The Topic: The War Has Started [Archive]

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:55:53 AM

Originally posted by Taja Loraan
I know I should probably keep shut about this, but...

IMO, Bush has proved himself no better than Saddam. He's nothing more than a dictator also, bent on "taking over the world" for lack of a better term. And what about the weapons of mass destruction of the US? He gets to go around nuking everybody else, and everybody else has to live under his foot for fear of being stomped on? Uh, right. What about the innocents? He doesn't much care what happens to the rest of the world as long as his American citizens are safe.

:lol screamy rhetoric != watertight argument.

Bush, a dictator? Rich...

Yes, we have WMDs. Our WMD's aren't used by crazy, unhinged, mass-murdering psychos. Last time we used WMD was when? Exactly.

If we didn't care about innocents, we wouldn't be taking such great pains to get Saddam and KEEP HIM FROM MURDERING HIS PEOPLE, like he's done with impunity for decades.

I love you Taj, but you need to ground your views in reason.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:56:31 AM

Originally posted by Taja Loraan
I know I should probably keep shut about this, but...

IMO, Bush has proved himself no better than Saddam. He's nothing more than a dictator also, bent on "taking over the world" for lack of a better term. And what about the weapons of mass destruction of the US? He gets to go around nuking everybody else, and everybody else has to live under his foot for fear of being stomped on? Uh, right. What about the innocents? He doesn't much care what happens to the rest of the world as long as his American citizens are safe.

* gack *

I'm admittedly a critic of the Bush's political stupdity in the leadup to this, yet saying Bush is no better than a man who has killed millions and kept his country in a virtual prision? No no no no no. Bush has been a twat, but he's no multi million murderer

I support that Saddam MUST go. I'm a critic of the lead up and the political butchering the Bush Administration has done of something that they should have had support for.

Dae Jinn

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:58:39 AM

Ahem, Charles, since when do you dictate my own personal opinions? ;)

I just find this war stupid, but that is simply my opinion, as uninformed as it may be.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:59:54 AM

Originally posted by Taja Loraan
I know I should probably keep shut about this, but...

IMO, Bush has proved himself no better than Saddam. He's nothing more than a dictator also, bent on "taking over the world" for lack of a better term. And what about the weapons of mass destruction of the US? He gets to go around nuking everybody else, and everybody else has to live under his foot for fear of being stomped on? Uh, right. What about the innocents? He doesn't much care what happens to the rest of the world as long as his American citizens are safe.

No, America is merely fighting a war on terrorism and concerned with disarming Iraq. Now it has become a responsibility of the US to also force Saddam to step down and save his people from his oppressive dictatorship. America is not going to invade or nuke any country with the idea of taking over.

Zeke

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:03:24 AM

Sheesh, guys, let her vent. She's probably the closest person on these whole boards to this thing.

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:05:02 AM

Freedom to vent = yes*

(Beware getting hit by the DUH stick, tho. Freedom to not be poked fun at = no)

Lann Kirauc

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:07:46 AM

There was a report today on the news that Saddam imprisoned many, many more of his own citizens because he felt did not support him or his regime. They were taken to torture chambers and god only knows what is being done to them. Also, they spoke with a reporter who recently interviewed Saddam and he reported an eyewitnesses account that one of Saddam ranking officers rose up disputing a decision the dictator had made. Well, Saddam pulled a gun and shot dead the officer for dissent. Someone like Saddam needs to be taken out. He has very little regard for human sanctity. Even has military installations set amongst his own country's citizens as human shield including women and children. He has imprisoned countless people, having them tortured and killed. He rules with terror, murder, and an iron hand of totality.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:10:52 AM

You've got to agree that Bush been nothing if not consistent:

"Disarm, or you will be forced to disarm"
...repeat a few times...

"Leave in 48 hours or we bring force"

"Here we come."

Bush certainly doesnt bluff.

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:12:37 AM

Originally posted by Lann Kirauc
One attack launched on the premise of a target of opportunity, which actually happened to be Saddam Hussien himself but sadly failed.

That can't be confirmed. The "broadcast" Saddam made after the strike contained ambiguous, vague language, and none of it was unique to the moment. It could have easily been recorded pre-emptively, to be used in just such a scenario.

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:14:50 AM

Actually, Marcus, from reports I cought, Bush allowed the military to fire a good 30-60 minutes before the end of the 48 hours. think it somewhere in between, and I heard stuff saying 43 minutes before the times up. Not really sure. But when you get intelligence on a group of high ranking military officers planning the best way to kill our boys, then, Hell, Screw the last hour or so. Lets kill em!

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:18:08 AM

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
Actually, Marcus, from reports I cought, Bush allowed the military to fire a good 30-60 minutes before the end of the 48 hours. think it somewhere in between, and I heard stuff saying 43 minutes before the times up. Not really sure. But when you get intelligence on a group of high ranking military officers planning the best way to kill our boys, then, Hell, Screw the last hour or so. Lets kill em!

and I totally support that go for Saddam. If they got him (adn who knows, the broadcast was probably NOT live), the war would be over fast I bet

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:19:15 AM

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
Actually, Marcus, from reports I cought, Bush allowed the military to fire a good 30-60 minutes before the end of the 48 hours. think it somewhere in between, and I heard stuff saying 43 minutes before the times up. Not really sure. But when you get intelligence on a group of high ranking military officers planning the best way to kill our boys, then, Hell, Screw the last hour or so. Lets kill em!

Cite plz.

First indication of AA over Baghdad > 8:00 CST (Deadline)

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:20:18 AM

First hit was 1:20 after deadline. There was enough time to get missiles and jets in.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:22:09 AM

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
That can't be confirmed. The "broadcast" Saddam made after the strike contained ambiguous, vague language, and none of it was unique to the moment. It could have easily been recorded pre-emptively, to be used in just such a scenario.

Now wouldn't that be peachy. I hope it's true.

Taylor Millard

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:22:34 AM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
You've got to agree that Bush been nothing if not consistent:

"Disarm, or you will be forced to disarm"
...repeat a few times...

"Leave in 48 hours or we bring force"

"Here we come."

Bush certainly doesnt bluff.

Marcus he's from TX...we don't bluff. :)

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:25:19 AM

Don't mess with Texas!

:lol funny stuff

Sorreessa Tarrineezi

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:25:37 AM

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
Actually, Marcus, from reports I cought, Bush allowed the military to fire a good 30-60 minutes before the end of the 48 hours. think it somewhere in between, and I heard stuff saying 43 minutes before the times up.

that was to take out some of the anti-air craft stuff, it was just aimed at that not to "hell, let's bomb early"...

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:26:25 AM

We took out AA targets? News to me there...

Sorreessa Tarrineezi

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:27:53 AM

I'm military family, we don't learn much from dad but he can tell us some....supposedly the ones in certain areas in range of hitting our boys when they were to come in later were taken out....

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:28:33 AM

I thought the deadline was qued to Washington Time... But I could be wrong. Maybe it was for something else, but it was on the same news network. Could of been how long before the deadline they recived the intelligence reports?

Could of sworn they said premature... But then again, eh...

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:29:23 AM

Originally posted by Sorreessa Tarrineezi
that was to take out some of the anti-air craft stuff, it was just aimed at that not to "hell, let's bomb early"...

What? No. the first strike was a direct shot against Saddam. It was an assassination attempt.

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:30:05 AM

Like my frist post said. Cruise Missile from the U.S.S. Donald Cook.

Sorreessa Tarrineezi

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:30:14 AM

*shakes head* nope, lies Mark...

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:33:36 AM

No, you've been misinformed. The only attack against Iraqi support infrastructure was yesterday, against mobilized artillery near Basrah. AA units haven't been pegged yet, and with us using F-117s and Tomahawks exclusively on these strikes, there is no need...yet.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:35:35 AM

Originally posted by Sorreessa Tarrineezi
*shakes head* nope, lies Mark...

I'm afraid that tahking out AA defences that early makes no sense. You should hit them about 20 minutes before the rest of the planes scream in. In the no fly zones, sure, they take out air defences all the time, but that's a different kettle of fish - Allied planes are active in those zones. A good few hours before the planes? No, I dont see that making sense. This strike was clearly not planned as part of the war and the evidence of that is the lack of followup.

The only thing that makes sense is a head shot on Iraq.

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:35:56 AM

ATTACK BEGINS — The USS Donald Cook launches three Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles towards Iraq, March 20, 2003. The ship's TLAMs are among the first to be fired in the liberation of Iraq. The Cook is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer operating in the Red Sea in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Among the first... So as usual, hit them hard, hit them fast.

Sorreessa Tarrineezi

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:49:12 AM

*sighs* can't we just think that maybe I might know what I'm taking about, my father is a government position at North Island, I may not know all that much about this stupid thing but I know that.....

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:53:53 AM

Journalist who is reporting live from Baghdad has stated the building hit (read - demoliished) was the Ministry of Security. Andrew Hidray with the BBC who also said the Iraqi people seem to want this blitzreig to come so it's over and done with and they are free.

Zeke

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:54:03 AM

I vote not to care where or who we're attacking in Iraq, whether we're hitting Saddam himself, aircraft, or some random hotdog stand. In the end, it all falls under one big label: Iraq.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:10:58 AM

Figrin D'an

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:14:05 AM

Originally posted by Zeke
I vote not to care where or who we're attacking in Iraq, whether we're hitting Saddam himself, aircraft, or some random hotdog stand. In the end, it all falls under one big label: Iraq.

Gee... that's a really evolved and sensible view of the situation...

Who cares about unnecessary collateral damage, as long as we get the dictator in the funny hat, huh? Send in the B-52's and carpet bomb everything!

:x

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:04:56 AM

I disappear for a few hours to get my nose pierced and look what happens. o_o;;

If we didn't care about innocents, we wouldn't be taking such great pains to get Saddam and KEEP HIM FROM MURDERING HIS PEOPLE, like he's done with impunity for decades.

Uhm... what about Israel? They have WMDs too, don't they? They might not have used them (yet), but aren't they murdering the Palestinians? Shouldn't Bush be disarming Israel too, in that case?

Also, taking into account very recent history... take the attacks of Afghanistan, for example. What good did that do? Did Bush succeed in capturing bin Laden? No. The war is pointless. I'd be for it if there was actualyl a reason for going in, but there isn't. All it'll manage to do is aggravate a bunch of people and get innocent lives killed.

Okay, woohoo, war goes down, Saddam Hussein is killed. Then what? The only thing this is going to succeed in is to bring about a rise in new and more powerful terrorists. Nobody likes America. Global leaders may say one thing; the public has an altogether different opinion. Several MPs from the British Parliament have even resigned because of Blair condoning the war. I live in Bangladesh, and I for one know just how anti-American people can be. These new terrorists attack Bush. Bush goes insane and nukes every other country. The cycle repeats itself.

I admit, I might not have any idea about this war and so don't have much of a right to say anything. But I see what's going on CNN, on BBC, and with the people around me. I asked my dad (who DOES know what's going on) about his opinion on the war, and in his exact words, he said that Bush is trying to "take over the world".

And all that translates into one little fact: my nose is killing me.

*EDIT: To clarify what I said, whether or not the war is pointless depends on how Bush handles the situation. If he's able to successfully wipe out Saddam Hussein and his regime, install democracy and somehow deal with the whole Palestinian issue, then hurray. If he's ruthless... then he's just gone and created himself bigger problems. That, and my nose is still in pain.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:39:04 AM

The US does not want to fight the world. Nor overthrow any country. But how can the world stand by and allow Hussein build up greater power becoming a threat to the world abroad. The action in Afghanistan has done wonders really by overthrowing the Taliban and lifting it's oppressive government. Not to mention how helpful Pakistan has been with the US also. If we just stand by and take no affirmative action, then there is a greater guilt if Kuwait or Israel get a nuc or some biological weapon dumped on them c/o Saddam. Same goes with North Korea and al-Qaida too. I repeat America is not at war with any Muslim nation. America is concerned with this country (Iraq) and terrorism, and the threat it poses to the whole world abroad. We are not singling out any religious groups or peoples. Sometimes you can't ignore and wish for something to go away because frankly it is not going to happen. The unprovoked attack on 9/11 overthrew that theory proving to the whole world, didn't it? A complete and sudden act of terrorism the world never saw coming. Neither was prepared for. America is not a hostile nation without just cause.

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:34:08 AM

I vote not to care where or who we're attacking in Iraq, whether we're hitting Saddam himself, aircraft, or some random hotdog stand. In the end, it all falls under one big label: Iraq.

So if there were rumoured terrorists in Washington, would you launch a full missile strike? Sure there's innocents, but it falls under the label of stopping terrorists, right?

imported_Lance Stormrider

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:54:14 AM

I'm with Taja on this one totally. Bush isn't trying to help Iraq or free the people that is crap that they display on TV for people in America. Even here in Canada their trying to brainwash us with all this war, I don't even listen to TV anymore I'm so dissapointed about all the crap they try to put in our minds. It's pathetic..and sad to see that there can't be a single generation without a war. >_<

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:57:34 AM

And Im sure what Saddam did in '88 was a big eleborate hoax by the US, right :rolleyes

Just because you disagree, dont act like they are "brainwash"ing.

imported_Lance Stormrider

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:59:35 AM

That's not what I meant dadzeh =P

If you would live here in Americaand you would analyze everything on TV and in the newspapers you would understand what I mean. :)

Lion El' Jonson

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:40:21 AM

....I'm stuck in China with CNN...Jesus, they've shown the same report 20 times, and replayed the same videos a bunch of times...

...From what I've heard, the people just want this over and done with so they're not prisoners in their own country anymore. Face it, even if Bush becomes a freaking power-hungry maniac, I think Iraq with US aid is going to be a lot better off than it would be under So-Damn Insane's rule....I get tomorrow off, because I go to an international school...:D

...and then...SPRING VACATION! They wouldn't think of hijacking a plane outbound from Shanghai towards SFO, would they? Anyways, I don't really think Bush is going to continue on his little crusade after this. It may seem like he's bent on making the world all nice and peaceful, but he's basically just trying to finish up his daddy's job.

...And we're not being "brainwashed"! We're just being shown the same crap over and over again until we say "Enough, fine, we agree!!!!!" :lol

Hadrian Invicta

Mar 20th, 2003, 08:07:12 AM

Saddam = killed over 2 million citizens

Bush /= killing 2 million citizens

So explain the logic of saying that Bush is as insane or power-hungry as Saddam...

As far as Israel goes, you tell the palenstinians to quit targeting innocent civilians with their nail bombs and we'll tell Israel to stop destroying future bio-bombs (I.E. Suicide Bombers). The Arab world doesn't want peace with Israel, they've done nothing but try to kill as many Jews as possible since the creation of the Jewish State, then when they start wars of agression and Israel kicks their Butt and takes a bit of their land as punishment, suddenly Israel is the bad guys. They should be happy Israel just doesn't wipe their sorry asses off the face of the earth.

You tell al-Qaida, Hezzabolah, Jihad to disarm and quit targeting civilians and then will talk about the collateral damage that Israel inflicts when wiping out terrorists cells in the neighborhoods that support them.

Beldarine

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:10:24 AM

::takes a deep breath::

Alright.. a few things.

How could anyone say the war in Afghanistan did not accomplish anything? HELLO?!

Once the Taliban was forced out of power, women were essentially liberated. They were able to be on the news programs again, and little girls could finally go back to school. The Taliban oppressed women, and the U.S. liberated them. That's one good thing, right? Second, since we toppled the Taliban we have been able to flush out a number of high-ranking al'Qaeda figures. The Pakistan police are able to capture them, finally, since they can't hide in Afghanistan anymore. Even though we haven't caught Bin Laden himself, we have caught his third in command, his son slated to take over control of al'Qaeda when Bin Laden kicks it, and a number of other officials. Through them the CIA has confirmed that it has stopped "literally dozens" of terrorist attacks.

So, how.. exactly was that a failure??

Next.. The reason we didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War is that we were listening to the U.N. They only approved war to evict the Iraqi forces from Kuwait, nothing else. If Bush #1 had his way, Saddam would have been removed in 1991. The cease-fire he signed gave him 15 days to disarm or military action would be resumed -- well.. we gave him 12 years. I think that's enough.

How could you defend a man like Saddam, or compare him to Bush. I may not like everything that Bush does, but he's not a sadistic dictator that rules with an iron fist over his country. His political opponents are not shot down, and the elections are not forced with scare tactics (ie: vote for Saddam or risk death). We actually have a little something called freedom of speech, which means our peacenick protestors can protest without being shot (try protesting one of Saddam's policies in Baghdad).

This is a man who has tried to invade two countries. First Iran in 1980 because he perceived them as weak and easy to take over... and second Kuwait, because he wanted their oil. This is a man who has used chemical weapons on the Kurdish population, and even the Muslim population that inhabits the country. This is the same mad who ordered the draining of the marshes in between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, effectively destroying the livelyhood of the "Marsh Muslims" because he felt like it.

He is a monster. He needs to leave Iraq for good. The U.S. asked nicely, now we are going to force the issue.

If Saddam was as charismatic as Hitler was, he probably would have already taken over France... If we leave him alone for long enough, who knows what he'll do. If you truly understand the history of WWII, you will understand what I'm talking about.

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:27:20 AM

Uhm... what about Israel? They have WMDs too, don't they?

As does Canada, as does France, as do dozens more nations. Israel? Not been confirmed. I don't agree with Sharon's actions in Gaza, and I've been critical of their handling of the situation ever since Netanyahu took office (which was some years back). As disagreeable as the tactics the IDF uses are, they are using them against combatants (The PLO are terrorists). Yes, its too heavy handed IMO, and I think there are ways to address this, but it is NOT anywhere near the same issue as the one in Iraq.

Also, taking into account very recent history... take the attacks of Afghanistan, for example. What good did that do?

--Absolutely crushed the Taliban regime, which is one of the most barbaric fundamentalist groups that has sprung into prominance since the Ayatollah gave fundamentalists a bad name. I've followed news on the Taliban movement since they captured Kabul in 1996. These people needed to go.

--Severely Disrupted the effectiveness of al Qaeda or far worse. True, we haven't captured Bin Laden. We've done a hell of a lot that's just shy of that mark. We've obliterated his financial holdings, his communications and intelligence infrastructure, and have arrested or killed dozens of his supporters, including his chief attack planner. That definitely counts for something.

The war is pointless. I'd be for it if there was actualyl a reason for going in, but there isn't. All it'll manage to do is aggravate a bunch of people and get innocent lives killed.

FAR MORE innocents have been killed by leaving Saddam Hussein in power. FAR MORE innocents would be killed if we continued to not act. The acts of wanton execution, intimidation, and torture inacted by the Baathist regime are enough to make Hollywood movies blush at the prospect. Hussein's Tikrit thugs have essentially held a country hostage for 20+ years, and only through the iron-handed use of fear have they been able to consolidate their power.

Okay, woohoo, war goes down, Saddam Hussein is killed. Then what? The only thing this is going to succeed in is to bring about a rise in new and more powerful terrorists.

Thats quite an unfounded assumption. I'd like to think that removing a mass-murdering dictator who is a nice source of funds for jihad soldiers (Saddam actually pays money as incentive for PLO suicide bombers), and helping the most educated and heterogeneous nation in the entire middle east back on its feet will do wonders for the region, as well as stemming the tide of terrorism.

Nobody likes America. Global leaders may say one thing; the public has an altogether different opinion.

I'm glad you speak for everyone. Please stop doing so, now.

Several MPs from the British Parliament have even resigned because of Blair condoning the war.

Thats their own choice, and is indicative of nothing.

I live in Bangladesh, and I for one know just how anti-American people can be. These new terrorists attack Bush. Bush goes insane and nukes every other country. The cycle repeats itself.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

I admit, I might not have any idea about this war and so don't have much of a right to say anything.

You have a right to voice your concerns. That's fine. But you also need to temper that with some insight and knowledge into the situation, which you do not sufficiently have.

I asked my dad (who DOES know what's going on) about his opinion on the war, and in his exact words, he said that Bush is trying to "take over the world".

Then I'm sure he could cite reasons as to Bush "taking over the world"?

Get some meds for your nose, Taj. Sorry to hear about that.

Neyasha

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:42:53 AM

If I might point out...the USA is taking over the world... They use bully methods to make it so that if they want to take something from your country, they take it! If you complane, they throw fines, legal fees, and the media at you. And in the end your ten times worse off than if you just gave them the stuff for free!

Bush and Cliton both are economical dictators that were very happy to take over the world, using nothing more than than the fact that if you don't do things their way they ether bankrupt you or bomb you.

Please keep in mind...This is only MY opition...

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 11:54:25 AM

OMG! CONSPIRACY D00D!!! USA = AMERIKKKAN NAZIS Y0!

:x

Only your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Sigil Roland

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:28:55 PM

Well the war has now offically stared (so says CNN).
Massive bombing has stated, and our troops are moving in.

And another thing... There are always people who are close to the war. No matter where you go or what you do, you'll find that there are people close to the war. And for their sake I hope that this war will not get as bad as alot of people have said. I pray to God that this is over quickly, and with as little as casualities as possible.

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 12:50:38 PM

Hear about the total innocent casualites last night? Word I heard............1. Shall we count to one together? There were more Scuds that "dont exist" fired than there was innocents killed. Doesnt that say something to you?

Beldarine

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:04:21 PM

Neyasha.. Do you have any instances to support your feelings?

Any specific events that would point you to say that?

Personally I could bring up a number of instances that would be totally opposite of what you said.

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:09:34 PM

The war is pointless. I'd be for it if there was actualyl a reason for going in, but there isn't. All it'll manage to do is aggravate a bunch of people and get innocent lives killed.
1988. 5,000 Kurdish people killed, 10,000 injured. A day later, 400 Kurdish people rounded up, never to be seen again.

Iraqi prison. A 15 year old boy is NAILED to a window frame.

And the words "Plastic Shredder" really shouldnt need explaining when you realise they didnt throw plastic in all the time.

So, who is the person killing innocents?

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:14:27 PM

<a href=http://www.bama.ua.edu/~hicks020>Ever seen a victim of Mustard Gas? How about VX? Yummy!</a>

Neyasha

Mar 20th, 2003, 01:16:55 PM

Originally posted by Beldarine
Neyasha.. Do you have any instances to support your feelings?

Any specific events that would point you to say that?

Personally I could bring up a number of instances that would be totally opposite of what you said.

The one that comes to mind first is the Canadian Soft Wood Lumber dispute.....But I don't want to go too far off the topic of the thread, so if you want to Argue about lumber PM me.

Admiral Lebron

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:25:06 PM

We watched a video in chem on bio warfare.... makes me mad. :mad

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 20th, 2003, 02:49:43 PM

I watched a video on the Holocaust just a few months ago. We (at my store) are selling "The 20th Century: Days that Changed the World" which is a video/DVD series of all the major events of the last 100 years.

I need to buy you a copy, Sanis, you'd love it.

Anyway, I am so thankful that we are getting rid of Saddam. People have made comparisons to Hitler, and Eddie Izzard said it best (besides that he was a vegetarian painter ;)): Hitler messed up when he started killing people outside his own borders. After a few years, We Won't Stand For That Anymore! The world turned a blind eye when it was only the Jews in Germany that were being exterminated.

Get rid of Saddam, and do it now, and we are. Thank God. I never want to see anything like the Holocaust again, and Saddam exterminating people like bugs just because he FEELS like it is horrible, awful, and should be, and is rightfully, condemned.

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:44:32 PM

the USA is taking over the world

Taking?

I'd share my opinion on this, but I've learned not to here :rollin

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 03:55:59 PM

Originally posted by Miryan no Trunks
Taking?

I'd share my opinion on this, but I've learned not to here :rollin

Nothings stopping you. Heaven forbid that I should argue back, though :rolleyes

Beldarine

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:43:42 PM

It wasn't just the Jews, Holly..

The first gas chambers were used on German citizens who didn't fit Hitler's ideal of the perfect race. They included the mentally and physically handicapped, those who had deformities, and those deemed "anti-society" (ie: 13 year old boys who stole a loaf of bread to eat).

The only difference was that Hitler was seen as a savior throughout Germany. At the end of WWI, the German citizen's morale was extremely low.. it made it easy for Hitler to take over. He made the Germans feel like their race was the most superior in the world -- he made them feel like their lives were worth something. One of the reasons he went after the Jewish population was that they had the money, and the German citizens knew it. He accused the Jewish people of "stealing" money that was rightfully the German people's.

The only difference was that Hitler has a charisma and an ideal that created followers. Saddam has only brutallity. He slaughters his own people -- which is one of the reasons he was never as successful as Hitler was. He brutalizes the Kurds.. He is an evil, evil man.

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 04:57:57 PM

Look at any picture of Hitler. Notice a lack of medals, aside from foot soldier medals? Notice the way he has nothing fancy, but encouraged his generals to be extravagent? That was him being clever, showing himself as a man of the people.

THat's just a little aside, but it brings me onto a similar point about the Savage Saddam.

1979, Hussain foils an alleged scheme to overthrow him from members of his own party. They are taken out, and shot. But not by the military, oh no. He forced his own party members to do it, no choice in the matter.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:05:17 PM

Originally posted by Neyasha
If I might point out...the USA is taking over the world... They use bully methods to make it so that if they want to take something from your country, they take it! If you complane, they throw fines, legal fees, and the media at you. And in the end your ten times worse off than if you just gave them the stuff for free!

Bush and Cliton both are economical dictators that were very happy to take over the world, using nothing more than than the fact that if you don't do things their way they ether bankrupt you or bomb you.

Please keep in mind...This is only MY opition...

-_-

Destiny Stormrider

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:46:02 PM

Why'd it take 12 years to figure how Saddam's such a horrible person? No wait, why'd it take September 11 to realize what a great threat he is to the world?! Don't tell me he was a good guy before!

About Saddam funding terrorists and such, India claims Pakistan does the same, yet it's an American ally, so it's IMPOSSIBLE right? :rolleyes

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 05:52:33 PM

Do they have proof? Like General Mushariff cutting $25,000 publisher's clearinghouse-sized checks to al Qaeda? Nope.

India and Pakistan both claim Kashmir, and squabble squabble squabble. Find something conclusive plz.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:04:17 PM

Originally posted by Destiny Stormrider
Why'd it take 12 years to figure how Saddam's such a horrible person? No wait, why'd it take September 11 to realize what a great threat he is to the world?! Don't tell me he was a good guy before!

About Saddam funding terrorists and such, India claims Pakistan does the same, yet it's an American ally, so it's IMPOSSIBLE right? :rolleyes

Politics and willpower. In 1991, the allies had only a mndate to get Iraq out of Kuwait and no more. The cold war was only really coming to a close and Iraq had Russia as a big ally. While I suspech Bush Snr would have loved to kick Saddam out of Iraq, it was militarily and politically dangerous.

Slick Willy didnt have the political willpower to try soemthign like a strike on Iraq and there would never have been any support.

Sept 11 of course changed that - it was pretty clear that Iraq was in the USA's firing line after that. First, they were going to sweep Afghanistan clean - a job that should have been done when it was clear how evil the Taliban were, but again, up to Sept 11, there was no political will and frankly, an attack on Afghanistan without Sept 11 would have been roundly condemned. Sept 11 has allowed the USA to change it's stances.

I dont agree with how they have gone about the task and getting the world on side - the fact is, a bit of political play and the USA would be in Baghdad right now with little murmur of protest, because Saddam IS an evil man - but the Taliban and Saddam should be rid of a long time ago. It's a pity it's taken Sept 11 and other terrorist attacks to allow the political situation to change enough that these tasks can be done.

Afghanistan attack on a military POV wasnt too bad. I dont think the follow up has been great, but militarily, it worked very well. Let's see what happens in Iraq.

The USA knows quite well Pakistan is a problem. But supporting the current dictactor is one hell of a more palatible alternative to a hard line Islamic state with nukes. Pakistan is a real issue, because of that.

Now, I'm not known for being a real USA supporter, but honestly, some of the anti (and Pro) statements have been ridiculous. Fact is, I'm tryign to walk a dipolmatic line and be resonable, but both pro and anti war statements have disgusted me in here and also in the Box Office Forum. I can only -_- to indicate my disgust because if I really let my feelings known on some of the abusrd and frankly trolling statements, it would sear the server.

The war is happening, it was set up badly, but it is just to some degree as long as it's target is ridding the world of a sadistic madman. Further, I do not believe the pro and anti war hysterical posts add to the debate or promote a resonable discussion.

ReaperFett

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:04:51 PM

About Saddam funding terrorists and such, India claims Pakistan does the same, yet it's an American ally, so it's IMPOSSIBLE right?
We KNOW Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers. KNOW...CLAIM.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:08:23 PM

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Do they have proof? Like General Mushariff cutting $25,000 publisher's clearinghouse-sized checks to al Qaeda? Nope.

India and Pakistan both claim Kashmir, and squabble squabble squabble. Find something conclusive plz.

Mushariff may not, but there are fundamentalists groups who control a good portion (the Nort-east near Afghanistan) who do and would.

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:11:30 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Mushariff may not, but there are fundamentalists groups who control a good portion (the Nort-east near Afghanistan) who do and would.

Truth, but saying Mushariff and the fundamentalists are on the same page is at the very best, a major stretch. It would be like getting Pat Buchanan and Fidel Castro to play a game of golf.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:19:55 PM

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Truth, but saying Mushariff and the fundamentalists are on the same page is at the very best, a major stretch. It would be like getting Pat Buchanan and Fidel Castro to play a game of golf.

I'm pretty sure Mushariff doesnt want the Islamic extremeists either, but he is playing a dangerous balancing act between them (and they do hold a great deal of influence) and USA interests. I'ld rather not be in his position, even if he does have the military fir his support.

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:25:03 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I'm pretty sure Mushariff doesnt want the Islamic extremeists either, but he is playing a dangerous balancing act between them (and they do hold a great deal of influence) and USA interests. I'ld rather not be in his position, even if he does have the military fir his support.

Thats the honest-to-God truth, right there.

imported_Grev Drasen

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:36:13 PM

I'd rather not put my two cents in the hat just yet, I'm drained from a two hour detention I just got back from. But anyway...

Before any of this happened, I wasn't fully supportive of military action in Iraq. I knew Saddam needed to be removed from power, but I didn't really want it to resort to war. A lot of people find it easy to sling mud on Bush's name, and pretty much everyone I've talked to at school who are anti-war have gave me the same BS response as to why: "Bush is an idiot, that's why."

I haven't really heard a good argument as to why we shouldn't go to war, basically all I see it as is our last option. They gave him too much time already, in my opinion, and after the 48 hours deal I figured all was game. He didn't heed the warning, and now he'll drag his people down with his suffering. Not the type of guy I'd like to have heading my country.

So really, I'm just curious to hear a decent argument as to why we shouldn't use action against Iraq?

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 20th, 2003, 06:46:37 PM

So really, I'm just curious to hear a decent argument as to why we shouldn't use action against Iraq?

Under international law, pre-emtive strikes are not allowed and just because Saddam is evil is no reason under Intl law to invade. Unless he is a clear and present threat, could the USA be allowed to invade. Basically, even if it sucks, a soverign country can do what it wants inside it's borders and no one really has a say in it - unless it affects another country.

The reason why the USA has some sort of vague legal basis is that there are some UN resolutions that state if he doesnt disarm, other unspecified action can and will be taken. That is doubtful legally.

Of course, the UN can sanction action if convinced of the need, thence making a strike legal outside of the rules of self defence. The USA should have built a case on the continuous humanitarian disaster Hussein is, cause only a right idiot would dispute that. But they chose to take the road saying Hussein hadnt disarmed of WMD and other things. That was risky and it failed. Thence, this action is technically illegal as it does not comply to the rules of self defence or UN sanctions.

Of course, it's probably somethign that sould be done. Hussein needs to be rid of.

Beldarine

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:08:11 PM

Well.. who knows.. Now that the Pentagon is stating that the Iraqi Republican Guards (Saddam's elite military forces) are in talks to surrender peacefully.

Maybe we really did get the bloody bastard.. or maybe they are just as disallusioned with Saddam as everyone else. They were the ones I was worried about, but if they surrender.. This should be quicker and cleaner than I had origionally thought.

Taylor Millard

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:17:22 PM

Just so you guys know...one of Iraq's missiles that were shot down over Kuwait was a SCUD missile.

Those're illegal in one of the UN Agreements.

EDIT- Here's the story

Iraqis appear to fire banned missiles at U.S. troops

The very missiles Saddam Hussein fired at U.S. forces in Kuwait appear to have been the same weapons he either claimed not to possess or agreed to destroy.

U.S., British and Kuwait military officials said Iraq fired at least three missiles Thursday - though they differed on how many of them were Scuds, which have been banned by the United Nations.

The first salvos were both a telling sign of Iraq's hidden weapons and a frightening reminder that Saddam still has the capability to deliver chemical or biological warheads.

The uncertainty surrounding Iraq's potentially deadly arsenal led U.S. troops and Kuwaiti citizens to pull out their gas masks and protective suits during air raid sirens Thursday that warned missiles were incoming.

Kuwaiti officials said the first two were Scuds, similar to the ones the Iraqis fired in the 1991 Gulf War.

The Pentagon described the two as ``tactical ballistic missiles'' - which could include Scuds - that were intercepted and destroyed by the PAC-3, the latest Patriot anti-missile system, as they flew toward the Kuwaiti sky at midday Thursday.

A third missile, described by Kuwaiti military officials as the Iraqi Al Samoud, broke in two and fell near the Kuwaiti border.

Iraq told U.N. inspectors in its December weapons declaration, a copy of which was shown to an Associated Press reporter, that it no longer had the Scud missiles it used against Iran in the 1980s and against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.

During the war, Iraq fired 93 Scuds - many with ranges of 375 miles - at major cities and coalition forces. A handful were intercepted by Patriots, some broke up before they reached their targets and others caused significant damage to buildings and homes. At the end of that war, the U.N. Security Council banned Iraq from having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons as well as missiles that could fly more than 93 miles.

Weapons inspectors accounted for all but two Scuds Iraq claimed to have had but they believed Iraq could have been hiding more.

Despite that prohibition and Iraqi claims of compliance, years of concealment became evident when Iraq admitted in 1995 that it had weaponized biological agents such as anthrax, sarin, mustard gas and botulinum toxin and even managed to fill warheads with some of the agents.

In written reports obtained by AP, the Iraqis told inspectors they decided not to fire those weapons during the Gulf War because they believed it would bring on a nuclear attack by the United States.

Today, the Iraqis maintain they have destroyed all of their weapons of mass destruction. But inspectors have been unable to verify the claims and the United States and Britain remain convinced that Iraq not only has chemical and biological weapons but is producing more.

According to Pentagon officials, Iraq fired a missile Thursday toward Kuwait City at approximately 12:24 p.m., followed by a second one at 1:30 p.m.

On Kuwaiti television, military spokesman Col. Youssef al-Mullah said one of the Scuds was shot down by three Patriot missiles.

British officials reported a slightly different version of events.

Lt. Col. Ronnie McCourt, a British spokesman at Camp As Sayliyah, identified just one of the missiles as a Scud.

Al-Mullah described the third missile as an Al Samoud.

Three and a half months ago, Iraq did declare its Al Samoud 2 missile system, which inspectors later ordered destroyed after test flights indicated the missile had flown slightly farther than a 93-mile range limit.

The Iraqis complied with the order, and chief inspector Hans Blix reported that about 70 of the missiles had been destroyed, leaving approximately 30 in the Iraqi arsenal.

A U.N. weapons expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the third missile also may have been an anti-ship missile or an early version of the al-Samoud which flies under 93 miles. Iraq has developed several missile systems that fall under the range permitted by the United Nations.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Sanis Prent

Mar 20th, 2003, 10:32:45 PM

101st Airborne mobilizing, likely about to hit Mosul.

Beldarine

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:00:57 AM

I just wanted to thank everyone on this board.. It's amazing what debating with people of various views will do to make someone realize what their own viewpoint is.

Through reading opinions and expressing my own on the boards, I have realized just how pro-war I am in this situation. I used to be very middle of the fence, coming up with as many reasons against as for. As I wrote my own opinions on it, I went back and reread some people's posts.. Then I started to reread MY writings, and found myself to be on the sole side of defending this war. Hell, at dinner tonight my husband said I sounded like Rummy.. and I normally don't like ol'Rumsfeld.

And Charlie.. Thank you for posting that link. It truly angered me because to me.. it makes sense.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:03:38 AM

No prob, girl :)

And...is anybody enjoying this wild ride to Baghdad by 7th Cavalry? Holy crap, they're just barreling right through the desert as fast as they can go. Put "Ride of the Valkyries" on :)

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:10:41 AM

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
No prob, girl :)

And...is anybody enjoying this wild ride to Baghdad by 7th Cavalry? Holy crap, they're just barreling right through the desert as fast as they can go. Put "Ride of the Valkyries" on :)

Which leads to suspecions last night's strike on Baghdad DID get someone important. By reports, Iraq military are already in disarray and there may not be the need for huge air strikes. This is all speakign of a confidence Iraqi resistance isn't going to happen.

Look at the potential evidence -

... Aliies are clearly now not striking with full power

... Last night's address by Saddam was incoherent, rushed

... The ground forces are rolling without huge air power strikes beforehand

... roumours the military are still seeing what the effect of the first strike was.

It's all pointing to a probable capitulation. I pray that's the case

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:15:08 AM

Source - www.smh.com.au

Spies believe Saddam and sons were hit in bombing
March 21 2003

US intelligence believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and possibly two of his sons were present inside a suburban Baghdad compound when it was struck by US missiles and bombs and that medical attention was summoned afterward, government officials said.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said intelligence agencies have not made any determination yet whether Saddam or his sons were injured or killed in the attacks and they were carefully analysing videotapes purporting to show the Iraqi leader after the attack.

US officials said there was no evidence that Saddam, or anyone else, was in overall command of Iraq's security or military operations in the aftermath of the attack.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was no definitive word whether Saddam was caught in the pre-dawn attack, nor whether he was alive or dead.

"We have reason to believe he was in there," one senior US official said. "It is not clear exactly on whose behalf the medical attention was summoned."

advertisement

advertisement

The attack, which involved ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombs dropped from stealth fighters, was aimed at a residential complex where US intelligence believed Saddam, and possibly his sons, were sleeping.

Naval missile strikes in Baghdad also were aimed at the headquarters of the Special Republican Guard, a paramilitary force that was expected to defend Baghdad from any US assault, and other security organisations.

After the attack, intelligence reports indicated Iraq's leaders were not organising any coordinated response in Baghdad or in the rest of the country, suggesting the leadership might be in chaos or cut off from communicating with field commanders.

At the Pentagon, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said military planners had good reason to believe top Iraqi leaders were at the site of the first bombing.

US intelligence suspected Saddam's sons, Qusay and Uday, might have been with him during the strike. Both hold high-level security positions. Qusay, the younger son, is believed to be Saddam's likely successor.

A defiant Saddam appeared on Iraqi television a few hours after the strike. However, officials said the taped message did not prove he was alive.

It appeared to be him and not a look-alike, officials said after initial analysis. A voice analysis was under way.

There was nothing in the tape that made specific reference to the attack, or other events, that would confirm it was made in the hours after the strike. Saddam's reading of the date could have been recorded earlier, officials said.

However, the fact that Saddam read the speech from a notepad indicated a fairly impromptu production, suggesting it came after the strike, the officials said.

If Saddam survived, US officials hoped the surprise attack at least would leave him distrustful of his inner circle and suspecting betrayal by one of his advisers, leaving him less able to command.

Officials said the surprise attack was the product of a complex operation that benefited from human intelligence, electronic spying, special military operations and changes in technology that permitted military chiefs to quickly reconfigure the cruise missiles for a pinpointed attack.

US intelligence indicated the site had a reinforced bunker beneath the primary structures, and military officials designed a two-stage attack. The officials said the attack began with about three dozen naval cruise missiles that levelled the aboveground structures. Air Force F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters then dropped a new 900 kg "bunker buster" bomb, called the EGBU-27.

The EGBU-27 warhead is specially designed to penetrate deep underground. It is guided by satellite signals.

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:36:50 AM

The officials said the attack began with about three dozen naval cruise missiles that levelled the aboveground structures. Air Force F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters then dropped a new 900 kg "bunker buster" bomb, called the EGBU-27.

You know, if they aren't BSing about only 1 civilian death so far, I will be incredibly impressed. "About 36 cruise missiles were launched at a building and it's surroundings, not to mention the bombing of it's remains. Approximately 1 civilian died."

Although, I have to ask.. I heard something earlier today.. Did Bush really say "Please don't burn your oil fields" ?

Gee, there goes the theory that it had nothing to do with the attacks o_O

And nope, you Can't argue someone's opinion. You can show them where they're wrong, and prove it to them so that they Change their opinion. But telling people they're stupid for forming opinions different from one's own, is Far from the right way to go about things ^_^ But then again, what do I know of human nature? Maybe people Are just stupid if they form differing opinions from one another, especially if they hear things from different sources.

I just wonder how someone who hears things from the tv and radio can call someone who hears things from someone in the military uninformed...

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:53:22 AM

In addition and off the topic, I almost hope that Saddam Isn't dead yet. This war on Iraq needs to have a 3rd part to it, where we and the rest of the world decide that whatever's happening is Worth getting involved in, and help out...

Gulf Wars - Episode 1: A New Hope

Gulf Wars - Episode 2: The Empire Strikes Back

Gulf Wars - Episode 3: Return of the Allies

And yes, this is meant as humor. If you have a problem with this, feel free to PM them to a taco, or convince an admin to delete, cause I think it's funny, and as far as I know, I can't delete my own posts :rollin

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:57:05 AM

Gee, there goes the theory that it had nothing to do with the attacks

They'd rather not have Baathist thugs create an environmental disaster and impoverish Iraq in the future. What is your point?

And nope, you Can't argue someone's opinion. You can show them where they're wrong, and prove it to them so that they Change their opinion. But telling people they're stupid for forming opinions different from one's own, is Far from the right way to go about things ^_^ But then again, what do I know of human nature? Maybe people Are just stupid if they form differing opinions from one another, especially if they hear things from different sources.

I debase these opinions, not because people have them, but because they are not founded with supporting information. If you bring an opinion that can stand without a stiff breeze knocking its credibility away, then more power to you.

I just wonder how someone who hears things from the tv and radio can call someone who hears things from someone in the military uninformed...

I assume you refer to my comments with Sorr? I am not unindoctrinated to military brats (kids of armed service personnel). I have been the roommate of one for 3 semesters. While I'm sure there is a lot of key information to get there, the chain of command doesn't reach as high as you might think. To quote the axiom "Crap only rolls downhill". That is to say, questions and commands delegated down, not up the COC. While not in a military family, I do spend a sizeable chunk of my time keeping up-to-date on the practices of our military, not to mention checking out no fewer than two dozen media sources a week. I'd say I'm fairly "plugged in" on the issue.

To further this, there is absolutely no way to pull insider information on the operation that commenced yesterday. It was a spontaneous strike, that exists independant from whatever preparations that may or may not have been made. To imply having this means that Sorr's father is in the military intelligence inner circle, which I admit isn't impossible, but its the longest of long shots.

Beldarine

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:01:30 AM

Mark.. have you seen the picture of the press conference by "Saddam Hussein"? That was NOT him. Look at him. His shoulders are thinner, he is more heavy set.. And in the 23 years he has been in power he has NEVER been seen with glasses.

I think we got him. The Republican Guard ITSELF is in talking with the Pentagon to give up peacefully..

And the most telling story. Apparently a high-ranking U.S. official was in conferences today about the bombing that allegedly got Saddam. He left the Pentagon, walked outside, stared at the sky. Smiled this huge grin, lit up a cigar and got into a car waiting for him. This has been confirmed by several eye witnesses at the Pentagon.

Nothing much.. but still, you have to think that man knows something. And usually cigars are reserved for celebrations. I think we got him, and our government knows. They don't want to say anything, though.. just in case.

And Miryan.. Participating in our high school's ROTC program, I got to talk to our Colonel (Marine Corps) pretty often. When I considered going to the Naval Academy or Norfolk, he was ready to write my recommendation. From everything he says, unless you are in a high ranking military position -- you essentially know nothing. They are even less informed than the press is in normal, every day situations. And in wartime, it's even worse. All you hear are things your commander hands down to you. And normally all that is .. is forward march.

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:21:21 AM

They'd rather not have Baathist thugs create an environmental disaster and impoverish Iraq in the future. What is your point?

Can you back up that that was both his original and only intent by that comment? All I've heard, and thusly all I have to go off of, was that he was asking them to not burn them. Not "Don't burn them, you're only damaging your future economy and environment." If I'm wrong, so be it. Actually, I also heard that he said that before they started burning them.. And did they actually broadcast something about some Dams that were setup along a river, and that if they were destroyed, it could seriously hinder US troops' progress? What would they not like Iraq to do next? Cause it seems illogical to me that those in military control over there wouldn't be listening to what American broadcasts they could get their hands on.

I debase these opinions, not because people have them, but because they are not founded with supporting information. If you bring an opinion that can stand without a stiff breeze knocking its credibility away, then more power to you.

Not all worldly fact and knowledge is written on the internet.. If people can't take their own life's experiences and use them as a base for their opinions, then there's something seriously wrong. Plus, it wouldn't be a problem if your arguements were driven by the purpose of simply proving people wrong and showing them differently than what they believe, but I find that in arguements with you, you also seem to go out of your way to belittle and ridicule anyone who may have heard things differently than can be quoted and linked to off the net. And that's why I don't feel like I should state my opinions about such matters here =/ There's no feeling of self-improvement that normally comes with learning the truth about something you heard differently.

And as for the military source bit, ok. I wasn't aware that the COC of the military tended to keep those in lesser positions un/misinformed of what's actually going on. It seems stupid to me that it works that way, but you both obviously have more experience on that topic than I do =/

edit: changed some words that said things a lot differently than they were meant to, in retrospect.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:23:39 AM

Gee, alot of anti-american sentiment and fear going around. If you look at our track record, we stepped into conflict to aid other countries against fascism, communism, and hostile invasion. Investigate every war America ever fought in. We are not a bunch of commies or dictators trying to bring the world under our tyranny. Let me ask you a question, if your country found itself under hostile attack, who do you would be the first to aid you? Saddam?

But please understand it is impossible to fight for everyone though! Couldn't humanly afford to.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:32:46 AM

Can you back up that that was both his original and only intent by that comment? All I've heard, and thusly all I have to go off of, was that he was asking them to not burn them. Not "Don't burn them, you're only damaging your future economy and environment." If I'm wrong, so be it.

That is precisely what Bush and our forces have said, ad nauseum.

And did they actually broadcast something about some Dams that were setup along a river, and that if they were destroyed, it could seriously hinder US troops' progress? What would they not like Iraq to do next? Cause it seems illogical to me that those in military control over there wouldn't be listening to what American broadcasts they could get their hands on.

Its interesting to note that most of the Iraqi conventional forces are getting their intelligence from CNN, which as much as they are reporting, aren't telling the half of it. The coverage is intense, yet suprise in our attacks have been near total.

but I find that in arguements with you, you also thrive on belittling anyone who may have heard things differently than can be quoted and linked to off the net.

If you know what you're talking about, that's good. If you don't, then I'll let you know. I'm not responsible for pandering to insecurities though. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no motivational speaker. If you don't like the discussions, then its your call alone to avoid them. I'm not stopping anyone, but I'm not going to fluff my words.

And as for the military source bit, ok. I wasn't aware that the COC of the military tended to keep those in lesser positions un/misinformed of what's actually going on. It seems stupid to me that it works that way, but you both obviously have more experience on that topic than I do =/

It operates in that manner to keep massive, unrestricted information leaks from happening, as well as massive breakdowns of the command structure. I can assure you, this is not a bad thing whatsoever.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:39:57 AM

Investigate every war America ever fought in

Some of things Amercia has done have NOT been good, some of the wars Arerica has been in have not been just. America has put in dictactors like in Chile and supported them. Please, lets not be one eyed. But, I personally know most governments have blood on theirs hands at one time of their nation's history.

That however in this particular case is neither here nor there. Personally I have noted, the anti and pro USA statements have reached points of absurdity in the last few days.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:49:59 AM

ABC National Radio reports that USA Intelligence are now definantly saying no-one is in control of Iraq.

Put your bets on folks. Who did the USA get with that first strike?

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:50:09 AM

If you look at our track record, we stepped into conflict to aid other countries against fascism, communism, and hostile invasion. Investigate every war America ever fought in. We are not a bunch of commies or dictators trying to bring the world under our tyranny

Lann, no, that's true. But in every war America's helped out in, how many times has it been a war they didn't think they were doing the right thing by doing so?

As for the belief that America's trying to take over the world, that's IMO because of the stereotypically American philosophy that Might makes Right, and the public knowledge that America has more might than pretty much any other country. You add on the fact that the USA is so - for lack of the right word coming to mind right now - stubborn about disarming Iraq's weaponry, and hopefully you can understand why some people think that America just doesn't want any competition in the might/right category. People are just afraid of the amount of power that the US really holds in the world.

yet suprise in our attacks have been near total.

This honestly still floors me. 48 hours of warning, and the attacks Still came with the edge of surprise =)

It operates in that manner to keep massive, unrestricted information leaks from happening, as well as massive breakdowns of the command structure. I can assure you, this is not a bad thing whatsoever.

That's a good point, and admittedly, I hadn't thought about that aspect of it.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:54:50 AM

Well, Miryan, sight some examples where America has abused that might without just cause. Whatever power America has, our nation is very responsible with it. Do we invade countries, no, but we have thrown down inhuman regimes.

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:54:58 AM

Put your bets on folks. Who did the USA get with that first strike?

Lol.. My bet's on the USA intelligence agents.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:55:43 AM

I honestly am flabbergasted at the lack of Iraqi response. Saddam (if he's alive) has either pulled every bit of military material into his cities...or we actually scored paydirt on that decapitation strike.

Fighting taking place around Mosul. Fighting taking place around Basra, and armored spearheads will be on Baghdad by nightfall. I assume we'll cut the cities off, secure the surrounding areas, and then take the stragglers out.

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:11:56 AM

Well, Miryan, sight some examples where America has abused that might without just cause. Whatever power America has, our nation is very responsible with it.

I can't, because in honesty, I can't recall any. However, facts, or the lack thereof, have never been enough to quench fears like that. I don't Honestly believe that America's trying to take over the world, both because I think that despite what the Americans of lesser intelligence may want, I trust that those in charge know that a single power running the world could not exist with any level of efficiency, and also because I think that if they Did try, they know that the combined force of the rest of the world standing up to them would be more than they could truly deal with. But I know that there Is a fear and general belief that America's trying to, and I feel I understand what has founded it. I was simply sharing that with someone who wasn't considering reasons like those.

Do we invade countries, no, but we have thrown down inhuman regimes.

True. Though thinking about it.. weren't the terrorists also trying to cripple what they considered to be an inhuman regime?

And because I know full well that I will likely be criticised as being a terrorist supporter if I Don't make this disclaimer, I am neither saying that that what they did was right, Nor am I saying that the USA's actions are comparable to those of the Terrorists. I am just saying that the mentality behind the actions seems to have been quite similar =P

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:13:40 AM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Some of things Amercia has done have NOT been good, some of the wars Arerica has been in have not been just. America has put in dictactors like in Chile and supported them. Please, lets not be one eyed. But, I personally know most governments have blood on theirs hands at one time of their nation's history.

That however in this particular case is neither here nor there. Personally I have noted, the anti and pro USA statements have reached points of absurdity in the last few days.

Yes, and yet, America has provided countless billions in foreign aid. Has stepped into conflicts other countries did not want to bother. Whom remained non-participants. I am not saying the US is perfect because sadly it is not. No country is. I am very disturbed by some of the feelings shared on the board. The US are not invaders, didn't we involve ourselves in WWII to stop the Nazi fascists and Japanese imperialists, Korea to stop the north korean aggressors, Vietnam to halt an invading north vietnamese communist regime, Desert Storm to oust Saddam's forces out of Kuwait. We are not aggressors and if anything that power has been used to police rather than invade.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:01:43 AM

I'm glad you speak for everyone. Please stop doing so, now.
I'm not trying to speak for everyone. Sorry if it seemed that way. I'm just speaking from experience, what I've heard, seen, and been told. The things I mentioned in my last post weren't just blind assumptions I made by myself - they were the combined viewpoints of various sources, all of whom are far more well informed than I am.

To expand on that... not everybody can be wrong, can they? AFAIK, there is less support for the war than there is opposition. Taking those British MPs for example: they ought to know more about the war and its background than any of us, right? And yet they resigned. There had to be some reasoning behind it.

Not to mention how helpful Pakistan has been with the US also.
Do they have much of a choice? In that sense, you could say Bangladesh also supports the war, because they seem to be on America's side. I can't quote exactly, but didn't Bush himself say something along the lines of "either you're with us, or against us"? Does Pakistan have the power or the resources to oppose the US? No.

And because I know full well that I will likely be criticised as being a terrorist supporter if I Don't make this disclaimer, I am neither saying that that what they did was right, Nor am I saying that the USA's actions are comparable to those of the Terrorists. I am just saying that the mentality behind the actions seems to have been quite similar =P
Basically what I was trying to say, just he managed to do it a lot more eloquently and actually got the point through. ^_^;

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:16:04 AM

Yep Marcus, that the U.S. for you. The Right hand trying to help the world, the left, screwing it over. Or, even some self screwing of the American people. We help, he send aid, we claim to be the good guys, all the while the Left Hand is accepting the bribe, looking for the deal, grabbing all it could grab.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:26:08 AM

I have this anarchist newspaper magazine somewhere at home from back when Bush was bombing Afghanistan at the same time as he was supplying them with food and aid parcels. I should go find it.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:31:47 AM

AFAIK, there is less support for the war than there is opposition.

Where and in what context? There's approval rating in the 70's here.

Taking those British MPs for example: they ought to know more about the war and its background than any of us, right? And yet they resigned. There had to be some reasoning behind it.

Explain the 400+ or so that didn't resign, plz.

Do they have much of a choice?

They have two.

Does Pakistan have the power or the resources to oppose the US? No.

Neither does Iraq, and they choose to oppose us. That apparently makes no difference.

Basically what I was trying to say, just he managed to do it a lot more eloquently and actually got the point through.

Some personal perspective from my own nation, that has had a long, arduous history of unshackling itself from small-minded, racist bigots, that hide behind religion. These people root themselves so deeply into a society's culture that it takes a great effort to remove them. I live in the south, and I can assure you that it is a continuing process. And I'll tell you that I see no difference between a Black Panther, a Ku Klux Klansmen, or a member of al Qaeda, the PLO, Aby Sayyaf, Basque separatists, the FARC, etc. These people are the scum of the earth, and as much as some views may have infiltrated into various cultures, we must all make a great, concerted effort to remove them. I will never condone these people. It would be a slap in the face to the struggles I've seen in my own backyard.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:33:32 AM

Originally posted by Taja Loraan
I have this anarchist newspaper magazine somewhere at home from back when Bush was bombing Afghanistan at the same time as he was supplying them with food and aid parcels. I should go find it.

Anarchist propaganda? Sorry, I refuse to acknowledge anything from any group that supports violent terror, usurping, and overthrow of legitimate governments.

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:40:29 AM

an anarchist magazine huh? bunch of fools who think chaos is bomb. But why don't they look at there magazine? See the words typed in nice little ordered lines. See how nice and neat the columns are... The views also, takes an ordered mine to see that. They claim to go against any established order... THEY LIE!!!

See, when we where dropping food and bombs on the Afhgans, we where aiming for 2 different people. The Food to the innocents, the bombs to the terrorists.

It almost like the Berlin Airdrops.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:46:30 AM

Where and in what context? There's approval rating in the 70's here.
You're in the US. Off the top of my head, I can't say much for other countries, but I know there's an approvat rating of about 0 over here.

Taking those British MPs for example: they ought to know more about the war and its background than any of us, right? And yet they resigned. There had to be some reasoning behind it.
I was merely using that as an example. =P I can't explain their motives, nor can I explain those of the MP's who did resign. But you can't deny there is an awful lot of anti-war and anti-American sentiments throughout the world, and everybody can't be wrong or misinformed.

They have two.
One of which could possibly bring them a fate similar to that of Iraq.

Neither does Iraq, and they choose to oppose us. That apparently makes no difference.
They choose to oppose you, and they will inevitably be crushed. I don't think Pakistan wants the same happening to them.

These people root themselves so deeply into a society's culture that it takes a great effort to remove them.
That reminds me of something my aunt was telling me yesterday. I'm not sure if I agree and to what extent, but she said that although Bangladesh hasn't been attacked yet by the US military, we have been attacked in terms of culture, etc. Now, don't go starting on me for saying this, but it is a fact that Muslims all over the world feel oppressed by western influences. In that respect, aren't they trying to remove these foreign influences from their own culture? (I don't think I explained that very clearly, but ah well.)

Anarchist propaganda? Sorry, I refuse to acknowledge anything from any group that supports violent terror, usurping, and overthrow of legitimate governments.
Well, no, not quite anarchist propaganda, and definitely not supporting "violent terror". I forgot what it was called, but it did have some valid facts in there.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:59:11 AM

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
Yep Marcus, that the U.S. for you. The Right hand trying to help the world, the left, screwing it over. Or, even some self screwing of the American people. We help, he send aid, we claim to be the good guys, all the while the Left Hand is accepting the bribe, looking for the deal, grabbing all it could grab.

Grabbing what Dyzm? America has consistantly spent billions helping other nations, so much so, we are indebt. What are grabbing, please enlightened me. We are funding the cost of this war on Iraq alone, us alone, and we are going to dig deep in our pockets even despite the potential of freezing Saddam's assets and utilizing them if the opportunity even arises which it might not... to rebuild Iraq with it's own sovereignty. But please enlighten us to what America is grabbing considering the money we put in ourselves.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:01:45 AM

..there's the whole deal with oil, for one...

:: waits to be burned by Sanis :: :uhoh

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:02:27 AM

That reminds me of something my aunt was telling me yesterday. I'm not sure if I agree and to what extent, but she said that although Bangladesh hasn't been attacked yet by the US military, we have been attacked in terms of culture, etc. Now, don't go starting on me for saying this, but it is a fact that Muslims all over the world feel oppressed by western influences. In that respect, aren't they trying to remove these foreign influences from their own culture? (I don't think I explained that very clearly, but ah well.)

I fly the battleflag of the Rebellion over my bed. That is something that has become a symbol of many things to many people. To me, it is a symbol of my home, its culture, its history, and its values. You have not been here, and it would be difficult for you to understand the massive differences that have divided, and to an extent still do divide the North from the South in America. The Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) was fought to emancipate the slaves. As any southerner can tell you, not every Confederate was a slaveowner, not every Southerner is a racist, just as not every follower of Islam is a fundamental terrorist.

BUT...

Some people have tendencies ingrained so deeply in them, so inherent that they cannot see the poison for what it is. I've seen it all around me, in the casual talk of people that I love. They are not malicious, but the things they see and say reflect bad things that are a relic of times past. In that cultural aspect, we are not dissimilar. I do not lay accusation on all Muslims, nor does my nation. It is against those bigots, the barbarians who scream Jihad, and blow themselves and others to pieces in a prayer of salvation wrapped in hatred. These people have, as have the slaveowners and racists in my home, have POISONED our ways of life. It is slow to repair this kind of damage, but it must be done, and it MUST NOT be excused...ever...ever...ever.

I still fly the flag of the Rebellion, because I know there are things of my culture that shine beyond the filth that some may identify to that flag. We are not against your way of life, but the evil that lies and tries to assimilate itself among you.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:03:20 AM

Originally posted by Taja Loraan
..there's the whole deal with oil, for one...

:: waits to be burned by Sanis :: :uhoh

The Oil conspiracy is absolute bunk and is a ridiculous grasp at straws.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:04:22 AM

oil that is never going to be ours but through contract.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 06:44:19 AM

Originally posted by Lann Kirauc
Grabbing what Dyzm? America has consistantly spent billions helping other nations, so much so, we are indebt. What are grabbing, please enlightened me. We are funding the cost of this war on Iraq alone, us alone, and we are going to dig deep in our pockets even despite the potential of freezing Saddam's assets and utilizing them if the opportunity even arises which it might not... to rebuild Iraq with it's own sovereignty. But please enlighten us to what America is grabbing considering the money we put in ourselves.

-_-

Spare me the propaganda. Form the perspective of being outside of the USA, you might spend money, but it's not well used and nor is your debt caused by aid spend. Your aid budjet is three fifths of bugger all of the defence budget for example. And ebfore you answer, do some research and see if Australia just happens to, as a percentage of it's GDP, outspend the USA and also consistently go first into areas peacekeeping is needed and is always one of the first to go on the call of other nations when trouble brews. Before you start crowing about how humanitarian the USA is, maybe you should look at a nation with a tradion of aid and armed support when their allies call, even when it's nothign to do with us. And yet, simply put, it's not really a big deal. It's simply what Aussies have a tradition of doing.

I might add, when Australia called the USA and asked for help in east Timor in 1999, we were told it was our problem and for us to deal with it.

My apologies for the curlish tone and I would say the USA do have aid and do contribute to humanitarian cuases. Quite well in some cases, but your not the doyen of aid and support. You only have a big effect cause you a great deal bigger than say piddly little ol' Down Under, which has more Kanagroos than humans.

And as for anarcists - spare me their propaganda as well. That's far worse. That's in the main lies and complete trash - and a postion not defendable.

Really, this pro / anti propaganda is nothing more than a peeing match. The extremist views on both sides are completely wrong. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Destiny Stormrider

Mar 21st, 2003, 08:30:57 AM

I know I'm kinda late on the subject, but the reason I didn't like the US (notice the past tense:)) was because I found that they didn't mind their own business. Yeah, they're trying to help by becoming the third party in disputes and all, but they should let the two original countries solve their problem by themselves. And usually, it ends up being on one country's side, it should be neutral. (this is just my opinion, not necessarily right...)

About the missiles and weapons Iraq has, well I think it's kinda good for them. Yeah, they're dangerous (or so the US and Britain claim) but what if they were attacked by another country before the US? They'd NEED those weapons! cause I can't think of a country that would go help 'em, with the crap they've done before!

ReaperFett

Mar 21st, 2003, 08:34:56 AM

Taking those British MPs for example: they ought to know more about the war and its background than any of us, right? And yet they resigned. There had to be some reasoning behind it.
How many resigned. Three? Four? 2/3 of the House of Commons voted YES. Maybe THEY know more than you?

..there's the whole deal with oil, for one...
Yeah, the whole oil deal. I've got news for you boys and girls, France gains more from Iraqi oil than the US. They, as well as Germany, as also those that gain the most from trade with Iraq. But WORD FORBID, that cant be known, can it? Because France voted no for GOOD, while evil America is biased, right? :rolleyes

ReaperFett

Mar 21st, 2003, 08:36:39 AM

About the missiles and weapons Iraq has, well I think it's kinda good for them. Yeah, they're dangerous (or so the US and Britain claim) but what if they were attacked by another country before the US? They'd NEED those weapons! cause I can't think of a country that would go help 'em, with the crap they've done before!
12 years ago, they were ORDERED to disarm. O-R-D-E-R-E-D. Oh no, they might need them! Dont invade Kuwait then. They LIED that they had got rid of them, LIED that they didnt exist, and were meant to applaud them? Spare me that, please.

Peter McCoy

Mar 21st, 2003, 09:12:16 AM

Bloody hell, this thread's going crazy! I didn't even know it existed.

Hey Shabnam, Cruise Missiles-Shmooze Missiles! I'll set up my amp on the Gange's Delta and deflect 'em with the distortion! :)

Peter McCoy

Mar 21st, 2003, 09:13:18 AM

Speaking of distortion - imagine if Saddam was a Nirvana fan.

"And I swear that I don't have a gun....."

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:02:41 AM

How many resigned. Three? Four? 2/3 of the House of Commons voted YES. Maybe THEY know more than you?
Uhm... I never claimed to know better than anyone. In fact I admitted to knowing just about nothing about the particulars on this subject. I'm just saying what I think; I didn't ask for anyone to agree. No need to get personal.

We are not against your way of life, but the evil that lies and tries to assimilate itself among you.
I realize that Bush has said time and again that this is not a war against a religion, but a regime. I personally don't dispute that. But that doesn't necessarily mean the public agrees. I remember how after 9/11, mosques in London had to be closed down, and there were public displays promoting the killing of Muslims. There are plenty of misconceptions out there about Islam, and these terrorist attacks haven't exactly helped improve that image. You and I both know that it isn't a war against Islam, but others might not. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying how it is.

And as for anarcists - spare me their propaganda as well. That's far worse. That's in the main lies and complete trash - and a postion not defendable.
Okay, I was wrong. It wasn't an anarchist thing, but you probably wouldn't like what it said in any case (a lot of conspiracy-ish stuff *ahem*).

Really, this pro / anti propaganda is nothing more than a peeing match. The extremist views on both sides are completely wrong. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Word.

Japanese imperialists, Korea to stop the north korean aggressors, Vietnam to halt an invading north vietnamese communist regime
That said, people living in those countries are still suffering from the after-effects of war, even now. What if the same happens in Iraq?

Hey Shabnam, Cruise Missiles-Shmooze Missiles! I'll set up my amp on the Gange's Delta and deflect 'em with the distortion!
LMAO :) I don't doubt that at all, Peter. :p

ReaperFett

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:13:49 AM

Uhm... I never claimed to know better than anyone. In fact I admitted to knowing just about nothing about the particulars on this subject. I'm just saying what I think; I didn't ask for anyone to agree. No need to get personal.
You said those resigning should know more than us, but get offended when I mentioned 2/3 who voted yes should know more?

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:21:02 AM

Maybe THEY know more than you?
Keyword: you. I'm not one of the MP's who resigned. :mneh I didn't specify what they know either, just that they had to have reasons for doing what they did.

ReaperFett

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:24:37 AM

Yes, but youre saying those that resigned know more than us.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:35:09 AM

They ought to, don't they? Because of what they know, some resigned. Others voted yes. I'm not suggesting they knew more than those who didn't resign.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:08:33 AM

AA fire in Baghdad

Beldarine

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:33:19 AM

I hate to mention this.. But cannot you NOT TELL HOW HAPPY THE IRAQI CITIZENRY IS?

They have pictures here of the residents of Mosul rushing up to greet the troops with open arms. THEY WANT US THERE. THEY WANT TO BE FREE.

Taja. I'll admit, I don't know all that much about Bangladesh. But I'm sure you aren't ruled by an iron-fisted, Stalinist idolizing, ruthless murderer. Oh wait, I just looked it up.. You live in a Republic. I'm sure when your family, neighbors and friends go to cast their vote for your President they don't have a gun pointed at your head making sure you vote for a specific person. I'm sure your president doesn't have his political opponents murdered because they oppose him. I'm sure your president doesn't use chemical weapons against his own people.

You live in relative freedom. Yet you rail at the U.S. for trying to give freedom to Iraq. You criticize us for trying to give another nation the same freedoms you enjoy.

Iraqi citizens want freedom, and they are starting to welcome our troops with open arms. All of the anti-American rallies in Iraq have one thing in common -- the words "government prompted." That's not the true will of the people -- people, by nature, want to be free.

And, to some people this is going to sound extreme and shortsighted, but if you are protesting our involvement in Iraq, you are protesting those people's right to freedom. You say we will kill innocents to accomplish this? You're right. But keep in mind that many more have died and WOULD HAVE DIED under continued reign of that madman.

ReaperFett

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:53:54 AM

Pentagon says they injured Saddam

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:54:46 AM

Woohoo :) lets finish the job :)

Beldarine

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:01:52 PM

Shock and Awe has begun

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:05:18 PM

Wei Wu Wei

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:09:27 PM

ah. so that's what everyone is gawking at the TV for. I can't see the TV or hear it cause there are so many people around it.

Sanis Prent

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:18:12 PM

Oh...I think that gave me a woody. Good God. Wow.

Figrin D'an

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:21:08 PM

TMI, Sanis....

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:11:25 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
-_-

Spare me the propaganda. Form the perspective of being outside of the USA, you might spend money, but it's not well used and nor is your debt caused by aid spend. Your aid budjet is three fifths of bugger all of the defence budget for example. And ebfore you answer, do some research and see if Australia just happens to, as a percentage of it's GDP, outspend the USA and also consistently go first into areas peacekeeping is needed and is always one of the first to go on the call of other nations when trouble brews. Before you start crowing about how humanitarian the USA is, maybe you should look at a nation with a tradion of aid and armed support when their allies call, even when it's nothign to do with us. And yet, simply put, it's not really a big deal. It's simply what Aussies have a tradition of doing.

I might add, when Australia called the USA and asked for help in east Timor in 1999, we were told it was our problem and for us to deal with it.

My apologies for the curlish tone and I would say the USA do have aid and do contribute to humanitarian cuases. Quite well in some cases, but your not the doyen of aid and support. You only have a big effect cause you a great deal bigger than say piddly little ol' Down Under, which has more Kanagroos than humans.

And as for anarcists - spare me their propaganda as well. That's far worse. That's in the main lies and complete trash - and a postion not defendable.

Really, this pro / anti propaganda is nothing more than a peeing match. The extremist views on both sides are completely wrong. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Marcus, Marcus, you're the one turning this into a peeing match. I am defending my country from some of this board whom seem to think the US is a going to soon invade and extend it's borders. And that the US is nothing but a bunch of money-grubbing humanists. Nope, the US consistantly gives more than is kickbacked. As far as the east Timor conflict, it could have had certain sensitivities or the US government had other obligations. It happens. As far as sheer volume commital, the US have sacrificed alot of blood on all four corners of the world. Alot of our boys have died for herioc just causes. Literally tens of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives!!!

Figrin D'an

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:21:18 PM

Try millions.

Lann Kirauc

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:28:09 PM

Precisely, I was working the math in my head Figrin without the benefit of actual figures. Minus our domestic conflicts such as revolutionary war, civil war, etc. Thanks!

Evil Hobgoblin

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:54:57 PM

Before this gets out of hand, I'd just like to note that service and sacrifice in the cause of humanity should not be turned into a proverbial "peeing match" either. It devalues the gifts of those who dedicated themselves.

Figrin D'an

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:57:05 PM

I wasn't attempting to do so... just providing a minor statistical correction.

Sorry if the perception was otherwise.

Evil Hobgoblin

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:09:22 PM

It was pointed more at Marcus and Lann, Fig. I'm not keen on the idea of an argument that boils down to "My country sent more of its own into hazardous and uncertain conditions than your country." I feel that it is the utmost devaluation of the risk those people take to compare them in that kind of statistical fashion.

Figrin D'an

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:24:03 PM

Agreed, completely.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:50:37 PM

Dont worry, I've just set him to ignore. I'm not interested in continuing.

So, the shock and awe has started? 300 missiles or something hitting Baghdad in a few hours? I've only just woken up, so what going on?

Edit : Speechless. This is mind boggling how hard this hit is

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 21st, 2003, 05:15:57 PM

With the Camera's set up on the opposite side of the river, and with The coalition hitting only central, you can see blast after blast, smoke plumes... It is the horrors of war.

Admiral Lebron

Mar 21st, 2003, 06:07:10 PM

Out side Umm Qasa I think it was for 30 minutes they shelled the Iraqi's at about 1 shell a second... thats 1800 shells... And please note a shell fired from artillery is like the size of an american football.

Sigil Roland

Mar 21st, 2003, 09:41:48 PM

Yes, it seems we have an abundent supply of Shock and Awe for all!

And in fact, we've got so much, were dishing it out 24/7

And all of it is for one man.

I don't know what the exact number count is, but according to the Cable news it was more Cruse missles fired then during the First Gulf War.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 21st, 2003, 09:55:33 PM

1500 so far or somethign ridiculous.

What is amazing is that even with this sheer intensiy of bombardment, there really doesnt seem to be a lot of civilian casualties. Of course, not liek we would know for certain but still. Firsty its surprise how soft and precise the attack was. Now it's surprise at it's now ferocity and accuracy.

Figrin D'an

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:20:46 PM

The media coverage has perhaps impressed me just as much. This is probably the most well-covered military conflict in human history. The number of field journalists with the Allied forces, right in the middle of the action, is pretty amazing.

Of course... it is that way because the Bush administration wants it that way.

Navaria Tarkin

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:55:54 PM

Well, I didn't like the coverage at first because every little troop movement was 'news' I have others things to do in my life then watch the War and every little tidbit.

Granted, I am for it but come on -_- I'd like having some normalcy in my life and see the news when I want to .... Instead, I miss five minutes of programming that I want to watch and been waiting for for three months ... and is interrupted by a war that we all knew was going to start (no one flame me on that :lol I am venting) I mean, could they have waited five minutes and start it at the top of the hour :lol

So, having such wonderful coverage is a blessing and a curse IMO.

As for the reporters, they are either really brave or really stupid because if something goes down, they are gonna be right there when it happens.

Admiral Lebron

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:35:38 PM

Walter Rogers and his camera man almost got killed on the first day... his camera got hit by a shell. :\

Navaria Tarkin

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:51:01 PM

Ah, my point proven ... sigh :(

Beldarine

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:10:25 AM

I kinda agree with Ms. Tarkin over there ;).. There is such an amount of newschannels such as MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, CNBC, etc.. that I don't understand why normal stations have to cut off their programming entirely. When something interesting happens like a Pentagon briefing, yeah.. I understand that. But watching an hour of silence in Baghdad while reporters repeat the same things they talked about last hour can get irritating.

That's why I switch between FoxNews and ESPN (since CBS had cut off their tourny during the day).. That way I could get my fill of Shock and Awe (which.. is pretty damn.. awe-inspiring) and college bball at the same time.

And you know what.. as much as I don't like Rumsfeld.. he can be funny after a while. "That was a stupid question.. I won't answer such a stupid question.. NEXT!"

Figrin D'an

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:20:18 AM

It's not like I sat in front of the TV watching hours of live coverage, either. I watched tournament games, checked a few sites online occasionally, and am only watch MSNBC now that there is nothing else on.

It was more a comment on how quickly information is being disseminated and becoming available to the public, even more so than 12 years ago.

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:26:29 AM

And you know what.. as much as I don't like Rumsfeld.. he can be funny after a while. "That was a stupid question.. I won't answer such a stupid question.. NEXT!"

:lol we're on the same page. I can't abide Rumsfeld, because he isn't fit for speaking diplomatically. I'm sure he does well, as long as he's not behind a podium. That being said, he can be so frank at times, it elicits laughter. While I wish he was the "Whitehouse Secretary of Mean Mean Comedy" instead of the "Secretary of Defense", I still laugh at times.

Beldarine

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:36:10 AM

Oh, Figrin.. I wasn't saying that to you.. I was just venting that this afternoon you either watched the war or basketball -- and if you don't get ESPN.. You watched the war.

That's all I was venting about.. Nothing you said. I think it's great there is war coverage 24/7.. I just wish it wasn't on almost every single channel.

Did you all hear about the entire division of Iraq troops mass surrendering on Friday? Somewhere in the vicinity of 8,000. They were among the best trained of Iraq's regular army, and evidently their main mission was to protect Basra. Looks like that isn't going to go too well.

:).. I know Charlie.. That's why I like that website you posted a link to a while ago.. http://imao.com or .net or something like that. And the looks he gives the reporters in that room.. I'm surprised they don't wither and die from the glare alone!

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:27:06 AM

BTW, I am trying to find a way to recreate all this mess in Command & Conquer: Generals. I want SHOCK & AWE on demand :)

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:40:26 AM

Hmmm, 8 Nuke Silo's firing off one after another helps.
Or, watching a Nuke go off the First time in Generals.

What I find funny is each of those missiles is worth millions of bucks... Talk about burning money...

Lann Kirauc

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:47:23 AM

I had just left my work and someone in the back offices informed me that the whole 51st Iraqi division had surrendered to american or allied forces. 8,000 plus men. Wooohooo!!! Gonna get the low down once I am situated.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:53:17 AM

And, to some people this is going to sound extreme and shortsighted, but if you are protesting our involvement in Iraq, you are protesting those people's right to freedom. You say we will kill innocents to accomplish this? You're right. But keep in mind that many more have died and WOULD HAVE DIED under continued reign of that madman.
Like I said before...

whether or not the war is pointless depends on how Bush handles the situation. If he's able to successfully wipe out Saddam Hussein and his regime, install democracy and somehow deal with the whole Palestinian issue, then hurray. If he's ruthless... then he's just gone and created himself bigger problems.
Here's to waiting.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:59:56 AM

Bush, ruthless?

*shakes head* No way. I have massive respect for that man. And I don't think many people would do better in this situation. *shrug*

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:13:45 AM

AAH! SHOCK & AWE!!!

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

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:17:49 AM

OoOOoOoOOooOOooOOoOOo

AaaaAAAaaaAAaaaaaahhhh!

Like the Bomb-Omb in the corner, nice touch it is.

Figrin D'an

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:18:41 AM

You need Mario throwing the bomb in direction of the explosion...

Dark Lord Dyzm

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:20:43 AM

Ah! Its Me!!! MARIO!!!
I'ma Numba One!

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:22:25 AM

Eh, the goons at SA have done that with the WTC already. I wouldn't feel right.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:02:08 AM

I just now saw the clips of the bombings. This is depressing. :(

My mom commented on how a country is being destroyed and innocent lives being lost... while we're all sitting comfortably in front of our TVs, watching. That is how low we've stooped.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:19:50 AM

Taja, innocents dont sit in military compounds.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:23:35 AM

The Iraqi communications official says 200 were wounded, 3 dead last night.

So, 3 days bombing, 4 civillians dead? That's impressive. Especially considering they've been hitting important targets.

imported_Taja Loraan

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:25:06 AM

Yeah, but there's always the possibility of innocent people dying. But okay, fine, 200 injured, 4 dead... impressive, yes, but it's still sad. :( War is always depressing.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:49:51 AM

You guys gotta consider the source, though.

Iraqi TV is State Run...State Owned...they'd scream out propaganda even with Coalition Forces on Baghdad's front door.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:25:21 PM

Taylor, saying a grand total of 4 died is hardly what you'd call a big propaganda push :)

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:27:39 PM

True, but you gotta think they're inflating that stat however they can manage

Darth Viscera

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:58:13 PM

You also gotta think that the Iraqi TV people are the same guys who told the Iraqi people 12 years ago that the invading coalition forces are CANNIBALS!

You had people hiding inside houses, putting up signs that read "We surrender, don't eat us!"

Me != Cannibal
Iraqi TV = Outrageous Liars

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:03:08 PM

I dont believe that saying 4 died is really propaganda. 200 injured, maybe, but not 4 dead. They could say 20 and it'd still be ina believable region.

Darth Viscera

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:26:04 PM

Yeah, but who knows how they said it. It could be like this:

"The evil-doer hated cannibals whose horrid, beastly faces shall cause Allah to shun you if you so much as glance at them succeeded, unfortunately, at striking our glorious, benevolent leader's magnificent Al-Qassahn palace. 250 orphan infants who were born without arms due to evil-doer depleted uranium poisoning were involved in a flag-making competition as they read from the Qu'ran and praised Allah that our fearless President who was elected with a 100% popular vote was unharmed by the idiot junior Bush's ineffective bombs, and it is even rumored that 1,000 of the 500,000 bombs that fell upon the palace simply bounced off of the President, returning to the sky and demolishing the entire evil doer's air force in one fell stroke. Sadly, 200 of the orphans, who as we said earlier, were born without heads due to the impact of the infidel oil-for-death program, were injured in the bomb blasts, and 4 of the unfortunate tripod children were found dead."

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:03:35 PM

Yeah, but who knows how they said it
Well, considering the communications minister told the journalists, probably the worlds media?

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:04:36 PM

The 4 Marines reported dead are not. They were wounded.

Darth Viscera

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:12:55 PM

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Well, considering the communications minister told the journalists, probably the worlds media?

*turns and looks around, turns back around, looks at the computer screen in confusion*

Who the heck are you talking to? That sentence made a degree of sense that can be measured in negative numbers.

I'll reiterate: the Iraqi TV guys are liars. Don't be surprised if there are a lot fewer than 200 who have been injured.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:24:42 PM

Okay, let me start chapter 1 of "Reading posts for dummies"

When you say:

Yeah, but who knows how they said it
This is worded in a way which is close to what we call a question. A question is something that requires an answer, unless it is rhetorical, which means it does not require an answer. In this case, the question asker does not know the answer, so it requires an answer.

The answer inputted was:

Well, considering the communications minister told the journalists, probably the worlds media?
Now, to understand a sentence, you have to break it down into it's component pieces.

Well, - This is the answer-ee starting to answer. Unimportant.
considering the communications minister - What this is telling us is that we must bare something in mind about the communications minister (This may not be his exact title, but Im sure Communications was there).
told - This indicates a form of communication from one person to another.
the journalists, - A group of people reporting on this event.
probably - This means that although we cannot be 100%, we can be more or less sure of something.
the worlds media - A worldwide group of people who use reporters to pass on news to people.
? - A question. In this case, rhetorical.

So, to piece together, when you understand that the man who gives information gave it to the people who give it to the Newspapers/TV/Radio/etc people, I would guess that it was said by the Newspapers/TV/Radio/etc people.

No word play, as exemplified when we knew CNN were being thrown out of Iraq for being a "Propaganda Machine". This was being told three people died last night.

Tune in to chapter two the next time someone doesnt understand a simple post!

[/sarcasm]

Darth Viscera

Mar 22nd, 2003, 03:22:15 PM

I'll re-reiterate: Iraqi TV people LIE. Now, the journalists reporting on Iraqi statements are not lying, they are just conveying a statement, a statement which in the case of the Iraqi government is always at least partially untrue. Without confirmation from another party, we cannot verify that 4 people are dead, 200 wounded.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 03:26:49 PM

And we cant varify that whole Iraqi divisions have surrendered. Oh wait, we can, because the good and truthful Americans said so, while the death toll is said by the wicked Iraqis, right? :rolleyes

And at what stage did I mention Iraqi TV people.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 04:54:09 PM

Your post was inflammatory and not appropriate for a moderator, Reaperfett.

Whatever the case may be with the truth in this reporting, to me is is clear that journalists are being targeted. 4 or 5 killed in the last few hours. A car bombing and a gun attack.

I have noted that the reports on the ABC (Aust version) have always been very careful to state what has been verified and what has not. They also cite sources clearly. This helps in deciding what is true and what is not. So far, I've got a fair degree of confidence western media are reporting quite well. What also surprises me is the comments journalists are making that they have a great deal of freedom to report as they see fit behind US lines and there isn't any censorship, except where lives could be endangered, as in reporting locations of Aust SAS, who are apparently several km ahead of the forces going for Baghdad, clearing the way. Clearly, the war is goign well for the allies. I wouldnt trust Iraqi sources, simply becausse they are proven to lie and they have a great deal of need to lie. They need all the propaganda they can get.

And if all they can come up with is 250 civilians injured (note, no killed!), then that is one hell of an indictement o the way the campain is being run by the allies. For the sheer ferocity of the barrage, that's an amazingly low number of casualties.

And thinking of propaganda, notice the lack of it coming from Saddam himself? That in itself is telling.

Evil Hobgoblin

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:03:15 PM

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
OoOOoOoOOooOOooOOoOOo

AaaaAAAaaaAAaaaaaahhhh!

Glenn McGrath. :D

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:06:16 PM

Originally posted by Evil Hobgoblin
Glenn McGrath. :D

Where the hell did you learn that good old Aussie war cry?!?!

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:10:25 PM

Grenade attack @ Camp Pennsylvania, Kuwait. Six seriously injured...possibly military leadership personnel.

Evil Hobgoblin

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:19:01 PM

I'd say my cousin who was in Australia told me, but that would be a lie. I heard about it in the thread where it was discussed on Meras. :)

So, we've had a lot of comments about Iraqi truthfulness, and comments about the veracity of reporters from various nations.
I must post this question.

What nation or nations would you feel as the least biased, were they to report on Iraq?

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38:08 PM

(Cant remember where it was discussed at Meras)

I would say the least bias would be something like the BBC or Aust ABC - I know the ABC doesnt mind givning both sides of the story and have some highly respected journalists in the field. I believe there are ABC reporters still in Baghdad.

The BBC does have quite a reputation for it's reporting. The ABC and the BBC do have an international audience and I think that influences how they report things.

Not accusing NBC, CBS, CNN or USA ABC of bias, but ther reporting does have a slant to, I think, an American style for their specific audience, tho CNN exhibits this less. Some CNN reports I have gotten have been very good.

In the whole, BBC or Aust ABC seem to be doing the best job. If you can, get some of the broadcasts over the web of ABC News Radio, that runs programming from USA's NPR, Raido Duestavella, CNN Asia as well as Aust ABC programming. http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio

Because of the dept of resources, News Radio seems to be very, very fast in updates and reports.

Edit : Thought of something to avoid. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING oowned or controlled by Rupert Murdoch. This news is bias and slanted to suit the views of Murdoch.

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:56:16 PM

Wall Street Journal is the best news source that I frequent.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 06:06:39 PM

Two marines killed in action on Friday may include one from my brother-in-law's old unit, and I'm trying to find out. I'm pretty shaken to find a name I recognize, and I'm trying to get ahold of my sister to find out if its the same guy - one of my brother-in-law's best friends in the Marines. :\ :(

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 06:09:48 PM

Your post was inflammatory and not appropriate for a moderator, Reaperfett.
His post was inflammatory because ti made me respond. All I did was help him read what I wrote, which he didnt understand.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 06:11:29 PM

All three of you need to just drop it.

Vis asked a strange question. Fett's answer was worded poorly, because even *I* had trouble figuring out what he was talking about. Marcus shouldn't have told off a moderator, he should have told ANOTHER moderator and we would have dealt with it internally. So just deal with it and move on, k thx bye.

Darth Viscera

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:38:29 PM

Originally posted by ReaperFett
And we cant varify that whole Iraqi divisions have surrendered. Oh wait, we can, because the good and truthful Americans said so, while the death toll is said by the wicked Iraqis, right? :rolleyes

Basically, yes. The coalition forces have a huge amount of reporters from hundreds of different news agencies from around the world embedded into the actual military force. If there is word that the 51st mechanized division has surrendered, it can be confirmed by a hundred different news agencies. Compare that with the reporting potential of the state-run Iraqi media, the tight control exhibited over foreign reporters, etc. The Iraqis are known for inflating casualty figures in order to purvey a sense of travesty as they try to suck out international sympathy.

ReaperFett

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:43:08 PM

Well, at that press confrence earlier, the BBC did doubt the reliablility of something we have only seen from airborne shots. Pointless question really, he was hardly going to pull out a bunch of new photos, but still.

Loki Ahmrah

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:56:09 PM

I've only just been catching up on the news but from what I've heard, allied forces are going to bypass what was originally thought to be a target town in order to avoid further urban confrontations and make progress further north into Iraq. Can't quite remember the name of the place now. :\

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:41:13 PM

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174758%255E1702,00.html

WTF? WHY???

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:43:36 PM

Why do we have peace protestors hanging off bridges in the middle of the night?

Good Lord that makes me furious. I hope it wasn't by one of ours. I use the term "ours" quite loosely, not really wanting to claim anyone who would do such a thing.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:44:09 PM

From what I was told, some Islamic Cleric called for 'jihad'. Now let's not get the wrong idea about all Muslims, but it doesn't look good right now.

FOX News just reported two things

1) Republican Guard is taking the streets of Baghdad

2) Saddam's Deputy may be in command.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:46:01 PM

KUWAIT CITY: Army said.
The American soldier detained is assigned to the 101st Airborne, said Max Blumenfeld, a spokesman for the U.S. Army V Corps.
Of the 13 wounded two were treated at the scene and released and helicopters evacuated 11 to Army hospitals, he said.
Preliminary information suggests the attack at 1:30 a.m. was carried out using hand grenades only, Blumenfeld said. The motive most likely was resentment, he said, without elaborating.
Blumenfeld said investigators do not know if others were involved and the suspect has not been charged.
However, George Heath, civilian spokesman for the 101st's home base at Fort Campbell, Ky., said two Middle Eastern men were detained. He said they had been hired as contractors working for the Army at that camp.
MORE
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:48:55 PM

I bought a book about Islam, I'm going to start reading it tonight. I really want to learn more about what Muslim's are all about. You hear "Islam is a religion of peace and love," and then you hear "Islam is a religion of holy war and submission" and no one really wants to hurt any feelings of anyone by attempting to actually find out the truth.

So I'm making it my mission to do so.

Who is the Republican Guard? Is that Iraqi troops?

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:50:49 PM

They're the (in SW terms) Imperial Royal Guard of Iraq.

Trained well, they've been really in the luxury of Saddam's riches and regime. They're the, supposedly, most loyal of Saddam's forces.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:52:37 PM

Things in Baghdad = going to be messy when we get there. :(

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:53:23 PM

The Republican Guard are the elite forces of Iraq's army...as opposed to the standard army units, who are primarily conscripts.

They are, however, separate from even more fanatical elite units, such as the Saddam Feyadeen, who are akin to Hitler's Shulzstaffel

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:54:48 PM

Grenade explodes at 101st Airborne's camp in northern Kuwait, wounding 13; U.S. soldier detained
Eds: COMBINES, RAISES reference to command tent, minor edits.
By PATRICK McDOWELL
Associated Press Writer

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - A command tent at the 101st Airborne Division camp in Kuwait was attacked early Sunday with grenades, and 13 soldiers were wounded, six seriously, military officials said. An American soldier was detained as a suspect, the Army said.

The soldier is assigned to the 101st Airborne, and the motive in the attack ``most likely was resentment,'' said Max Blumenfeld, a spokesman for the U.S. Army V Corps. He did not elaborate.

Two of the wounded were treated at the scene and released, and helicopters evacuated 11 to Army hospitals, he said.

The 1:30 a.m. attack - which apparently used only grenades - took place in the command center of the 101st Division's 1st Brigade at Camp Pennsylvania, Blumenfeld said. The Army V Corps is in charge of all U.S. ground forces in Kuwait.

Investigators do not yet know if others were involved.

The suspect has not been charged, Blumenfeld said, and he did not identify the soldiers or say if any high-ranking officers were among the wounded. Names of the wounded were not released.

However, George Heath, civilian spokesman for the 101st's home base at Fort Campbell, Ky., said two Middle Eastern men were detained. He said they had been hired as contractors working for the Army at that camp.

Earlier, Heath said the attack appeared to have been carried out by terrorists. Military officials had said the attacker used two grenades and small-arms fire.

Camp Pennsylvania is a rear base camp of the 101st, near the Iraqi border. Kuwait is the main launching point for the tens of thousands of ground forces - including parts of the 101st - who have entered Iraq.

Near Camp New York, another encampment in Kuwait, a Patriot missile hit an incoming missile near, a military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. There were no reports of injuries or where debris from the missile might have landed. Camp New York, which is near Camp Pennsylvania, was the largest of the desert staging camps.

Jim Lacey, a correspondent for Time magazine, told CNN that he was about 20 yards away when explosions at Camp Pennsylvania went off at what he said were two tents that housed division leadership.

``The people who did it ran off into the darkness,'' he said.

He said he interviewed an Army major who was sitting outside the tent. ``He said he saw the grenade roll by him,'' Lacey said.

After the attack, troops fanned out around the compound to find the perpetrators, Lacey said.

The 101st Airborne is a rapid deployment group trained to go anywhere in the world within 36 hours. The roughly 22,000 members of the 101st were deployed Feb. 6. The last time the entire division was deployed was during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which began after Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait.

Most recently, it hunted suspected Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan. Its exploits are followed in Kentucky with much pride.

News of the attack at the camp compounded the anxiety of relatives of the division's soldiers.

``I get a little worried but when I think I should be crying, I'm not,'' said Chelsey Payne of Clarksville, Tenn., whose husband, Sgt. Robert Payne, is with the division. ``I just don't get scared about my own husband, I just know that he's a good soldier and he's coming home. He promised me.''

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.).

Sanis Prent

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:54:51 PM

Originally posted by Taylor Millard
They're the (in SW terms) Imperial Royal Guard of Iraq.

Trained well, they've been really in the luxury of Saddam's riches and regime. They're the, supposedly, most loyal of Saddam's forces.

Incorrect. See my post above. If anything, the Republican Guard would be akin to the Marine Corps, or Airborne. They're full force fighting units, but not extremely elite. The Saddam Feyadeen would be more similar to the Imperial Royal Guards.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:55:36 PM

I'm just repeating ABC News there.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:59:20 PM

Originally posted by Taylor Millard
From what I was told, some Islamic Cleric called for 'jihad'. Now let's not get the wrong idea about all Muslims, but it doesn't look good right now.

FOX News just reported two things

1) Republican Guard is taking the streets of Baghdad

2) Saddam's Deputy may be in command.

If I could have a dollar for every time a Cleric has called for a Jihad, I would have my house paid off.

As for point 1) and 2), it may not be bad. It could mean a coup has occured. Lets wait and see.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:00:16 PM

From FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74743,00.html

Special Republican Guard (SRG):
• Reported to be supervised by Saddam's son Qusay Saddam Hussein, its commander is Staff MG Kheir-Allah Waheed Omar al-Nassiri.
• The super-elite military force's mission is to protect Saddam's regime, as well as the security of Baghdad.
• The SRG numbers approximately 26,000 men.
• It consists of four infantry brigades with a total of 14 infantry battalions. This force is augmented with armor, artillery and air defense units.
• The SRG is the only divisional strength unit allowed to be based in central Baghdad, where it has tight control of key government installations and Republican Palace.
• Potential recruits undergo exhaustive background checks; ethnic and family background is included.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:03:07 PM

SRG != regular RG

Figrin D'an

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:10:08 PM

SRG is the "Republican Guard." It's just the full name... the media drops the "special" term when refering to it.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:10:26 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
If I could have a dollar for every time a Cleric has called for a Jihad, I would have my house paid off.

As for point 1) and 2), it may not be bad. It could mean a coup has occured. Lets wait and see.

Coup? I'm not sure about that.

What it probably means, is with 'Chemical Ali' more than likely dead (as well as two other top Iraq Generals) Saddam has to go to one of his lieutenants to give out orders.

If Saddam is still alive (and it looks like he is but injured).

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:18:41 PM

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
SRG is the "Republican Guard." It's just the full name... the media drops the "special" term when refering to it.

I believe there is two classes of RG. Least, that's what I've read not long ago.

Figrin D'an

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:23:53 PM

Well, technically yes. There is the Republican Guard Forces Command, which are divided into two corps, the North and South, that are actually deployed outside of Baghdad. Then there is the corp actually stationed inside the city, which might be the "Special Republican Guard." I've heard the term "Special Republican Guard" used almost interchangably with "Republican Guard" at times, so I guess it depends upon the media source.

Taylor Millard

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:24:10 PM

Okay for a bit of light heartedness...

FOX News is broadcasting live from somewhere. A camp somewhere.

And some of the soldiers had a sign which said, "We love Laurie Dhue!" (one of hte news anchors)

They're not the online ones...

Btw...

American Forces are only 150 miles outside of Baghdad.

That's on pace to beat Patton's charge towards Berlin.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:34:24 PM

So, they have crossed the Epratities River? Hmmm. That's been suggested the time when Iraq are most likely to use Chemical weapons.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:43:40 PM

The Euphrates?

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:45:40 PM

As long as it is a big wet thing in the middle of the deserwet with phirana fishners, that's it.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:53:39 PM

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174781%255E25778,00.html

So it seems at the least saddam was injured.

Chaos Alexander

Mar 22nd, 2003, 10:24:43 PM

I have tried not to reply to this for a while, but I think i will bite the bullet and do so, thus a post comes out /Light Humor

I don't like wars (which is funny seeing as I tried to stay in the military) to be honest, but then again who does? I do think this attack on Iraq needed to be done for a long time. The dude is by far reaaaaaaallly crazy. He put people in a Plastic shredder feet first. That is a degree of sickness I did not even know was still around.

Sigil Roland

Mar 22nd, 2003, 11:13:31 PM

Crazy day today.

Christ, I don't know what the HFIL that guy was thinking, but I hope he gets whats comming to him. One of the thirteen injured in that attack is now dead. I hope they throw the book at him.

Admiral Lebron

Mar 23rd, 2003, 01:10:15 AM

Tell me my computer is messed up and I did not see HFIL written.. please... >_<

Miryan no Trunks

Mar 23rd, 2003, 03:10:04 AM

Just thinking the exact same thing o_O

As for this grenade "fragging" incident, just waiting for groups around the country to start saying that the man might have been a video game player, as "fragging" is a term often used in violent video games when one player's character kills another player's character. Maybe because he played Video games, he decided those in the tent would just "respawn" if he blew them up, and the only consequence killing them would have, would be to raise his points some. We can then observe that if this is the case, he likely wasn't playing games Too much, because he didn't know that Team-Killing (or TKing) more often than not results in a Drop of the offenders' points, not a raise..

In conclusion, even playing video games once in a while, and not even enough to become totally familiar with the concepts behind them, can cause even highly-trained military personnel to lose touch with reality, let alone our children.

It's just like when those games "Mortal Combat" "Wolfenstein 3d" and "The Resident of Evil Creek" caused Columbine.

....

And sure, this likely Won't happen, cause No-one's That stupid, right?

-_¬

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 23rd, 2003, 03:23:30 AM

UK plane potentially shot down by PATRIOT missiles.

This is silly right? 3 or four killed by enemy troops, 20 + killed by accidents.

Darth Viscera

Mar 23rd, 2003, 06:37:04 AM

SpRG=Special Republican Guard division (tasked with Baghdad city defense/internal security). These are the guys who are manning the anti-aircraft guns and anti-air missile batteries which run through Baghdad.
Four motorized infantry brigades (14 battalions), an armored brigade and an air defense brigade (Baghdad, 20,000 troops)

NRG=Northern Republican Guard (I Corps), deployed just north of Baghdad to defend the city.
40,000 troops in four divisions:
1st Adnan Mechanized Division, al Nida Armored Division, 2nd Baghdad Infantry Division, Al Abed Infantry Division.

SRG=Southern Republican Guard (II Corps), deployed just south of Baghdad to defend the city.
40,000 troops in three divisions:
Al Madina Armored Division, Nebuchadnezzer Infantry Division, Hamurabi Mechanized Division.

He's done much worse things than putting people in plastic shredders feet first. He set up a medical center dedicated solely to pioneering new, more painful methods of torture. He's concocted torture methods that are literally unimaginably brutal.

ReaperFett

Mar 23rd, 2003, 07:30:41 AM

They reckon someone has bailed out over Bahgdad

Beldarine

Mar 23rd, 2003, 10:51:17 AM

Mark.. I hate to say it.. but look at it this way

During the Gulf war approx 360 troops died. About 140 were from actual combat. 220 were from accidents.

That's a big difference.. and that's a lot of people dead from accidents. It's just something that happens when you are fighting with "supposedly sophisticated" weapons technology. There will be mistakes, there will be accidents.

But that bastard who threw the grenade.. If I could get my hands on him, his last few minutes would not be all that pretty.

And those idiot protestors have started burning the American Flag in effigy. I am beginning to have less and less tolerance for those (edit) morons.

Beldarine

Mar 23rd, 2003, 11:10:39 AM

Taja..

I hate to say it.. But wouldn't you say that it's even lower to sit on your couch and hear about the tens of THOUSANDS of Kurds killed in the 80's by Saddam's chemical weapons (due to "ethnic cleansing")?

Or how about listening to them talk about how Qusai, Uday and Saddam used to put people into a plastic shredder feet first?

Or maybe the tens of thousands Shiites that have died because Saddam is Sunni?

Or howabout a few weeks ago.. Where Saddam's generals cut off the tongue of a dissident (ie: had views that opposed Saddam), and brought him to a public square so the residents could watch the man bleed to death?

Or maybe.. just maybe.. all the executions that went on through the years -- people who DARED question Saddams rule?

So who is more pathetic? The one that finally gets sick of it, stands up and screams NO MORE!?

Or the one who still sits on the couch, yelling for peace?

Yelling for Saddam's peace?

Saddam.. The one who's network is supposedly showing dead bodies of some American POWs they captured (apparently a HumV got lost, and some Iraqi troops captured it).

Yeah. Sure. Peace. Pathetic.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 23rd, 2003, 05:03:42 PM

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354488685.html

Top part important - Chemical weapons possibility

Sanis Prent

Mar 23rd, 2003, 06:18:48 PM

I can confirm that in other news reports as well. Interesting.

Telan Desaria

Mar 23rd, 2003, 06:25:41 PM

The Republic Guard is exactly like the Waffen SS, the Special Republican Guard like the Allgemeine SS with heavy weapons. The difference between the two is that the Republic Guard are more soldiers than political fanatics, while their philosphy does mesh with the ruling leadership. The SRG are the mesopotamian brownshirts pressed into military service. Theyr specialty lies in internal security and political law enforcement. That some of their elements are manning anti air defense batteries is neccessity. They are not trained exclusively on it.

Current Battle Report

Along the central valley, Republic Guard units have dug in to fight, have eliminated a number of armored fighting vehciles, the numbers and composition of which I am remiss to say. All Iraqi naval assets have been neutralized. Iraqi southern air force eliminated. Northern air force in tact but not a threat due to logistical problems. Several border guards fromm the Iraqi 4th Infantry Division (regular army) engaged a Turkish patrol. No casualties disclosed on either side.

Note on Iraqi air defenses: they are using, for all intents and purposes, flak. Most of their bahgdad batteries consist of heavy machine guns and fire linked dual 20mm bofors guns. Against any of our fighters they have a 2 percent chance of a hit. Low level bombers, possible ten. At the most.

Iraqi SAM capabilities unconfirmed but all considered to be mobile sites in the desert.

A personal note on the peace protesters. To them I say have some respect for the men hose bodies now lie under the Middle eastern sun, both friend and foe alike. Have some shred of decency and pay homage to the bravery of men who are placing their lives on the line so that they may sleep peacefully at night.

And I suggest that any of them who has not been here first hand to shut their mouths. There are few innocents in war. And we are no better, so do not think I am being righteous.

Last note.

I am ashamed of my German heritage. A legacy of teutonic bravery and honour tossed to the wind of the Federal republic. And the French! They didn't shirk from a fight at Dien Bien Phu, or Sedan, or the Marne.

Darth Viscera

Mar 23rd, 2003, 06:44:41 PM

Telan, just a few months ago you were saying that your relationship with the army had come to an end. Now you're at the front with net access? Are you being sincere?

Taylor Millard

Mar 23rd, 2003, 07:02:21 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

There's confirmation from FOX

Darth Viscera

Mar 23rd, 2003, 07:32:02 PM

I guess that we were right, and they were wrong. Excuse me while I parade about in a rather foppish manner.

*does so*

Now, what will Paris say? Will they concede to reality and finally stop arranging an international anti-U.S. gang on the (now false) basis of an unjustified war in Iraq? Or will they pull a France?

Telan Desaria

Mar 23rd, 2003, 07:35:53 PM

I am all for seeing a Sixth republic and yet another revoltuion in france. Perhaps then they will remember who their friends really are.

Marcus Telcontar

Mar 23rd, 2003, 07:38:43 PM

I wouldnt trust Fox as far as I could spit it. But... other more reputible places are reporting the find.

I suppose Chirac will argue that inspectors should of had more time, but it's now clear Iraq had no intention of complying with the UN.

I hope the rest of your political career is short and misreble Chirac. May you fade into history with all the dishonour you deserve.

Taylor Millard

Mar 23rd, 2003, 08:20:46 PM

Okay here's what ABC's saying.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_main030323.html

Sanis Prent

Mar 23rd, 2003, 08:21:29 PM

I have further confirmations via cnn and wall street journal. I'd consider the report legit.

Beldarine

Mar 23rd, 2003, 08:55:58 PM

I just wanted to do a quick cut and paste for this article..
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

Credit to :
Lucky Break for Jordan
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
Copyright United Press..

Quote:
" A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head"

Like Neal Boortz said.. At least it shows that these people have the ability to learn.