Welcome to Hell

I hope you won't think less of me now for being a lowly skychild. .

Some said it was still fighting in the outside of the shrine.

In my oppinion Sadr you become a political contender for his people after all he has lots of supporters and most Iraqis don't like the Iraqi goverment impose by US.

So he will do better if he becomes a political leadder.

Not I wont feel any less.



[Edited on 20-8-2004 by marg6043]

Here's an interesting article with interviews from members of the Iraqi soccer team. They're pissed because Bush is using images of them in advertisements.

Ireland Online

Another star player, Ahmed Manajid, aged 22, said of Mr Bush: �How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes.�

Manajid, from Fallujah, said he would be fighting US troops right now if he were not at the Olympics.

�I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?

�Everyone (in Fallujah) has been labelled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq.�
212.2.162.45...

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

What more proof those this administration wants of Iraqis not wanting US anymore in Iraq?

This administration has become deaf and blind to this people.

Text�We don�t wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away,� said Sadir, aged 21, whose home town of Najaf has been battered by the war.

�Everyone (in Fallujah) has been labelled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq.�

I wonder when this government is going to start listening to this people and not the pro US interest base in Baghdad in the US approved interim government.

We are destroying their cities and their people.

�The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?�

Are this people lying and US is right.?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid I was wondering because Marines fall under the Dept. of Navy.

The relationship between the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy is unique. To best understand the current state of this relationship, it is important to distinquish between the Department of the Navy and the United States Navy. The United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy are separate branches of the service, each serving under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy.

The Department of the Navy wields the most powerful, versitlile, flexible, and agile military force in the history of warfare. It should make every American feel both secure and proud to know what power can be brought to bear in such a brief period anywhere in the world.

Grady, you said you like avitars that make a sttement bout the world as well as the person. How you like mine? I think it bout summs it up.

I'm not sure I have enough background on your avatar to fully appreciate it, but there is a certain humorously philosophic quality to it that we can all appreciate. If it fits you, I think it's fine.

hope this isn't repetition on my part, but haven't we devised neutron bombs for this exact purpose???

except for a small initial blast, there's no physical destruction with one of these devices, yet everyone in or near these sacred sites gets obliterated. yes, radiation sickness is hell but all things considered it's probably more humane than carpet bombing the place.

guys like rumsfeld and powell never go into any specifics about why these hi-tech weapons are never considered. any thoughts on that from the ATS cognesenti?

Originally posted by victor was right
hope this isn't repetition on my part, but haven't we devised neutron bombs for this exact purpose???

Can you imagine the outcry if we were to use a nuclear weapon of any type in Iraq? Can you tell me where we are using carpet bombing in Iraq?

Originally posted by victor was right
hope this isn't repetition on my part, but haven't we devised neutron bombs for this exact purpose???

except for a small initial blast, there's no physical destruction with one of these devices, yet everyone in or near these sacred sites gets obliterated. yes, radiation sickness is hell but all things considered it's probably more humane than carpet bombing the place.

guys like rumsfeld and powell never go into any specifics about why these hi-tech weapons are never considered. any thoughts on that from the ATS cognesenti?

Bit of trivia, you know who first designed the Neutron bomb?

It was an Architect... go figure.

Sure kill all the people.. but dont hurt my building.. lol Thats just wrong..

Marge, more trivia I do know that Betty was modeled after Clara Bow.

wraith

Originally posted by victor was right
hope this isn't repetition on my part, but haven't we devised neutron bombs for this exact purpose???

except for a small initial blast, there's no physical destruction with one of these devices, yet everyone in or near these sacred sites gets obliterated. yes, radiation sickness is hell but all things considered it's probably more humane than carpet bombing the place.

guys like rumsfeld and powell never go into any specifics about why these hi-tech weapons are never considered. any thoughts on that from the ATS cognesenti?

the neutron bomb still results in a nuclear explosion (it's just smaller than a "normal" one, with more radiation). in a city the size of najaf any use of even a neutron bomb would easily still destory all of najaf. they were intended more for big cities than small towns, but the primary purpose was simply troops in the open, not to preserve built-up areas. the number of civilian casualties would be bigger than if we carpet-bombed all of najaf for sure.

-koji K.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by koji_K]

wraith30

The cartoon character does look like betty davis, I thing this cartoons are so beautiful I am going to start getting into paint pro shop and start doing them myself.

Originally posted by koji_K

the neutron bomb still results in a nuclear explosion (it's just smaller than a "normal" one, with more radiation). in a city the size of najaf any use of even a neutron bomb would easily still destory all of najaf. they were intended more for big cities than small towns, but the primary purpose was simply troops in the open, not to preserve built-up areas. the number of civilian casualties would be bigger than if we carpet-bombed all of najaf for sure.

I disagree. The neutron bombs were designed primarily to target huge Soviet tank formations, as they were capable of killing the crew, and the underground missile silos (same). They were not intended for use against cities. If you want to simply kills troops in the open you just nuke them with a "conventional" nuclear warhead, it'll be more effective.

Then irradiate the land for 100 years, that's not going to be effective either.

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by koji_K

the neutron bomb still results in a nuclear explosion (it's just smaller than a "normal" one, with more radiation). in a city the size of najaf any use of even a neutron bomb would easily still destory all of najaf. they were intended more for big cities than small towns, but the primary purpose was simply troops in the open, not to preserve built-up areas. the number of civilian casualties would be bigger than if we carpet-bombed all of najaf for sure.

I disagree. The neutron bombs were designed primarily to target huge Soviet tank formations, as they were capable of killing the crew, and the underground missile silos (same). They were not intended for use against cities. If you want to simply kills troops in the open you just nuke them with a "conventional" nuclear warhead, it'll be more effective.

actually i'm in agreement with you. the primary purpose as i said wasnt cities, but troops in the open (or tanks in the open). the neutron bomb was designed as a defensive weapon, where it would have minimum effect on sheltered troops, with minimum fallout, but maximum effect on unsheltered troops from the initial radiation blast. the idea was it could be used close to a city, against troops approaching the city, with minimum effect on the city itself. it could never be used within the city itself without causing massive physical destruction. many people seem to think that it can be used in the middle of a city, somehow magically killing all the inhabitants while leaving the buildings intact, which isnt true.

-koji K.

Originally posted by mwm1331


As for the nmber of casualties how many of the deaths attributed to military intervention are the result of roadside bombs, mortar attacks and the like?

i don't know, but at least 7,000 of them were a direct result of air-dropped bombs and cruise missile attacks. now, can you answer my question or not?

you claimed that more iraqi civilians were dead as a result of iraq 'freedom fighters' than as a result of coalition actions. in order to claim this, you must know at least four things: 1.) how many dead iraqi civilians there are, 2.) how many of them were killed by coalition forces, 3.) how many were killed by iraqi "freedom fighters" and 4.) which of the last two figures is the greater.

now, i've shown you what i believe is the most reputable source for civilian death information in iraq, which claims that the number of deaths as a direct or indirect result of *coalition* activities is very high, and i'd like you to back up your claim, because it really doesn't seem to concur with the facts, and i'd like to know if i'm wrong.

-koji K.

If Muslims are so worried about their 'sacred' shrine being blown up, they should be enraged that radicals are using the shrine for a safehaven to begin with. I have no idea why more (or have there been any?) Muslims haven't come out condemning Al Sadr for what he is doing, if that shrine means so much to them. And if they argue that it's the only way to 'fairly' fight the Americans, by not playing by the rules and using cheap tactics such as human shields and hiding inside 'sacred' holy grounds, the Americans / Iraqis should not hesitate to respond with whatever means are necessary.

They've broken the cease fire agreements too many times. I'd set a deadline. Tell all innocent citizens to leave the town, and the shrine. Give them 5 days. Encompass the city so that no militia men can escape without being captured. At the end of the 5 days, the US/Iraqis will do whatever it takes to bring Najaf under control -- fighting thru the streets, air attacks, bombing the shrine -- whatever it takes. Appeal to the Muslim leaders that revere that shrine so much to get something worked out or else it will be viewed as a viable military target (and treated as such).

[edit on 23-8-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Koji k - While a great many civilians have died as a result of the U.S. led coalitions bombings of Iraq, none of those deaths were intentional. The U.S. coalition was not intentionally trying to kill Iraqi civilians while the "freedom fighters" are. That was the point I ws making, like you I don't know how many civialians have died in Iraq no-one does. But the only faction intentonally killing Iraqi civilians is the freedom fighters.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Koji k - While a great many civilians have died as a result of the U.S. led coalitions bombings of Iraq, none of those deaths were intentional.

So you really believe that in a war that was not justify as now we have found out, its ok to kill civilians and its justify, you know what is going on in Iraq right now mass murdering, by US administration in a country that never attacked US to begging with and that was not tread to our lives.

We are making the people of Iraq pay with their lives for the mistakes of these irrational presidents� wimps.

They people of Iraq never declared war against the nation of United State but US is destroying decimating and killing their citizens.

If this is been done now after Sadam is out of power so tell what is the justification for the killing of citizens.

Marg,

I appreciate the fact that you are/were a military spouse and I appreciate the sacrifices that members of your family have made, but war is not pretty, Innocence is lost, and there are no simple answers. Ask your husband, I'm sure he will tell you that we try our best to protect the lives and property of non-combatants. Sometimes it does not happen, however the enemy does not play by the same rules and the value we place on life and property is not matched. Having taken fire from this same enemy, I know what it's like to be shot at from a mosque. Not a pretty place to be in. We could not return fire because it was a religious site. Tell the enemy to play fair and we will.

I quote:

"If Muslims are so worried about their 'sacred' shrine being blown up, they should be enraged that radicals are using the shrine for a safehaven to begin with."


Look how you put the word sacred in quotes.

The Muslims may be not fond of Sadr, but it would appear that every single Muslim in the world thinks the US has no business in the shrine, regardless of circumstance. You can discount the Iraqi "Government".

Bombing the shrine for these people would be same as bombing Christian relics in Jerusalem, for the Christians. You may not care, judging by your use of quotes in 'sacred', but you'll get millions pissed off big time.