This is a war against the Iraqi people

It is now quite clear that the Iraqi people do not want to be 'liberated' by a belligerent illegal occupying force from the US. I watched George Bush at the press conference yesterday, pointing his finger and declaring "They must understand that they will be liberated." It appears it does not matter whether they actually want to be "liberated". The Iraqi people are not stupid. They might hate Saddam but they know only two well that this is a war of US empire building. The US could have defused this a bit by accepting a UN administration "after the war", but Bush is so politically inept he doesn't even understand this. The Iraqi people do not want to be governed by Washington, and I do not blame them. But this all means that the US strategy is in tatters, and that the 'coalition' now faces a military, political and humanitarian situation beyond its worst nightmares. The US is now involved in a war against the Iraqi people. Just look at Basra. What are the British supposed to do? How can you 'pick off the enemy and avoid civilian deaths' if the civilians are fighting to defend their country rather than to defend Saddams regime? You can't. You only have two options - you can either level the city with bombs or you can lay siege and starve them into submission. Both options create an Iraqi population that holds the US responsible not only for 10 years of sanctions and bombings, but thousands of civilian deaths and an unwanted illegal occupation of their country. And what you see in Basra you can multiply by 5 for Baghdad. On top of that, there is no northern supply line, and no hope of one, and if the Iraqis hold the towns then the southern supply line will be under continued attack whilst it tries to supply troops stuck in the desert or engaged in urban street-fighting with the Iraqi people. Even if the US manages to take Baghdad it will find itself in control of a resentful population which wants it removed - the closest parallel being the Israeli occupation of The Lebanon. If all that was not enough, Tony Blair went into this war desperate for a quick result and an Iraqi population which supported him. He will get neither.

This is an illegal war for US self-interest against the Iraqi people. The strategy was critically dependent on the Iraqi people prefering a US administration to Saddam, and apparently there was no real backup plan if this failed. It has failed. America now faces a cross between Vietnam, Northern Ireland and The Lebanon. As for what must be going on in Tony Blairs head right now, I dare not even imagine. How deep in the doo-dah can one be?

:(

As for those people who predicted mass surrender of Iraqi troops and a 2-week war.........

You were wrong. The Iraqi people prefer Saddam to becoming a US colony. You were warned. You did not listen. Neither did Rumsfeld and Bush. Now you are going to pay the price in American blood.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It is now quite clear that the Iraqi people do not want to be 'liberated' by a belligerent illegal occupying force from the US. I watched George Bush at the press conference yesterday, pointing his finger and declaring "They must understand that they will be liberated."

I'm sorry...call me silly, but I just don't see how one leads to the other. :confused:

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I'm sorry...call me silly, but I just don't see how one leads to the other. :confused:

You're silly! :D

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I'm sorry...call me silly, but I just don't see how one leads to the other. :confused:

You cannot 'liberate' a people who prefer their current government to the invading force. That isn't 'liberation'. It is 'belligerent conquest' (UN terminology).

[UnrepentantSinner]

If a people "support" a regime because a bayonet is in their back while a functionary of that regime is telling them to "support" the regime does that really mean they don't wish for liberation from said regime?

I oppose this war for issues of timing and just cause. I fully support giving the people of Iraq a chance to throw off the yolk of Saddam's brutal despotism. The Iraqi's gut screwed over in '91. The Iraqi's are being oppressed by Fedeyen Hussein and Republican Guard. The Iraqi's have a reason to be at the very least suspicious and cautious.

They have no reason to fear our presence.

[Supercharts]

I find it difficult to believe that the people of Iraq support the present government. The elite branch of the Republican Guards are responsible for executing those who oppose the regime. An Iraqi expressing distaste for SH is taken away and executed.
Another point - do you think the Kurds want to live under SH? Or the majority Shi'ites?
Frankly, UA, if you had the opportunity to interview Jews in Germany in 1934 do you think that they would risk their lives denouncing Hitler? Or would they emigrate while there was still time.
Why not just come out and say you hate the US and your own government because they disturb your left-wing world. Pity, isn't it, that current events require you to make a moral choice on good vs. evil? Perhaps you have been listening to the "Illuminator" too long?

US:


If a people "support" a regime because a bayonet is in their back while a functionary of that regime is telling them to "support" the regime does that really mean they don't wish for liberation from said regime?


Yes, that is the American Propaganda. How does it explain the fact that the refugee camps are empty, whilst Iraqis stream over the Jordanian border back into Iraq to fight for their country? Are there invisible Baath party fighters pointing invisible guns at them? Face reality! The Iraqi people are fighting the Americans because they like the US even less than they like Saddam - rather like the Russians fighting for Stalin against Hitler.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
You were wrong. The Iraqi people prefer Saddam to becoming a US colony. You were warned. You did not listen. Neither did Rumsfeld and Bush. Now you are going to pay the price in American blood.

Maybe you should look a little closer at who is fighting and why:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/fedayeen.htm



It is difficult to establish the exact date when the beheading of women campaign began in Iraq. Witness accounts report the public beheading of women from June 2000 through to May 2001. Saddam's Fidayi conduct the beheading operations, which take place in two stages. Accompanied by the leaders of the Ba'th party, the Fidayi make a night raid on the district. The latter is gone through with a fine toothcomb to eliminate any hints of revolt and in order to discover any weapons. The population is summoned for the next day at prayer time. They arrive at the stated hour at the home of the victim, who is dragged out in the clothes she is wearing. She is then stretched out on an iron bench, her head hanging down, in front of her children, her family and the whole population of the district. The executioner and his assistants are dressed in brown bearing the logo 'Saddam's Fidayi' and usually do not come from the district or the region. The Feddayi detailed to carry out the beheading takes his sword held out by an assistant and cut's the victim's head off. According to the scenes described, the head is exhibited or the body and the head are thrown into black boxes and taken away. Women belonging to families suspected of being hostile to the regime or whose members are in prison as "opponents" (the term of course covers a considerable number of definitions) are particularly targeted.



Are those the "Iraqi people" you are talking about?

I have stated before that I was not in favor of starting this war. However UCE, you are completely clueless about what is happening.

[richardm]

The context of the Bush comment was words to the effect of "The people of Iraq are scared to rise up because when we've encouraged them to rise up in the past and they have done so, we've then stood by and let them be slaughtered. This time, They must understand that they will be liberated: there will be no reprisals from the current regime, because the current regime will be gone"

This is particularly apposite in e.g. Basra, which has seen attempted uprisings in the past, and where they were painfully slapped down by the regime (the same regime which is currently shooting civilians who try to leave the city, incidentally). Small wonder they're a bit leery of trying anything just at the moment.

Originally posted by Supercharts

I find it difficult to believe that the people of Iraq support the present government. The elite branch of the Republican Guards are responsible for executing those who oppose the regime. An Iraqi expressing distaste for SH is taken away and executed.


Yes, you have believed the US propaganda. Aren't you looking at the news and wondering why there are people streaming back into Iraq to defend their country? Propaganda is great for moulding opinion. It doesn't do you much good when you are on the outskirts of Baghdad facing 5 million Iraqis with guns.


Another point - do you think the Kurds want to live under SH?
Or the majority Shi'ites?


I said they prefer Saddam to the US, not that they want to live under Saddam. The US has underestimated the level of hated and mistrust felt for the US, not the level of hatred for Saddam. Saddam is the devil they know.


Why not just come out and say you hate the US and your own government because they disturb your left-wing world.


You are deteriorating into JK. Face the facts on the ground. Accusing me of being a leftie is not going to make the problems go away.

[Crossbow]

War is always waged against the people.

Saying that the real problem is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq sounds great at a press conference, but it makes no military sense.

Originally posted by Doubt



I have stated before that I was not in favor of starting this war. However UCE, you are completely clueless about what is happening.

Of course.....

Look at what is happening. This war is already a disaster. Stop blaming me and start facing up to reality. Admit that Iraqi people do not want an American government. You will have to eventually.

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Aren't you looking at the news and wondering why there are people streaming back into Iraq to defend their country?


To be honest, I've heard from people on this board and on Question Time last night that this is happening, but haven't heard any independent confirmation of it.

Last night the word was that something like 4000 Iraqis have gone back to defend the regime. There is no clue as to why these chaps were out of the country, but it seems safe to say that they're not part of the 1.4 million + who are out of the country in order to avoid being murdered by the regime.

Have you a news story I could read about them? Ta!

Originally posted by Crossbow
War is always waged against the people.

Saying that the real problem is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq sounds great at a press conference, but it makes no military sense.

I have been very surprised by the military short-sightedness shown. I expect politicians to make such mistakes. The military are usually a bit more clued up. Rumsfeld must ultimately take responsibility for the unfolding military disaster.

Originally posted by richardm


To be honest, I've heard from people on this board and on Question Time last night that this is happening, but haven't heard any independent confirmation of it.


I have seen two different news reports from a camp in Jordan. At the time fo the last one it contained 18 palestinians, 10 assorted north-africans and no Iraqis at all.


Last night the word was that something like 4000 Iraqis have gone back to defend the regime. There is no clue as to why these chaps were out of the country, but it seems safe to say that they're not part of the 1.4 million + who are out of the country in order to avoid being murdered by the regime.


Does it?

Is it really so unthinkable that even though they hate Saddam enough to leave that they hate the idea of a US colonisation so much more that they are willing to go back and fight the imperialists?

Try to think like an Iraqi. I can understand it.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The Iraqi's gut screwed over in '91.

Ouch sounds painful, that poor Iraqi. Did he or she pull through?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Of course.....

Look at what is happening. This war is already a disaster. Stop blaming me and start facing up to reality. Admit that Iraqi people do not want an American government. You will have to eventually.

Most people here read what is out there and evaluate the information. Some are better than others at getting around their bias filters.

You read what is out there and reject as propaganda anything that does not match your preconceived notions. You and Jedi Knight have a great deal in common. You have no objectivity. You only see what you want to see.

Do you really think the population in Basara wants Saddam? If this were true, why do organizations like the Fadayeen exist? Or did the US propaganda machine make them up?

Did it ever occur to you that some people are returning to Basara because their families are being held hostage? Do you think that the Fedayeen would not do that?

Time will tell what is really happening. But your opinions are useless because of your bias.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I have been very surprised by the military short-sightedness shown. I expect politicians to make such mistakes. The military are usually a bit more clued up. Rumsfeld must ultimately take responsibility for the unfolding military disaster.

I have a feeling that he is really starting to have second thoughts.

I noticed that he has been rather defensive in his interviews, that the reserves have been put into action into Iraq, and that one of his top advisors (Richard Perle) has been publicy demoted during this time of crisis.

I am sure the US and British military will win, but it will not be the cake-walk that many were expecting.

Doubt :


Do you really think the population in Basara wants Saddam?


They HATE Saddam. But they still prefer Saddam to the Americans. I think this is why the Americans can't quite grasp it. Yes....the Iraqis hate their leader....the problem is the Americans have this fantasy that the world loves them and that they would be seen as liberators. In retrospect, one wonders why. America has bombed and starved them for 10 years, on top of supporting Israel and all the other things the US is guilty of. They do not want Saddam. They just prefer Saddam to Bush.


Time will tell what is really happening.


It already has. But maybe you need some more time.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Ouch sounds painful, that poor Iraqi. Did he or she pull through?

My tpyo I've been playing the Iraq War drinking game since I got home from work 2 hours ago. :)

UcE, How many have fled back to Iraq? Do we really have solid numbers on that count? As solid as first hand reports of Saddam's Martyrs using women and children as human shields? As valid as footage of people in Umm Qaser saying how glad they are to be relieved? As valid of reports of Regime troops fireing on civilians as they try to escape the cities of Basra and An Najera (etc.) or if they tried to revolt against Saddam?

As valid as the fact that British and American troops were holding fire in situations where bombing the crap out of or firing artillery and tanks into any suspected "enemy" position would be the logical response?

The Thugs of Saddam are raping the citizens of Iraq one last time as they fall.

[Troll]

UCE, you keep going on and on about the "evil americans", but fail to mention their cohorts in this alleged "crime", the Brits. I can't help but notice where you are from, nor recall your many previous posts speaking out against, not just America, but Americans as well. This isn't on topic, but merely a side note.

So a few thousand out of several million want to fight for Hussein? The war isn't over after the first week? Are you suggesting that the American's have guns to the heads of the people that we see in the various media outlets claiming they are happy to see Hussein's regime toppled?

And when all is said and done, can we expect to see an apology for your clueless posts when the regime is gone and the people do celebrate without fear of reprisal?

Originally posted by Crossbow


I am sure the US and British military will win, but it will not be the cake-walk that many were expecting.

But what does 'win' mean?

Did the Israelis 'win' the war of occupation against Lebanon?

You can 'win' against Saddams regime, eventually. But you cannot 'win' if the Iraqi people refuse to accept US rule. Or are the Americans going to rule Iraq by oppressing the people in the same way Saddam did? Of course, they could always hand it over to the UN, but that isn't in their world-domination agenda ('dominating influence' was the term used by Washington yesterday).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


But what does 'win' mean?

...

Too right UCE!

The problems of war are often much easier to deal with than the problems of peace.

Originally posted by Troll

UCE, you keep going on and on about the "evil americans", but fail to mention their cohorts in this alleged "crime", the Brits. I can't help but notice where you are from, nor recall your many previous posts speaking out against, not just America, but Americans as well. This isn't on topic, but merely a side note.


I mention Blair quite a lot. The difference between the two is that the US population largely supports Bush but the British population largely did not support Blair.


So a few thousand out of several million want to fight for Hussein? The war isn't over after the first week? Are you suggesting that the American's have guns to the heads of the people that we see in the various media outlets claiming they are happy to see Hussein's regime toppled?


You speak in the past tense. Saddams regime has not been toppled. I keep on saying that the Iraqis hate Saddam. They just hate America more.



And when all is said and done, can we expect to see an apology for your clueless posts when the regime is gone and the people do celebrate without fear of reprisal?

Can we expect to see an apology from the US administration for starting an illegal war of occupation against the Iraqi people?

Why should I apologise for pouring shame on a US administration which tortures people to death? :(

And what has this got to do with this thread? :(

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Doubt :They HATE Saddam. But they still prefer Saddam to the Americans. I think this is why the Americans can't quite grasp it.

And here is what you cannot grasp, the U.S. is not going to annex Iraq! Iraq is not going to be a U.S. colony.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


But what does 'win' mean?

Did the Israelis 'win' the war of occupation against Lebanon?

You can 'win' against Saddams regime, eventually. But you cannot 'win' if the Iraqi people refuse to accept US rule. Or are the Americans going to rule Iraq by oppressing the people in the same way Saddam did? Of course, they could always hand it over to the UN, but that isn't in their world-domination agenda ('dominating influence' was the term used by Washington yesterday).

what US rule? And are you thinking long term occupation or the get in, get it done then get out temporary occupation? Are you under the impression that the US is actually colonizing Iraq?:confused:

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I mention Blair quite a lot. The difference between the two is that the US population largely supports Bush but the British population largely did not support Blair.



You speak in the past tense. Saddams regime has not been toppled. I keep on saying that the Iraqis hate Saddam. They just hate America more.




Can we expect to see an apology from the US administration for starting an illegal war of occupation against the Iraqi people?

Why should I apologise for pouring shame on a US administration which tortures people to death? :(

And what has this got to do with this thread? :(

I'm not speaking past tense because it's not over yet. Get a grip on reality and time here.

And who has been tortured to death. Show some proof already. give a name.

Originally posted by ssibal


And here is what you cannot grasp, the U.S. is not going to annex Iraq! Iraq is not going to be a U.S. colony.

I don't believe you.

The Iraqis don't believe you.

Why not?

Because if it were true then the US would allow the UN to be in charge of Iraq after the war. Blair desperately needs the US to agree to this, for his own political survival. But he has climbed down and is now backing a US military government.

THAT IS A US COLONY. It is no use trying to argue it isn't.

I don't believe you. Neither do the Iraqis. Do you think the Iraqis believe the propaganda directed at the US public?

[Q-Source]

It is quite clear now that Bush and Blair were not expecting the Iraqi resistance and the dignity shown by civilians to defend their country.

They thought that it would be easy to invade and "liberate" the country from Saddam's regime. :rolleyes:

Now, they say that it may take MONTHS before they can defeat Saddam. The longer it takes the more damage it will cause to civilian's lives.

I just see a long period of confrontation to decide who should be in charge of the new regime. It is obvious that the strong anti-US feeling in the region is growing.
So, if the USA persists on taking control of the country, then we will see more problems in the future...

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I have seen two different news reports from a camp in Jordan. At the time fo the last one it contained 18 palestinians, 10 assorted north-africans and no Iraqis at all.



Yeah, I know that the Jordanian camp is pretty empty - in fact they're currently being urged to abandon it altogether because the conditions there are pretty unpleasant.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Does it?

Is it really so unthinkable that even though they hate Saddam enough to leave that they hate the idea of a US colonisation so much more that they are willing to go back and fight the imperialists?

Try to think like an Iraqi. I can understand it. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I still think they are a minority amongst those who have left the country. Remember, we're not talking about leaving the country because they were finding the climate a bit trying; many had fled a country because they feared for their lives and the lives of their family under the regime. I can't credit that they would rush back to save the regime from anything. Some would, I'm sure, saying "He may be a tyrant but he's our tyrant." But for most, that would be perverse.

Remember also that Iraq is a sort of fake country, comprising chunks of other, quite tribal lands. For many Iraqis, the regime in Baghdad is as remote and hostile as the English government was to Scottish people in the 18th Century. Technically they were the same country, Great Britain, but in reality... For example, the Kurds in what used to be part of Kurdistan, now part of Northern Iraq, who are busy carving through the front lines of Saddam's troops. So it's not as simple as talking about Iraqis as a general thing. For some Scots in the 18th Century, the English regime was something to be buttered up to, and they killed their own countrymen to support it. For others, it was a hated regime to be destroyed, and they would (and did!) take sides with anyone in order to see the back of it, even people who would otherwise be thought of as enemies. (Mind you, look where that got 'em).

[richardm]

Originally posted by Troll

Are you under the impression that the US is actually colonizing Iraq?:confused:

That's right. It's an imperial power making a colony of Iraq so that it can control the oil, apparently.

[Jocko]

UCE, you are a deluded ass. There's no reasoning with you. Welcome to my ignore list.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yes, you have believed the US propaganda. Aren't you looking at the news and wondering why there are people streaming back into Iraq to defend their country? Propaganda is great for moulding opinion. It doesn't do you much good when you are on the outskirts of Baghdad facing 5 million Iraqis with guns.

You have believed Iraqi and Arab propaganda. Let these folks stream into Iraq to fight....can you say "highway of death"? We are at war now Geoff....the lowest place in the valley of intellect. Intellectualizing about propaganda and what the Iraqi people really, really want is all ********. War is only about victory. It only ever should be about victory. That was the problem with Korea and 'Nam....those wars were not ever about victory. They were about maintaining a status quo. There is no status quo to protect here. This war has alot more similarity to WWII in this respect. As long as victory is the goal of this administration I will be firmly on GWB's side.



I said they prefer Saddam to the US, not that they want to live under Saddam. The US has underestimated the level of hated and mistrust felt for the US, not the level of hatred for Saddam. Saddam is the devil they know.


Oh yeah,...you're right...they love him. He even got 100% of the vote!! :rolleyes: What a swell guy they must think he is!


You are deteriorating into JK. Face the facts on the ground. Accusing me of being a leftie is not going to make the problems go away.

But you are a leftie ;) ....and JK, a combat veteran is right. When the topic is war I for one tend to listen to combat veterans. They, and only they BTW, know what the hell of a battlefield is really like. They know the facts on the ground better than you or I ever will. Most of them I have spoken with would rather have to fight a hundred battles for Baghdad than see one more 9/11.

Baghdad will fall...it's only a matter of time. After it does the truth will all come out. If I'm wrong I will admit it....If you are wrong I expect nothing less than such an admission from you.

-z

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I don't believe you.

The Iraqis don't believe you.

Why not?

Because if it were true then the US would allow the UN to be in charge of Iraq after the war. Blair desperately needs the US to agree to this, for his own political survival. But he has climbed down and is now backing a US military government.

Are you not being a bit premature? The issue of the UN being in change of Iraq after the war (and exactly what does that entail) is far from settled. One of the reasons we are in this war right not is due to the ineptitude of the UN in handling Iraq. Do you really think that we would just hand it over to them again???

THAT IS A US COLONY. It is no use trying to argue it isn't.

Sorry, there is no evidence that the U.S. wants to colonize Iraq.

I don't believe you. Neither do the Iraqis. Do you think the Iraqis believe the propaganda directed at the US public?

Unfortunately, some Iraqis believe the propaganda of the Iraqi government, "the crocodiles are going to colonize the country!" It seems like you believe their propaganda as well.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Oh yeah,...you're right...they love him. He even got 100% of the vote!! :rolleyes: What a swell guy they must think he is!


Rik, please inject some novociane into your knee so it doesn't jerk like that.

Saddam got 100% of the vote because he was the only candidate. Please use some logic in this issue will you. :p

[Scared Chicken]

Because if it were true then the US would allow the UN to be in charge of Iraq after the war. <....> THAT IS A US COLONY. It is no use trying to argue it isn't.

I don't believe you. Neither do the Iraqis. Do you think the Iraqis believe the propaganda directed at the US public? [/B]

I think the jury is still out on this. But I definately share your concerns about the real purpose of this war, so I can very well believe the Iraqi's would do so even more. But given the early stage of the war, and the mistakes made in '91, I think we'll have to wait and see what happens when Saddam's regime is terminated and how the Iraqi's will react then. I firmly believe there are people (civilians) fighting out of hate vs the US, and others will fight out of fear. But I wouldnt dare speculate on numbers either way. A handfull of refugees returning to fight is hardly significant.

As for the UN ruling Iraq after the war... I definately hope this will happen, though I doubt it. And If not, I'm curious how the US will explain a lasting occupation. Here I agree with you, I'm convinced the US is not fighting this war primarely to liberate the country. But if they retreat from Iraq shortly after the war, and leave it to the UN I'll gladly eat my words.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Rik, please inject some novociane into your knee so it doesn't jerk like that.

Saddam got 100% of the vote because he was the only candidate. Please use some logic in this issue will you. :p ;)

[Scared Chicken]

This war has alot more similarity to WWII in this respect. As long as victory is the goal of this administration I will be firmly on GWB's side.

What victory did you have in mind ? Only a military one ?
If a victory is not followed by safer country and a safer world, it won't be a victory, it will only have been an expensive and murderous display of American military power.

[Supercharts]

"British officers said a "couple of thousand" Iraqi civilians tried to flee Basra, which is encircled by British troops, but were forced to return when Iraqi paramilitary forces opened fire with mortars and machine guns. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/war_developments&cid=540&ncid=1480

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I don't believe you.

The Iraqis don't believe you.


That is because you are a pro-Saddam commie.

The night before last, and this was simply beautiful, the US Airforce sent four B-52 bombers loaded with carpet bombs to intercept the convoy of death that Iraqi generals sent to engage the 3/7th in the sandstorm.

The B-52's caught that 1,000 vehicle Iraqi convoy in the open and roasted them alive. Not a single Iraqi soldier survived. An entire Republican Guard division went up in smoke in one bombing run.

US and coalition forces control all of Iraq except for Baghdad. The 4th ID is on its way to finish the job.

The Iraqi people are standing by ready to celebrate once we liberate Baghdad. Another leftist regime of perversion liquidated by the heroic capitalists of the United States and Great Britain.

Also, support for Blair is shooting through the roof. British media have been playing video of British soldiers unarmed and executed by the Iraqi terrorists. The British people love Blair's decision to go into Iraq and word is that British military recruitment centers have been inundated with calls to join the British Army so that they can go bag some terrorists in Iraq.

How do you explain that UCE? Your own countrymen, while you cower in protest as a leftist, are rushing to join the war. Let me guess, you never fought for anything in your life. You are automatically absorbed as a minion to communism so you can be a particle in the lowest common denomenator. How is the air down there?

JK

[Advocate]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

You can 'win' against Saddams regime, eventually. But you cannot 'win' if the Iraqi people refuse to accept US rule.

You don't have to 'win' against the Iraqi people. Once Saddam's regime is defeated, the war is over (besides our units defending themselves if attacked) and the focus shifts to rebuilding Iraq. I doubt the US will turn over control to the UN, since the US government now has about the same level of trust in the UN that you have of the US. But certainly some sort of coalition (not just with the UK) will end up working with the new Iraqi regime. I think it is very unlikely that this wil drag out into a Vietnam style conflict. More likely is for the US to achieve its aim of removing Saddam Hussein's regime and then work with whatever Iraqi regime takes his place in order to get US troops out of Iraq. Some Iraqis may prefer Saddam to the US, but others see things differently. If these others can manage to set up a new government once the existing one is removed, then I expect the US will stop the war, recognize this new government, and get out. If there are still resistance groups, this exit may take longer, but it will happen. This won't turn into a Korea either.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
They HATE Saddam. But they still prefer Saddam to the Americans. I think this is why the Americans can't quite grasp it. Yes....the Iraqis hate their leader....the problem is the Americans have this fantasy that the world loves them and that they would be seen as liberators. In retrospect, one wonders why. America has bombed and starved them for 10 years, on top of supporting Israel and all the other things the US is guilty of. They do not want Saddam. They just prefer Saddam to Bush.


It is like going from one regime of subjugation to another.

Iraqi people is aware of that.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is because you are a pro-Saddam commie.

JK

That's right, I'm a communist supporter of Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes:

I don't know how to respond to this, so I'm not going to.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You cannot 'liberate' a people who prefer their current government to the invading force. That isn't 'liberation'. It is 'belligerent conquest' (UN terminology).

Because twenty or so civilians decide to shoot at US soldiers, that's cause enough to believe that the people as a whole prefer the current government? Many more civilians have welcomed the coalition troops than have fired on them.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Doubt :



They HATE Saddam. But they still prefer Saddam to the Americans. I think this is why the Americans can't quite grasp it. Yes....the Iraqis hate their leader....the problem is the Americans have this fantasy that the world loves them and that they would be seen as liberators. In retrospect, one wonders why. America has bombed and starved them for 10 years, on top of supporting Israel and all the other things the US is guilty of. They do not want Saddam. They just prefer Saddam to Bush.


It appears that you don't want to answer the other questions I asked. Not a surprise, unfortunately.

While we are at it:

Why did the US not colonize Kuwait? Who would have stopped us?

[corplinx]

I may not be a PhD but I do know argueing with UCE is useless. ;)

[LTC8K6]

UCE doesn't believe any of this. These posts are just designed to get a reaction. I am surprised that veteran board users would bother with UCE.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That is because you are a pro-Saddam commie.Pro-Saddam commie? This from our master of right-wing vile? A little bland, if you ask me. I'm sure you can do better, if you just give it a try, JK.

How about Stalinist Saddamite? That's got a nice ring to it, if you ask me.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

During and after the Gulf War (Saddam's Mother of all wars) Iraqis were encouraged by Bush 1 to rise up and overthrow Saddam.
The Iraqis that participated in the US sponsored coup thought they has been given a blank cheque. They decided that they would take the "offer" and took to the streets. They did not get far.

The US reconsidered "getting involved" leaving these people in a deadly and costly lurch. Saddam's security forces murdered not only those that rose up, but their families, and innocents that were thought to be involved. The resulting bloodshed assured that it would be very unlikely that Iraqis would rise up against Saddam's Regime again.

I hear anecdotes this week of Iraqis saying they would rather live under Saddam's rule than the US rule.

Could it be that Iraqis have not forgotten the consequences that resulted when their coup lost its "umph" so quickly after withdrawal of US support?

Could it be that they think the risks are too high if they rise up and the US decides it can not succeed in taking out Saddam and retreat?

The Iraqis are skeptical, and are not quick to trust the liberators.

I can not know the thoughts of Iraqis nor attribute to them points of view that may put them in a "box". I am also concluding.

From my perspective though, the Iraqi are not thrilled to have westerners on there soil and are not cheering on a grand scale. This country is not France, or the Lowlands of WWII receiving a liberating army with enthusiasm.

I understand Basra may have rose up with support from units. I have heard reports that the city is being bombed by Saddam's regime... punishment for "turning".

PPG

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
UCE doesn't believe any of this. These posts are just designed to get a reaction. I am surprised that veteran board users would bother with UCE.

No...you've got Geoff (UCE) all wrong. He believes what he says. Say what you will about the guy, but he's no troll. I've had occasion to interact with him for about 2 years now. He's a pretty thoughtful guy....he's just dead wrong. But don't call him a troll...he only acts like one when he gets too emotional and upset. Emotional and upset people don't get that way by not believing in what they're saying.

He and I could not be farther apart politically....but there's alot more to ole Geoff than just nutty politics. ;)

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It is now quite clear that the Iraqi people do not want to be 'liberated' by a belligerent illegal occupying force from the US.

bla bla bla bla

Go argue with Jedi Knight. The two of you deserve each other.

[jj]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I

THAT IS A US COLONY. It is no use trying to argue it isn't.

I don't believe you. Neither do the Iraqis. Do you think the Iraqis believe the propaganda directed at the US public?

You mean like Japan, Germany, Italy ...?

Your hysterical ranting is the exact counterpoint to Jedi Knight's.

[jj]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


That's right, I'm a communist supporter of Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes:

I don't know how to respond to this, so I'm not going to.

Welcome to the oddworld of Jedi Knight, Mr. Pachyderm. I find him as odd as I find you.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by max
UCE
I have asked you before and you denied it but I will now suggest that you are a Muslim.
...

I love allah ****. they are bent play the racist card evil slimy sly horrible people


The great detective concludes!

Did you use a deductive reasoning approach? Your precision is remarkable as you infer from the general to the specific.

Do your conclusions follow necessarily from the premises presented?

[WildCat]

From Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent Paul Salopek, in today's edition:SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq -
Bassam, an Iraq foot soldier, faced two enemies the night war erupted with America. The first was George Bush: The American president's cruise missiles — some 400 of them, according to his platoon's overactive rumor mill — were targeting his infantry unit in northern lraq. The second had no name, wore a bushy mustache and lived in a canvas tent just a few yards away: He was an officer from Estikhbarat, or Iraqi Military Intelligence. He was newly arrived from Baghdad, and his job was to shoot down any soldier who dared desert.
Is this US gov't propaganda?
Sitting in a Kurdish military prison and wearing the same grungy civilian clothes they had used for their escape, they told how all information was so tightly restricted that soldiers caught with portable radios are imprisoned or beaten.
Wouldn't want to expose them to the "lies" of the US military now.
And in conversations candid enough to include sharp criticism of the United States, they poured out their scorn for a life in uniform that was steeped in fear—from living with spies in every six-man infantry squad to the ethnic shell games that post most southern Shiite soldiers to alien Sunni regions in the north to keep potential deserters from slipping away into the local populace. "This isn't a prison," said a defector named Mushriq, 20, waving his hand at the blank walls of the military detention center where he is being held in the Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah. "If you want to experience prison, join the Iraqi army."
With this amount of spies in the infantry, it's no wonder there isn't much organized rebellion.
"You are watched [every hour by the officers," Bassam said. "The only time you can speak freely is in the latrine, or by whispering when all the others are asleep." Yet even that is dangerous he said; every Iraqi platoon, which consists of 80
soldiers, is closely monitored by 15 or 16 Inthibat, or military police, he said. These officers, who wear distinctive red berets and white belts, are the eyes and ears of the execution teams that Hussein hastily stationed with every Iraqi unit at the outset of the war. "These men are monsters, they have no mercy," said Bassam
On the eve of the U.S. bombing campaign, Bassam, Mushriq and other Iraqi soldiers decided to make a break for the near by front lines that mark the boundary of the Kurdish-ruled Iraq. While the execution team was eating a midnight meal, the defectors quietly stripped off their uniforms, switched into hidden civilian clothes and began picking their way through a minefield. Two of Bassam's companions were machine-gunned by the Inthibat officers before they cleared the no-man's-land. Eight more were killed by their own comrades.
But the anti-war posters on this thread do have a point about suspicions of the US motives, as the following quote shows:
At the same time, he (Mushriq) expressed deep suspicions about U.S. motives in Iraq and warned, that the country would be "ankle deep in blood" if the U.S. overstayed its welcome.
Clearly the coalition must be careful to be seen as liberators and not conquerors, but I am certain this will be the case. UCE, your contention that the US will colonize (!) Iraq is just ridiculous, there would be no support anywhere for that, but you can believe what you want. But I would like to hear from you once it doesn't happen the way you envision.

I have avoided quoting US or British gov't sources, only an independent journalist. I have seen other such articles by other independent journalists, are they all part of some gov't controlled propaganda scheme?:rolleyes:

[max]

Pygmy
make yourself clear......moron

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

edited:

In order for the relations with any people (Iraqi or other) that come under the influence of US troops (stationed or deployed) to improve the US soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is consistant of the stated goals of the US govenement.

The one thing that disturbs me about the US military is the way its culture enables the behaviours of the many criminal acts commited around the world on young girls and boys, and on women (civilian, spousal, and with in the military) by 100s if not by 1000s of men in uniform.

If the US military could act effectively on these behavious by punishing and removing from the military men that engage in these acts I would feel more comfortable with Americans running around the world bringing a US version of civilization.
To add to the problem, American males that are decent will not report these acts in many cases because of fear of reprisal from "the good ol' boys club".

12 year old girl
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/08/


20 year old woman
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20010702-1144-japan-okinaw.html

beating
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/03/okinawa/

the stresses ot life in the Army

http://www.nbc17.com/News/1580436/detail.html


There may be countless cases that do not get reported by the media, by the victim or their family, or by fellow servicemen.

This problem of course is not new. Every territory or nation that has been occupied by invading forces over the course of human history have seen their populations subjected to rape, torure, and indecent acts that attack human dignity. The US military needs to take a stand and not repeat these acts on populations it aquires in its influence.

The American male is prone to believing he is superior and can take anything he wants. Cases in Japan, Korea, Philipines, Britain, Germany, Somalia, just to name a few, demonstrate the extant of the problem. American male fantasies are full of images of submissive girls, boys, or women that must do as they say or face the consequences.

The American soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself appropriately even if his fellow soldiers are sadists, his superiors will not take disciplinary action against violaters, and his govenment will not participate in a World Court

This helps desribe the White House's official stand on what I have attempted to cover, perhaps not so eloquently or intelligently.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

here is a link with many links within covering a debate that covers opinions about co-ed training

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/aberdeen/#links


possibly more to follow.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/GMA030219AirForce_allegations.html


"Some of the women who have come forward to report rape and sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy include:

T. Jones, who as a 19-year-old freshman was told by a sophomore cadet to report to his room for a study session. When she did, she told the Washington Post, he locked the door and raped her. Jones reported the incident the next day to the officer in charge of her cadet squadron, who told her if she reported it her career would be over. She didn't report it, and remained at the academy.

S. Fullilove, who had been at the academy for barely six months in 1999 when an upperclassman offered her a ride to her dorm from a campus lounge after dark. Then he stopped the car, locked the door and raped her. She knew all too well from older female cadets the consequences of reporting a rape. "We were told if you want to stay at the academy, don't report it," Fullilove, now 21, told Time Magazine. "They'll get you [thrown] out." She didn't report it, and left the academy.
Fullivore's story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Central/03/08/academy.assault.ap/

J. Brakey, now 23, who said she was raped three years ago when she was a sophomore. She told MSNBC that her grades suffered and she started having nightmares. In Nov. 2002, she reported the rape to officials, who told her she was being investigated for mental health problems. No charges were filed against the male cadet, and Brakey was dishonorably discharged from the academy for health reasons."




The culture of the US military enables these violent offenders, at home and abroad.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by max
Pygmy
make yourself clear......moron

more on what? I anticipate you finsishing your thought.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
[B]The one thing that disturbs me about the US military is the way its culture enables the behaviours of the many criminal acts commited around the world on young girls and boys, and on women (civilian, spousal, and with in the military) by 100s if not by 1000s of men in uniform.
So you can select a million men aged 17-35 from any other country w/o finding a hundred or so criminals? :rolleyes:
Please tell us where we might find such a country.

[Troll]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
The one thing that disturbs me about the US military is the way its culture enables the behaviours of the many criminal acts commited around the world on young girls and boys, and on women (civilian, spousal, and with in the military) by 100s if not by 1000s of men in uniform.

If the US military could act effectively on these behavious by punishing and removing from the military men that engage in these acts I would feel more comfortable with Americans running around the world bringing a US version of civilization.
To add to the problem, American males that are decent will not report these acts in many cases because of fear of reprisal from "the good ol' boys club".

12 year old girl
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/08/


20 year old woman
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20010702-1144-japan-okinaw.html

There may be countless cases that do not get reported by the media, by the victim or their family, or by fellow servicemen.

This problem of course is not new. Every territory or nation that has been occupied by invading forces over the course of human history have seen their populations subjected to rape, torure, and indecent acts that attack human dignity. The US military needs to take a stand and not repeat these acts on populations it aquires in its influence.

The American male is prone to believing he is superior and can take anything he wants. Cases in Japan, Korea, Philipines, Britain, Germany, Somalia, just to name a few, demonstrate the extant of the problem. American male fantasies are full of images of submissive girls, boys, or women that must do as they say or face the consequences.

The American soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself appropriately even if his fellow soldiers are sadists, his superiors will not take disciplinary action against violaters, and his govenment will not participate in a World Court

This helps desribe the White House's official stand on what I have attempted to cover, perhaps not so eloquently or intelligently.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

here is a link with many links within covering a debate that covers opinions about co-ed training

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/aberdeen/#links


possibly more to follow.

You do realize that you're making some vast generalizations about the American male based upon a few incidents of criminal behavior committed by a few, don't you? The military recruits individuals and individuals have free will, not always the best judgement. but free will nonetheless, and make thier own choices of doing, for lack of better words at the moment, the right or wrong thing. In this case I would say wrong as that's what rape is generally considered amongst civilized men and women, American or not, soldiers or not. It's not as though we're looking at entire units unleashed to rape, pillage and plunder.

And please don't proclaim to speak of the american male fantasy until you've had one? In most of mine I'm the submissive one, taking orders and getting spanked until ............. well anyhow, the point is not to try to make a point or an assertion with generalizations. If 10 white women were accused of having sex with little boys would that make all caucasian women child molestors? I ask you this because using your reasoning it would.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by WildCat

So you can select a million men aged 17-35 from any other country w/o finding a hundred or so criminals? :rolleyes:
Please tell us where we might find such a country.

Those countries are not claiming moral superiority and bringing their framework of civilization to a country they are invading.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Troll


You do realize that you're making some vast generalizations about the American male based upon a few incidents of criminal behavior committed by a few, don't you?

Yes I do

but I know the reality

"behaviours of the many criminal acts commited around the world on young girls and boys, and on women (civilian, spousal, and with in the military) by 100s if not by 1000s of men in uniform."

The US has 100s of thousands of soldiers abroad, on the home front, and in training.

I do not want to make this a case based on numbers. One violent crime is one too many, especially if it is done in the context of bringing liberty and civilization to a supressed people.

I believe the current stated goal of is Bush administration to bring liberty and civilization and democracy to the Iraqis.

If it is not, and the goal is to brutalize, demoralize, subjegate, and strip dignity from people that come under the influence of American law and order then we do not have to worry about the conduct of the soldiers. Violent behaviour will be a means to an end.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Those countries are not claiming moral superiority and bringing their framework of civilization to a country they are invading.
You do realize that the abhorrent behavior you cite, practised by a tiny fraction of US troops (rape, murder, etc.), is the official policy of the current regime in Iraq? Don't you?:eek:

I think that by any objective standard we have moral superiority over Saddam & Sons.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by WildCat

You do realize that the abhorrent behavior you cite, practised by a tiny fraction of US troops (rape, murder, etc.), is the official policy of the current regime in Iraq? Don't you?:eek:

I think that by any objective standard we have moral superiority over Saddam & Sons.

I am not following...

Saddam's troops are more violent and practice more abhorant behaviour than US troops, so the case for American moral superiority is stronger?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

I do not want to make this a case based on numbers.



I think that you mean to say that you cannot make a case based on numbers.


One violent crime is one too many, especially if it is done in the context of bringing liberty and civilization to a supressed people.

I believe that is the current goal of the Bush administration.

If it is not, and the goal is to brutalize, demoralize, subjegate, and strip dignity from people that come under the influence of American law and order then we do not have to worry about the conduct of the soldiers. Violent behaviour will be a means to an end.

So 1 crime on the part of any one soldier -- assuming he or she is found guilty -- means that the goal of the US military is to brutalize, demoralize, and subjegate. Interesting conclusion, but I would be interested in any alleged reasoning process behind it.

NA

edited to add: Congratulations, you have out-UCE'd UCE in his own thread. I look forward to see how he hopes to take back the lead.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


I am not following...

Saddam's troops are more violent and practice more abhorant behaviour than US troops, so the case for American moral superiority is stronger?
Well, since this thread is about an allegation that the war is against the Iraqi people, I took your posting to mean that you agreed since there was a chance one of the US troops might commit a rape (otherwise why were you posting this here?). You then said the coalition countries are claiming moral superiority, insinuating that we had no moral superiority due to the afore mentioned possibility of rapes occuring. I simply pointed out that while rape was a aberration in the US military it is in fact a policy of the Iraqi gov't, used to keep the people in line. In other words, rape is sanctioned by Iraq (not necessarily by the Iraqi army regulars, but definitely by Saddam's security forces), but will get you court martialed in the US military (as the cases you cite clearly demonstrate). Do you not see the difference?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I am trying to say that:

In order for the relations with any people (Iraqi or other) that come under the influence of US troops (stationed or deployed) to improve then the US soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is consistant of the stated goals of the US govenement.

UCE, along with your Iraqi expatriots who are returning to Iraq, there are thousands of Iraqi expats who oppose Saddam flying into Jordan, awaiting the opportunity to return to post-Saddam Iraq.

And by what bizarre criteria have you determined that "this war is already a disaster?"

[WildCat]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I am trying to say that:

In order for the relations with any people (Iraqi or other) that come under the influence of US troops (stationed or deployed) to improve then the US soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is consistant of the stated goals of the US govenement.
Well I can't argue w/ that.:)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
edited:

In order for the relations with any people (Iraqi or other) that come under the influence of US troops (stationed or deployed) to improve the US soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that is consistant of the stated goals of the US govenement.

The one thing that disturbs me about the US military is the way its culture enables the behaviours of the many criminal acts commited around the world on young girls and boys, and on women (civilian, spousal, and with in the military) by 100s if not by 1000s of men in uniform.

If the US military could act effectively on these behavious by punishing and removing from the military men that engage in these acts I would feel more comfortable with Americans running around the world bringing a US version of civilization.
To add to the problem, American males that are decent will not report these acts in many cases because of fear of reprisal from "the good ol' boys club".

12 year old girl
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/08/


20 year old woman
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20010702-1144-japan-okinaw.html

beating
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/03/okinawa/

the stresses ot life in the Army

http://www.nbc17.com/News/1580436/detail.html


There may be countless cases that do not get reported by the media, by the victim or their family, or by fellow servicemen.

This problem of course is not new. Every territory or nation that has been occupied by invading forces over the course of human history have seen their populations subjected to rape, torure, and indecent acts that attack human dignity. The US military needs to take a stand and not repeat these acts on populations it aquires in its influence.

The American male is prone to believing he is superior and can take anything he wants. Cases in Japan, Korea, Philipines, Britain, Germany, Somalia, just to name a few, demonstrate the extant of the problem. American male fantasies are full of images of submissive girls, boys, or women that must do as they say or face the consequences.

The American soldier has a responsibility to conduct himself appropriately even if his fellow soldiers are sadists, his superiors will not take disciplinary action against violaters, and his govenment will not participate in a World Court

This helps desribe the White House's official stand on what I have attempted to cover, perhaps not so eloquently or intelligently.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

here is a link with many links within covering a debate that covers opinions about co-ed training

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/aberdeen/#links


possibly more to follow.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/GMA030219AirForce_allegations.html

So ****** what???? Guess what, life's a bitch...people do bad crap .....read on;

Speaking of rape and murder by soldiers....this has historically been a fact of war. Hell, the Japanese Imperial Army codified it by providing conquered Korean girls as "comfort women"...sex slaves provided by the state! Now they cry about one rape victim on Okinawa, and call the Marines barbaric! They're men is all... sometimes men do criminal things. The Japanese forget their own government provided rape victims during WWII...amazing how short the memory!

Back in the old days of warfare an army would lay siege to a fortified city and dig trenches for weeks and months to get their big guns close enough to open fire and work on the walls. All these weeks or months digging in the mud and being shot at and jeered at by those soldiers safe within their walls. Soldiers who slept in a warm bed and screwed the local hookers while the attackers lived in trenches. Talk about pent up resentment! Then the big guns would work on the defenses until a breach was formed. Then up into the breach would come the assault led by men called "the forlorn hope"...men who were expected to lead the way into the breach and sacrifice themselves for the success of main assault behind them. They would spring the booby traps and expose the makeshift defences. Few ever survived, and all were volunteers. Once into the city the army would rampage! Murder, rapine, and drunkeness in an orgy of hate and revenge! That was the normal way of the siege. The officers could only slowly bring the men under control after they had spent their fury on the enemy. Mercy was nonexistent.

In more modern times the effect is the same. The harder the siege, the more brutal the revenge. Look back to the fall of Berlin, the Russians fought hard and showed no mercy to the Nazis...and innocent civilians. The Russians killed everyone they saw....sometimes going so far as finding civilians cowering in shelters...and tossing grenades in at them before closing the door again. But then who can blame them...they'd suffered horribly, and there would be no war crimes trials for the victors.

How will the siege of Baghdad go? I think it has the potential of being the ugliest in history. If the Iraqis use chemical weapons...retaliation by tactical nuclear artillery is entirely justifiable, and not beyond the scope of GWB. One WMD for another. Even if the order to use a nuke or MOABs is not given...if the troops have to suffer a chemical attack I can only imagine the revenge they will seek upon the fall of Baghdad. Unless of course the US army is indeed modern and well trained enough to be held in check by a strong sense of the rule of law. This is possible....but would be a first in military history. War is ugly stuff....but an honest to God siege in which the besieged garrison fights to the end and causes high casualties among the attackers??? History is full of examples...and not a damn one of them are pretty...or civilized.

-zilla

[Troll]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So ****** what???? Guess what, life's a bitch...people do bad crap .....read on;

Speaking of rape and murder by soldiers....this has historically been a fact of war. Hell, the Japanese Imperial Army codified it by providing conquered Korean girls as "comfort women"...sex slaves provided by the state! Now they cry about one rape victim on Okinawa, and call the Marines barbaric! They're men is all... sometimes men do criminal things. The Japanese forget their own government provided rape victims during WWII...amazing how short the memory!

Back in the old days of warfare an army would lay siege to a fortified city and dig trenches for weeks and months to get their big guns close enough to open fire and work on the walls. All these weeks or months digging in the mud and being shot at and jeered at by those soldiers safe within their walls. Soldiers who slept in a warm bed and screwed the local hookers while the attackers lived in trenches. Talk about pent up resentment! Then the big guns would work on the defenses until a breach was formed. Then up into the breach would come the assault led by men called "the forlorn hope"...men who were expected to lead the way into the breach and sacrifice themselves for the success of main assault behind them. They would spring the booby traps and expose the makeshift defences. Few ever survived, and all were volunteers. Once into the city the army would rampage! Murder, rapine, and drunkeness in an orgy of hate and revenge! That was the normal way of the siege. The officers could only slowly bring the men under control after they had spent their fury on the enemy. Mercy was nonexistent.

In more modern times the effect is the same. The harder the siege, the more brutal the revenge. Look back to the fall of Berlin, the Russians fought hard and showed no mercy to the Nazis...and innocent civilians. The Russians killed everyone they saw....sometimes going so far as finding civilians cowering in shelters...and tossing grenades in at them before closing the door again. But then who can blame them...they'd suffered horribly, and there would be no war crimes trials for the victors.

How will the siege of Baghdad go? I think it has the potential of being the ugliest in history. If the Iraqis use chemical weapons...retaliation by tactical nuclear artillery is entirely justifiable, and not beyond the scope of GWB. One WMD for another. Even if the order to use a nuke or MOABs is not given...if the troops have to suffer a chemical attack I can only imagine the revenge they will seek upon the fall of Baghdad. Unless of course the US army is indeed modern and well trained enough to be held in check by a strong sense of the rule of law. This is possible....but would be a first in military history. War is ugly stuff....but an honest to God siege in which the besieged garrison fights to the end and causes high casualties among the attackers??? History is full of examples...and not a damn one of them are pretty...or civilized.

-zilla

Man and I was fighting back the urge to mention this. But isn't it slightly ironic that PygmyPlaidGiraffe would mention two countries where a very small number of american individuals, be they military or not, actually have a history of one massively raping the other?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You cannot 'liberate' a people who prefer their current government to the invading force. That isn't 'liberation'. It is 'belligerent conquest' (UN terminology).
I fully agree and if Bush was serious about "liberation" then why didn't he go in boots and all and liberate the people from Zimbabwe's Magbi regime?

[Troll]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

I fully agree and if Bush was serious about "liberation" then why didn't he go in boots and all and liberate the people from Zimbabwe's Magbi regime?

well, we're kinda busy at the moment. But if you mail the White House, I'm sure they'll take your suggestion into consideration. That or leave that for the rest of the world to fix. haha Oh, sorry, I know that last joke was a little harsh

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Troll


well, we're kinda busy at the moment. But if you mail the White House, I'm sure they'll take your suggestion into consideration. That or leave that for the rest of the world to fix. haha Oh, sorry, I know that last joke was a little harsh

However I think that would be an extremely stupid idea because even if you were to overthrow Magabi there will still be a lot of resistance from even the non supporters of Magabi who feel that although the Magabi regime is pretty bad the thought of national humiliation and the threat to their cultural identity is far worse.

[Troll]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


However I think that would be an extremely stupid idea because even if you were to overthrow Magabi there will still be a lot of resistance from even the non supporters of Magabi who feel that although the Magabi regime is pretty bad the thought of national humiliation and the threat to their cultural identity is far worse.

damn, maybe Bush or his advisors have said the same thing. Anyhow, I guess that answers your previous question. thanks for playing "I'll ask and answer for myself" enjoy your prize;)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Troll


Man and I was fighting back the urge to mention this. But isn't it slightly ironic that PygmyPlaidGiraffe would mention two countries where a very small number of american individuals, be they military or not, actually have a history of one massively raping the other?


I am not claiming that rape and violence on civilians is a new problem only ever practiced by individuals in the American army

Origionally posted by PPG-
This problem of course is not new. Every territory or nation that has been occupied by invading forces over the course of human history have seen their populations subjected to rape, torure, and indecent acts that attack human dignity. The US military needs to take a stand and not repeat these acts on populations it aquires in its influence.


The past actions of Japanese and Russian individuals and the
inaction or encouragement to engage in such actions by commanders are not beyond reproach. Those countries are not, however, taking their version of civilization to Iraq.

It may be an over used term but "The Buck stops here." The American troops have to demonstrate restraint and discipline.

In the US services where milllions have served, many individuals have served with honour and within the bounds of the stated goals of the US government, practiced the codes of the Geneva convention, and been self controlled and rational even in the line of fire. This is commendable.

Unfortunately, the US services have a problem: 100s or 1000s of individuals have acted with out discipline or restraint, causing needless human suffering. The US military has an unofficial "Don't tell" or don't report the assault policy.

"Some of the women who have come forward to report rape and sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy include:

T. Jones, who as a 19-year-old freshman was told by a sophomore cadet to report to his room for a study session. When she did, she told the Washington Post, he locked the door and raped her. Jones reported the incident the next day to the officer in charge of her cadet squadron, who told her if she reported it her career would be over. She didn't report it, and remained at the academy.

S. Fullilove, who had been at the academy for barely six months in 1999 when an upperclassman offered her a ride to her dorm from a campus lounge after dark. Then he stopped the car, locked the door and raped her. She knew all too well from older female cadets the consequences of reporting a rape. "We were told if you want to stay at the academy, don't report it," Fullilove, now 21, told Time Magazine. "They'll get you [thrown] out." She didn't report it, and left the academy.
Fullivore's story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Central/03/08/academy.assault.ap/

J. Brakey, now 23, who said she was raped three years ago when she was a sophomore. She told MSNBC that her grades suffered and she started having nightmares. In Nov. 2002, she reported the rape to officials, who told her she was being investigated for mental health problems. No charges were filed against the male cadet, and Brakey was dishonorably discharged from the academy for health reasons."




The culture of the US military enables these violent offenders, at home and abroad.

[Reginald]

"Ticker" across the bottom of the screen, 03.00 am Sunday 30/03/03, ITN news UK.....


"Troops in danger from Iraqis dressed as civilians"

The mind boggles.