I fear a re-run of the Vietnam war looming. I admit the war is only just over a week old but i feel the coalition is being outwhitted by conscripts. We are losing far too many soldiers by blue on blue fire and I feel the enemy has been extremely underestimated. We all knew that the Iraqi regime would try to draw the coalition into street to street fighting .
Ummm the coalition forces casualties have only been like 50 last I checked. In Veitnam the casualty rate was something like 1 in 12. This invasion is supposed to be around a 1 in 1200 or something. It has been a week. No one has really been underestimated. We have all the right technologies. We have the right people. Vietnam also lasted years in Jungle. This will mostly last in desert and urban combat. Tanks are used.
If you want a real discussion about this go to the Senate. There are some threads there that deal with this.
I think you are wrong but if you had better evidence of facts to suport your claim I would like to listen to it.
BigTeddyPaul
I second that.
Good real life discussions at the Senate.
War hasn't gone badly, but much worser than they (the US gov) thought. They have met more resistance than they enticipated (sp?) and the Republican Guard and the Fedajin forces are still at large in Baghdad. These troops are elite forces and very loyal to Saddam.
Ug.. not another war thread. If you post them, do it in the Senate. :rolleyes:
Umm the war is going fine. Its just that now that the Iraqi's are reverting to suicide bombings and all that.
Originally posted by rut-wa jodar
I fear a re-run of the Vietnam war looming. I admit the war is only just over a week old but i feel the coalition is being outwhitted by conscripts. We are losing far too many soldiers by blue on blue fire and I feel the enemy has been extremely underestimated. We all knew that the Iraqi regime would try to draw the coalition into street to street fighting .
Another vietnam!? We have been kicking their a** for some time now. They only won a few out of many skirmishes and we won alot of major battles. Don't start saying anopther vietnam becuase thats just false.
Heard on the news that Iraq is estimated to fall within two weeks due to getting the U.N. involved concerning the P.O.W. killings.
i think the war is going well, just a little "bumpier" than the coalition forces thought.
i'm really hoping iraq doesn't do something stupid like release chemical weapons or anything nuclear. i doubt they would though.
Just read a bit more about "the list".
The list contains the names of all countries that are supporting Bush and his war.
On the list we have 49 countries(!!) even though only the Brits, Australia and USA are fighting.
49 countries, quite a lot, eh?
If we look at the list we see that there's..the USA, Afganistan ( :rolleyes: ) and some great military powers like Palau, Tonga, Honduras, Mongolia and Salomon Islands.
By the way - the prime minister of Salomon Islands was/is totally unaware of the fact that they are supporting the war, but... what the hell, right?
On top of that there are also 15 countries who support Bush, but don't want their names to be published. Gee... I wonder what the
people of said countries think about that? Our goverment supports the war but wants to keep it a secret! :rolleyes: That means that perhaps even Finland is pro-war too...we just don't know about it!
I wonder what the list looks like. Please post a link, if you know where to find it. I bet it's filled with countries like Tijuana, and bingo-pango.
Oh, I found some other (old) link:
ANTI-WAR: Creece, France, Ireland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Finland, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Slovenia, China...aah...I don't have time for this. :(
I want that list! :D
I thought Australlia was with the US for the war. Could be wrong but I thought they were pro.
BigTeddyPaul
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
I thought Australlia was with the US for the war. Could be wrong but I thought they were pro.
Austria - Australia. There's a subtle difference ;)
I recall that Gonkh8r (sp) said that according to surveys the Australian people are against it... but that's probably going to happen with the US as well if the war lasts long enough and your boys are getting killed left and right. :(
LOLOL.. going badlly .. we are bassicaly slaughtering any iraqie threats, we've almost taken the country expect for sprase pockets of resistance. the usa is owning.. with out...***** eroupean countries -wont name names- that only want to cash in on the rebuilding of iraq after we kick this Evil regime(sp) out. Saying this i will now make my statement defending the united states..
I can't argue what's already been done - the US has always done what it believes to be the worst of two evils. We supported Iraq against Iran, we supported Afghanistan against communist Russia... I can't say that we've not done terrible things.
But no where does this say we're taking advantage of the rest of the world. It is dictators like Saddam and Kim that are a danger to freedom and democracy.
What I see now in these anti-American movements is a resolve to destroy the sovereignty of the US and the "American" way of life - capitalism. In a free economy such as Japan, there has been enormous technological advances that have paved the way for human progress in Asia. Even now, China is continuing to develop economic zones based on capitalist ideas - the improvements there are astounding.
We can no longer give trillions of dollars in foreign aid for it to be abused by these groups. The UN has funded weapons programs throughout the 60s.. arming and abetting known militant groups. France, Germany, and Russia are known to increase the military power of numerous totalitarian regimes. Our "Food for Oil" programs are going into the coffers of dictators such as Saddam, not the people who truly need it.
There is no other solution - if the US is hit again, the dollar and the world economy suffers. We've all seen that since September 11th.
On Iraq: yes we did support them and tried to leave them alone with their own sovereignty. Instead, they commit acts of murder on their own people and threaten numerous other countries around them. To see such hatred against Americans for enforcing our own ceasefire agreement with Iraq is just demeaning. American and other coalition forces stopped him from committing genocide and threatening 2/3s of the worlds oil supply. We still have maintained southern and northern no-fly zones to protect the innocents that Saddam is trying to destroy. We can no longer keep the status quo because he is not disarming.
I don't hear the "peace" protesters calling for Saddam to leave... to disarm.. to bring about civil and economic change. He is the one that is making himself better at the expense of everyone else.
We gave the UN a chance to remain united... instead they have chosen division. It is not us that have ruined the diplomatic process, it is countries such as France who would not even vote on a resolution. At this point, it does not matter. The UN has shown it is nothing more than an anti-American platform. When you have such countries as Libya on the human rights committee, and such countries as Iran and Iraq on the disarmament committee, you see how hard it is to take them seriously. When most of these countries are controlled by dictorial regimes, would you rather the UN control your country, or your country control your country.
I can't defend everything said in the website. But I do believe that we have a duty to defend ourselves. As Europeans are worried we will fail, Asians are worried we will win. At this point, doing something is better than doing nothing.
There will always be anti-American sentiment as long as their is human emotions. Because we support freedom and a democractic government, because we respect human rights and have capitalist society, because we have morals and views that are upheld through the Constitution. The envy and raw hatred I see is astounding. Yes Americans do have a better standard of living.. but it is because there is opportunity and the fight for freedom. Its not because we go across to foreign countries and plunder. We buy from countries so they can support their people. If we wanted oil, we would have taken it by now.
Coalition forces are the ones dropping food and supplements for the Iraqi people.. calling for them to surrender and not defend Saddam. We are the ones doing everything we can to minimize casualties... high-precision missiles are targetting military targets. It is Saddam's group that is threatening the lives of his people, housing military groups by water plants, power planets, hospitals... using mosques and other civilians as human shields.
As I see it, we need to resolve to fight terrorism and totalitarian regimes. We will use diplomacy as we can... 12 years of it didn't solve anything in Iraq. In other situations, it has worked effectively. We're not all gungho about using force, but we are ready to. Because we can no longer afford to "speak softly, and carry a big stick" - only by speaking loudly against such regimes can we change the status quo.
There are many many times in history where we could have established an American Empire - that's what you all fear. But it has not happened because that is not our motives, nor our intentions. Say what you will, but if that is what America was about, you'd all be Americans already
---
Man, all across the board today. Too many subjects to discuss.
I can't say I represent anyone but myself. These are my free opinions, and not representative of any group. Do not take this as the view of all Americans, because there are just as many that would hate me for writing this as there would be agreeing with me.
Nor do I believe that all others are anti-American. It is a small porportion of these countries' populations that are easily incited in these anti-American marches. If all these people were against the US, I'm sure I would not be talking to you now: as the evil Internet was invented for use by the American Department of Defense
Im back with a vengence
Apparently Sadam (If he is still alive) Only controls a small part of Iraq?
Cool, I dont think that means things are bad.
In the long run I think this war will greatly benifit Iraq, They are losing alot now, but it will all be made better in the long run.
I was watching a live speech of some Iraqi guy and he was thrilled that they had shot down an apache and some tanks, he was so proud that they had killed soldiers. America and Brittain are tearing their way through the Iraqi's and the Iraqi's think they are winning?
They are also trying to turn their people againts the British? Thats not Nice :mad:
a nice fact:
the amounth of american soldiers that died IN A WEEK, is the about the same of people that get killed by gunfights EVERY DAY in america
no offence, but get your own country normal b4 you start complaining about how bad an invasion goes.
and something else, you are all saying the war is going badly, but the war is ONLY GOING FOR A WEEK, and they are already attacking bagdad, so how on earth can you say it is going badly.
i'll shut up now, but think about it.
Originally posted by gonk-raider
LOLOL.. going badlly .. we are bassicaly slaughtering any iraqie threats, we've almost taken the country expect for sprase pockets of resistance. the usa is owning.. with out...***** eroupean countries -wont name names- that only want to cash in on the rebuilding of iraq after we kick this Evil regime(sp) out. Saying this i will name make my statement defending the united states..
No one said the war is going badly. But it does go worse than they expected. The recistance has been more than they thought it would be, people are pretending to surrender and then attack, there are a good deal of ambushes going on, the Fedajin forces attacked the American troops earlier than expected, wich has made the US forces go on defensive in serveral areas. And USA hasn't even started the major battle yet.
We can no longer give trillions of dollars in foreign aid for it to be abused by these groups. The UN has funded weapons programs throughout the 60s.. arming and abetting known militant groups. France, Germany, and Russia are known to increase the military power of numerous totalitarian regimes. Our "Food for Oil" programs are going into the coffers of dictators such as Saddam, not the people who truly need it.
For one thing, the US precentage of total economy that goes to foreign aid is the lowest of all western countries. (BTW, if you want to know, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux countries have the highest foreign aid precentage). You say trillions of dollars, but with today's foreign aid, you'll have to aid for nearly a hundred years to bring a total foreign aid to 1 trillion dollars.
And the "food for oil" programs doesn't directly aid Saddam, since food won't really support his country, but it will aid the civillians.
We gave the UN a chance to remain united... instead they have chosen division. It is not us that have ruined the diplomatic process, it is countries such as France who would not even vote on a resolution. At this point, it does not matter. The UN has shown it is nothing more than an anti-American platform.
So basically, you say that since they don't agree a 100% with USA, they are all anti-American? WTF?
When you have such countries as Libya on the human rights committee, and such countries as Iran and Iraq on the disarmament committee, you see how hard it is to take them seriously. When most of these countries are controlled by dictorial regimes, would you rather the UN control your country, or your country control your country.
Why shouldn't they have a right to have something to say? It is far worse giving veto rights to Russia and USA than letting such countries join the debate.
There will always be anti-American sentiment as long as their is human emotions. Because we support freedom and a democractic government, because we respect human rights and have capitalist society, because we have morals and views that are upheld through the Constitution.
That's not the reasons of why you are hated. People see you as people who care for nothing but your own good self, and there is actually much that has given them "reason" for believing this. I don't do so myself, mind you.
Coalition forces are the ones dropping food and supplements for the Iraqi people..
Coalition forces are the ones that made them need food and supplements in the first place. Coalition forces are the ones to cut of water and power supplies in Basra so that 100,000 children below 5 years may die of dehydration and sickness.
high-precision missiles are targetting military targets.
The only difference between "smart" bombs and normal bombs is that "smart" bombs hits the school at the side of the target instead of hitting the school down the street.
We're not all gungho about using force, but we are ready to.
Then I guess you can explain to me why you have rushed so badly for this war.
Nor do I believe that all others are anti-American. It is a small porportion of these countries' populations that are easily incited in these anti-American marches.
So you actually think everyone pro-peace are anti-American?
Yes Americans do have a better standard of living..
Most western countries have a standard of living equal to or better than USA.
i laugh at you hahaha! going bad yeah (sarcasm) its going good sure wel lost 50 too many soldiers but we are kiken ass and arnt quiten thats the marines and army for ya, ooooorah!
simper fy , carry on
Originally posted by daring dueler
I laugh at you hahaha! Going bad yeah right! (sarcasm) It's going good sure we lost 50, which is too many soldiers but we are kicking ass and are not quiting. That's the marines and army for you, ooooorah!
I had to correct the poor english in that..anyway..
Even though I do believe this conflict did have to happen( Saddamn was doing horrible stuff after all) I did feel that we rushed to fight them. Even though Saddam does have the capabilities for nuclear missles that could reach us, it'd take them a year to make a missle. If I'm not mistaken, North Korea already has a nuclear missle..either America attacked Iraq first because of Saddam's terrorism and dictatorship, or because of the oil( The Army did overtake the oil fields first...) in Iraq..it's second in total oil reserves only to Saudia Arabia(Sp?).
Oh and I do support the marines. I know that they are fighting for the country, and they had no impact on the decision of the war...however the goverment made the decision......
I'd just like to point out one thing:
There's not a single army, a single soldier in the history of the world who has "wrongfully attacked" anyone.
They're always protecting their motherland or their faith or whatever. Even when they attack, they're "defending". :rolleyes:
>>Gonk-raider
This war on terrorism is going bad. Youґve(the US) just assured that you have about twice the amount of terrorists to fight. By attacking Iraq a very great deal of the arab/muslim populations around the world are very very mad at the US. That results a great increase in the number of terrorists willing to become suicide bombers.
There is this thing called democracy. It assures that everybody has a right to speak and that everybody can vote and have their own oppinion. I thought the US was one of itґs most stalwart defenders, but when you say that France among others are dividing the UN because they disagree with the US then you are of the bloody point of democracy. Then I begin to wonder whether they really are or not.
Smart bombs are perhaps only 10-20% of the bombs dropped in Iraq. The ratio in GW1 was 10%. That is not showing the greatest care for the people. The war is going great, but when the coalition forces reach Baghdad all hell is loose. If it gets bombed down to 1/4 of the elite of the elite(those 15k in Baghdad who are the only ones there) thereґs still 3.75 k soldiers willing to die for Saddam and I guess that it will cost the coalition 1-3 thousand dead. City fight is favoring the defender.
Forced democracy is usually not a very good idea. Japan and Southern Korea are the only examples I can think of as beeing positive. This quest of liberty which The US administration is on is more like a money raid to me than anything else. Besides the US has toppled more than enough democracies. Afghanistan, which was supposed to be democratic by now, is just chaos. The sentiment has to be democratic/liberal else it will most probably fail. I fear that the US are just making another Balkan of the middle east like they did when they created Isreal.
Can someone explain to me how the person driving a tank gets shot. I was always under the impression that there was no means for small arms fire to get into a tank thus what made a tank ideal to be in/around.
This is in response to a tank driver being shot and driving his tank into a river where his other companions drowned.
BigTeddyPaul
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
Can someone explain to me how the person driving a tank gets shot. I was always under the impression that there was no means for small arms fire to get into a tank thus what made a tank ideal to be in/around.
He couldn't have been shot through the vision as that's armoured.
If the crew wasn't buttoned up, the driver would sit with his torso exposed like the commander.
But really, something more likely is that the tank driver accidentally drove off the Euphrate bridge while crossing it, and the story was covered up as a lucky sniper shot.
Originally posted by Bonedemon
>>Gonk-raider
This war on terrorism is going bad. Youґve(the US) just assured that you have about twice the amount of terrorists to fight. By attacking Iraq a very great deal of the arab/muslim populations around the world are very very mad at the US. That results a great increase in the number of terrorists willing to become suicide bombers.
There is this thing called democracy. It assures that everybody has a right to speak and that everybody can vote and have their own oppinion. I thought the US was one of itґs most stalwart defenders, but when you say that France among others are dividing the UN because they disagree with the US then you are of the bloody point of democracy. Then I begin to wonder whether they really are or not.
Smart bombs are perhaps only 10-20% of the bombs dropped in Iraq. The ratio in GW1 was 10%. That is not showing the greatest care for the people. The war is going great, but when the coalition forces reach Baghdad all hell is loose. If it gets bombed down to 1/4 of the elite of the elite(those 15k in Baghdad who are the only ones there) thereґs still 3.75 k soldiers willing to die for Saddam and I guess that it will cost the coalition 1-3 thousand dead. City fight is favoring the defender.
Forced democracy is usually not a very good idea. Japan and Southern Korea are the only examples I can think of as beeing positive. This quest of liberty which The US administration is on is more like a money raid to me than anything else. Besides the US has toppled more than enough democracies. Afghanistan, which was supposed to be democratic by now, is just chaos. The sentiment has to be democratic/liberal else it will most probably fail. I fear that the US are just making another Balkan of the middle east like they did when they created Isreal.
My God....
They don't have enough people to beat us. The war for them is going bad, for us... think about this. We lost less then 50 people. Now they lost thousands of people. We are in Bahgdad or whatever right now. Our economy is going to get better. It's just the war jumped in. We are going to survive. The threat must be removed. I am sick of people who say the war is going bad when they have no solid agreeable proof. Don't start saying the war is going bad becuase that's just being stupid.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
The threat must be removed.
I am getting mighty tired of this.
Saddam. Is. No. Threat. To. The. United. States. Of. America.
I am sick of people who say the war is going bad when they have no solid agreeable proof. Don't start saying the war is going bad becuase that's just being stupid.
I agree, the war is most definately not going bad. But please, look at what he writes. Bonedemon does not say the war against Iraq is going bad - he's saying your war against terrorism is going bad, because you'll create more terrorists from such intervention acts.
Here's how I think it will play out: Coalition forces enters Bagdad. Hundreds of bodybags get shipped back the US from streetfighting casualties. The American people do not want to see hundreds of bodybags. Coalition forces bomb the sh*t out of Bagdad. Coalition forces win.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
My God....
They don't have enough people to beat us. The war for them is going bad, for us... think about this. We lost less then 50 people. Now they lost thousands of people. We are in Bahgdad or whatever right now. Our economy is going to get better. It's just the war jumped in. We are going to survive. The threat must be removed. I am sick of people who say the war is going bad when they have no solid agreeable proof. Don't start saying the war is going bad becuase that's just being stupid.
I thought I made myself clear but this shows I didnґt. what I mean is that the war on terror is going bad. The US has, by attacking Iraq, doubled the number terrorists worldwide they have to fight if my guessing is right. The anti-american softies(which werenґt willing to kill/die) are becoming toughs willing to die in their fight against America.
The war on Iraq is going good, but I guess that the coalition forces will loose some thousand troops in the battle. The real battle is ahead(in Baghdad) and cityfight favours the defender plus the coalition has to be very careful about civilian casualties therefore the preliminary bombardment will be very limited in options.
So why don't they attack us. There isn't going to be enough terroist to destroy us. The war on terroism has seemed to me to have stoped I hadn't heard anything on that. We will see what happens I guess.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
So why don't they attack us.
I believe they've already done so....
There isn't going to be enough terroist to destroy us.
Of course not. That's not the point of terrorism in the first place.
They just want to terrorize you a little. Make you fear for your life. If they've done so, they've won.
The war on terroism has seemed to me to have stoped I hadn't heard anything on that. We will see what happens I guess.
That we will.
Maybe it'll all be a big fuzz caused by some vocal anti-Americans, or maybe America will be a mere shadow of its former self in twenty years.
First of all, NOBODY is much of a threat to the US. China is a marginal threat but in a war against them, the US would win. Against europe, well lets just say the advance hitler made in the start of world war two would be a joke.... africa, no power there to speak of, middle east has no power etc... you get the picture. There are two countries in the world that have the right to use their mouths, thats the US and china, the rest of you should be able to see who has the better values... easy.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Against europe, well lets just say the advance hitler made in the start of world war two would be a joke....
I'm not so sure about that.
Granted, your military is probably more well-trained than ours, and your technology superior as well, but Europe has the advantage of numbers.
And if we decide to call Russia Europe, things could begin to look grim for the USA.
bah crado china has atleast 50,000 more soldiers than us and many more weapons of destruction. and dont tell me technologically we are advanced. most if not all our weapon parts come from china. second if we bombed china then bye bye america and half of the world. also uhmmm africa if we went there again our troops would be cut down 3/4 of the size. they have more advanced guerrila tactics now after somolia. europe bah they would kick our asses 2 ways of the north pole. Ireland psshh they got one of the most hardcore elite teams in the world. england they have money out the ass, and they have the worlds most powerful tank. spain millions of guerrilla battle tactics. germany hi-o undying will and not to mention multiple missle systems bigger, badder, and stronger than ours. scotland, they can kick our asses big time, they have (cant remember the name) a hardcore fighting team too. portugual maybe not but they have people to supply. turkey heh they coudl shut off our trade ports faster than you can say hi. same with anyother european country. norway, they got the warrior genes just like all the other european countries. dont even get me started on russia.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
First of all, NOBODY is much of a threat to the US. China is a marginal threat but in a war against them, the US would win. Against europe, well lets just say the advance hitler made in the start of world war two would be a joke.... africa, no power there to speak of, middle east has no power etc... you get the picture. There are two countries in the world that have the right to use their mouths, thats the US and china, the rest of you should be able to see who has the better values... easy.
Against Europe! That's it! Let's (the US) go after them damn Europeans before they launch a secret chemical attack on us!
After Europe its onto Asia! YYYYEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAA.
The m1 rips up leopard II's as if they were tin cans, and t-90s are the same way. Also there are 1000s of m1s and very very few numbers of european stuffs. Norway lost its warrior gene when the warriors moved to the US and germany is the same. Russia would starve before they could win at all. Special forces dont win wars either, and i supposed youve never heard of the Army Rangers, navy seals, or most powerful air force and navy hands down without any rival.... anyway back to the subject.
BTW i dont really want this, i think the europeans need to get on the right track, like what tony blair thinks (the EU has no military power so it is not actually powerful) and that the US is needed.
Please stay on topic guys.
Don't let this devolve into a national pissing contest.
Posted by CagedCrado
Norway lost its warrior gene when the warriors moved to the US and germany is the same.LOL.
Good one. ;)
BTW i dont really want this, i think the europeans need to get on the right track, like what tony blair thinks (the EU has no military power so it is not actually powerful)Yet. ;)
I really feel as if I ought to hate Blair, but I can't... I'm convinced he's planning something BIG for the [very] long-run... Although I have no idea what. =/
Ahh well :)
Anyway, getting back on the original track of the thread... I agree with rut-wa jodar for the most part... I think this quote from the Egyptian President sums up this aspect of my opinion on the invasion -
“We will have one hundred bin Ladens because of the war in Iraq”I reckon he's right - they probably won't be able to pull off something like 9/11 again, but I have a horrible feeling that this invasion will spawn legions of Western-loathing fundametalists that are willing to blow themselves up :(
I know that one terrorist attack is one too many, but how many foreign terrorist attacks against the U.S. or U.S. property has there been? Around ten maybe? If I'm wrong please correct me. So if that amount doubles, or even triples, we're gonna have terrorist attacks that are a fraction of what other countries endure in a years time. Yeah it sucks, but terrorist attacks haven't stopped these countries, why would they stop the U.S.? Also, who in their right mind would abondoned a war because someone else might get upset and commit a terrorist act? That is completely and utterly retarded.
Osama and a bunch of the polesmokers that took part in the hijackings and destruction of the world trade towers came from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has done nothing to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has so much oil it's falling out of their asses like black diarrhea. Chimpanzee's born from incestious parents with severe mental retardation would be able to see the big picture here. Saudi terrorists will get a free pass, and Saudi sympathizers or those who supply money will not be persecuted. Because palms greased with oil are the slickest.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The m1 rips up leopard II's as if they were tin cans, and t-90s are the same way. Also there are 1000s of m1s and very very few numbers of european stuffs. Norway lost its warrior gene when the warriors moved to the US and germany is the same. Russia would starve before they could win at all. Special forces dont win wars either, and i supposed youve never heard of the Army Rangers, navy seals, or most powerful air force and navy hands down without any rival.... anyway back to the subject.
BTW i dont really want this, i think the europeans need to get on the right track, like what tony blair thinks (the EU has no military power so it is not actually powerful) and that the US is needed.
Germany still has itґs warrior gene. Remember WW2?
Besides, why would the US attack Europe? We one of their prime trading partners and most of them are members of NATO, an alliance built by the US. Besides we do have a nice military, not as tchnologically advanced, but stil quite ok anyway. Just wait untill the EU get that defence coordination plan into action. And
Originally posted by Bonedemon
Besides, why would the US attack Europe? We one of their prime trading partners and most of them are members of NATO, an alliance built by the US.
Well, with Bush, you never know ;)
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Well, with Bush, you never know ;)
He won't that would be insanity.
I bet someone is going to say he is insane..... ugh I need a oreo
Ug, this is rediculous. The war is NOT going badly. Nor has the coalition "underestimated" the Iraq soldiers. The so called 'soldiers' of Saddam are little more than terrorist police. They are poorly trained and have made no great show of military power once. Less than 80 US and coalition forces have died in this war. Was anyone really expecting a casualty-free war? The Iraqs have lost thousands of troops. Infact, in one battle the US soldiers killed 200-300 Iraq soldiers and did not lose a single soldier. The Iraqis ambushed them too.
The allied forces have moved unbelievibly fast through Iraq, and have beaten back all oposition. Baghdad is already under our control. The US has total dominance from the air. All Scud missles (which Iraq supposedly didn't have :rolleyes:) that actually got far enough to cause a threat were shot down by our much improved patriot missles.
The Iraqi people are finally realising that this time the oppresive tyranny that Saddam has inlficted on them will actually be gone someday soon. They have even began to take arms agianst their oppressors. Hundreds of Iraqi children have been rescued prisons. Slowly more and more Iraqis are finally seeing that they have a chance to live without fear of a dictator who would have his own people killed merciliessly and have it blamed on their liberators. A regime that would kill civilians at the first sign of dissent. A government whos special forces have a normal job of bringing women to one of Saddams sons to be raped.
All of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons they weren't supposed to have were locked down and stopped from being launched by special forces already on the ground long before before the war started..
I could go on and on... This is hardly a time to even consider anything other than victory. Sure there have been loses... And those are extreemly unfortunate... Civilian and military deaths are inevitable. However, if anything, this war has been FAR more succesful than planned.
Scuds arenґt illegal for him to have. They just have to have a certain max range.
Anyhow. I donґt think anybody(with 1 or 2 exceptions) thinks that the war ON IRAQ is going badly. I said that the war on terrorism was going badly. Simply put because the US will have to get 100 Ozamas instead of the one.
The US really made the arab world angry with them.
Besides the reason for the coalition going that fast through Iraq is that nobody wants to defend a desert. Itґs like inviting the enemy to shot you. In the cities there are cover and defencive warfare is easier than offencive in that terrain.
Indeed the average Iraqi footslugger is indeed badly trained, but the elite rebublican guard are far more skilled and probably willing to become suicide bombers.
I suppose even they are quiting now, but thereґs allways the fanatics.
Simply put because the US will have to get 100 Ozamas instead of the one.
It's Osamas not Ozamas.
Do you mean a 100 people like Osama (planning against us) or 100 Osamas as in blowing themselves up.
The US really made the arab world angry with them.
Well let's remember the real way this all started. Terroist were attackin Isreal for a peice of land the Iraqi claimed to be sent to them. Isreal asked us for help and we replied with sending them supplies. The terroist got pissed at us since we helped them. They went to hit us, destroying a beloved building (WTC), the pentagon, and one went down thanks to brave souls with no weapons or training.
Let me ask you this.
Will it take a chemical bomb or just a normal bomb to go off in a stadium full of people for you to go with war?
Will it take a chemical bomb or just a normal bomb to go off in a stadium full of people for you to go with war?-hob goblin
i agreee with you , whay does it take so much for people to say, "we should disarm him"?
as for scuds, they were illegal for him to have since they can carry chem or bio weapons.
A lot of people are starting to feel that the US is a threat too. How 'bout we disarm you guys?
Just kidding :D
Anyways, now that the war pretty much seems to be over and done with we can all witness how the Americans
1) will find the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has
2) destroy all WOMD's
3) aid UN in every possible way to rebuild what they have destroyed
4) let UN organize a legit goverment to Iraq
5) get back to America
No shady deals. No ulterior motives. A simple altruistic deed: Disarm Saddam and free the poor oppressed people of Iraq.
That's what it is all about.
Perhaps I'm right. Perhaps I'm too naive. Perhaps I'm being sarcastic. Who knows... Time will tell. :)
The war isn’t pretty much over. America is waging war on terrorism not just Iraq.
I think the different countries and organizations should do what they do best. Let the tree hugging countries do the cleanup while America moves on to destroy something else. That’s what we do best, destroy.
I’m kidding of course.
Non-Americans seem to think that America should do nothing and yet be responsible for everything at the same time. America didn’t destroy Iraq for fun. If there had been no resistance there wouldn’t have been any destruction.
So the bottom line is this:
If America invades your country, just do what the French do and get on your knees.
Originally posted by Luc Solar
A lot of people are starting to feel that the US is a threat too. How 'bout we disarm you guys?
Just kidding :D
Anyways, now that the war pretty much seems to be over and done with we can all witness how the Americans
1) will find the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has
2) destroy all WOMD's
3) aid UN in every possible way to rebuild what they have destroyed
4) let UN organize a legit goverment to Iraq
5) get back to America
No shady deals. No ulterior motives. A simple altruistic deed: Disarm Saddam and free the poor oppressed people of Iraq.
That's what it is all about.
Perhaps I'm right. Perhaps I'm too naive. Perhaps I'm being sarcastic. Who knows... Time will tell. :)
I agree with you. That pretty much looks like whats left to do.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
I agree with you. That pretty much looks like whats left to do.
I think he was being slightly ironic ;)
Originally posted by Breton
I think he was being slightly ironic ;) dont you mean sarcastic? :confused:
Originally posted by Breton
I think he was being slightly ironic
Originally posted by InsaneSith
dont you mean sarcastic? :confused:
Originally posted by Luc Solar Who knows... Time will tell
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
It's Osamas not Ozamas.
Do you mean a 100 people like Osama (planning against us) or 100 Osamas as in blowing themselves up.
So thatґs how that name is spelled. Iґve seen a lot of other versions. They confused me
That particular quote comes from an Egyptian minister of sorts. I am sorry, but I canґt give a link to it. I lost it as I lost a disc. I also forgot to credit originally. sorry for that as well.
What I meant was that the US will get a lot more terrorists to kill before the fight is over. Both leaders and followers but I donґt know the number.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Well let's remember the real way this all started. Terroist were attackin Isreal for a peice of land the Iraqi claimed to be sent to them.
No it started at the founding of the racist State of Isreal. That was in no way jewish land. The people of Palжstinia had been there for centuries. The jews had no legitimate claim to that land whatsoever.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Isreal asked us for help and we replied with sending them supplies. The terroist got pissed at us since we helped them. They went to hit us, destroying a beloved building (WTC), the pentagon, and one went down thanks to brave souls with no weapons or training.
Oh yes and the US tobbled the Taleban/Al Queda(sp?) regime in Afghanistan as revenge and bringing justice. I supported that. Fully. But attacking Iraq seems far more like an money/oil/power grab to me and a lot of others.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Let me ask you this.
Will it take a chemical bomb or just a normal bomb to go off in a stadium full of people for you to go with war?
Well of course such a thing would make me mad enough to make war, but the US had itґs war against Al Queda(Sp?).
There was no connection between Saddam and Osama so there is no reason(in the war on terror that is) to attack Iraq. It minded itґs own business(which, at times, wasnґt pleasent).