Look Who Is Talking

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4393093.stm


What I can't understand is the same government which was shamed over the contracts awarded by it in Iraq, can lift a finger at the UN secretary when the report clearly mentions he has not done anything wrong. I guess it just shows the double-standard the US government has been employing all the while.


And now there's another report saying the US didn't and doesn't have any material intelligence about its enemies, which makes the Iraq war completely baseless. I guess there's no point in talking about it because people just want to forget these mistakes as quickly as they can :rolleyes:

.

Before you start a new rant why not answer all the questions from the existing one you have?

http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=330188

All you seem to do is use google to search for Iraq and anti american stories and then post links here, and then when people question you you post another link.

Shall we talk about India and its vast poor unfed citizens?

In all fairness though this is pretty pathetic;
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...176611,00.html

US INTELLIGENCE "WRONG"

America's spy agencies have been accused of being "dead wrong" in most of their judgements about weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war...

The cold war was pretty pathetic too - should have let the Soviet Union conquer the rest of the world anyway.

Per capita India isn't even listed:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Its #27, 3 spots after the US - and yet Honeybee is so disgusted with the murder rate in the US.

Worry about your homeland first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Its #27, 3 spots after the US - and yet Honeybee is so disgusted with the murder rate in the US.

Worry about your homeland first.

---

It's much easier to blame the omni-evil US for all the worlds woes and nit pick at our society than to look in ones own backyard and explain that.

Wow! Didn't think the UK would be that far down the list. I'm quite impressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

Before you start a new rant why not answer all the questions from the existing one you have?

http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=330188

All you seem to do is use google to search for Iraq and anti american stories and then post links here, and then when people question you you post another link.

---

LOL, why, just because you can't defend your own government's actions? At least our government isn't even half as arrogant on the world.

"People question"??? They simply counter-question because they don't know how to answer the criticism. First people talked about "credible intelligence". Now that's no more the case, because either the US government didn't have any intelligence or didn't have any "credible" intelligence ot support any of the claims made for justifying the need to invade Iraq. Colin Powell lied (intentionally or unintentionally, but he and the US government are still resposible) to the UN using flawed intelligence, so in a way they tried to lie to the whole world to justify their own selfish needs.

Then people talked about Saddam being a dictator. That itself is no justification for a foreign invasion. And going by the history of the US government's foreign policy, it has been supporting the very dictators when they serve the US purpose.

I guess you should know about Haliburton, the process of awarding contracts in Iraq and all those stories better than me, so I won't even discuss it here.

Almost every reason given for the justification of the Iraqi invasion has been found to be a lie or misinterpretation. And just because people can't explain it, they want to point fingures to the other governments? Pathetic.


And on top of that the US president wants to be the cleanest of all and accuse the UN general secretary? Hilarious :) I never knew the US government had a "sense of justice" or "conflict of interests"!!

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Its #27, 3 spots after the US - and yet Honeybee is so disgusted with the murder rate in the US.

Worry about your homeland first.

---

At least I am not worried that if my kids go to school tomorrow, some jerk can get hold of a gun anywhere thanks to the selfishness of our government and shoot them dead.

Disgusted about the murder rate in the US? Oh no, if your people want to kill each other, I don't have any opinion in that. It's the schoolkids that I was bothered about. Or are you so numb that the usual mugging and other crimes and school shootings are the same for you? Or maybe it would be just if the whole world published a human rights report on the happenings in the US? The US certainly thinks it has a right to comment on such issues taking place in other countries, so why are you uncomfortable to field similar queries on your own nation?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Disgusted about the murder rate in the US?

---

Then stay away from India!

India is #1 in number of people murdered per year.
3 Times as many people murdered in India in comparison to the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/in/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

At least I am not worried that if my kids go to school tomorrow, some jerk can get hold of a gun anywhere thanks to the selfishness of our government and shoot them dead.
.

---

Your kids must not go to Christian schools. And if any of your kids is a female, you should be very worried considering the great lengths your government goes to in protecting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

so in a way they tried to lie to the whole world to justify their own selfish needs

---

I think we've made it pretty clear we don't need to justify ourselves to anyone. Sorry if that's not agreeable to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that crime stat website you're all refering to

India:
Unpaid diplomatic parking fines: 73 unpaid parking fines [20th of 116]

United States:
Unpaid diplomatic parking fines: 17 unpaid parking fines [50th of 116]

---

I find this particularly disturbing. Indian diplomats have no respect for the rest of the world and are only interested in stealing from the rest of the world. They repeatedly ignore the rest of the world's meter maids. I am afaid to send my kids to school because some crazy Indian with total disregard to traffic law may run over my children as he exits the school bus.

Quote:

---

ISRAEL
Unpaid diplomatic parking fines: 191 unpaid parking fines [2nd of 116]

---

BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHFOOKINGHAHAHAHHHHHHH :lol:
Talk about stereotypes :bigyello:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I find this particularly disturbing. Indian diplomats have no respect for the rest of the world and are only interested in stealing from the rest of the world. They repeatedly ignore the rest of the world's meter maids. I am afaid to send my kids to school because some crazy Indian with total disregard to traffic law may run over my children as he exits the school bus.

---

Despite what the Beattles were saying, I haven't found a meter maid who I didn't ignore......does that parse? :confused: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Despite what the Beattles were saying, I haven't found a meter maid who I didn't ignore......does that parse? :confused: :D

---

Blahaha, Isn't that what Manson said :eek: :lol:

HoneyBee...

It might have sounded like I was joking when I made this post in that thread you started about the IRAQ war - but I was serious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Forget the press - forget what the government officials are saying...

It's a game of RISK.

Can't touch IRAN (yet). Already in Afghanistan.

Pakistan? Do we back the nuclear forces their against India, or fight for India from the rear?

Seems like we have "every-other" country at this point - that's the way you win RISK!

---

It's been incredibly obvious to me since 1970 that we (the US) are building strongholds all over the place to make sure our point-of-view is considered first.

I don't personally consider that arrogant - I consider that self-preservation.

And NemaRoller - Russia did destroy their entire economy in a we-can-trump-you-with-nuclear weapons game - that we won - without ever firing a weapon. That seems like a really smart move on our part.

IRAQ and Saddam were worthy of taking down simply because of the first gulf-war - Quwait - I personally never needed another reason. If our government had to twist facts to make the liberals in the US and the rest of the western countries go along, then so what - Iraq had to lose Saddam.

We created the UN - it's in NYC - we need to either eliminate it or fix it so it works - right now it's a left-wing waste of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

HoneyBee...

And NemaRoller - Russia did destroy their entire economy in a we-can-trump-you-with-nuclear weapons game - that we won - without ever firing a weapon. That seems like a really smart move on our part.

We created the UN - it's in NYC - we need to either eliminate it or fix it so it works - right now it's a left-wing waste of money.

---

Man.. without the left wing.. how can the plane fly?

Seriously though - I'm still all for the UN - it may not have strength but its the only place to mediate and plead before the world.

I don't think the Soviet Union necessarily destroyed their economy by becoming too militaristic - you can't really run out of money in a communal society can you -- but fall under the reforms the liberal Gorbachev set in motion. My opinion is if the hard-liners had stayed in control, the old empire would still be alive today. Man I miss those days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

Before you start a new rant why not answer all the questions from the existing one you have?

http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=330188

All you seem to do is use google to search for Iraq and anti american stories and then post links here, and then when people question you you post another link.

---

Well said :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Then stay away from India!

India is #1 in number of people murdered per year.
3 Times as many people murdered in India in comparison to the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/in/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

---

Funny, Honeybee hasn't responded, guess that proves my point.

I think this is a very appropriately titled thread. :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Man.. without the left wing.. how can the plane fly?

Seriously though - I'm still all for the UN - it may not have strength but its the only place to mediate and plead before the world.

I don't think the Soviet Union necessarily destroyed their economy by becoming too militaristic - you can't really run out of money in a communal society can you -- but fall under the reforms the liberal Gorbachev set in motion. My opinion is if the hard-liners had stayed in control, the old empire would still be alive today. Man I miss those days...

---

I'm sure alot of people do. America has never done well without competion. We are a country that, if there isn't a devil to oppose, becomes a devil for itself to oppose. We need enemies. If they don't exist, we will create them. Throughout history, all of our greatest moments were the moments of greatest competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

HoneyBee...
It's been incredibly obvious to me since 1970 that we (the US) are building strongholds all over the place to make sure our point-of-view is considered first.

I don't personally consider that arrogant - I consider that self-preservation.

---

That's just a new way of justifying the US aggression :) You should also look into the foreign policy of your government since the second world war, how they encouraged infighting among other nations and gained a stronghold in the region at the cost of other people and other nations.

I guess 9/11 should also qualify as just an attempt by Al Qaeda at self-preservation and not an attack on the US or the "free world" as it is being touted.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

That's just a new way of justifying the US aggression :) You should also look into the foreign policy of your government since the second world war, how they encouraged infighting among other nations and gained a stronghold in the region at the cost of other people and other nations.

I guess 9/11 should also qualify as just an attempt by Al Qaeda at self-preservation and not an attack on the US or the "free world" as it is being touted.

.

---

Actually that caused the destruction of Al Qaeda and the taliban. By your logic it would be justifiable if I dropped off 5,000 KKK members in your home town. As much as I would love to do that to proove a point, I won't because unlike you I realize that it would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

look into the foreign policy of your government since the second world war, how they encouraged infighting among other nations and gained a stronghold in the region at the cost of other people and other nations.

---

The second world war (bad name - really just "another European war") was a situation that we involved ourselves in for the propogation of good, democracy - all that nice stuff.

We surely didn't have to get involved - our losses were huge.

Whatever we did since then is surely justified in my mind. I don't care what the CIA and the military do to make sure that another major war is not started by some loser country like North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

The second world war (bad name - really just "another European war") was a situation that we involved ourselves in for the propogation of good, democracy - all that nice stuff.

We surely didn't have to get involved - our losses were huge.

Whatever we did since then is surely justified in my mind. I don't care what the CIA and the military do to make sure that another major war is not started by some loser country like North Korea.

---

North Korea won't start the next big war. It will be Israel/Iran or India/Pakistan starting the next big war using North Korean bilt nukes. It brings a new level of hatred to my existing beef with "Made in Korea Tags"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

The second world war (bad name - really just "another European war") was a situation that we involved ourselves in for the propogation of good, democracy - all that nice stuff.

We surely didn't have to get involved - our losses were huge.

---

Another European war!?!
So are Australia, China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Russia, Africa all considered European now? Like it or not the Nazis would have taken over the world if they had not been stopped, and no you would not have stopped them if you'd stayed neutral because you would have then stood alone against a country spanning the rest of the globe. Their resources would have simply been to great to compete with.

As for casualties, yes, they were horrific, but the US suffered nothing like the others. Britain suffered twice what the US suffered and the Russians suffered even more with over three million military casualties. Try to remember that millions gave their lives so you could HAVE and opinion and not have to speak German in a slave camp.
WW2 Casualty list

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

LOL, why, just because you can't defend your own government's actions? At least our government isn't even half as arrogant on the world.

"People question"??? They simply counter-question because they don't know how to answer the criticism. First people talked about "credible intelligence". Now that's no more the case, because either the US government didn't have any intelligence or didn't have any "credible" intelligence ot support any of the claims made for justifying the need to invade Iraq. Colin Powell lied (intentionally or unintentionally, but he and the US government are still resposible) to the UN using flawed intelligence, so in a way they tried to lie to the whole world to justify their own selfish needs.

Then people talked about Saddam being a dictator. That itself is no justification for a foreign invasion. And going by the history of the US government's foreign policy, it has been supporting the very dictators when they serve the US purpose.

I guess you should know about Haliburton, the process of awarding contracts in Iraq and all those stories better than me, so I won't even discuss it here.

Almost every reason given for the justification of the Iraqi invasion has been found to be a lie or misinterpretation. And just because people can't explain it, they want to point fingures to the other governments? Pathetic.


And on top of that the US president wants to be the cleanest of all and accuse the UN general secretary? Hilarious :) I never knew the US government had a "sense of justice" or "conflict of interests"!!

.

---

As for the USA supporting this and that. When you're facing the destruction of the world, any person on you're side is a good friend. Nuclear politics is well beyond you, little one.

I don't really think any issue matters to you, you're just anti-american. It wouldn't surprise me if you're anti-west all together. I care not. You have very one sided views that makes it pointless to hold an adult conversion with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Another European war!?!
So are Australia, China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Russia, Africa all considered European now? Like it or not the Nazis would have taken over the world if they had not been stopped, and no you would not have stopped them if you'd stayed neutral because you would have then stood alone against a country spanning the rest of the globe. Their resources would have simply been to great to compete with.

As for casualties, yes, they were horrific, but the US suffered nothing like the others. Britain suffered twice what the US suffered and the Russians suffered even more with over three million military casualties. Try to remember that millions gave their lives so you could HAVE and opinion and not have to speak German in a slave camp.
WW2 Casualty list

---

Excellent point

I only just realised that it was 13 million casualties, not 3 million! :eek:
And you go on about the US casualty rate? I think Russia was the hardest hit for sure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Another European war!?!
So are Australia, China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Russia, Africa all considered European now? Like it or not the Nazis would have taken over the world if they had not been stopped, and no you would not have stopped them if you'd stayed neutral because you would have then stood alone against a country spanning the rest of the globe. Their resources would have simply been to great to compete with.

As for casualties, yes, they were horrific, but the US suffered nothing like the others. Britain suffered twice what the US suffered and the Russians suffered even more with over three million military casualties. Try to remember that millions gave their lives so you could HAVE and opinion and not have to speak German in a slave camp.
WW2 Casualty list

---

No where was I comparing losses - that would be cold and heartless. And yes, Russia during WWII was basically a European country.

My point was directed against HoneyBee and an attempt to get that person to understand that the motives of the free and democratic countries of the west are not colonial - we did get involved in WWII - we did fight along with the democratic countries to beat back the aggressors.

I'm fully aware of the sacrifices that were made by all to fight back the German desire for European-and-eventual-world-domination.

You really did take my statements out of context - the quote they were directed against and the point I was making was about the CIA...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

No where was I comparing losses - that would be cold and heartless. And yes, Russia during WWII was basically a European country.

My point was directed against HoneyBee and an attempt to get that person to understand that the motives of the free and democratic countries of the west are not colonial - we did get involved in WWII - we did fight along with the democratic countries to beat back the aggressors.

I'm fully aware of the sacrifices that were made by all to fight back the German desire for European-and-eventual-world-domination.

You really did take my statements out of context - the quote they were directed against and the point I was making was about the CIA...

---

For a start, Russia, China are communist. Most of Africa are under dictatorships. Therefore the motives of the "free and democratic countries of the west" is not strictly correct. Eastern, Southern and Northern countries were a part of the allies too.

Oh, and I wouldn't advise saying Russia is European if you should ever go to Russia. They may not appreciate such sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

For a start, Russia, China are communist. Most of Africa are under dictatorships. Therefore the motives of the "free and democratic countries of the west" is not strictly correct. Eastern, Southern and Northern countries were a part of the allies too.

Oh, and I wouldn't advise saying Russia is European if you should ever go to Russia. They may not appreciate such sentiment.

---

We certainly don't seem to be understanding each other. I didn't say Russia was European - I said Russia during WWII was basically European - in that conflict - in that situation.

HoneyBee is indicting the US and probably the entire western hemisphere (bad label that doesn't cover all the free and democratic countries - but simply a label that is popular in US jargon) for what he stated to be colonial and aggressive behavior - with bad motives!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We certainly don't seem to be understanding each other. I didn't say Russia was European - I said Russia during WWII was basically European - in that conflict - in that situation.

HoneyBee is indicting the US and probably the entire western hemisphere (bad label that doesn't cover all the free and democratic countries - but simply a label that is popular in US jargon) for what he stated to be colonial and aggressive behavior - with bad motives!

---

So if Russia was part of the European Alliance, so must the US have been European...seeing as we were on the same side?

Although I agreed with the Iraq war I must also agree with honeybee on this one. The US and the UK were very agressive and they are now paying for it. They simply went into the country, all guns blazing, looking for that decisive victory. They didn't plan for the insurgents that would appear after they had occupied the country.
I mean c'mon! It doesn't take a genius to realise that the fanatics weren't just going to sit around and let the US/UK just waltz in and do what they like. No. The US/UK did this for support against the "terrorists" when they have only given the arab countries the excuse to sympathise with Al-Qeada and such. But like I said, I agreed that Saddam had to be brought down, I just don't approve of the way they did it.
:thumb:

Quote:

---

The US and the UK were very agressive and they are now paying for it.

---

Being less aggressive would have been a better idea, in your mind?

Quote:

---

I agreed that Saddam had to be brought down, I just don't approve of the way they did it.

---

What do you propose should have been done instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Being less aggressive would have been a better idea, in your mind?

What do you propose should have been done instead?

---

They should have at least planned for the insurgents that would appear after occupation. They were inevitable.

Honestly, I do not know what should have been done instead because I am far from a military strategist. However, I do believe that if the military had been left to do their job, and attack when they were ready (instead of the politicians interferring) there would have been less of a mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

They should have at least planned for the insurgents that would appear after occupation. They were inevitable.

---

And you think they didn't know about the insurgents? It was inevitable to you but they were unaware - huh? Maybe they simply didn't talk about it since that would have caused more of the "interferring" that you refer to below.

Quote:

---

Honestly, I do not know what should have been done instead because I am far from a military strategist. However, I do believe that if the military had been left to do their job, and attack when they were ready (instead of the politicians interferring) there would have been less of a mess

---

The military is doing it's job - quite well in my opinion. Paper today indicated that the election process is moving along. I'm personally very satisfied with the methods used in Iraq and the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

They should have at least planned for the insurgents that would appear after occupation. They were inevitable.

Honestly, I do not know what should have been done instead because I am far from a military strategist. However, I do believe that if the military had been left to do their job, and attack when they were ready (instead of the politicians interferring) there would have been less of a mess

---

Less of a mess? :confused: What mess. are you talking about the BS they spout off in the news every day. The allies occupied the entire country of Iraq in a few months. Today Iraq has it's own elected government (funny the new Iraqi president didn't get as much press as some goathearder steping on an insurgents land mine) and there have only been 1721 deaths between The US and UK. Less of a mess, you've got to be fooking kidding me. That my friend is going into a country and kicking arse, not a mess. More people than that died inbetween leaving the ships and hitting the Normandy beaches. So there are a couple thousand Lunatic radicals running around Iraq. Not a problem. Give the Iraqi people enough time to weed them out. Gen. Franks ran the invasion as perfect as any one possibly could. His tactics will be studied in military training facilities around the world for the next 200 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

There have only been 1721 deaths between The US and UK.

---

And only between 17337 and 19722 Iraqi civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

And you think they didn't know about the insurgents? It was inevitable to you but they were unaware - huh? Maybe they simply didn't talk about it since that would have caused more of the "interferring" that you refer to below.



The military is doing it's job - quite well in my opinion. Paper today indicated that the election process is moving along. I'm personally very satisfied with the methods used in Iraq and the outcome.

---

If they were intending to invade anyway it couldn't have hurt to talk about the insurgents that would appear.

I agree, the military is now doing a very good job because they are in charge. At the beginning I just felt that the US and UK politicians ordered the military to begin when they were not ready. It felt more like a political war than a military war. Now that the politicians have given control to the military the organisation is far better because they are well trained for such things :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

And only between 17337 and 19722 Iraqi civilians.

---

My point exactly :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

My point exactly :thumb:

---

What point, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

At the beginning I just felt that the US and UK politicians ordered the military to begin when they were not ready. It felt more like a political war than a military war. Now that the politicians have given control to the military the organisation is far better because they are well trained for such things :thumb:

---

I think the urge to move in was really about not listening to the ever vasilating, weak, leftist, non-moving, dead UN. Allowing a global body to dictate US policy when it's our boys on the line - and when that global body is in such disrepair - was a disgrace that would have gone on for 3 more months...

MasterBlaster was trying to make it sound like this war was perfect in its execution because only 1800 soldiers lost their lives (although most of those were AFTER the war had been won), but as davebat pointed out, the civilian casualties were 10 times that. We were trying to point out that this war was a bit of a mess because the politicians just couldn't keep their nose out of what is a military operation. As soon as they gave control to the military the casualty rate dropped dramatically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

MasterBlaster was trying to make it sound like this war was perfect in its execution because only 1800 soldiers lost their lives (although most of those were AFTER the war had been won), but as davebat pointed out, the civilian casualties were 10 times that. We were trying to point out that this war was a bit of a mess because the politicians just couldn't keep their nose out of what is a military operation. As soon as they gave control to the military the casualty rate dropped dramatically

---

Wrong - most of the deaths have actually been attibutable to accidents - vehicle, air - stuff like that. There are always non-combat losses when that many troops mobilize.

The civilian losses are due to the incredibly cowardly way the insurgents fight, IMO.

"Sorry about that Mohammed, but it was an accident when your 3 children burned slowly to death and your wife had her arms and legs blown off."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

"Sorry about that Mohammed, but it was an accident when your 3 children burned slowly to death and your wife had her arms and legs blown off."

---

You confused my two distinct statements - the accident losses was a statement about our troop deaths that are non-combat related.

I never said "accident" in reference to the civilian losses.

But good sarcasm dude :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

The civilian losses are due to the incredibly cowardly way the insurgents fight, IMO.

---

Please elaborate, in what way do they fight cowardly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

You confused my two distinct statements - the accident losses was a statement about our troop deaths that are non-combat related.

I never said "accident" in reference to the civilian losses.

But good sarcasm dude :thumb:

---

Oh sorry, but at least i got to be sarcastic - not a total loss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

Please elaborate, in what way do they fight cowardly?

---

Fighting from mosques.

Fighting from milk factories.

Dressing in civilian clothes and ambushing troops.

Anything to do with car bombs snuck into the military and civilian areas to blow up cops (Iraqi's yet!).

I'm sure there are many, many more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Wrong - most of the deaths have actually been attibutable to accidents - vehicle, air - stuff like that. There are always non-combat losses when that many troops mobilize.

The civilian losses are due to the incredibly cowardly way the insurgents fight, IMO.

---

I'm sure the families of those casualties will be relieved to hear their loved ones died because of accidents by professional soldiers :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Fighting from mosques.

Fighting from milk factories.

Dressing in civilian clothes and ambushing troops.

Anything to do with car bombs snuck into the military and civilian areas to blow up cops (Iraqi's yet!).

I'm sure there are many, many more.

---

This is referred to as Guerilla Warfare, tactics often used by the US and UK forces, simply because this type of warfare is extremely effective, unfortunately.

Actually, only a small portion of it is guerilla warfare. Guerilla warefare is actually "regulated" by the Geneva convention (as if that mattered). Waving a white flag in surrender among a group of civilians then pulling your AK and shouting Aluah Akbar! to martyr yourself (regardless of your company) is hardly guerilla warfare. Call a spade a spade, that's terrorism.

Civilian losses are always tragic, but, for the most part, unavoidable. The US went to great lengths to minimize civilian losses. The whole "smart bomb" concept is part of that effort. (and let's not start the smart bomb debate again ;) ) Many will say our efforts to minimize civilian casualties is the reason we're still bogged down in Iraq. We didn't completely break the opposition by bombing them into complete demoralization. They know exactly what our concerns are/were, and they know exactly how to exploit that.
The ground war began way ahead of schedule and there were many factors involved in that. Our first helicoptor attack was a disaster due to weather, bad intelligence, bad maps. Our bombing campaign was a few days rather than the few weeks originally planned. The troops wanted to go in, the generals wanted to go in, so we went in. Worse things can happen while sitting and waiting for the fight, than can happen once you actually get into the fight.

Victory, or success depends on your definition of the two. In my eyes, the whole thing (while not over obviously) was a victory and a success. 19k civilian casualties is shocking to some, but not unexpected. I wager the number is quite a bit higher than 19k, but that's another story. Weigh that number against the 100k + enemy forces killed, and the countless lives that will not be lost due to the absence of a crazy dictator. You don't see it on the media, but the majority of the Iraqi population is pretty damned happy with the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

MasterBlaster was trying to make it sound like this war was perfect in its execution because only 1800 soldiers lost their lives (although most of those were AFTER the war had been won), but as davebat pointed out, the civilian casualties were 10 times that. We were trying to point out that this war was a bit of a mess because the politicians just couldn't keep their nose out of what is a military operation. As soon as they gave control to the military the casualty rate dropped dramatically

---

I'm not trying to make it sound like it was perfect. It was as close to perfect as you can get in a war. Big Difference. Yes, a lot of Iraqi people died. First off that is unavoidable when the enemy is hiding in schools, hospitals and the like. All things considered the US and UK did a good job of keeping that number as low as possible. Now there are insurgents killing Iraqis adding to that number. Iraqis Killing Iraqis :eek: Wow! that's a new one. That's been going on for the last 2,000 years. The Iraqi cops and national guard are being trained and equipped by Austrailian, British, and American Special Forces. They are the absolute best in the business. They'll get it sorted out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

First off that is unavoidable when the enemy is hiding in schools, hospitals and the like.

---

Excellent point. Of over 100 Medina Division tanks we looked to take care of in our first Apache attack, I think like 14 were destroyed. The rest were hidden in neighborhoods and schoolyards etc. For anyone complaining about civilian deaths caused by indiscriminate US attacks, you can site that for them. A whole lot of people recommended bombing the crap out of enemy forces no matter where they were. That didn't happen.

I would like to make a subtle point that I think's been missed.

In Napoleons day and even into the 20th century battles were fought on clearly marked battlefields. If you didn't want to be caught in the crossfire then you didn't go near the battle. Even the start of the battle was pre-arranged to some degree . . .

With Vietnam (and perhaps a few other wars) it is clear that there is no longer a battlefield per se.

The British, I believe, are the best in the world at dealing with Urban guerilla warfare due to their experiences in Northern Ireland. It is urban guerllia warfare that is currently underway in Iraq

The Americans have invested hugely in weoponary that strikes where it's meant to. I have observed, also, that the American troops believe that what they are doing is right. Whether it is morally is another debate.

Together. Yes, TOGETHER, I believe that some real good can come out of this situation. We can, and probably will debate the causes and the rights and wrong of preemptively attacking Iraq; this, I believe, will carry on for decades. Unfortunately a Blair quote 'History will decide' is applicable here . . .

I don't see how toppling Saddam can be considered a bad thing. I think, like most people I guess, that we all wish it could have been achieved another way. But it hasn't and now we have to get on with it.

It might be a mess but that pin-prck of light at the end of the tunnel is there. We will get there. The Iraqi people will, finally, be free and be able to self-determinate: which is the point of the whole affair, wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

In Napoleons day and even into the 20th century battles were fought on clearly marked battlefields. If you didn't want to be caught in the crossfire then you didn't go near the battle. Even the start of the battle was pre-arranged to some degree . . .

---

...the ancient city of Megiddo was the site of countless battles...

Mezid, Bey of Vidin led an Ottoman army of some 16,000 to 20,000 men in an invasion of Transylvania and besieged the city of Sibiu

so in the summer the fleet arrived and defeated 33 Thasian vessals and laid siege to the city of Thasos

I'm sure there's more City Seiges here...

Of course, no battlefields more clearer than when that battlefields a city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I would like to make a subtle point that I think's been missed.

In Napoleons day and even into the 20th century battles were fought on clearly marked battlefields. If you didn't want to be caught in the crossfire then you didn't go near the battle. Even the start of the battle was pre-arranged to some degree . . .

With Vietnam (and perhaps a few other wars) it is clear that there is no longer a battlefield per se.

The British, I believe, are the best in the world at dealing with Urban guerilla warfare due to their experiences in Northern Ireland. It is urban guerllia warfare that is currently underway in Iraq

The Americans have invested hugely in weoponary that strikes where it's meant to. I have observed, also, that the American troops believe that what they are doing is right. Whether it is morally is another debate.

Together. Yes, TOGETHER, I believe that some real good can come out of this situation. We can, and probably will debate the causes and the rights and wrong of preemptively attacking Iraq; this, I believe, will carry on for decades. Unfortunately a Blair quote 'History will decide' is applicable here . . .

I don't see how toppling Saddam can be considered a bad thing. I think, like most people I guess, that we all wish it could have been achieved another way. But it hasn't and now we have to get on with it.

It might be a mess but that pin-prck of light at the end of the tunnel is there. We will get there. The Iraqi people will, finally, be free and be able to self-determinate: which is the point of the whole affair, wasn't it?

---

There is not yet a light at the end of the tunnel. I agree that toppling Saddam is now a done deal, and there have been elections, and.....there were in Vietnam, as well. 1,700, regardless of how you count them, are only the beginning. There has been no particular decrease in attacks, but constant reports of increases and increased efficiency of attacks since the end of the invasion.

At some point, we have passed 1,700 casualties in every significant war we have been in (I'm not counting the Spanish-American war, and some of the other little police action type things). If everybody had said, "Well, that wasn't so bad.", they would have been wrong. Tallying the final body count before the fighting has stopped is kind of pointless.

Will this create a better world? Depending on where you stand, you can find arguments to support any position you want to hold. Some folks point to Lebanon as support for an argument that we are fomenting democracy. Others point to Iran (and Iraq) as an example that we are making things more unstable.

In another argument, some people talk about how we have taken out a bad guy. Others can point out that we have begun supporting another equally bad guy at about the same time.

The fact is that a decision has been made, and we are traveling down a path. Whether that path leads to good or bad we will never know. The other paths were not taken.

We should be able to look at Germany, and realize that there are still plenty of people who support the Nazi party. We can look at Russia, and see that there are still plenty who support the Soviet Union. If America were to spiral into fascism, there would be plenty who would be willing to argue that we did the right thing, regardless of how horrific our actions became. If America were to implode into isolationism, there would be plenty willing to argue just as strongly for that course of action.

So what is the right course? I was just thinking over Mormon fundamentalists this afternoon. There is nothing inherently bad about them (they have murdered a few people, but hey, who hasn't?). We might feel that they are repressive towards women, but that might just be our attitude. The women might feel liberated within the context of their understanding. Americans all live within the context of their understanding.

We don't have freedom here, or anywhere else in the world. We have only the freedom to choose off of a list that is created for us by the world around us. The best choice we can make in my opinion is to not increase the harm caused to others.

Based on that, I feel that Afghanistan was correct, and Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was a bad man, but within the context of understanding under which the bulk of the Iraqi population lived, I believe he was considerably better than their current lot. Whether that lot will improve, I doubt very much. We are trying to say to them "Choose this option!", but that option is not currently on their list.

I wouldn't care to be a Mormon fundamentalist, I wouldn't care to be an Iraqi, and I wouldn't care to be a conservative. They are all benighted in their own way. I prefer my own shade of darkness.

Quote:

---

There is not yet a light at the end of the tunnel. I agree that toppling Saddam is now a done deal, and there have been elections, and.....there were in Vietnam, as well. 1,700, regardless of how you count them, are only the beginning. There has been no particular decrease in attacks, but constant reports of increases and increased efficiency of attacks since the end of the invasion.

---

Since the elections attacks are down 22%. Military commanders are cautiously optimistic. They credit more detailed intelligence from Iraqi’s who are sick and tired of the insurgent attacks and are no longer afraid and can actually see that light since the successful elections.

Quote:

---

At some point, we have passed 1,700 casualties in every significant war we have been in (I'm not counting the Spanish-American war, and some of the other little police action type things). If everybody had said, "Well, that wasn't so bad.", they would have been wrong. Tallying the final body count before the fighting has stopped is kind of pointless.

---

To put this in perspective given the current casualty rates (approximately 60 killed per month) it would take 933 months or about 78 years to equal the casualty rates in Viet Nam. This is all provided the insurgency can maintain their level of operations and manpower for that length of time. Funny we are still in Germany (60 years now) yet I haven’t heard the latest casualty rates on the Nazi insurgency for some time…

Quote:

---

Will this create a better world? Depending on where you stand, you can find arguments to support any position you want to hold. Some folks point to Lebanon as support for an argument that we are fomenting democracy. Others point to Iran (and Iraq) as an example that we are making things more unstable.

---

And how would not invading Iraq have done anything to Iran’s current position of developing nukes? Iran has been trying to develop nukes for longer than the US has been in Iraq. If anything having US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan helps in stabilizing that region more than it hurts as it puts more pressure on a country like Iran.

X

Good to see you back X-man.

As for your first point, I haven't heard that. In fact, I rather have heard the opposite, but I don't listen to Fox (neither the TV station (I have no TV) nor the Mexican president).

As for your second point, I do not expect Iraq to be a second Vietnam, and never did. In vietnam, there was a large enemy country supporting the VC (with the NVA). The VC is similar to the Iraqi insurgents in that it is a group of people living within the occupied country conducting an insurgency. Without the NVA element....well, the analogy collapses eventually. However, the first years of Vietnam could not be extrapolated to the entire conflict. Extrapolating these first years of Iraq to the final pull-out (which has to happen eventually unless we intend to annex that over-sized litter box) may be no more valid.

Your third point may be correct, but I doubt it. Iran certainly has been trying for a long time, but there are groups within the country who strongly support this, groups that favor it, but won't work towards it, groups who oppose it, but don't really care, and groups who strongly oppose it. This is the situation in every country regarding every issue. By our actions in Iraq, I expect that the first group feels as they did before: No change. The second group if more strongly motivated to support nukes (they are not safe from the US without them): More danger. The third group will have exchanged a few members with the groups on either side of them, but will probably have shrunk: More danger. And the last group will be strengthened: Less danger.

Now, if you can parse that last paragraph....well, you're a bloody miracle man.