US Marines defeat Insurgent attack

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Can I just ask the mods: why is this on Above Top Secret? There is no conspiricy angle whatsoever. Just some US military propoganda followed by the usual futile arguments. I completely fail to see why it is on these forums.


Umm... there doesn't have to be a conspiracy angle to it, its a news story concerning the Iraq war, look up the purpose of this forum. Also, US military propaganda? What gives you that idea? Surly a contradictive news report about this incident? Otherwise one might get the idea that you disbelieve anything non negative about the US military.

And since were on the topic of propaganda, have you seen some of the threads started on here? And you have the gall to call this thread propaganda!? :shk:




posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   


Also, US military propaganda? What gives you that idea?

Perhaps it's the glaring inconsistency in the behaviour of the alleged suicide bombers as already pointed out in this thread. Perhaps it's the ability of the military to lie about any aspect of the conflict they choose, as already pointed out in this thread. Perhaps it's the fact it plays so well to all those gung-ho patriots who, although they would no doubt behave in exactly the same way if they were invaded, are unable to put themselves in the position of an Iraqi citizen faced with an irresponsible, trigger-happy army of occupation who treat them like untermenschen.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Oops, double post.

[edit on 19/4/06 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... there doesn't have to be a conspiracy angle to it, its a news story concerning the Iraq war, look up the purpose of this forum.

Actually the forum is entitled "War on Terrorism", not "War in Iraq" - perhaps the current US administration's efforts to confuse the two have been so successful you don't even notice. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that whatever the subject is there should be a conspiricy of some kind involved, otherwise it should be destined for BTS.



Also, US military propaganda? What gives you that idea?

What gives me the impression is that this is a story told by the US military alone, there are no independent witnesses to confirm any of it. The writer of the story makes it very clear that they didn't see any of it (they are in fact probably sat in a nice comfy office in the States somewhere) and it is merely what the military said happened:



In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces fought an hours-long gunbattle with about 50 insurgents in the Sunni Arab district of Azamiyah, the U.S. military said.

[my emphasis]



Otherwise one might get the idea that you disbelieve anything non negative about the US military.


This story may be largely true, I have no idea, and neither do you. If for example the military accidently killed an innocent family during this operation I'm sure they might well have forgotten to include that in their account.....



And since were on the topic of propaganda, have you seen some of the threads started on here? And you have the gall to call this thread propaganda!? :shk:

I didn't actually call the thread propoganda, just the story you were presenting. extra DIV



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Father Luke Duke, you cant just say that everything that the US Military says is Propaganda! I have a friend who has a tutor that's serving there and he said that the words that come of the moughts of militarymen is are words of truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth plus some trashtalk that will deter any Iraqi Insurgent! You have to have relaible sources and mine may be a long distance one but who cares! WP23 is to me the smartest guy on ATS apart From American Mad Man and he brought up this thread for us to know whats going on in Iraq. He brought it up so you will read this rather thatn continue to be misinformed just becuase you call American Military news propaganda. Perhaps you dont even own a television to see whats going on there
think before you criticise!

besides America Will never be defeated, even with the whole of Asia or the middle east especially the Iranians, they cant touch no american. America can just nuke the hell any country.
again thx westpoint you are a true patriot



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I am truly thankful whenever I hear of these people surviving rather than dying, the latter being what I am more often than not pained to read or see on a frequent basis. I'm sure their families and other loved ones are as well. Any news not involving their death or injury is good news, and I am both glad and grateful to hear it. To that end, I thank you for posting this. Every time my mother and I read an article in a newspaper or see a report on television detailing the deaths of more soldiers, the light in the room feels just that much dimmer, and the air that much colder. We don't have any friends or family in harm's way, but it still matters to us and we still feel a sense of loss.

Meanwhile, several other human beings are dead now as a result of the same incident, and I grieve for them as well. It doesn't matter to me that I don't know them, or that they are the adversaries of those who survived and the country for which they fight (and in which I live.) Somewhere their loved ones are weeping. Perhaps there is a child that will never again see their father or mother now, or a parent who will never again see their child alive. Of course, the same is true of those they have killed among our ranks as well - be it in a terrorist attack such as that we all witnessed on 9-11, or in the conflicts that have ensued since then - which readily enables us to call it just or necessary. In the end, though, death is the same on both sides of the invisible lines we draw.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2


Agree, in the end it was all for oil and for nothing else.
Iraq is going to end up as Vietnam did, the great US army retreating from the battle.

I thought the Ami's would have learned something from Vietnam.


Hows it gonna end up as Vietnam did? Are we gonna have ton's of people in the streets empowering the enemy again?

The V.C. was ready to surrender till they started saw footage of people here in the streets (hippys)

They then decided "We dont have to win just last"

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Prove_it]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
I have a friend who has a tutor that's serving there and he said that the words that come of the moughts of militarymen is are words of truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth plus some trashtalk

Well in that case I take back everything I said, if your friend's tutor says they only speak the truth then that's good enough for me.


Please don't be so naive. The US military has an enormous press corps with a massive budget. Their sole job is to put stories into the media that show the US military in a good light. They will have typed up the details of this operation and then sent it out to the press agencies (Associated Press in this case) who will use it to fill up news websites and newspapers.




America can just nuke the hell any country.

Does that include yours???



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Gembelindo -



you cant just say that everything that the US Military says is Propaganda! I have a friend who has a tutor that's serving there and he said that the words that come of the moughts of militarymen is are words of truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth plus some trashtalk that will deter any Iraqi Insurgent!


Is that trash talk in Arabic, then?

But on a serious note, did you not read the post from pcxmac? He's a serving soldier who's woken up to how much propaganda there really is. Look back over the thread and have a look at his post. If you think it's an isolated example, you'd be wrong.



America can just nuke the hell any country.


Is that before or after you liberate them and bring them the precious gift of democracy?



Perhaps you dont even own a television to see whats going on there


This might come as a surprise to you, but...



Study shows TV news viewers have misperceptions about Iraq war

A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.

"The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that."



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Just goes to show that when you mess with the Marines, you better be ready to get handed your butt in your cap.

Thank you, WP23, for posting a story in its entirety about the kind of tactics encountered by our brave troops. I agree that coordinated attacks like these are more the norm than the exception, while the car bombings begin and end most stories about the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.



Brave?!? What bravery is that, sending planes and helis, and tanks to do all the dirty work. An adult beating up a 10 year old child is bravery?I think that your concept of bravery is a little bit distorced.

You talk about war like it was a video game. You and many more in this forum. You don't have any idea what is war and you don't know what is human suffering and death.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Brave?!? What bravery is that, sending planes and helis, and tanks to do all the dirty work. An adult beating up a 10 year old child is bravery?I think that your concept of bravery is a little bit distorced.


Umm... The Marines stood their ground, fought back and ultimately prevailed in denying the insurgents their goal. That is bravery, what you seem to want is that our soldiers march to their death like those suicide bombers do. Well sir that is not bravery that is stupidity. In war you don’t commit suicide for the sake of bravery, you use all your tools and means to kill the enemy. This in no way makes our soldiers any less brave.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Rich23, from reading this thread, all I can come to the conclusion of is that you really don't know what you're talking about. You call the Army "irresponsible" and "trigger-happy," and then you use claims like, "No WMD," "it's all for oil," etc....yada yada. Then you have the guts to claim the military will lie randomly about the war in Iraq to cover itself; you seem to ignore the fact that the media completely lies about the war and never covers any of the decent things the soldiers in Iraq are doing; the media never even covered the real reasons for going into Iraq.

You also have the nuts to actually compare us with Nazi Germany, which shows me all you really have is some pseudo-intellectualism.

Let me explain one quick thing about myself here, too. I enlisted into the U.S. Army infantry last August, but got medically discharged because it turned out I had asthma. I got through the training though. I was discharged in Airborne School, which was where the asthma came out. While I was in Infantry training at Fort Benning, we we taught a lot about Iraq by our Drill Sergeants and other infantry soldiers who were our instructors, as these were the guys who had actually been to Iraq and fought. All had combat infantryman's badges.

No, they are not anti-war on this war, they are very pro-Iraq War. Our instructor for the .50 caliber, who had been in combat, sat us down and told us how when he first entered combat, he was essentially like, "F*** this sh**! I should've been a cook!" he said the only reason he continues to do what he does is because of his family. He told us not to believe any of the stuff in the media, that the military in Iraq is "...winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people over there" (quoting him).

The Drill Sergeants told us about how some of the former Iraq soldiers there, hardened veterans from the Iran-Iraq War, even marveled at how the Infantry soldiers there could fight the way they did in that heat with all the body armor and equipment on. The Iraqi children thought that the U.S. troops used "air-conditioning" pills to keep cool (actually fresh mint tablets that give the illusion that your mouth is cold).

One of our Drill Sergeants told us it smells like "...pi** and sh**" over there." None of these sergeants made Iraq sound like a nice place to be. In fact, they made it sound like a total sh**box. But they are all pro-Iraq war. And they were hard on us, since most of those guys were going to go straight to Iraq and see combat very soon.

I remember at Airborne School, in the dayroom in the barracks, the news was on and some liberalist, anti-war woman was on speaking, and one of the sergeants came through, looked at the TV for a few minutes, then remarked to his friend (another sergeant), "Man, people like her, I can't stand. She hasn't been to Iraq, she hasn't been there. She doesn't know what it's like."

The soldiers fighting in Iraq right now, for the most part, are very patriotic, and VERY professional. Believe me, if there were "trigger-happy" soldiers in Iraq the way you claim, the media would be all over it. If there is anything the media loves to do, it is make the soldiers look bad. Look at how that one soldier opened fire and shot that one Iraq, and an embedded reporter caught it on video. Without having the slightest regard for WHY the soldier did that, they media threw it out onto the world-wide news network to show the world.

Or the Abu Ghraib case, as if the actions of a few U.S. soldiers represent the entire military.

And I say the above to let you know I am not getting my info from "sunshine patriots."

Now, let me explain something about this "no WMD" stuff that the media doesn't seem to understand. There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq right now, a little more or less. That is what the number was boosted to in 2004, after the start of the war. That does not mean there are 150,000 Infantry troops in Iraq, but 150,000 soldiers period in Iraq. The Infantry is a small branch. So of those 150,000 troops, there are even less Infantry.

Now, it's your Infantry essentially that does all the fighting and searching in Iraq. The other combat arms help them, like the Scouts, combat-engineers, etc....they see combat too, but mainly it is Infantry and Spec-Ops forces that do the work of searching through buildings and so forth.

Now, let's look at the size of Iraq. Iraq is twice the size of Idaho. If you don't know how large Idaho is, go look at a map of the United States. As you can see, Iraq is a pretty good-sized country. Now, in Iraq, it was found that an entire airfield's worth of aircraft were buried under the sands of Iraq, right under the Army's noses, until they found them. If you can bury an entire field's worth of aircraft in Iraq, you can definitely easily hide something like WMD, which whether the WMD are chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc....are a heck of a lot smaller than aircraft. A bio weapon could be hidden in a refrigerator, or buried in a little box.

Now, if there are 150,000 troops in Iraq, let's guess the number of Infantry at around 50,000; maybe it's more, maybe it's less. Even if all 150,000 were Infantry, that still isn't a lot for searching the entire country.

Now, you want to tell me, with how easy it is to hide WMD in a country like Iraq, how a few dozen thousand Infantry troops are going to search the ENTIRE country from head-to-toe to find these WMD in so quick a time-frame?

In case you haven't noticed, it takes TIME to search the country. Searching means this: you put on about 100 or more pounds of gear and go out and search the countryside, in the blistering heat. You come across buildings, so you have to go inside them and search them. On the way to said areas, you must go and fight the terrorists you come across.

If you're in the mountains of Northern Iraq, you must put on all this gear (ammo, body armor, rucksack, etc...) and march and climb through these mountains, in the freezing cold in thinner air, where it is harder to breath (mountains, remember). You must go into caves and search, of which there are many, many of these. Just getting to the caves is a chore in itself.

That takes a lot of time and is very tiring (something the "experts" on the news channels never seem to mention). You can fit over 7 million people into New York City alone. You know how many New York City's you could fit into Iraq? Quite a few. Which means a few dozen thousand soldiers is a very small number. So if you've got less than 100,000 soldiers doing the work to search for these WMD, a very slow and tedious process, especially considering since much of the country is big ole' desert, AND doing the fighting, well, you can see that it will take a long time for the United States to find WMD in Iraq.

The media makes out as if it should've taken weeks or months. It could take years (and probably will).

Another thing blown out of proportion is the WMD itself. WMD were not the main reason we entered Iraq. They were number 3 on the list. The main reason for taking out Saddam was he was defying international law and the UN mandates prescribed in 17 UN resolutions.

ALSO, he BROKE the cease-fire. For those who forget, the war or conflict with Iraq never officially ended. A cease-fire was established. Saddam violated the cease-fire by opening fire on American aircraft numerous times, right up until the start of the current war.

By international law, that reason unto itself was enough for us to go into Iraq. But back to the point, WMD was reason number 3 on a list of 7 that the media conveniently forgot about. These 7 reasons were listed by Colin Powell in the petition the US put forth to the United Nations, which was rejected by them. Here they are:

Justification for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein:
1. Saddam Hussein has never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire and has continued to violate 17 UN Security Council Resolutions (obviously confirmed by the United Nations).

(FYI in case you missed them):

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


2. Saddam Hussein is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (later confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix) and continues to thumb his nose at the World Community.
3. Saddam Hussein possesses WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report ).
4. Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).
5. Saddam Hussein intends to develop additional WMD programs, making him a threat to all counties in the Middle East (again confirmed by Duelfer).
6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks about this one and recent events prove this to be true)
7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).

(FYI. In case you missed them here they are):

Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Torture
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Abuse of Children
Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites
Denial of Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslim Religious leaders and their followers


(There’s more, but to wrap it up, Powell concluded):
In Summary, the goals of the United States are simple
1) fight terrorism, to include those that support or harbor terrorists
2) uphold and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions
3) disarm a dangerous regime that possesses weapons of mass destruction; and,
4) remove a ruthless dictator (i.e., Saddam Hussein) and promote Democracy in the region

The above stated reasons were presented to the United Nations and were rejected. Because of this, Bush decided the United States would go in without the UN.

Regardless of Saddam having involvement with 9/11 or not, his breaking the cease-fire alone was reason enough for the United States to take him out, BY INTERNATIONAL LAW. This is fact, not an opinion. But, there were all the other reasons listed above the U.S. wanted to go in, as well.

As you can see, any claims that the U.S. went into Iraq "illegally," are ridiculous. It was perfectly legal. You can also see that the reasons the U.S. went into Iraq were far, FAR different from the reasons Nazi Germany started warfare.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, the reasoning for the invasion of Iraq by the United States was to STOP the things that the Nazis started war back in 1939 to start.

As for your complaint that the U.S. doesn't sign up to the International Criminal Court, in case you haven't noticed, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We have our own system of justice. We do not adhere to the "system" of the world, which doesn't even make sense anyhow, considering that different countries have different views on things.

For example, the French people are not the same thing as American people, only they speak French. It is a different culture. The Japanese are not identical to Americans, with the only difference being they speak Japanese. They have a different way of thinking. The United States does not sign up to any international justice system because we are our own country.

You also use the bogus claim, "Using tanks and helicopters to do the dirty work!" Tanks and helis aren't invincible in Iraq, man. It is dangerous flying over there. One female pilot lost her leg because an RPG flew into her cockpit and detonated; luckily it didn't kill her, but it blew her leg off and brought down the chopper.

I am very proud to be an American, and will never apologize for being so. What I find sickening is that so many members of our own nation hate it and work to bring it down, and that our media is so our for money and liberal that it leaves a very UN-informed American public.

As for our "image" to the world, it seems fine I think. We continue to remain a beacon of hope for people from all over the world. Mexicans, Russians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc....all come to America with hopes and dreams.

Personally, I think the rest of the world should be more concerned with what we think of them, rather than us be concerned with what they think of us.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
WheelsRCool;

first things first.


You also use the bogus claim, "Using tanks and helicopters to do the dirty work!"


That was Caetano, not me. Just wanted to get that one out of the way. Now:


He told us not to believe any of the stuff in the media, that the military in Iraq is "...winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people over there"

That is presumably why the US has to pay to get favourable stories printed in the Iraqi press. Here is a handy reprint of the NYT coverage of that.

That is also why the Iraqis have continued to welcome you with open arms, throw flowers in the streets, and NOT fight US forces or blow them up with IEDs. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Everyone who fights the US army is an insurgent. Even the thousands of people killed in Fallujah. Women, babies... all insurgents. And, come to think of it, foreign insurgents to boot. Probably from Iran... next stop Syria.



One of our Drill Sergeants told us it smells like "...pi** and sh**" over there." None of these sergeants made Iraq sound like a nice place to be. In fact, they made it sound like a total sh**box.

Well, take a hot country, lightly bomb for several years, delicately erode infrastructure (especially electrical and fresh water supplies), and marinade in a stringent embargo for a decade or so. While you're waiting for the marinade to take effect, allow Madeleine Albright to go on TV and say that even if half a million children die because of the embargo, it'll be worth it. Then turn up the heat, add 4 fl. oz Shock and Awe, sprinkle generously with depleted uranium, and you're done! You have successfully turned a country with the lowest infant mortality rate in the region (a good indicator of national health), an excellent (by regional standards) education system, a massive public building program and a place where women could abandon the burqa and hold down jobs back into an Islamo-fascist sh**box.

One of the UK's elite soldiers has resigned his unit, (the SAS) refusing to go back to Iraq

After three months in Baghdad, Ben Griffin told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces.

Ben Griffin told commanders that he thought the Iraq war was illegal.

He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

I'm not the only one who thinks the US is becoming fascist. One of our hardest soldiers thinks so too. At least two of them can still think for themselves, it seems, and they think it's an illegal and immoral war. If you've been in the military as you say, you might like to reflect on how tough it must be to stand up to your COs and say, this is wrong, I'm not doing this any more. And then face a military court.

And then you mention


... the Abu Ghraib case, as if the actions of a few U.S. soldiers represent the entire military.


Ah yes. The old "just a couple of rotten apples" excuse. Well I have to say I have some sympathy for the couple of people scapegoated there, because the evidence is that abuse was widespread and officially sanctioned by Rummy his ole self:

From Rolling Stone

The new classified military documents offer a chilling picture of what happened at Abu Ghraib -- including detailed reports that U.S. troops and translators sodomized and raped Iraqi prisoners. The secret files -- 106 "annexes" that the Defense Department withheld from the Taguba report last spring -- include nearly 6,000 pages of internal Army memos and e-mails, reports on prison riots and escapes, and sworn statements by soldiers, officers, private contractors and detainees. The files depict a prison in complete chaos. Prisoners were fed bug-infested food and forced to live in squalid conditions; detainees and U.S. soldiers alike were killed and wounded in nightly mortar attacks; and loyalists of Saddam Hussein served as guards in the facility, apparently smuggling weapons to prisoners inside.

A little more of the same article, just for flavour:

During the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, Hilas saw Spc. Charles Graner Jr. and an unnamed "helper" tie a detainee to a bed around midnight. "They . . . inserted the phosphoric light in his ass, and he was yelling for God's help," the prisoner testified. Again, the same female soldier photographed the torture.

There's lots more of that sort of thing, and worse. But here's evidence that the authorisation for torture came from the top of the food chain:

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: About the situation at Abu Ghraib, I was first informed by an email that I received on classified – what they call “classified traffic.” I opened it up late one night on the 12th of January of 2004. And it was from the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division. He sent me an email and said, “Ma'am, I just want to make you aware, I'm going in to brief the C.G.,” meaning General Sanchez, “on the progress of the investigation at Abu Ghraib. This involves the allegations of abuse and the photographs.” That was the first I heard of it.

I did not receive that email or phone call or a message from General Sanchez himself, who would ultimately attempt to hold me fully responsible for this, but from the C.I.D. Commander. And I was alarmed at just that short email. I was not in Baghdad at the time. I was at another location very close to the Iranian border, so we made arrangements to leave at the crack of dawn to drive down to Abu Ghraib to see what we could find out about this ongoing investigation and went through the battalion over to Cell Block 1A. The people who would normally be working on any shift were not working. The sergeant that I spoke to said that their records had been seized by the investigators, and they started a new log to account for prisoners, make sure that their meals were on time, those kind of things, and he pointed out a memo that was posted on a column just outside of their small administrative office. And the memorandum was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and –

AMY GOODMAN: By Donald Rumsfeld.

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: By Donald Rumsfeld. And said – it discussed interrogation techniques that were authorized. It was one page. It talked about stress positions, noise and light discipline, the use of music, disrupting sleep patterns, those kind of techniques. But there was a handwritten note out to the side. And this was a copy. It was a photocopy of the original, I would imagine. But it was unusual that an interrogation memorandum would be posted inside of a detention cell block, because interrogations were not conducted in the cell block.

AMY GOODMAN: This was the command of Donald Rumsfeld himself?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talking about the techniques?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: The techniques that were allowed. And there was a note – handwritten note out to the side of where the list of tactics, interrogation tactics were. It said, "Make sure this happens." And it seemed to be in the same handwriting as the signature. That's what I could say about the memorandum.

AMY GOODMAN: People understood it to be from Rumsfeld?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes, they certainly did. And I never heard a word – I did – certainly did see the reference to photographs in the original email, but when I asked the soldier, when I asked the sergeant, when I asked the commanders out at Abu Ghraib, what did they know about, they knew nothing about it. They had heard that there were some photographs, but they did not know any specifics.


So we have clear evidence of Rummy himself authorising - indeed, insisting on - the use of torture. And there are a few things about torture. Firstly, it doesn't work. It doesn't give you any worthwhile intelligence. People will say anything under torture. Secondly, it's illegal under the Geneval Conventions. And thirdly... it's just wrong.

They sent General Geoffrey Miller, the guy who'd been in charge of Guantanamo, out to Abu Ghraib to 'Gitmoize' the place. That's when the torture started to really kick in. There is PLENTY of video and photographic evidence, which the US Government has tried to suppress, that shows that the examples I gave from the Rolling Stone article are just the tip of the iceberg.

Plus there's been the whole debate about Bush trying to maintain the right to torture people. This comes right from the top. To dismiss it as the work of a few rotten apples just doesn't fly - especially when you factor in all the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" (George Orwell would have spotted that phrase for the Newspeak it is) flights and secret detention centres across Europe...

The battle for hearts and minds is going SO WELL... here's an example from an Australian TV show:

The mistreatment of prisoners has led to a loss of moral authority for the occupying forces. But there are claims of other abuses of power by the US troops. Widespread stealing by American soldiers during raids are common knowledge in Iraq, but they are rarely reported.

SHEIK SAMMI ABBAS AL ARAWI: I see the soldier American and go...

Sheikh Sammi Abbas al Arawi is a former general in Saddam's army. He'd been imprisoned by Saddam Hussein. When the Americans arrived last year he reported to them and was given a letter acknowledging he'd been an enemy of the former regime and therefore a friend of the new one. He ran a construction company which had contracts with the coalition. Then the Americans raided his house and he says they stole US$65,000 from him.

SHEIK SAMMI ABBAS AL ARAWI (Translation): The raid took place at 2am on the night of 1 March 2004. We were asleep at night when we heard the sound of explosions inside the house. I got up and came face to face with the American in the hallway. They tied us up and gathered the women and children in the kitchen, guarding them and aiming their weapons at them. After that they searched the house in a very ugly manner, like savages. They smashed all the televisions, electrical appliances like fridges and freezers and wooden things. And they stole $65,750 from me, and 15,350,000 Iraqi dinars and all 280 grams of the women's gold jewellery.

The experience has changed his opinion of the Americans. Iraqis believe the money is either taken by the soldiers themselves or used by the Americans to pay informers.

SHEIK SAMMI ABBAS AL ARAWI (Translation): God's mercy exists. Through your television I say to Bush, Rumsfeld and the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq... I hope they'll hear what I have to say. If they don't return the money looted from my place and compensate me materially and emotionally for my losses, I will resist the occupation with all my might. And I'll recruit my clan and all my friends to resist them.

So that's one guy, plus all his family, that is now part of the 'insurgency'. If you want, you can watch the whole segment
here. It's a pretty damning indictment of what's going on out there. It also reveals that women who are arrested are often killed by their families when they come out because the presumption is that they were raped while in detention. I'm not condoning this Islamic practice: I am saying that if the US gave a toss they'd be much more careful in their treatment of Iraqi women and would ensure that no abuse of them took place. The consequences of doing otherwise are predictable. There's another section detailing at least one murder - of a doctor, no less - while in the custody of US forces. There's video of the mutilated body.

You can find soldiers' accounts of what went on in Abu Ghraib here.


In the months leading up to the riot, the insurgency had taken hold and the Americans were desperate for intelligence to stop the killing of their troops. In September 2003 General Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, was sent to Abu Ghraib to upgrade interrogation techniques. When Javal Davis arrived, soon after Miller's new regime had started, things were already far from normal.

JAVAL DAVIS: When we took over from the 72nd MP Company, you know, the guys were butt naked in the jail cells and had like panties on their head. I'm like, I'd never seen that before. I'm like, "Why are these guys naked?" Our company commander was even like, "What's going on with all the nakedness? Why are all these guys naked?" And they're answering back to them from the other MP company was, "Hey, this is what the MI guys - this is what they want", you know. That's how it goes, so.

Putting MI or military intelligence in charge of the MPs was one of General Miller's recommendations, even though it runs counter to army doctrine.
....

KEN DAVIS: Graner [a soldier convicted of abuse at Abu Ghraib] actually came to me early in October and had told me that they're making him do things that are legally and morally, he feels are legally and morally wrong.

REPORTER: He said that?

KEN DAVIS: He did, and that was early October. Late October is when all the pictures, a lot of the events started taking place.
When people slate Graner and these seven as monsters, you have to ask yourself who created the environment for this to go on? Who opened the door for these people, these young soldiers to walk through? Those are the monsters.

On November 16, 2003, a few weeks after the torture had begun, Graner got a commendation from his platoon leader, Captain Brinson.

STATEMENT: "Corporal Graner, you are doing a fine job in tier one. You have received many accolades from the military intelligence units here and specifically from Lieutenant Colonel Jordan.
Continue to perform to this level and you will help us succeed at our overall mission".

KEN DAVIS: For someone, after they've done all this, to get a counselling statement praising the work you're doing on Tier 1A in the hard site, you're not going to stop. You're going to keep going and you're going to take it up a notch. You're going to take it up a level, especially when you're getting high fives and that-a-boys and "keep up the great work", you know, from officers of military intelligence and OGA.

Charles Graner is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence.
Is his platoon leader, the one who gave him the commendation? Is Rumsfeld? Are any of the MI or CIA guys who set him on his course?

Now, on to the WMDs.


Now, let's look at the size of Iraq. Iraq is twice the size of Idaho. If you don't know how large Idaho is, go look at a map of the United States.
Well, I can look at Iraq for myself on a map. Although unlike many of your countrymen, I can actually find it unaided. And why would I bother to compare it to a US state for an estimate of its size? Asking me to do that is but a tiny example of the insularity that is so offensive to citizens of the wider world. I'm much more likely to compare it to the size of France.

Now in the run-up to the war, we had, again and again, statements saying that 'we know exactly where these weapons are'. If you knew that BEFORE you were even in the country, how come you then lost them once you had control of the country and you were actually there? The WMDs are such a myth... here is the story of how the search was wound up and look what we find:

The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," Duelfer wrote in an an addendum to the report he issued last fall. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."

You don't go house-to-house looking for things like that. You use 'intel'. And, whoops, what have we here?

Another addendum noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before 1991.(my emphasis)
That, in case you didn't notice, is an admission that anything that does turn up was either lost or accounted for.




That takes a lot of time and is very tiring (something the "experts" on the news channels never seem to mention). You can fit over 7 million people into New York City alone. You know how many New York City's you could fit into Iraq? Quite a few. Which means a few dozen thousand soldiers is a very small number. So if you've got less than 100,000 soldiers doing the work to search for these WMD, a very slow and tedious process, especially considering since much of the country is big ole' desert, AND doing the fighting, well, you can see that it will take a long time for the United States to find WMD in Iraq.

The media makes out as if it should've taken weeks or months. It could take years (and probably will).


Rummy would call this 'a pretty big thumbsucker'. As referenced above, the US gave up the WMD search (which was pretty desultory in the first place, understandably as it's a PR exercise only) on the 26th April 2005.

As for all those times Saddam defied the UN, half of them relate to non-existent WMDs, as the head of the Iraq survey group admits:

More important, Duelfer believes that Iraq destroyed its WMD in the summer of 1991, and finds nothing to document any programmes after that time. Far from confirming Tony Blair's reported reading that Saddam "had every intention of reviving his WMD programmes", the report suggests Saddam gave his officials the impression that he was interested in resuming programmes "if sanctions were lifted". This is the new straw to which the governments concerned have begun to cling.


And this from a story filed in October '04! If he thought that then, how hard do you think he was looking for the next six months? And as for resuming development if sanctions were lifted, how would that have happened?

But back to the issue of Saddam 'defying' UN resolutions. In his book Rogue State. William Blum finds that in one 10-year period, the US was the sole 'no' vote in over 150 UN resolutions. This doesn't take into account the number of times that Israel was the sole 'no' vote and the US the sole abstainer, which would bump it up still further. This fits quite nicely with your comment



Personally, I think the rest of the world should be more concerned with what we think of them, rather than us be concerned with what they think of us.


Is that because you're such a shining example of rectitude in your conduct? Or because you have nukes and you're not afraid to use 'em?



As you can see, any claims that the U.S. went into Iraq "illegally," are ridiculous. It was perfectly legal. You can also see that the reasons the U.S. went into Iraq were far, FAR different from the reasons Nazi Germany started warfare.


OK. Here's the thing. Long ago, I actually did a law degree, and one of the most basic principles is that you cannot be judge of your own case. So this


As for your complaint that the U.S. doesn't sign up to the International Criminal Court, in case you haven't noticed, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We have our own system of justice. We do not adhere to the "system" of the world, which doesn't even make sense anyhow, considering that different countries have different views on things.
as an argument is a non-starter. Plus, it's that old BS about the US being the greatest country in the world. You know what? Some people, perhaps even a majority, might not agree. They might even find it offensive. It always makes me laugh when I hear Americans say that everyone wants to live there. I certainly don't. I worked there for a few years and couldn't wait to get out. And if you didn't trash the economies of all your Latin American and Caribbean neighbours, you wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants, because they'd be able to get jobs at home rather than have to slip across the border to do the minimum-wage crap there.

But, back to the legality or otherwise of the US invasion. Kofi Annan doesn't think so. Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, former chief of Britain's defence staff, doesn't think so.
Before the war, the Attorney General had his doubts and Jack Straw, a former lawyer, said the case for war was thin.
And the UK Government dropped a case against whistleblower Katharine Gun because it might reveal the unfortunate fact that the war was illegal:

But the all-out diplomatic effort in New York continued, and on 31 January
Ms Gun, a translator of Chinese at GCHQ, the government's communications
monitoring organisation in Cheltenham, came across an email from Frank Koza,
a senior official of the National Security Agency, GCHQ's (much bigger)
equivalent in the US. It sought British help in spying on the UN delegations
of six nations which were temporary members of the Security Council. Their
votes were seen as potentially making the difference between success or
failure for a second resolution.

Whether Britain complied with the request or not is unknown, but the email
found its way to a Sunday newspaper after Ms Gun showed it to a friend with
journalistic contacts. Once it was published, she immediately confessed her
part and acknowledged having breached the Official Secrets Act. Why the
Government dropped its case against her, therefore, can be explained only by
looking at her planned defence, which was that the war was illegal. The only
way this could have been countered was by making public Lord Goldsmith's
final opinion, the one on which Britain went to war.




As for our "image" to the world, it seems fine I think.
Dude, so many of the posters on this board who AREN'T American disagree. Even people who aren't vocal like me think the US is a big fat bully going into other countries for oil. Everyone knows about the network of torture prisons, the rendition flights, Abu Ghraib... and people like me know about how this little network of companies is profiteering massively from the war. THAT's your image across the world. Anyway, I've spent more than enough time on this nonsense, I have things to do. Laters.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
He told us not to believe any of the stuff in the media, that the military in Iraq is "...winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people over there" (quoting him).


Good job the Iraqi's are not pissed at you then....




One of our Drill Sergeants told us it smells like "...pi** and sh**" over there." None of these sergeants made Iraq sound like a nice place to be. In fact, they made it sound like a total sh**box.


Hardly surprising really since many of the population centres have been bombed back to the stone-age. If your Drill Sergeant thinks it's a 'sh**box, imagine what your average Iraqi civilian family is having to put up with.


If you can bury an entire field's worth of aircraft in Iraq, you can definitely easily hide something like WMD, which whether the WMD are chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc....are a heck of a lot smaller than aircraft. A bio weapon could be hidden in a refrigerator, or buried in a little box.


The US administration seemed to have a good handle on what Iraq had 'before' the invasion going by all the satellite photo's and alleged intelligence. Of course, IF and its a freakin HUGE 'IF' (IMO) Iraq had a stockpile of WMD, the situation at the moment is that we haven't a clue where they are. Meanwhile the country is a mess with all manner of 'Insurgents' running about causing havoc. Hardly a recipe for a safer world in my view....


The media makes out as if it should've taken weeks or months. It could take years (and probably will).


A very convenient and safe position to take given that you cannot prove a negative. The issue of WMD in Iraq cannot be properly debated when the 'absence of evidence not constituting evidence of absence' argument is used. At what point do the pro-war people get to the point when they say 'ok then, there are no weapons'. Probably never......

IMO if you are making a case to attack another country on the basis of it's threat of wreaking mass destruction, the onus is on the aggressors to demonstrate the threat and produce the evidence quickly. I'm sorry, but harping on about how easy it is to hide these things does not work for me. The US 'attacked' Iraq, the US needs to prove that they had good reason. I'm personally not satisfied with being told that the evidence 'may never be uncovered'.


Another thing blown out of proportion is the WMD itself. WMD were not the main reason we entered Iraq. They were number 3 on the list. The main reason for taking out Saddam was he was defying international law and the UN mandates prescribed in 17 UN resolutions.


Sorry, but if this is the MAIN reason for military action, then the US would be mired in conflicts from here to eternity. And if they weren't the main reason, why did Colin Powell go to such lengths as to present a slideshow showing where all the evidence of WMD stockpiles/facilities were using satellite photo's etc....



www.cnn.com...

"Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."


I cannot take seriously the US stance on enforcing UNSCR's in the case of Iraq. The US simply uses a veto when it doesn't agree with one of these resolutions. Iraq did/does not have the power to veto resolutions so it's hardly a level playing field.


6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks about this one and recent events prove this to be true)


How arrogant can you get? The great US marching into the middle east spreading democracy in it's wake.....All I see is death, destruction, chaos and an increasingly embittered and embattled populace who live in conditions so accurately described by your Drill Sergeant...


7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).


While I completely agree with this point, I do not agree on the methods employed by the US to achieve this. There are many, many ruthless dictators in the world. IMO, the US have absolutely no interest in the humanitarian aspect of what these dictators are up to. If the US national interest is served the executive will callously use the humanitarian angle as a justification for carrying out it's objectives.


Torture


Like the US at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, as well as the use of rendition flights to take people all over the world to 'work on them'


Executions and Repression of Political Opposition


Right, Israel must be next on the hitlist then, given their policy of 'targetted assassinations'.


Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites


Errr. "we don't do body counts" according to Tommy Franks


The above stated reasons were presented to the United Nations and were rejected. Because of this, Bush decided the United States would go in without the UN.


So does the US uphold the will of the UN then. Or is that only when it suits....?


For example, the French people are not the same thing as American people, only they speak French.


You are joking, right? I can't even be bothered responding to this outrageously ignorant statement......


The United States does not sign up to any international justice system because we are our own country.


But you expect other countries to abide by YOUR view of justice..Total arrogance.


Personally, I think the rest of the world should be more concerned with what we think of them, rather than us be concerned with what they think of us.


Do as we say, not as we do......be afraid of us........we dont' care what you think.

A good example to set for other countries and a basis for spreading democracy.....LOL.......



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
For me bravery is to defend your country against a far superior enemy. For me bravery is to sacrifice everthing, even your life, to defend you family and your land. The americans soldiers are there because they are professionals, the iraqui insurgents are simple men, trying to fight an invasion army.

When I said that the US send the Helis, Planes to do the dirty work It's true! Ok....If they have de means they should use it.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

hardly surprising really since many of the population centres have been bombed back to the stone-age. If your Drill Sergeant thinks it's a 'sh**box, imagine what your average Iraqi civilian family is having to put up with.


Do you have any idea of the military capabilities that the US has? If you did you would know that those cities affected by missiles or bombs have not even been scratched when you consider what we could have done. If you want to see “stone age” bombing go check out German and Japanese cities after WWII.


[edit on 20-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Westpoint is right, i checked out an 8 hour long documentary about world war II and it takes up an average of 200 bombs to hit a single factory on American Daylight Raids. However the Brittish use a different method, they use incindenary bombs without regard for civilian casualties and turning hamburg into a roofless city literaly! Infact World war 2 air raid were so unprecise that bombs would actually kill more civilian lives rather than thr Nazis/Ittes/Japs or vichy and other axis dudes. i also read that Caen was or had to be systematically destroyed beofre the brittish forces could move in. then the American and Brittish Bombers destroyed almost all the buildings except a hospital whic a man made a red cross sign using blood covered pieces of cloth. some heavy S**t



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Besides I dont watch Fox I watch TVRI if you can understand the language Luke Duke wtvr I hope you can speak Indonesian ahahah
besides Civilian casualties from american precision bom strikes arent that of american faults, they were of iraqi houses that cant survivve the shock wave and vibration resulting in collapses and cave-ins. Besides on French Tv despite the Gore there were hardly any bodies with burns ( bombs cause burns) mostly decapitation and severe wounds from Iraqi House Collapsing!



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Do you have any idea of the military capabilities that the US has? If you did you would know that those cities affected by missiles or bombs have not even been scratched when you consider what we could have done. If you want to see “stone age” bombing go check out German and Japanese cities after WWII.


While I could not give you an inventory of the specific military hardware the US currently has, the following information gives a flavour of the power of the US:



www.globalissues.org...

# The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
# The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
# The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
# It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.


It is no doubt of comfort to those civilians currently suffering in Iraq to know that they 'got off lightly' compared to what you could have done.

Your reference to the devastation caused during certain bombing campaigns during the Second World War is, in my view, irrelevant to this discussion. The situation was entirely different to the current one in the Middle East.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
Westpoint is right, i checked out an 8 hour long documentary about world war II and it takes up an average of 200 bombs to hit a single factory on American Daylight Raids. However the Brittish use a different method, they use incindenary bombs without regard for civilian casualties and turning hamburg into a roofless city literaly! Infact World war 2 air raid were so unprecise that bombs would actually kill more civilian lives rather than thr Nazis/Ittes/Japs or vichy and other axis dudes.


While I am in no position to disagree with you regarding the WWII facts you quote above, Gembelindo, I fail to see what relevance it has to the discussion about the Iraqi situation.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join