail? Never run for any political office, plz. I'm not for immediate action in Korea, don't get me wrong. I think diplomacy still has a role to play, but I'm not totally averse to the military option, if it is necessary. It would take a lot for me to consider it outright, but I won't dismiss it entirely either. But to negotiate with a madman waving nukes? You're nuts.

Thats right, there weren't sizeable Jewish poplulations in Germany, silly me. Kristallnacht never happened, nor Landsberg, or any of that. Thanks for clarifying! People only started caring when he crossed borders to do the same...silly me!

[Jedi Master Carr]

That wasn't what I meant I meant the situation was different Hitler was massacering more people still nobody would have lifted a finger if Hitler hadn't invaded countries that is a fact no body caries he was killing Jews in Europe or in the US. I know I studied that period and the reason Roosevelt and Churchill didn't tell people the Holocaust was going on was because they were afraid it would hurt the war effort because people wouldn't want to help the Jews.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Silly Kurds...

Genocide is Genocide no matter whether it crosses geographical boundaries or not. The inaction of our forebearers cost the Jewish people a terrible price, just as the inaction of our immediate past has cost the Kurds a terrible price. Should we too be inactive? At who's expense?

[Sanis Prent]

I guess I'm just a bleeding heart for giving a damn about the Kurds, Shias, Ezedies, and other dissidents, years before it was "cool" to do so. Oh silly me!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Its not that I don't care its I think its impossible to stop all the genocide look at the situation in yugoslavia once those troops pull out the killing will start again, they have been killing each other for a thousand years we can't make them change, the same with places like the Sudan, Burma etc. The only way to stop that is to conquer half the world and that is not the answer. To me if you want to stop boycott goods from these countries like Burma don't buy clothes, toys, whatever from them and that will hurt their slave labor. South Africa had a horrible situation we never had to go to war their boycotting them work in the case of Burma, and the Congo it will too (The Sudan is more tricky because it a religious civil war, and I think you could try to use diplomacy there). So in these cases I say use diplomacy because otherwise you will have to have troops everywhere and I don't feel like the whole world hating us.

[ReaperFett]

You repeatedly state that Burma, Sudan, and the Congo are worse than Iraq. Prove it.
Congo was said to have had 100,000 die in recent years. I think they were talking the last 3-4

[Sanis Prent]

Eh hem....<strike>Burma</strike> Myanmar kthxbye

As for Yugoslavia...I can't seem to find that one on the map. I see Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, etc...just no Yugoslavia. What's that? The troops are out and the genocide has stopped? That can't be! OMG...

Hay...that Khmer Rouge thing's still goin like mad in Cambodia too!

You don't think genocide can be stopped? What world are you living on?

Are you advocating a boycott, and protesting trade sanctions on the same foot? A boycott's even LESS effective! Oh, and lets shoot our economy in the foot again too. And boycotts won't work in a religious war, but diplomacy will? Mmmkay! Something isn't adding up there!

You've got a lot of theories. Not good theories, but theories nonetheless. I'll hop on your bandwagon when the world is flat and pigs fly.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Congo was said to have had 100,000 die in recent years. I think they were talking the last 3-4

I am aware of this number. I still dispute whether its worse than Iraq.

[Admiral Lebron]

Your map must be old. Yugoslavia is back.

[Figrin D'an]

Yes, but it's not the Yugoslavia that existed before the fall of the Eastern Block.

[Sanis Prent]

Correct. Yugoslavia = Serbia & Montenegro

[Dutchy]

April 9th, 2003. An historical day. Some of the images gave me chills.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

It is truly remarkable. I can't believe the jubilation.

[Admiral Lebron]

Reminds me of ROTJ Special Edition...

[Droo]

Peter said that too. I think the sight of them pulling down that statue of Hussein will go down in history although I do find the use of the shoes hilarious. It turns out throwing your shoes at someone is one of the worst signs of hatred and disrespect you can do in Iraq. It would be anarchy in my town, you'd have to wear a helmet to avoid the airborne Nikes.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Just be glad it doesn't happen in Holland. All those wooden shoes, the streets would be littered with corpses!

[JediBoricua]

:lol

Well it seems I was wrong about the iraqui reception, I'm man enough to accept it. Of course you had a couple hundred people, it's no Berlin Wall with hundreds of thousands, but still it is a significant amount considering the years of opression.

Once again a young Marine got too excited and took out an american flag and place it on the falling statue. The Army should get some basic diplomacy classes, or current events courses at least. This is not Iwo-Jima! If you want to start in a Pullitzer Prize winning picture by raising and american flag on 'liberated' territory you are 60 years late!

Now the hard part begins, the occupation and reconstruction. I find it good that Bush wants the UN in the restoration process, but I don't want him using it as a big 'Red Cross'. Instead of placing an American General to head the Iraqui Gvmnt. they should put a UN appointee, it could still be an american but with the approval of the General Assembly.

And let's see who gets the contracts for reconstruction and oil diggin...only then will the true story be known.

[CMJ]

From what I saw through various reports...it was several thousand people(not hundred). Still not as impressive as when the Berlin Wall came down. That is still seared in my memory...even though I was like 11.

I'm very happy today. How could you not be seeing people take to the streets laughing and jumping for joy? Heck seeing some of these images make it hard for me to QUIT smiling.

I hope the peace is a successful enterprise. That will be the real test of our President. But this was a great day and should muzzle the doubters for a little while.

[JediBoricua]

Agree with you CMJ.

I was talking about the statue incident alone. There are no more than a thousand people there. But in the whole city the number should be in the thousands.

On other news, just how many Saddam portraits are there!?!? Does every dictator feel the need of having himself painted and sculpted thousands of time. It must be a psycological thing to remember his people that he is everywhere and sees everything. Trujillo on the Dom. Republic did the same thing, of course he also had the nerve of renaming Sto. Domingo to Ciudad Trujillo.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Its also not nearly as prominent a figure as the Berlin Wall, not to mention, the city is a combat zone. That is just a small area. The Marines had to wade through a sea of jubilant well-wishers to get to that part alone.

As for post war operations, I'm all for having the UN support humanitarian aid fully. But as for much else, especially political restructuring, I'm against it. I've seen what their neo-socialism has done to stagnate Kosovo's reconstruction efforts in four years, and I know how much of an economic interest that the UN has in fleecing the Iraqi people. I don't want their grubby paws in that bucket, whatsoever.

[JediBoricua]

BTW Reaper, couple of post back, AJ= Al-Jazeera


What economic interest would the UN have?

Are they any different from those of the US or the UK?

I just believe that it would sit better in the Arab World to have an interim government put in place by the UN for 6-8 months until political parties organize, a constitution can be drafted, etc. It would be way better than having a retired general or a political exile that has been out of the country for over 30 years.

And remember Iraq is not Kosovo. Iraq is an already established country with vast resources and a modern infrastructure, that can be rebuilt rather easily because of the low level of destruction caused by the war. Kosovo is starting from scratch after decades of blooshed and civil war. Iraq has had bloodshed for years, but no-civil war, well except in the north.

And talking about the north, what will happen with the Kurds?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
And talking about the north, what will happen with the Kurds?

Well... the Kurds want their own nation... but that won't happen. They'll end up having a certain amount of influence/power in whatever government is established in Iraq. I'm sure Turkey won't be too pleased either way, but it's impossible to make everyone happy...

[CMJ]

I'm not sure what would be the best way to do about a interim government. We just can't afford to get it wrong.

[JediBoricua]

True CMJ. Worst case scenario, the US will loose the PR war in the long term and you could have a rebirtt of a pro-Saddam movement, or islamic fundamentalism. Best case scenario, an iraqi-run government stabilizes the country and progress is notable in five to ten years.

The only problem with all this is that I think there is no happy medium, you either do it right from the get-go or the cure could be worse than the disease.

If I were the kurds I would aim for autonomy, it's how the world is moving anyway. To be part of Iraq but to have the fiscal autonomy to make your own economic relations with other countries and to keep your cultural and ethnic heritage intact. It's a bloodless and potentially succesful status for any nation.

[CMJ]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. I was very much FOR this military action, but I worry about getting the peace wrong. If we screw this up we jeopardize the joy we saw today...among other things.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not making those decisions.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I read this and I think we be wrong to go to war with Syria
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_us_syria&cid=540&ncid=716

I am okay with sanctions because I don't think they will do anything bad but invading Syria is stupid. First Syria is worse because of the terrorism in there and Lebanon namely Hezelbela, if you attack Syria, Hezzebella and groups like Hamas, will drive cars into our barracks like they did in 81 we will have more casualities than we had here and in the Gulf War. Also the arab world may not stand for it they might just cut off the oil to us and you think Europe hated us before very few countries would support a war against Syria mainly because Syria hasn't done anything in years. Finally there is also a chance this could lead to an Arab war especially if Hezebella dragged Israel into it (I am sure they would bomb them in an effort to get Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the conflict). To me it would be a crazy decision and hopefully it will never come up.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
Best case scenario, an iraqi-run government stabilizes the country and progress is notable in five to ten years.

Best case scenario, we get all of the above PLUS eventual healthy Iraq-Israel relations, which would be one giant step closer to stabilization.

@Carr
Hizbollah.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

@ Vis: Hezbollah :)


What economic interest would the UN have?

What is the largest source of payroll for the United Nations? The Iraqi Oil for Food program. To be plain, they have steadily squeezed that program for more cash over the years. No wonder they're reluctant to step toward decisive change. Iraq represents Mr. Annan's paycheck. It isn't a coincidence, that much I assure you.

As for the notion that the Kurds want their own country, that is largely false. KDP and PUK are both staunchly in favor of a unified, democratic Iraq, and both are democratically elected institutions with over a decade of history.

As for invading Syria...pshhh :lol

Haven't done anything in the past few years? Harboring Hamas and Hezbollah isn't enough? That's rich. Not saying that we should hit them any time soon or anything, but the option is very much plausible. You think we can't handle terrorism? We went into the belly of the beast in Afghanistan without so much as a mouse fart of terror retaliation. I think that says that being proactive in terrorism is a pretty damn good strategy.

[Darth Viscera]

Hizbollah (http://www.hizbollah.org) spells it "Hizbollah". "Hezbollah" may be a way of spelling the word that's nearly as common, but that doesn't make it correct. Are you going to argue that they don't know how to spell the name of their own group?

Iranian words often don't sound the way that they're spelled.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Hey thanks I didn't know how to spell it :p I don't think we should be invading Syria because of the fact it could cause the rest of the Arab world to hate us. As far as harboring terrorist lets see Pakistan harbors Kashmir terrorist and Saudi Arabia was the country that had the most 9/11 terrorist and we are invading them.

[Sanis Prent]

Carr, Pakistan isn't exactly harboring the terrorists in Kashmir. Residing in their borders does not equal harboring them. America doesn't harbor drug dealers, but some manage to eke out a living here.

And your insight into the Saudi situation is woefully misplaced. You seem to forget that such terrorists were sleeper cell terrorists, having no prior records against them. Furthermore, known Saudi terrorists (aka, Osama bin Laden) were banished from the country under pain of death. Harboring terrorists? Absolutely false.

[Admiral Lebron]

Everyone has websites these days... :\

[Jedi Master Carr]

Pakistan does support the guys in Kashmir India sure thinks so we just look the other way because we need Pakistan right now. And about Saudi Arabia it is true that certain rich buisnessmen supported Bin Laden, heck he was in the home of one of them. In Saudi Arabia most of the people there hate us, I wager over 50%, if there was a revolution we have a Islamic state in our hands in that country.

[Sanis Prent]

Carr...open your eyes plz. The Saudi regime IS a fundamentalist principality. Those are ultra-conservative Wahhabist Sunni muslims who hold the leash.

As for the rich businessmen, I don't see the support there anymore. Seeing that domestic terrorists such as bin Laden have been exiled and punished, I'd dispute that claim outright.

And OF COURSE India thinks Pakistan supports terrorism. Rivals disagree over everything. Just like Iraqi people are driving the USA army out of Iraq and slaughtering them all. Just like how Syria doesn't support terrorism. Just like how Russia doesn't sell arms indiscriminately to support its floundering economy, and just like how Jacques Chirac loves America.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but I actually trust the regime in India more Pakistan I don't trust they have tried to take over Kashmir several times. Also India claims they have proof they have things not sure what but I believe them, they nearly went to war over it, but wisely haven't yet (though with troops still at both borders who knows what could happen). Personally, I am sure the Pakistan govt. is harboring terrorist from Kashmir. Also what I meant about Saudi Arabia is that it would become even worse more like Iran in that it kicks us out and doesn't sell us the oil. I think its a remote possibility the Royal family has that country in their control.

[Sanis Prent]

In other words, you fear they'll shoot their own economy in the foot? Not all fundamentalists are have death wishes, either real or economical.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well some do and I don't really trust fundamentalist some of them are too crazy for me.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/11/1049567839432.html

Iraq Minister of Info gets a cult following!

[Sanis Prent]

ROFL he is my favorite evil puppet!

And this thread now needs:

<img src=http://www.panic.hopto.org/swf/charley/sahaf.jpg>

[Gurney Devries]

We need to give Baghdad Bob his own TV show and air it weekly. :)

[Sanis Prent]

al Sahaf would be great as a forced labor weekend update anchorman :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Could we have set a bad precident here, now India wants to get into the act

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030411/wl_sthasia_afp/india_pakistan_030411095309

This is a huge problem I feel that if their is a war I think it will lead to a nuclear one because of a lot of reasons that I don't want to go over now. These two nations hate each other the most they have hated each other for over a 1000 years hated each other longer than any other two groups. That hatred and animosity does do good with nukes. Something better be done click or else millions will die.

[JediBoricua]

What about Cooperstown cancelling the Bull Durham tribute because of the Tim Robbin's and Susan Sarandon anti-war stand.

Stupid, stupid, stupid IMO. What issues does war have on baseball, none whatsoever! Don't polarize a bening, fun activity with this! The Hall of Fame could have at least talked to them discretly and told them they only wanted baseball talk and no war talk, but going out and cancelling because an anti-war speech on cooperstown "would endanger even more our troops" is a very idiotic and unreasonable thing to do.

This are the people that really make me mad.

It's as bad as the conservatives starting an ice-cream company designed to counter the liberal propaganda of Ben & Jerry's! LOL! As if ice-cream had political beliefs!

[JediBoricua]

Here is a great column about it:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/030411.html

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL I heard about the Ice Cream that was just insane the Bull Durham thing was silly too since Robbins didn't make the film.

[JediBoricua]

And I have to be honest, but there is nothing better than a Ben & Jerry's Cherry García on a hot waffle cone. No Small-Governmint will change that (stole that from Bill Maher)

[Sanis Prent]

Carr, regarding the nuclear microcosm in India and Pakistan...while it is a serious concern, such a stand-off produces a MAD-level parity much sooner, and with much fewer volumes of weapons than in the Cold War. It is insulting of General Musharraf and the Indian Prime Minister's collective intelligence to think that they would draw the atomic saber. Its a dangerous method of securing interests, but rest assured, with limited land mass and territory adjacent to each other, the nuclear option will never be drawn in anger. What concerns me, as it concerns me in North Korea, is how secure these weapons may be, and the possibility of such security being compromised.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is the reason why I think it is possible it is because Pakistan has some faulty equipment and they were saying in a magazine article that some of India's missle look exactly like their nukes and their radar can't tell the difference, and their is a worry that their could be an accident which would be catastrophic. Also even if the war didn't go nuclear millions still will die, each side would have an army over a million (considering they would probably start drafting people) and casualities would go that high in the war.

[Jedi Master Carr]

And JediBorica I saw that episode of Maher he was hilarious when he said that, I love watching his show, I am glad HBO brought him back.

[Sanis Prent]

Ok, that's a relevant concern. A conventional war between the two would be a disaster in massive proportions of human life. Ever read Clancy's Red Storm Rising? It contemplates a full-scale engagement between America and the Soviets, but stopping short of a nuclear ejaculation.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Ever read Clancy's Red Storm Rising? It contemplates a full-scale engagement between America and the Soviets, but stopping short of a nuclear ejaculation.


Awesome, awesome book. One of his best, IMO.


Sorry... carry on. :)

[JediBoricua]

If I keep adding books to my list I will never end.

None the less it has been added. Haven't read any Clancy yet, but if they are as good and interesting as the video games I know I'll be satisfied.

[Sanis Prent]

Rainbow Six was a great read :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Oh, Red Storm Rising was truly kick butt. LOVED IT.

[Dutchy]

Yesterday on TV a singer sang: "you can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb the world to peace".

I like that one. :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Coalition Rebuild Aid Program.

Iraq will be full of it!

:D j/k, couldnt resist

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/11/1049567875671.html

Anyway, joking asisde, I agree with the above article - the war, which really is pretty much over, went inccredibly well. No one expected things like the Marines sudden taking of the airport, the lightning dashes, the impossibly light casualty list, even the fact the civilian population was no where near as badly hit as in 1991. Very few bombs went off target. Rumsfield is a scray bugger, but he was right in his planning.

If anything, this really confirms that there is bugger all is going to be able to resist the weaposn the USA can now deploy. Afghanistan, a place that had defeated other armies in the past, even Russia at it's best, was no match for what the USA could arrange at quick notice.

The thing that still boggles my mind is the short notice bombing they can now do. 40 minutes from mission go, there is a JDAM bunker buster belting it's target dead on. Missles now reprogrammed in the air. It's just amazing what the US military has revealed it can do.

I dont know who is old enough to rememebr 1991, but the sight of missiles going through windows was stunning. Now, it 's even more so, where you can hit a target of opportunity as the USA put it, with 40 Tohmahawks and 4 bunker blasters with no misses is mind blowing.

In reality, the only thing that can stop the USA army is WMD.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
In reality, the only thing that can stop the USA army is WMD.

How can WMDs stop us, with our anti-ballistic missile prototypes in the construction phase, NBC suits for our troops, and chem-bio-resistant armored vehicles?

But then there may be nuclear fedayeen with a low-yield nuke riding on a technical :|

[Marcus Telcontar]

How can WMDs stop us

You might have gas suits, chem-bio resistant vehicles, but they are not 100% stoppage. You cant wear the suits 100% of the time, bio's only stop what's known and WMD is not just missile delivery. I'm quite certian WMD's can stop anyone, esp if used right.

And anti ballistic technologies?. Not for quite some time down the road. Expensive and no where near usable enough to be any way effective. The best you have is PATRIOTS and they are no good against ICBM's and others like the N Koreans have.

[JediBoricua]

And I believe the threat of WMD's to the US don't come from governments, but from terrorist groups that could have access to them.

There is no way to protect Washington DC from a terrorist that somehow can smuggle a dirty bomb and blow himself up in the middle of the city. That is truly frightening. Worst if you saw the History Channel Special on the Russian Mafia where two FBI's undercover agents were offered an atomic bomb by russian gangsters. There are dozens of ex-soviet bombs uncounted for, terrifying stuff.

[Marcus Telcontar]

But how likely is that? And WHY should a terrorist go to that type of length, when Bin Laden showed the type of world impact a hijacked airliner can have? The type of long term effects of Sept 11 are staggering and still going on.

[JediBoricua]

That's very true.

I'm merely stating it's a very real posibility that Anti-Ballistic Missiles, Bio-Suits or other military equipment can't counter.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
And anti ballistic technologies?. Not for quite some time down the road.

Note that I not only said prototype, but also under construction.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Overpriced pipe dreams so far that do not work. They are not under construction, they still very much in the testing phase. It's makes no sense to put something into production that simply does nto work. Unless you have info that shows they work nearly 100% effectiveness, at which case I request proof.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar


Anyway, joking asisde, I agree with the above article - the war, which really is pretty much over, went inccredibly well. No one expected things like the Marines sudden taking of the airport, the lightning dashes, the impossibly light casualty list, even the fact the civilian population was no where near as badly hit as in 1991. Very few bombs went off target. Rumsfield is a scray bugger, but he was right in his planning.

If anything, this really confirms that there is bugger all is going to be able to resist the weaposn the USA can now deploy. Afghanistan, a place that had defeated other armies in the past, even Russia at it's best, was no match for what the USA could arrange at quick notice.

The thing that still boggles my mind is the short notice bombing they can now do. 40 minutes from mission go, there is a JDAM bunker buster belting it's target dead on. Missles now reprogrammed in the air. It's just amazing what the US military has revealed it can do.

I dont know who is old enough to rememebr 1991, but the sight of missiles going through windows was stunning. Now, it 's even more so, where you can hit a target of opportunity as the USA put it, with 40 Tohmahawks and 4 bunker blasters with no misses is mind blowing.

In reality, the only thing that can stop the USA army is WMD.

I saw a story on TV year a few years back(I think on 60 Minutes) that said the USA could use *just* it's antiquated weapons, as in the ones that are probably on the same level as most of the world, for 15 years before we had to use anything more high tech.

Our military stockpile is apparently that deep. We could be at a constant state of war for 15 - 20 years with our OLD stuff.

The reason our military might is so damn amazing right now? We spend like no one else. A few months back on MSNBC I read that the USA spent more than the rest of the world combined on it's military arsenal.

This isn't just the old Britsh Navy and their "bigger than the next two combined" strategy. This is the rest of the wold COMBINED. It's really mindblowing....

[Admiral Lebron]

You know why we spend more then everyone else combined on weapons? Ever play the game Fortress America? Thats why.

[Sanis Prent]

Well, the military budget of most European nations is mostly on massive employee benefits for its troops. They have soldiers unions, and things as such...antiquated things that were established in Napoleonic times, and that are held fast by tradition. European armies are poorly equipped, relatively...but it is by choice. With the exception of the British and to some extent, the Germans, no European army trains for a state of war.

[Dutchy]

Where ARE those WMD's anyway? Looks like Saddam doesn't have them and DID disarm after all.

[Sanis Prent]

Don't know what you're smoking, Dutchy...but with chemical detectors and geiger counters pinging off the charts in various places, I think its retarded to assume that so early. Considering that they've uncovered a yellowcake facility, a hard water storage facility, various bunkers that may contain weapons-grade plutonium, and a few more bunkers with the kind of arty warheads that can be filled with aerosolized agents, I would consider you to be uninformed on the issue.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think the US could be beaten on the battelfield Marcus but right now the only country that probably could do it is China but that would be because they could put 10 million troops on the battelfield (if they drafted a lot of people) of course we would never fight a war with them so that point is meaningless.

[Sanis Prent]

Carr...to repeat ad nauseum...numbers no longer mean jack. The US Army is not the same US Army of the Korean War. The concept of Force Multipliers is paramount in our military strategy. This is why we can employ 1/4th the forces Iraq deploys, and win so absolutely.

China could fully deploy a million-strong non-conscript military. America doesn't need to. The American military infrastructure makes one American soldier pound-for-pound, the most lethal combat effective soldier in the world. I'm not saying that a Chinese war would be easy, because that is definitely not the case. I just question whether we would lose it.