A Letter from Saddam Hussein to the American People

I thought I would share with you the first of 3 open letters from Saddam Hussein to American people. His advice could just as well apply to Britain or any western nation over any terrorist attack. Maybe because our media is owned by very few people it was never broadcasted in the estern media, but I assure you the information is publicly available (although perhaps not yet on the web) as this comes from some documents which were probably supposed to have been bombed and burnt in the war. I have many publications and access to the originals; and should anyone doubt there authenticity they may contact me. The translations are not the best but despite being completely British, and privately educated I believe they contain great wisdom and for this reason I would like to share them with you all.

Note: When Saddam mentions the word Zionism his is referring to pro-Jewish extremism, and or “The Friends of Israel” organisation (formally calling itself the Zionist movement).

Sow No Evil, Reap No Evil
Published 13th September 2001 (Written on the 12th)

“Regardless of the conflicting humanitarian emotions over what happened in America yesterday, America is only reaping the thorns sowed by its rulers throughout the world. The thorns that not only made the feet of those concerned bleed, but also the eyes of those who shed a lot of tears over their dead, and whose lives were taken away by America. The U.S has left no place without a memorial set up by its people to remind them of a criminal act carried out against them. Be it Japan which was the first to experience American nuclear might (which Washington has boasted), Vietnam and Iraq, its actions the Russian submarine let alone the crime is perpetrating by supporting the criminal raciest Zionism against our heroic Palestinian people (men and woman, young and old children).
Would the American people save themselves and the world as well from the malice of their rulers? From their terrorist crimes against the world? Or, would their rulers (who have become a toy in the hands of the criminal international Zionism and its entity (which usurped the land of Palestine and Arabs) turn the feelings of Americans into new terrorist projects against the world as would cater for the Jewish Zionist greed for illicit wealth and innocent blood?
Let the American people remember that none has crossed the Atlantic to reach them wielding arms against them all throughout history. It is America that has crossed the Atlantic carrying with it death, devastation and insatiable exploitation to other worlds.
We, nonetheless hope to remind the peoples of America that the lives that have perished under American weapons, American screaming and conspiracies can ascend to the Lord of Heavens and Earth to complain about the injustice of America.
Indeed, God Almighty can see for Himself.
When He decides to strike, nobody can deter His power.
Who does not want to reap no evil, has to sow no evil. Anyone who cares for the lives of his own people as being precious and dear, must remember that the lives of people around the world are dear too. America is exporting evil, corruption and crime, not only to spots where its armies deploy but also to whoever its films can reach.
American people have, therefore, to remember all this. If they choose to remember it, they would rescue their own security of the world and their rulers. If what happened to America is an internal affair, the household would be in a better position for others in diagnosing the disease.”


Background to Saddams Leadership and This Letter...
Well there you go! We are going to hang the man who said that. True that none has crossed the Atlantic to reap misery on America (apart from perhaps us British who ironically Americans take after). Other 20% of U.S politicians are a member of “Friends of Israel” and they tend to be the powerful ones (which isn’t surprising given that the Israeli government pays for the organisation) along with private citizens. America might have lost 3000 in one day, but in the first Gulf War it was 250,000 Iraqis. Worse though Saddam invaded Kuwait we forget to mention that Kuwait had been part of Iraqi territory for 5200 years before the early 1920’s (my profile has some of the details which I looked up). Kuwait earliest history goes back to 1710 and the only real reason it was separated from Iraq was because we the British (who ruled Iraq as part of the empire at the time) realised Iraq had a lot of oil and that in the future that would make it powerful. So we decided to divide Iraq with Kuwait and deliberately included as much of Iraq’s known oil reserves within its boarders as possible. This is why Kuwait is so astrologically oil rich.
Basically it would be a bit like walking into London or Washington and making them independent. This could soot both cities very well as they are richer than the rest of the country. Equally the rest of the country would be mad with rage.
When Kuwait boosted oil production after Saddam had completed the Iran Iraq war Saddam warned the country to slow output as he had lots of debts to pay. But Kuwait didn’t and Iraq’s economy went in recession, fearing a coo Saddam kept the military occupied by trying to reunite Kuwait with Iraq little more than 60 years on.
We told Saddam to go, just before Saddam realised he was screwed he offered to withdraw if we gave him 6 weeks. 6 weeks because in the Arab world it would be a disgrace to have done cos we told him so. This is not a good thing when you have a rebellious army.
Gorachoof (still leader of the then Soviet Union) knew of this offer and for this reason did not support America with its request for help, when America turned down Saddam’s 6 week offer.
As for the alleged gassing of the Kurds we are no prosecute Saddam for it.
Our reason? America’s CIA director in region has publicly said that Saddam did not do it, rather that it was an Iranian mistake. His reason? The wrong type of gas was used. Both sides used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, but Iran had cyanide based ones, whilst the Iraqi’s were mustard gas based.
Iraqi forces were in the area of the gassing and it would make sense for the Iranians to want to gas them. Most importantly the Iranians had been bribing the Kurdish tribal leaders to steer up trouble in Iraq. They were Kurds friends, so claiming responsibility would not have been a good idea (particularly when the West had found out and was blaming the Iraqis).
Look up in history and you see that Saddam oppressed Kurds because they were being bribed. Iran said they were doing it not cause Kurdish independence (Kurdistan is split between Iran, Iraq and Turkey) but instead to gain a large section of the River Tiqis (can’ spell) (the same river where British got lost and captured by Iranians as it runs along the boarder of the two countries).
Saddam gave the Iranians a large section of the river, but about 6 months later invaded Iran because they had not stopped bribing the Kurds. Turns out those Iranians where against Saddam ironically for being: pro-American, western capitalist, and secular. Iranians thought back and the Iran Iraq war had begun.

Meanwhile the west supported both sides by selling weapons (although virtually all went to Iraq as we supported Saddam). But it seems though we hated the Iranians we were scared Saddam would win and become too powerful that way.
Also since its foundation the Bath party wanted to unite and westernise the Arab world, it started when some smart Arabs thought they should be like us. Perhapse because the U.S. dosent want another America the Bath party in Iraq has be banned.

End of comment and background.

Interesting post! It makes him sound almost human, something the major news media neglected to tell us about as usual.

First let it be said, that the current situation in Iraq is one of a need to
remedy wrongs that have been perpetrated upon their country both by Saddam, and by the coalition. Iraq, and Iran both have been CIA strongholds for manipulation through weapons and money.
Saddam is one such product. The Shah of Iran was the other.

Notice that both countrys are turning away from us despite our want to help them help themselves.

But in all this strife, there is something that is blaringly missing in the war in Iraq. The support of the people. And that, is something Saddam had in hand. Not even a democraticaly elected government is getting that support at the present time.

In reading Saddams letter, what he says, is indeed true. We are recieving, indirectly in America, what has been exported over the years in silence.

Americe is learning ever so slowly about some of the silent evils we have perpetrated. Saddam is no stranger to this. He knows allot about CIA operations, and putting Saddam on trial is a big fear in that arena.

Saddam was no Saint, but neither have we shown ourselves to be.
And like his letter says.....Sow no Evil, reap no Evil. Insightful. True.

America needs to tow a better standard. A benchmark of freedom and trust that no country can deny. Its time our government come true to the mark.
Admit the WMD issue was a smoke screen. Find out that telling the truth,
will win not only the hearts of the world, but the hearts of the Iraqis and save valuable American and coalition soldiers lives.

Peace

for anyone interested, uk politician tony benn visited saddam before the war started and interviewed him. its well worth reading.

here is a transcript of the interview...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Dear Hifigy you are right that Iraq has been a victim of the coalition; and to some degree I would agree with you about Saddam.
What you may fail to appreciate is that Saddam’s alleged wrongs were one of the reasons why he brought peace and stability to Iraq. Even from the Pentagon website (last time I checked) Saddam is alleged to have killed about 350,000 people over a 30 year period through oppression (just under 12,000 per year). In return terrorism was neutralised and the country new where it stood. It is for this very reason that many Iraqis remember Saddam so fondly because providing you weren’t remotely against the government chances are you were better of then than today.
Iraq is made out of 3 main ethnic and cultural groups Shia, Sunni and Kurds. They are divided to a degree we do not see nor could comprehend in the West. Because Iraq is awash with cheap arms left over from when it had the worlds 4th greatest army these groups are heavily armed to. Many like the terrorists in London are more than willing to die for what they believe in. You cannot negotiate with these groups without splitting Iraq up because there wants are so diametrically opposed. For example Kurds want independence but no that getting it would probably mean being captured by Turkey. The Shia’s who make up about 60% of the population are fundamentalist Muslims who are primarily anti western and what i view as quite primitive people. In contrast the Sunnis are secular (believe in tolerating multiple faiths in their version of Islam) are well educated and under Saddam where the ruling people as Saddam was one of them.

In a true democracy the Shia’s will be a majority, and if properly representative an anti western one at that. It would only be a matter of time before they find a dictator of their own choosing. Simultaneously the other 40% of the population will feel bitterly oppressed under a fundamentalist government. None more than Sunnis who being educated are perhaps the only ones capable of running the country properly. As revolution historically started in the middle classes this is a real possibility with these people. No surprise that they make up a sizeable share of the Resistance.
Meanwhile the Kurds remain politically closest to the Shia's but have their own agenda for independence which would strip Iraq of some its best oil fields.

There is no way these people armed to the teeth are going to work together and no way that all those arms (most of which were once made in America) are going to run out any time soon.

There are two options. Ether you give the Iraqi people independence based on their ethnic and cultural locations, and maybe have a federal system for things like defence. This is not what we have done.
Or you keep Iraq completely together with a dictator who can weed out the trouble makers in a way democracies just can't tolerate. Going for the dictator option ask yourself who's he going to be? A fundamentalist who will work with Iran and in all probability be anti western in their outlook (stand up the Shia's) or someone who wants stability but is quite happy to have different ethnic and cultural groups live and work together stand up...er...er Saddam!!! or someone like him from the Sunnis (who lets not forget are destined to be a educated minority totalling about 25%). Kurds don't come into the equation because they are so small that everyone would hate them.
Saddam wasn't anti American but he was pro Ba’thists. Also he didn’t just support suicide bombers but any Palestinian who had been a victim of the Israelis. As long as Saddam continued these things we weren’t going to lift sanctions. Had he given up all intentions of westernising the Arab world (even through peaceful means) and stopped supporting the Palestinians sanctions would have been lifted. But not lifting sanctions was expensive because of lost oil production. So even though we left him power in first gulf war because he was capitalist, secular and in principle pro American we thought it would be a good idea to liquidate his rule and liberate that oil.

It is arguable that Saddam did kill far more people when you take into account his actions as head of state. He certainly oppressed the Kurds even if he didn’t gas them. But what would you have done about an armed people whose leaders are being financially bribed by your hostile next door neighbour? You would have given them that bit of river surely? But what if Iran didn’t stop the bribery after that for political reasons? Well you might have tried to take it back by invading them and that would have made you responsible for a war that cost well over a million and half lives just like it did with Saddam. Still at they support you in this period of time.
So yeah unless we choose a better democratic system (it’s a bit too late) and even then it will still have to deal with a resistance from some section of the population, the chances are you will have another dictator and mass graves along with stability in a different name. Any other options I forgot to mention?
Oh one thing all sections of the population seem to united in hating us (apart from the Kurds) (well sort of anyway). And why they wouldn’t given that we were responsible for the U.N sanctions which killed all those people? (About a million) and in their eyes at least Saddam couldn’t do much about the sanctions given that he had got rid of his WMD’s.
If you think we should be more brutal against the Resistance-insurgency think again. The British tried that in the 1920’s and it didn’t work. In fact a few years after leaving the government we installed was brought down, hay guys if you look at Iraq’s past you might just be able to see the future. Go to Google and type “Winston-Churchill gas-the-Kurds” and you will see he suggested the use of Mustard gas against them as Secretary for Air and War in summer of 1921 (this is way before he became prime minister). So if things like gassing didn’t keep our installed government afloat then what will now?

but I assure you the information is publicly available

If the info is publicly available, where can I find it? Borders, Barnes & Nobles, Amazon.com...where?

as this comes from some documents which were probably supposed to have been bombed and burnt in the war. I have many publications and access to the originals;

How did you you come across these "documents which were probably supposed to have been bombed and burnt in the war"? You said they are publicly available, so I doubt you got them thru 'the hook up' or any special connections.....there would not be a need, cause they're publicly available, right.

I must agree with liberal 1984. I also think there is another aspect of it. The US soldiers are doing nothing to help their image. They sit in their Humvees behind machine guns. They march on patrol giving everyone the evil eye.

Frankly the US forces are totallly unprofessional as a peacekeeping force. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that the average age and maturity level of the soldiers is so low, but thats another topic.

If you've read about british troops or spoken to british troops comming back from Iraq, then you'd know they are much better peacekeepers.

You'd be suprised at how much of a difference a mutual love of Manchester United between a soldier and an Iraqi makes. The Iraqis are mad about football, something the US soldiers just can't/don't relate to too well.

The little things make a big difference.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Galvatron]

Originally posted by Liberal1984
What you may fail to appreciate is that Saddam’s alleged wrongs
were one of the reasons why he brought peace and stability to Iraq.

What you fail to appreciate is that there is nothing 'ALLEGED' about
his 'wrongs'. He's a mass murderer. He used rape rooms and he stole
billions from his own people, causing them to go hungry and go without
medical care, so that he could build his dozens of palaces.

he is alleged to have killed about 350,000 people over a 30 year period through oppression (just under 12,000 per year). In return terrorism was neutralised and the country new where it stood. [

No, terrorism was NOT neutralized! My God .. HE and his regime were
the terrorists. He mass murdered, his troops mass raped, and even
more Iraqi people died because he stole billions from them. He literally
stole milk from babies.

It is for this very reason that many Iraqis remember Saddam so fondly

What planet are you from? The Iraqis HATE him.

There is no way these people armed to the teeth are going to
work together and no way that all those arms (most of which were once
made in America) are going to run out any time soon.

AK47s are not made in America. You are being fatalistic in saying that
there is no way people can work together. It hasn't been tried.

Had he given up all intentions of westernising the Arab world (even through peaceful means)

Oh please! He had no intention
of 'westernizing' the Arab world. His intention was to take it over! He
wanted to run the whole shebang so he could get richer and richer, and
so his troops could videotape more tortures for him to watch on 'slow' days.
He is a secularist who uses Islam on occassion when it suits his needs,
but this in no way means that he was 'westernizing' anyone or anything.
And as far as your comment about 'peaceful means' ... Saddam had
absolutely NO peaceful intentions about anything. He's a meglomaniac.
An ego meglomaniac. He thinks he's God.

He certainly oppressed the Kurds even if he didn’t gas them.

He certainly gassed them. He even managed to mass murder 5,000 in
one shot. I'm sure he was opening champagne and congratulating himself
that day!

what would you have done about an armed people whose leaders
are being financially bribed by your hostile next door neighbour?

Same thing Israel is forced to deal with ... The Palestinian Authority who
has made it the main stay of their exhistence to swear that they will
destroy the soverign country of Israel.

Oh one thing all sections of the population seem to united in hating us (apart from the Kurds) (well sort of anyway).

Iraqis don't hate us. They are embarrassed that they couldn't
overthrow Saddam themselves, but they don't hate us. They'd
like us to leave as soon as we can, but that can't be until the insurgence
ends and they know it.

And why they wouldn’t given that we were responsible for the U.N
sanctions which killed all those people? (About a million)

Uh .. no. SADDAM is responsible for the sanctions. Also, it wasn't the
sanctions that killed Iraqis, it was SADDAM stealing billions in the Oil for
Food program. HE killed those people. It wasn't sanctions that did.

THIS is what America (and the coalition of the willing) has done for Iraq -

.. nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

.. the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

.. on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts - exceeding the prewar average.

.. all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

.. by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.

.. teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

.. all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

.. doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

.. pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

.. the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq's children.

.. a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

.. we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

.. there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.

.. the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

.. 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

.. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

.. the central bank is fully independent.

.. Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

.. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

.. satellite TV dishes are legal.

.. foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and other government spies.

.. there is no Ministry of Information.

.. there are more than 170 newspapers.

.. you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.

.. foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

.. a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

... in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

.. today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

.. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

.. the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

.. Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

.. for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

.. the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

.. Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.

.. children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.

.. political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

.. millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

.. Saudis will hold municipal elections.

.. Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

.. Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

.. the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian — a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.

.. Saddam is gone.

.. Iraq is free.




[edit on 7/11/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Galvatron
They sit in their Humvees behind machine guns.

It's a war zone .. duh.

BTW - you forgot the part about OUR soldiers rebuilding schools,
reengineering the water supply so everyone can now have
water all the time (something that didn't happen in Saddam's
time) and rewiring electricity so everyone can have electricity
all the time - even outside of Bagdad (something that didn't
happen in Saddam's time).

They march on patrol giving everyone the evil eye.

The 'evil eye'??? yeah right.

the US forces are totallly unprofessional as a
peacekeeping force.

Examples? You have none.

maturity level of the soldiers is so low

Examples? You have none.

I'd match their maturity against yours any day of the week.
Are you up for the challenge?




[edit on 7/11/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Galvatron
The US soldiers are doing nothing to help their image.

When I was in Afhganistan and the Philippines for OEF we would do all we can to help out the Locals.....in fact many units over in Iraq do the samething. You just do not see that stuff on TV. It does not sell...you should know this...the media will report what people want. People do not want to hear about me and my Marines playing soccer (football for all you non-Americans) with the locals....it just does not sell.

They sit in their Humvees behind machine guns. They march on patrol giving everyone the evil eye.

The evil eye...man you are deep into hollywood. Your idea of us being a bunch of Rambos out there acting all hard is incorrect. Refer to my above statement

Frankly the US forces are totallly unprofessional as a peacekeeping force. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that the average age and maturity level of the soldiers is so low, but thats another topic.

How many schools, roads, and community centers have you help build in 3rd world countries? Just curious, that's irrelevant to the discussion

No, the US military is not designed as a peacekeeping force.....we are not there to keep peace, we are there to hopefully stabilize the area and train the Iraqis good enough to a point where they can police there own and build/maintain a working military/police force.

And I disagree, we have gave much to the Iraqis. My buddy in Iraq, his mom is a school teacher...anyways her school raised like money and boxes and boxes of goods and school supplies for the little Iraqis.

That's just one teacher and one school...almost all units there do things like that. Like you said it's the small things that counts

I would love to see references for these letters when you are able, but in the meantime: You have voted Liberal1984 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

I believe it because it makes all kinds of sense - deep down in the gutt. It is true and that is the sad fact of things. Saddam was no saint, but as much as Flyer Fan believes the neocon rhetoric she spews in every forum mentioning Iraq, the fact is the reasons for the invasion and the outcomes todate as explained by the mainstream media and the U.S. government, are just not true. At some point in time you have say to yourself, yes, I love my country...but it doesn't mean I have to love everything my government does. One must look at the facts, pick them apart and look them in the face and ask the big question - who has benefitted from all this? When you start piecing all the information together you see who has benefitted and its not the Muslim world. Not at all. Not through history.

No truer words were ever spoken: if you want to reap no evil, sow no evil. Sends shivers down my spine!

Well done.

The US soldiers are doing nothing to help their image.

Yup rebuilding infrastructure giving food and aid to the locals is only showing how evil we are.

They sit in their Humvees behind machine guns.

Well when your in a war and getting shot at by insurgents where else would you be unless you got a better place?

They march on patrol giving everyone the evil eye.

Yes I’m sure they are giving the New Guy eye to the Iraqis.

Frankly the US forces are totallly unprofessional as a peacekeeping force. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that the average age and maturity level of the soldiers is so low, but thats another topic.

Sure they are not the best peacekeeping force ever as they were not trained to be police officers they were trained to be soldiers. The military is improving on this, training new troops how to better handle crowds before they go to Iraq. But before Iraq they were only trained to win on the battlefield not change diapers and hand out candy bars.
And as I have explained it has nothing to do with the age or maturity level.

Personal attacks like challenging my maturity or being deep into hollywood are inappropriate and don't add to the discussion.

I understand they are doing all they can. My point wasn't to say they aren't. My point was that they aren't as capable as they should be, and its affecting the outcome.

Theres a difference between rebuilding schools, community centers and water systems and actually reaching out to people. I understand that it is happening, but it makes me wonder why are they (the majority) still quite alienated. Its not happening enough, and the stigma associated with the US over there is quite strong. Stigma like that doesn't just appear out of thin air, there is usually a reason. And don't say because they were told so by Saddam, he wasn't anti american. How could he be, we helped him into power. Rebuilding helps their image some, but not in the same way more personal interaction would.

Theres a difference between being in a warzone and sitting behind a machine gun watching a museum getting looted, and interacting with the community on a personal level. The latter is obviously not happening enough as previously stated, the majority still seem to be quite alienated.

As for the US being an unprofessional peacekeeping force, I stand by it. There was a reason that when peacekeeping forces were sent to the balkans, the US forces were stationed in the least hostile area. Its just a matter of lack of experience. Why would a soldier be taught how to invade a country, but not taught to occupy it, this is strange. They aren't changing diapers, but they better be trained to occupy, especially if they know they have to! This does indeed have to do with age and maturity level. How many of these 18 year olds are still in the "I hate you dad" stage of their lives? How many are disrespectful towards anything except their fellow soldiers? Its nothing personal, so don't take it as such. I'm merely observing.

For soldiers being immature. You must be blind if you think the individual foot soldier in the US army for the most part is a calm and calculating soldier. Every video I have seen of street fighting in Iraq, except where it involves marines, there has been hooting and hollering, swearing, racial shouts, and sloppy formation.

Flyers fan, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. I wasn't trying to incite opposition, I was lending to the conversation what I thought was one of the problems liberal1984 didn't mention. I probably should have elaborated to this extent in the first post, but I didn't think I would get such strong responses.

Cheers,

Unicron's Arch Nemesis

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Galvatron]

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Galvatron]

Originally posted by Galvatron
.

There was a reason that when peacekeeping forces were sent to the balkans, the US forces were stationed in the least hostile area. Its just a matter of lack of experience.
[edit on 11-7-2005 by Galvatron]

and whose army has more experience?




18 year old soldiers serve in every countries army; the U.S. is not alone in that matter. Maybe the U.S. soldiers were stationed in the least hostile areas in the Balkans, because they might have been able to stop what was going on. The Dutch sure didn't.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by nathraq]

Most militaries do have 18 year olds. However, there is a difference between cultures in my experience. Back in 2001 I did a semester at cambridge university in the UK. The students were very mature for their age, or at least they were compared to what I was used to. Sure they loved to party, but they had noticably more respect for their fellow man than what I was used to.

Most european militaries that count have much more and better peacekeeping experience. Its such a shame that the UN holds them back.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Galvatron]

Originally posted by Galvatron
Most european militaries that count have much more peacekeeping experience.

Yeah, we've seen their experience in the Congo (rampant rape accusations), and the Balkans (to scared to get involved).

The U.S. military is not in Iraq as a peacekeeping force. They are an offensive force. What they are doing by building schools and roads is for PR only. Soldiers are not trained to build schools. They are trained to engage an enemy, and emerge victorious.

I would like someone to name one nation's miltary, battle-tested, who would do a better job.

Originally posted by Galvatron

I understand that it is happening, but it makes me wonder why are they (the majority) still quite alienated.

uhh lets see American troops are foreigners. also, there are terrorists and insurgents passing out flyers that threaten anione even their families not to cooperate, talk or even wave at American troops.

we helped him into power.

got proof of that?

Rebuilding helps their image some, but not in the same way more personal interaction would.

everybody has their own self interest where they dont usually thank us for helping them.

Theres a difference between being in a warzone and sitting behind a machine gun watching a museum getting looted, and interacting with the community on a personal level. The latter is obviously not happening enough as previously stated, the majority still seem to be quite alienated.

cant talk and fight at the same time, it be like standing next to the kids and handing out candies while yer other hand is fire yer M-16 at the insurgents and its stupid.

As for the US being an unprofessional peacekeeping force, I stand by it. There was a reason that when peacekeeping forces were sent to the balkans, the US forces were stationed in the least hostile area. Its just a matter of lack of experience. Why would a soldier be taught how to invade a country, but not taught to occupy it, this is strange.

uhh cause we aint conquerors like the Europeans centuries ago, the military mostly the army was design to fight against another army over an important estate, after that they move on to their next objective, not to stay forever.

For soldiers being immature. You must be blind if you think the individual foot soldier in the US army for the most part is a calm and calculating soldier. Every video I have seen of street fighting in Iraq, except where it involves marines, there has been hooting and hollering, swearing, racial shouts, and sloppy formation.

maybe u saw wat u need to see and didnt see all the videos, but soldiers do need to holler wen in loud environment and are happy wen they kill the enemy.

can be found here:

Saddam's Letters to America

Will look for the third.


Does anyone ever remember hearing about these in the mainstream media? I don't. What an amazing read...and something that really needed to be said. Very profound and powerful.

Personal attacks like challenging my maturity or being deep into hollywood are inappropriate and don't add to the discussion.

Galvatron, I did not challenge your maturity....you challenged mine when you said,

The US soldiers are doing nothing to help their image. They sit in their Humvees behind machine guns. They march on patrol giving everyone the evil eye.

But that is your opinon.....and I have mine. Like how stupid of you to think that all soldiers sit up in Humvee's all day and give people the "evil eye" while on patrols. This is ATS.....ofcourse not every comment in a single post is going to pertain to the discussion....mine, yours, even the MODS....take the entire post for what it is worth...SHEESH!! joking

Theres a difference between being in a warzone and sitting behind a machine gun watching a museum getting looted, and interacting with the community on a personal level

I agree However, we are not there to stop people in Iraq from stealing from each other....there are certain parameters that the individual troop must follow.

Troops (in most cases) can only intervain with the local populas as a police role if someone (anyone) is in danger of losing Life, Limb or Sight....techniqelly we can not even prevent or stop RAPE from going on..but if we do, who's gonna complain...right...it would take someone of an all time LOW to complain about such an act...ya know, Americans stopping a rape. But some people are that low.

Galvatron, I agree the Average young service member is a tad bet lower on the maturity level (especially in the Army and Airforce...very true) than most others of the same age....However you will notice that when that person get to a certain point they mature very fast, usually around E-4 or E-5 cause they are given greater responsibilities that out weight even what ther civilian peers could ever encounter....that's is when they grow up (give or take a couple years).

Also, just cause you had one experenience in the UK and the students where more mature than American students is a pretty lame comparison, IMO.

With that logic...I could say that all British teens/students are very immature because awhile back they had that "happy slapping" phase or whatever. See my point? It works both ways....

maybe u saw wat u need to see and didnt see all the videos, but soldiers do need to holler wen in loud environment and are happy wen they kill the enemy.

Deltaboy....Galvatron is right about the Hoopin nd hollering thing that goes on. Call it male testerone at it's peak...I dunno, but for some odd reason Army Duschbags like to do that..especially in the Army...and it makes them/us look like total jackarses on TV. And people see that and assume that we are all like that....stereotyping I guess. I don't know what it is about the Army but many of thier lower enlisted are friggen morans..IMO