NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi from the Green Zone,

I have a few minutes, so I thought I'd give a view of how I see things from on the ground here. Remember, this is MY VIEW, not any kind of official
view.

As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all
showing. It really strikes me how I watch the reports and just do not
recognize the supposed horror-filled place I am supposed to be in.

I mean I hear anchors intone with heavy voices and deeply furrowed brows
that "Iraq is still under siege as a gunman killed two people today in (fill
in the city)." OK. That happens in war. But damn, to read the papers and
watch TV, you'd think every day was the Battle of the Bulge here.

People, it just ain't so.

I am willing to say that more people are murdered every day in the States,
hell, in DC or Detroit. Not saying we don't have bad days, but it is
WAR!!!!!!

One thing that really bothers me is when we put out a release that says
something like, "A Task Force Danger Soldier was killed today...." and the
media runs all over with it, but ignores the fact that six terrorists were
also killed. Somehow the fact that they die is not deemed news by the
media. Only U.S. deaths are. They also don't report all the caches our
Soldiers and Marines uncover, most times with help from locals. Of course,
this leads to the perception around the world we are living in a state of
siege and the terrorists are running wild.

As for the locals I have met, I cannot tell you the thirst for democratic
government I have heard from the people here. When I hear people,
especially politicians, saying the crap I have heard on the news, it is just
sick to me. I don't give two damn's if you are a die-hard member of the
opposition to President Bush, the stuff that Kennedy, Biden, Rangle and all
those are spewing.I have to tell you, and this is the truth, that is scarier
to the troops I talk to than the terrorists. (Not insurgents, not
guerillas, but terrorists or criminals!) You can have all the views you
want, but I am here to tell you, being here, there is some real dislike for
the current leadership of the Democratic Party and how they couch things in
"we support the troops but." I have to say, they don't appear to support
us. Again, this is only my view and what I hear from the other Soldiers
here.

On another note, working the press desk is a lot of fun. I have met a lot
of the journalists coming through, as part of my job is to get them to
units, pick them up when they are coming back from places like Mosul and
Basrah.. What I was most shocked by? Two things. One, the FNC people seem
to be the most approachable and friendly. That is not saying the others are
not, but the Fox guys are just really friendly, even Shepard Smith. Two, I
escorted Dan Rather when he did his nightly news from here, and there is
only one word I can use to describe him. That word is gentleman. I have my
own views of him as a broadcaster and is he is slanted in coverage, but the
man is a true gentleman, and it really was a pleasure to not only meet him,
and I would do it again in a second.

Well, I have wasted enough of your time. Hope you all are well, I am very
glad to be back and able to contribute (hopefully) in a meaningful way.

Nick

Good old Propaganda from an obvious Republican. :eek:

so Fox News, the supposedly pro-war, pro-republican news network doesn't report the good work being done in Iraq? I'm confused.

Secondly, I don't like how he keeps saying it's war. Didn't it cease to be war when the US installed the temporary government? I thought it was supposed to be a rather violent peace.

And about the Fox reporter being gentlemen. I tend to find that most (not all) gentlemen seem to be sexist, racist, biggots, but even if only in such a gentlemanly way. c.c

Good old Propaganda from an obvious Republican. :eek:

I am neither Republican or Democratic or any other political party, so I have to ask is it fair to call this person's comments propaganda? It appears to me be a personel appraisal of the situation.

I am neither Republican or Democratic or any other political party, so I have to ask is it fair to call this person's comments propaganda? It appears to me be a personel appraisal of the situation.
Well it is definitely "propaganda" and it is aimed at the Democrats, and certain ones in particular.

A personal appraisal from a guy sitting in perhaps the safest area in Iraq (Green Zone). Perhaps he should go for a stroll on the streets of Fallujah and then report back....that is IF he makes it back?

Good old Propaganda from an obvious Republican. :eek:

I'll second that!

Well it is definitely "propaganda" and it is aimed at the Democrats, and certain ones in particular.

A personal appraisal from a guy sitting in perhaps the safest area in Iraq (Green Zone). Perhaps he should go for a stroll on the streets of Fallujah and then report back....that is IF he makes it back?

How do you know where he has been and what he has seen in Iraq? If his opinion, based on first hand knowledge, isn't the same as yours, sitting at your computer somewhere in Canada, it is propaganda? I would imagine that he sees your comments as propaganda aimed at conservatives and most particularly our military. Here's another little bit of "propaganda" for you to scoff at and make fun of:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/profiles/apr2004/pr042304a.html

Rozelle, 31, was injured in a June land mine explosion in the western-Iraqi city of Hit, where he commanded 140 soldiers of Troop K of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. At Fort Carson, Colo., he took command of a rear echelon following a recovery that outfitted him with a prosthetic foot. A medical board cleared him to remain on active duty last month and in May, Rozelle will take command of a 3rd ACR headquarters troop.

Talk about getting your butt kicked by a one-legged man :eek:

Eutrusca,

Stay safe, nice to hear a little ground truth from somebody over there. Already done my year in the Sandbox, so I'm clear for a while. Not much in the way of international media reported on all the good that was done in Northern Iraq when I was there. Its sad when a lot of good news is drowned out by a few pieces of bad news.

How do you know where he has been and what he has seen in Iraq?
GadZooks!! (pardon the pun)

Well it appears that he is…..

"As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all showing."

comfortably watching TV in the Green Zone?

If his opinion, based on first hand knowledge, isn't the same as yours, sitting at your computer somewhere in Canada, it is propaganda?
Is his information indeed based on “first hand” knowledge, or is he just a desk jockey in the safest place in Iraq?

Is his opinion not propaganda aimed at the Democrats?

I would imagine that he sees your comments as propaganda aimed at conservatives and most particularly our military.
You see my comments as propaganda perhaps and the rest is your imagination? Some of my best friends are "conservatives".

I am not against your military at all. They have been ordered into Iraq. Yeah, I do have a slight problem with the US administration that ordered the troops there in the first place, but I didn’t start this thread and I am only responding to what I see as “propaganda”, in view of the daily news reports.

Here's another little bit of "propaganda" for you to scoff at and make fun of:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/profil.../pr042304a.html

[Quote:]
Rozelle, 31, was injured in a June land mine explosion in the western-Iraqi city of Hit, where he commanded 140 soldiers of Troop K of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. At Fort Carson, Colo., he took command of a rear echelon following a recovery that outfitted him with a prosthetic foot. A medical board cleared him to remain on active duty last month and in May, Rozelle will take command of a 3rd ACR headquarters troop.


Talk about getting your butt kicked by a one-legged man

What makes you think I delight in making fun of an injured person? I have never called down your troops, and for you to suggest such, is a sad attempt on your part to make me look callous and/or uncaring.

It is too bad he had to suffer the injury in the first place? It could be worse, he could be one of the 1500 who came home in body bags?

Scan a letter into your computer and I MIGHT believe it.

so Fox News, the supposedly pro-war, pro-republican news network doesn't report the good work being done in Iraq? I'm confused.

Secondly, I don't like how he keeps saying it's war. Didn't it cease to be war when the US installed the temporary government? I thought it was supposed to be a rather violent peace.

And about the Fox reporter being gentlemen. I tend to find that most (not all) gentlemen seem to be sexist, racist, biggots, but even if only in such a gentlemanly way. c.c
Dan Rather is a Fox News Reporter??? ROFLMAO!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Well it is definitely "propaganda" and it is aimed at the Democrats, and certain ones in particular.

A personal appraisal from a guy sitting in perhaps the safest area in Iraq (Green Zone). Perhaps he should go for a stroll on the streets of Fallujah and then report back....that is IF he makes it back?
His barracks are in the Green Zone. He makes regular patrols and gets shot at on a fairly frequent basis.

Scan a letter into your computer and I MIGHT believe it.
( shrug ) No skin off my back. You're obviously going to believe what you want to believe anyway.

Eutrusca,

Stay safe, nice to hear a little ground truth from somebody over there. Already done my year in the Sandbox, so I'm clear for a while. Not much in the way of international media reported on all the good that was done in Northern Iraq when I was there. Its sad when a lot of good news is drowned out by a few pieces of bad news.
I agree. Strange, is it not, how so many on here rail on and on about how "right wing" all American newspapers are, but then scoff at someone boots on the ground who has no particular ax to grind and states that the good things being done in Iraq aren't getting coverage. Sigh. None so blind as those who will not see. :(

GadZooks!! (pardon the pun)

Well it appears that he is…..

"As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all showing."

comfortably watching TV in the Green Zone?

Is his information indeed based on “first hand” knowledge, or is he just a desk jockey in the safest place in Iraq?

Is his opinion not propaganda aimed at the Democrats?

You see my comments as propaganda perhaps and the rest is your imagination? Some of my best friends are "conservatives".

I am not against your military at all. They have been ordered into Iraq. Yeah, I do have a slight problem with the US administration that ordered the troops there in the first place, but I didn’t start this thread and I am only responding to what I see as “propaganda”, in view of the daily news reports.
[QUOTE=Zooke]
Here's another little bit of "propaganda" for you to scoff at and make fun of:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/profil.../pr042304a.html





What makes you think I delight in making fun of an injured person? I have never called down your troops, and for you to suggest such, is a sad attempt on your part to make me look callous and/or uncaring.

It is too bad he had to suffer the injury in the first place? It could be worse, he could be one of the 1500 who came home in body bags?

You determined that a letter from someone serving in Iraq is propoganda aimed at a particular political party just because it doesn't enforce your opinions. Point made?

I_Hate_Cows....If Eutrusca says it you can pretty much take it to the bank. He's noted for his honesty.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]GadZooks!! (pardon the pun)

Well it appears that he is…..

"As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all showing."

comfortably watching TV in the Green Zone?

Is his information indeed based on “first hand” knowledge, or is he just a desk jockey in the safest place in Iraq?

Is his opinion not propaganda aimed at the Democrats?

You see my comments as propaganda perhaps and the rest is your imagination? Some of my best friends are "conservatives".

I am not against your military at all. They have been ordered into Iraq. Yeah, I do have a slight problem with the US administration that ordered the troops there in the first place, but I didn’t start this thread and I am only responding to what I see as “propaganda”, in view of the daily news reports.


You determined that a letter from someone serving in Iraq is propoganda aimed at a particular political party just because it doesn't enforce your opinions. Point made?

I_Hate_Cows....If Eutrusca says it you can pretty much take it to the bank. He's noted for his honesty.
Thank you, Zooke. I deeply appreciate that. ( HUG )

solidiers aren't objective experts and i think its hilarious when they pretend that they are seeing things so much more clearly than we are. of course the civilians are going to be fawning over democracy and the united states. i wouldn't be throwing rocks at a man with an ak-47 either. they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.

secondly, i dont know how you want the media to report this war. theyve been singing the praises of the iraqi elections for days, even though i have my reservations about how lasting this democracy is going to be. if he wants us to report the number of civilian (or terrorist as he called them) deaths along with the americans, im not really sure that that is going to change many minds. people are dying. we have no exit strategy. people are scared of americans. i say truck bombings are a lot more reliable factors in assessing the current mood than biased polls or interviews soldiers have with civilians.

that said, stay safe nick. just realize what people say to americans with guns arent going to be the same things they say when infadels arent around.

I_Hate_Cows....If Eutrusca says it you can pretty much take it to the bank. He's noted for his honesty.
he's noted for cheap right wing propaganda

Good old Propaganda from an obvious Republican. :eek:
Good grief. Only a dogmatic liberal could think that there is only terror and havoc in Iraq.

he's noted for cheap right wing propaganda
Uh huh. And you, with a grand total of six posts? Hmm. What's wrong with this picture??? :rolleyes:

Uh huh. And you, with a grand total of six posts? Hmm. What's wrong with this picture??? :rolleyes:

night Poppy..... :fluffle:

solidiers aren't objective experts and i think its hilarious when they pretend that they are seeing things so much more clearly than we are. of course the civilians are going to be fawning over democracy and the united states. i wouldn't be throwing rocks at a man with an ak-47 either. they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.

secondly, i dont know how you want the media to report this war. theyve been singing the praises of the iraqi elections for days, even though i have my reservations about how lasting this democracy is going to be. if he wants us to report the number of civilian (or terrorist as he called them) deaths along with the americans, im not really sure that that is going to change many minds. people are dying. we have no exit strategy. people are scared of americans. i say truck bombings are a lot more reliable factors in assessing the current mood than biased polls or interviews soldiers have with civilians.

that said, stay safe nick. just realize what people say to americans with guns arent going to be the same things they say when infadels arent around.

AK47s? The US military does not use AK47s. They use a many varients of the M-16.
Exit strategy? Please show me a war in history that began with nations having an exit strategy. Even the most balleyhood WWII never had an exit strategy. Things done after a war is finished are always ad hoc.

Good old Propaganda from an obvious Republican. :eek:

its easy to slap that label on him.. because he is a soldier.. (i think) and there in person.. of course he will look at the situation in a favorable light. And i dont thin kits propaganda.. hes not saying its the best place on earth.. but he is stating realities.. when the media report on causalites.. its what.. 5 SOLDIERS SHOT DOWN IN MOSUL ... and the footnote many terrorist killed.... IN fact numbers are rarely attributed to terrorist casulaties.. but on the same note.. same goes with Iraqi civilian casualties.. as many terrorists have been killed so probably even more civilians have been killed.. whatever the cause.

Another thing.. why is setting a date for leaving IRaq so criticle.. does that making the task somehow easier ? on the contrary i think it makes it harder... we set an arbitrary date on an issue which is totally reliant on time.. the time it takes to train, and gain experiance. And if we cannot leave by the date we propose.. then we give a precieved victory to the terrorists boosting their moral damaging ours.. and for what. To give the ILLUSION to the american people that we can leave this situation anytime soon. If we leave too soon, then all the american lives lost thus far were in vain, because the countr will quickly fall into chaos. Why not leave when we are meant to leave.. when the situation so warrents it.

its so obsured... you watch the news every day.. 2 people died 5 people died 8 people died.... how many people die in the US every day, from gun shots, roberies rapes, accidents... you hear the same cities over and over Basra, Fallujia, Mosal, Bagdad.. the other 70% of the coutnry left unmentioned, yet we are given the impression chaos reigns free.. I dont doubt some areas of the country are dangerous... but looking past the headlines, into the substance of the stories.. one quickly will see the country isn't as in bad shape as many media reports may suggest. Because areas of peace arn't "news worth"

what was the exist strategy for WW2 ? we STILL have troops in Germany, France, Italy, Japan.... What was the exist strategy in Korea... we STILL have troops on the DMZ ... Why now are we so astonished.. when the military dosn't give an exist strategy for a war.. ?

I garantee you.. had we won in vietnam we would STILL Have troops there today.. in no war in history have we had this idea of an exist strategy.. its all smoke and mirrors brought up by anti-war protestors to give the ILLUSION to the american and global citizens that the American administration dosn't care about the loss of life weather it be Arab or American

You determined that a letter from someone serving in Iraq is propoganda aimed at a particular political party just because it doesn't enforce your opinions.
The letter IS aimed at a particular party (Democrats), and is thusly propaganda. If the writer intended to dispel the notion that Iraq is dangerous then all he had to do was say so without evoking partisanship comments.

What does Mr. Rumsfeld have to say about Iraq today (09 February 2005)?

On the other hand, it's still dangerous there, and that's a factor that countries take into account," said Mr. Rumsfeld.


Now....who am I supposed to believe?


Point made?
The only point you have made so far is that in trying to refute that the letter isn't propaganda, you have failed to do so.

AK47s? The US military does not use AK47s. They use a many varients of the M-16.
Exit strategy? Please show me a war in history that began with nations having an exit strategy. Even the most balleyhood WWII never had an exit strategy. Things done after a war is finished are always ad hoc.
god, ak-47's, m-16's, the point is a soldier on the ground isnt getting a clear picture of what is happening and his views into the psyche of the iraqi people is total crap. we went into ww2 because we

a.) had to.(pearl harbor, where was the pearl harbor in iraq?)
b. had a good idea what we wanted to accomplish (stop japenese and german aggression, take back lands that were invaded)
and
c. knew what victory would look like (no more nazis, no more threat)

we didnt have any of these things in vietnam, and thats why we failed so miserably. can you really say we have any idea what we are fighting for in iraq? and i dont want some vague concept like "democracy" because thats as bad as fighting a war on a word, "terrorism."

[QUOTE=Freedomstein]they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.[QUOTE]

So you're saying that the Shites and the Kurds would welcome Saddam back wiht open arms. The man who ordered the gassing of the Kurdish village of Halabjah in the late 80s, killing about 5,000. The man who forced the Kurds out of their homes and moved Arabs into them. The man who killed thousands and thousands of both peoples and kept them in poverty, while giving money to his supports amongst the Sunnis. The man who filled mass graves with murdered Sunnis, Shites, and Kurds.

When that happens, Satan will be building a snow fort in Hell.

[QUOTE=Freedomstein]they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.[QUOTE]

So you're saying that the Shites and the Kurds would welcome Saddam back wiht open arms. The man who ordered the gassing of the Kurdish village of Halabjah in the late 80s, killing about 5,000. The man who forced the Kurds out of their homes and moved Arabs into them. The man who killed thousands and thousands of both peoples and kept them in poverty, while giving money to his supports amongst the Sunnis. The man who filled mass graves with murdered Sunnis, Shites, and Kurds.

When that happens, Satan will be building a snow fort in Hell.
no, im saying the shiites and kurds would be scared shitless of him and pretend to welcome him back with open arms. if the choice is between throwing some sham parade or being tortured in some dark prison, that aint no choice. stop using stories of human rights abuses as an excuse for not seeing the bigger picture

god, ak-47's, m-16's, the point is a soldier on the ground isnt getting a clear picture of what is happening and his views into the psyche of the iraqi people is total crap. we went into ww2 because we

a.) had to.(pearl harbor, where was the pearl harbor in iraq?)
b. had a good idea what we wanted to accomplish (stop japenese and german aggression, take back lands that were invaded)
and
c. knew what victory would look like (no more nazis, no more threat)

we didnt have any of these things in vietnam, and thats why we failed so miserably. can you really say we have any idea what we are fighting for in iraq? and i dont want some vague concept like "democracy" because thats as bad as fighting a war on a word, "terrorism."

what was the exist strategy in the cold war.. what did the enemy look like.. ? spies where everywhere.. what did victory look like ? a slow conversion to democracy ? yet we still have troops in all the countries lining the iron curtin... Victory here is easy... (no more car bombs no more threat)
More Iraqi soliders then terrorist they can handle it... victory is clear here.. but we simply dont know how LONG it will take to acheive it.. one cannot simply arbitrarly set a date

no, im saying the shiites and kurds would be scared shitless of him and pretend to welcome him back with open arms. if the choice is between throwing some sham parade or being tortured in some dark prison, that aint no choice. stop using stories of human rights abuses as an excuse for not seeing the bigger picture


Well for the past 13 years, the Kurds pretty much told Saddam to go F-off. they have over 75,000 armed peshmurga (militia)(literally: he who faces death). They are positively not scared of Saddam or his thugs. Saddam will never get back in power because he doesn't have that kind of support anymore. And there is enough armed opposition to him that even if he did get back in power, he wouldn't rule much past the Sunni Triangle. And even in there he'd be facing a fight in some areas.

Hi from the Green Zone,

I have a few minutes, so I thought I'd give a view of how I see things from on the ground here. Remember, this is MY VIEW, not any kind of official
view.

As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all
showing. It really strikes me how I watch the reports and just do not
recognize the supposed horror-filled place I am supposed to be in.

I mean I hear anchors intone with heavy voices and deeply furrowed brows
that "Iraq is still under siege as a gunman killed two people today in (fill
in the city)." OK. That happens in war. But damn, to read the papers and
watch TV, you'd think every day was the Battle of the Bulge here.

People, it just ain't so.

I am willing to say that more people are murdered every day in the States,
hell, in DC or Detroit. Not saying we don't have bad days, but it is
WAR!!!!!!

One thing that really bothers me is when we put out a release that says
something like, "A Task Force Danger Soldier was killed today...." and the
media runs all over with it, but ignores the fact that six terrorists were
also killed. Somehow the fact that they die is not deemed news by the
media. Only U.S. deaths are. They also don't report all the caches our
Soldiers and Marines uncover, most times with help from locals. Of course,
this leads to the perception around the world we are living in a state of
siege and the terrorists are running wild.

As for the locals I have met, I cannot tell you the thirst for democratic
government I have heard from the people here. When I hear people,
especially politicians, saying the crap I have heard on the news, it is just
sick to me. I don't give two damn's if you are a die-hard member of the
opposition to President Bush, the stuff that Kennedy, Biden, Rangle and all
those are spewing.I have to tell you, and this is the truth, that is scarier
to the troops I talk to than the terrorists. (Not insurgents, not
guerillas, but terrorists or criminals!) You can have all the views you
want, but I am here to tell you, being here, there is some real dislike for
the current leadership of the Democratic Party and how they couch things in
"we support the troops but." I have to say, they don't appear to support
us. Again, this is only my view and what I hear from the other Soldiers
here.

On another note, working the press desk is a lot of fun. I have met a lot
of the journalists coming through, as part of my job is to get them to
units, pick them up when they are coming back from places like Mosul and
Basrah.. What I was most shocked by? Two things. One, the FNC people seem
to be the most approachable and friendly. That is not saying the others are
not, but the Fox guys are just really friendly, even Shepard Smith. Two, I
escorted Dan Rather when he did his nightly news from here, and there is
only one word I can use to describe him. That word is gentleman. I have my
own views of him as a broadcaster and is he is slanted in coverage, but the
man is a true gentleman, and it really was a pleasure to not only meet him,
and I would do it again in a second.

Well, I have wasted enough of your time. Hope you all are well, I am very
glad to be back and able to contribute (hopefully) in a meaningful way.

Nick

Stay safe and thanks for all the hard work and sacrifice you guys did and still do there.

(don't let the nay-sayers get you down... after all, they'll realize it's guys like you that insure that they have the freedom to say such things.)

Independant Voter.

what was the exist strategy in the cold war.. what did the enemy look like.. ? spies where everywhere.. what did victory look like ? a slow conversion to democracy ? yet we still have troops in all the countries lining the iron curtin... Victory here is easy... (no more car bombs no more threat)
More Iraqi soliders then terrorist they can handle it... victory is clear here.. but we simply dont know how LONG it will take to acheive it.. one cannot simply arbitrarly set a date
the cold war knocked out one super power and put another to enormous debt. i dont think we would have fought that one if we didnt have to and certainly would not have randomly decided to do it like it seems happened in iraq.

our troops are a few thousand in these countries, and thats because we want access to airfields and they are in strategic locations, not because we need to keep the peace in germany or scotland. the troops in europe are for our sake now, before that they were part of a strategy to contain the soviet union because there was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, something that just did not exist in iraq, at no point were they being hit with car bombs or causing gigantic strains on recruitment capacity.

victory here is just no more car bombs? so as soon as every male between the ages of 15-85 is dead or in the army we can go home? we cant measure our victories, our enemies are everywhere, and you still havent answered what it is we are trying to accomplish. does everyone need to believe in democracy or just be open to us businesses? why are we there? we cant hold a gun to people's heads and tell them to respect democratic institutions or else. there were no weapons of mass destruction. can you honestly say this war makes sense?

[QUOTE=Kill YOU Dead][QUOTE=Freedomstein]they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.
no, im saying the shiites and kurds would be scared shitless of him and pretend to welcome him back with open arms. if the choice is between throwing some sham parade or being tortured in some dark prison, that aint no choice. stop using stories of human rights abuses as an excuse for not seeing the bigger pictureshould Saddam come back... it won't matter. He'll exterminate the Kurds and anyone else who did not resist the "infedels" of course his people, will be safe. but everyone else... screwed and they all know it. Pretending won't placate Saddam... only blood.

The man who ordered the gassing of the Kurdish village of Halabjah in the late 80s, killing about 5,000.

What happened in Kurdish Halabja?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ECD352BE-6B8F-449F-8F97-C7AB0DC08A94.htm

According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months.

Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.

Actually the whole story is a good read.

god, ak-47's, m-16's, the point is a soldier on the ground isnt getting a clear picture of what is happening and his views into the psyche of the iraqi people is total crap. we went into ww2 because we

a.) had to.(pearl harbor, where was the pearl harbor in iraq?)
b. had a good idea what we wanted to accomplish (stop japenese and german aggression, take back lands that were invaded)
and
c. knew what victory would look like (no more nazis, no more threat)

we didnt have any of these things in vietnam, and thats why we failed so miserably. can you really say we have any idea what we are fighting for in iraq? and i dont want some vague concept like "democracy" because thats as bad as fighting a war on a word, "terrorism."

I will say democracy because it is not a vague concept. It is only in our present, moral vague society that it has become a vague concept. Where are your dreams and hopes?
We failed in Vietnam because we fought the war incorrectly. We let the State Department run the war.
We know what victory will look like in Iraq, a free, peaceful Iraq. Just because you don't believe it can happen doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist.

the cold war knocked out one super power and put another to enormous debt. i dont think we would have fought that one if we didnt have to and certainly would not have randomly decided to do it like it seems happened in iraq.

our troops are a few thousand in these countries, and thats because we want access to airfields and they are in strategic locations, not because we need to keep the peace in germany or scotland. the troops in europe are for our sake now, before that they were part of a strategy to contain the soviet union because there was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, something that just did not exist in iraq, at no point were they being hit with car bombs or causing gigantic strains on recruitment capacity.

victory here is just no more car bombs? so as soon as every male between the ages of 15-85 is dead or in the army we can go home? we cant measure our victories, our enemies are everywhere, and you still havent answered what it is we are trying to accomplish. does everyone need to believe in democracy or just be open to us businesses? why are we there? we cant hold a gun to people's heads and tell them to respect democratic institutions or else. there were no weapons of mass destruction. can you honestly say this war makes sense?


CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER YOU SAY ? False.. you dont know your history!
the American administration at the time was under the impression the Soviet Union was bent on turning the world into one large communist state.. now after the fact we look at the documentation left behind by the soviets and see no such grand plan.. that most of the conflicts were misinterpreations and smoke and mirrors.. GASP!!!!! our intelegence was misconstrued and inacurate twisted to what the administaration most feared.. ALMOST like Iraq.. We looked at all the intelegence we had in those times from the prespective of the slippery slope.. instead of objectivly and so we saw something that never existed.

Were we left in such enormous debt ? I could argue it was reinvestment into the country itself.. All the military spending into Nasa and military advancements spured one of the greatest entreprenorial movements in our history. yes.. TODAY we want access to those airfield and strategic locations.. but for how many YEARS did we keep troops in germany to keep the peace ? when the soviet Union fell it wasn't exactly peaches and cream.. most nations unlike Germany had a very HARD transition from communisim to democracy Much like Russia itself.

Well for the past 13 years, the Kurds pretty much told Saddam to go F-off. they have over 75,000 armed peshmurga (militia)(literally: he who faces death). They are positively not scared of Saddam or his thugs. Saddam will never get back in power because he doesn't have that kind of support anymore. And there is enough armed opposition to him that even if he did get back in power, he wouldn't rule much past the Sunni Triangle. And even in there he'd be facing a fight in some areas.

okay, you are dense. im not saying sadam should come back. im saying that even if people are represed and angry at the powers that be, most of them will not show their true colors to the forces of the enemy. slaves in america were very polite to the slave masters even though they resented their servitude very much. the subjects of the crown in india or burma would pay high respects and lip sevice and pretend they were grateful that the british brought them civilization, but among themselves, they fantasized about the brits leaving. what people say to soldiers is biased and based on the fact that speaking the truth is likely to get them killed. that is all im saying. i know the kurds are very brave. i know that saddam is mighty unpopular. i also know he could get most kurds to say they loved him more than puppies if they thought he would torture them if they didnt. two seperate points. saddam was not loved, but he could make people tell the outside world that they loved him.

okay, follow this so far?

the us comes in with guns and hauls resisters off to prison or else kills them. so if you say you resist the us or resent them, you are in danger of being thrown in prison or killed. so when a us soldier asks you what you think of the war, will you tell them you resist it or will you tell them you thirst for democracy? this is why i am saying that the viewpoint of a us soldier might be a little biased.

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER YOU SAY ? False.. you dont know your history!
the American administration at the time was under the impression the Soviet Union was bent on turning the world into one large communist state.. now after the fact we look at the documentation left behind by the soviets and see no such grand plan.. that most of the conflicts were misinterpreations and smoke and mirrors.. GASP!!!!! our intelegence was misconstrued and inacurate twisted to what the administaration most feared.. ALMOST like Iraq.. We looked at all the intelegence we had in those times from the prespective of the slippery slope.. instead of objectivly and so we saw something that never existed.

Were we left in such enormous debt ? I could argue it was reinvestment into the country itself.. All the military spending into Nasa and military advancements spured one of the greatest entreprenorial movements in our history. yes.. TODAY we want access to those airfield and strategic locations.. but for how many YEARS did we keep troops in germany to keep the peace ? when the soviet Union fell it wasn't exactly peaches and cream.. most nations unlike Germany had a very HARD transition from communisim to democracy Much like Russia itself.

the cold war was costly, true or false? they had nuclear weapons, true or false? the cold war made much more sense than the war in iraq, thats all im saying.

now, we did not go into all the countries in the former soviet union to oversee theor transition. we did not invade them and force a transition. we did not stretch or military to the brink and let the countries handle the transitions themselves.

we did go into germany. the germans did not fight us tooth and nail though. there wasnt urban warfare or threats coming from everywhere. and our occupationcertainly did not call for putting most of our troops in germany or cause the festering resentment of germans nor did it boost recruitment in the s.s.

and, getting off of historiucal analogies for one second, do you think we will be getting lots of tech and reinvestment out of what we are spending in iraq right now? because really, that seems to be the analogy you need to draw to say that the uiraq war makes as much sense as the cold war. i really dont see the invention of the internet or cell-phones coming out of the billiuons we are puring into this stupid war.

[QUOTE=Freedomstein]okay, you are dense.

temper?

calm down, take a breath. Just because you are wrong you don't need to become upset.
What has been done in Iraq was for the best. If the people of Iraq have courage and faith they will become a viable, free nation. Try not to be bitter about that.

was Iraq so random ?? i dont see how..

putting aside all of the propaganda crap from both sides (especially the oil bit as there is ZERO evidence we are STEALING oil)

looking at the intellegence we had objectivly.. it is easy for one to derive given the past history of Iraq that they were a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.. so much so that resolution 441 said ... what ? what did it say ?

that Iraq present a clear threat and was to submit to investigations giving full cooperation or face "dire consequences"

GIVEN... the intelegence was wrong.. but from what resolution 441 suggests.. everyone looked at the same intelegence and saw a threat...

So it was not just random.. yes you can make the CLAIM that the US had its eyes FIXED on OIL (no evidence)

or make the case that FRANCE was so currupted through the oil for food scandel their veto vote was BOUGHT by Saddam and this is why they so eagarly opposed military action (little evidence)

Either way... this HARDLY came from no where! Clinton himself said had he the opprotunity he would have taken military action against Saddam and that HE saw the threat they posed, but simply couldn't translate it into a winning proposal to the American people

[QUOTE=Freedomstein]okay, you are dense.

temper?

calm down, take a breath. Just because you are wrong you don't need to become upset.
What has been done in Iraq was for the best. If the people of Iraq have courage and faith they will become a viable, free nation. Try not to be bitter about that.
arrrrrrrrggggg, you are missing the point. in fact, that was totally non sequitar. you just got your ass handed to you, include the rest of the point. the point is that what was done in iraq is irrellevant. the point is the soldier is biased because he is in power. argue this please and not about those brave little kurdish people that fought the evil saddam oh so well.

was Iraq so random ?? i dont see how..

putting aside all of the propaganda crap from both sides (especially the oil bit as there is ZERO evidence we are STEALING oil)

looking at the intellegence we had objectivly.. it is easy for one to derive given the past history of Iraq that they were a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.. so much so that resolution 441 said ... what ? what did it say ?

that Iraq present a clear threat and was to submit to investigations giving full cooperation or face "dire consequences"

GIVEN... the intelegence was wrong.. but from what resolution 441 suggests.. everyone looked at the same intelegence and saw a threat...

So it was not just random.. yes you can make the CLAIM that the US had its eyes FIXED on OIL (no evidence)

or make the case that FRANCE was so currupted through the oil for food scandel their veto vote was BOUGHT by Saddam and this is why they so eagarly opposed military action (little evidence)

Either way... this HARDLY came from no where! Clinton himself said had he the opprotunity he would have taken military action against Saddam and that HE saw the threat they posed, but simply couldn't translate it into a winning proposal to the American people
Actually, it is Resolution 1441 and you should take the time to read it all.

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

Nothing in that Resolution gave the US the authority to invade Iraq...NOTHING!!

the cold war was costly, true or false? they had nuclear weapons, true or false? the cold war made much more sense than the war in iraq, thats all im saying.

now, we did not go into all the countries in the former soviet union to oversee theor transition. we did not invade them and force a transition. we did not stretch or military to the brink and let the countries handle the transitions themselves.

we did go into germany. the germans did not fight us tooth and nail though. there wasnt urban warfare or threats coming from everywhere. and our occupationcertainly did not call for putting most of our troops in germany or cause the festering resentment of germans nor did it boost recruitment in the s.s.

and, getting off of historiucal analogies for one second, do you think we will be getting lots of tech and reinvestment out of what we are spending in iraq right now? because really, that seems to be the analogy you need to draw to say that the uiraq war makes as much sense as the cold war. i really dont see the invention of the internet or cell-phones coming out of the billiuons we are puring into this stupid war.

Fighting the cold war wasn't primarly about nukes... it was about the SPREAD OF COMMUNISM.. which turned out to be about as true as WMD in Iraq.. you may suggest the Cold war made more sense then Iraq, but in retrospect after seeing the evidence, It made no more sense!

Is it average Iraqi's fighting us tooth and nail ? NOOOOO its foregin insurgents and elements from the old ruling party.. how shocking.. infact Average Iraqi's are their target.. maybe thats why we dont face massive uprising .

Did you read the NYtimes yesterady.. there was an article there about the Future of our military.. bEcause we face military shortfalls today the Military has invested heavily into robitics.. they now have the first protypes out for the first robotic soliders. They suggest in less then a decade robots will be a major factor in our military. Experts say in 25 years we may have robots that look and fight like humans. Billions are being spent now in robotic techonologies.. DO you think this kind of investment will stay isolated in the military segment.. noo..

Robots will revolutionize our lives.. this is just one example of many..

[QUOTE=31]
arrrrrrrrggggg, you are missing the point. in fact, that was totally non sequitar. you just got your ass handed to you, include the rest of the point. the point is that what was done in iraq is irrellevant. the point is the soldier is biased because he is in power. argue this please and not about those brave little kurdish people that fought the evil saddam oh so well.

calm down was my point. The rest was good natured humor. What is wrong with you? My ass handed to me? Also my point was to not call people morons by saying they were dense.

[QUOTE=31]
arrrrrrrrggggg, you are missing the point. in fact, that was totally non sequitar. you just got your ass handed to you, include the rest of the point. the point is that what was done in iraq is irrellevant. the point is the soldier is biased because he is in power. argue this please and not about those brave little kurdish people that fought the evil saddam oh so well.
You are right. The soldier's letter was "biased" and it was meant as propaganda. It became propaganda as soon as it was posted on this thread.

the sad reality is.. that anytime there is war.. there is massive investment in millitary research.. and 90% of the time, thse research projects spur great leaps in our techonolical abilities redefining the structure our economy each time

Things like robots are the future.. Westernized nations face negative population growth and are extremely senestive to immigrant inflows.. in 20 years most of these nations will face labor shortfalls unless they submit to unimaginable immgration flows from the south. I suspect Robotics will be a critical factor in dealing with such labor shortfalls and will be redefining the way we look at everday life. Just as america piorieered the telecommuncation industry, so it maybe ready to pioneer the next movement into robotics

solidiers aren't objective experts and i think its hilarious when they pretend that they are seeing things so much more clearly than we are. of course the civilians are going to be fawning over democracy and the united states. i wouldn't be throwing rocks at a man with an ak-47 either. they would wave flags and throw rose peddals if sadam came back into their village and tell him how great he was for their country. you tell power what it wants to hear.

secondly, i dont know how you want the media to report this war. theyve been singing the praises of the iraqi elections for days, even though i have my reservations about how lasting this democracy is going to be. if he wants us to report the number of civilian (or terrorist as he called them) deaths along with the americans, im not really sure that that is going to change many minds. people are dying. we have no exit strategy. people are scared of americans. i say truck bombings are a lot more reliable factors in assessing the current mood than biased polls or interviews soldiers have with civilians.

that said, stay safe nick. just realize what people say to americans with guns arent going to be the same things they say when infadels arent around.

Whether you agree with what Bush did or not, the one poll that really counts is the poll that was visible for all of us to see clearly, was the number of people who lined up for many, many blocks to vote. You can't argue that the people of Iraq wanted to vote. They risked their lives to vote. And if the radicals who only want to cause mayhem and terror, and don't care about the people of Iraq would put down aside their weapons and take up something constructive like teaching children how to read Iraq would be a better place. No matter what politics you follow the point is the people of Iraq wanted a government that was elected by them.

the sad reality is.. that anytime there is war.. there is massive investment in millitary research.. and 90% of the time, thse research projects spur great leaps in our techonolical abilities redefining the structure our economy each time

Things like robots are the future.. Westernized nations face negative population growth and are extremely senestive to immigrant inflows.. in 20 years most of these nations will face labor shortfalls unless they submit to unimaginable immgration flows from the south. I suspect Robotics will be a critical factor in dealing with such labor shortfalls and will be redefining the way we look at everday life. Just as america piorieered the telecommuncation industry, so it maybe ready to pioneer the next movement into robotics

okay, okay, i like your point about robotics. and i can see that the war might have been justifiable, although im not really sure why WE fell for it and the rest of the world did not. but, how do we get out now? do we really have any goals? and wether they be homegrown insurgents or foreign trained, they are fighting well, and im not sure we can stop them. israel has been trying to stop this kind of terrorism for DECADES and it still hasnt stopped. they arent any closer to neutralizing the palestinians than they were 15 years ago. are we really going to play the role of the israli government in iraq for the rest of the forseable future?

Whether you agree with what Bush did or not, the one poll that really counts is the poll that was visible for all of us to see clearly, was the number of people who lined up for many, many blocks to vote. You can't argue that the people of Iraq wanted to vote. They risked their lives to vote. And if the radicals who only want to cause mayhem and terror, and don't care about the people of Iraq would put down aside their weapons and take up something constructive like teaching children how to read Iraq would be a better place. No matter what politics you follow the point is the people of Iraq wanted a government that was elected by them.
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2005_01_30.html#002029

the south vietnamese lined up for miles and miles too. then saigon fell.

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2005_01_30.html#002029

the south vietnamese lined up for miles and miles too. then saigon fell.

I'm not sure what your point is here? That we need to make sure we finish the job, or that we should never have started the job?

okay, okay, i like your point about robotics. and i can see that the war might have been justifiable, although im not really sure why WE fell for it and the rest of the world did not. but, how do we get out now? do we really have any goals? and wether they be homegrown insurgents or foreign trained, they are fighting well, and im not sure we can stop them. israel has been trying to stop this kind of terrorism for DECADES and it still hasnt stopped. they arent any closer to neutralizing the palestinians than they were 15 years ago. are we really going to play the role of the israli government in iraq for the rest of the forseable future?

There is a stark difference between the terrorism in Israel and the terroism in Iraq.. in Isreal they are supported by the general population and [up until now the government] in palestine.. in Iraq the Insurgency has no support in the community, because the community is the target in flame passions which up until now has not happend.

Insurgents are no longer able to acheive their goals (look at the election)
There is no doubt that we will be ther ea long time.. but the goals are clear.. To have the govenrment of IRaq able to sustain its own security measures... this is not an impossible task, but not one that will be acheived quickly.. you desire an exist strategy, but would you be so pleased if the administration suggested it would be 4 or 5 years before we are totally out ? No, this would be used as a political wepon. This is all the people who call for such a plan are looking for, either to cirtize for the amount of time we will be there, or critize if we are unable to meet that date, or critize if we attempt to meet that date (just like the elction day) First they cried to have power given to the Iraqi government then cried for elections then cried that the government wasn't preapred and that it would be a disaster.. Do you see the pattern ?

Setting a date is unrealistic.. because that date is dependent upon when the Iraqi forces are aready. Its as simple as that..when that day comes.. we've won! Victory to me.. is quite clear, though not easy or quick.

And i disagree with your assement on Israel.. i think they are closer then they have ever been. Arafat could have had his country and 99% of his demands during the peace acords.. but he wasn't ready to make the jump from militant leader to statesman. And so the process stoped and stayed there. Now they have statesman ready to move forward.. and look.. (atleast for now) there is peace, an unthinkable thing 3 years ago

I'm not sure what your point is here? That we need to make sure we finish the job, or that we should never have started the job?
my point is that there can be an extremly unpopular occupation and no commitment to democracy other than that propped up by the us and people can still turn up in droves to vote. turning up to vote could also mean that you want a return to national sovereignty, no matter what form it takes.

my point is that there can be an extremly unpopular occupation and no commitment to democracy other than that propped up by the us and people can still turn up in droves to vote. turning up to vote could also mean that you want a return to national sovereignty, no matter what form it takes.

TECHNICALLY.. IRaq is already sovergin and if the IRaqi government asked today for the Americans to leave, we would be obliged to do so, and the military has said it would do so if asked.. Your point that people show up in droves because of thier displeasure with America and their desire to have America leave will be proven or disproven in the immediate actions of the newly empowered government.. If they move to expel AMerican forces, you'll have been right, if not, it will be a validation of America's presence and the desire for democracy.

There is a stark difference between the terrorism in Israel and the terroism in Iraq.. in Isreal they are supported by the general population and [up until now the government] in palestine.. in Iraq the Insurgency has no support in the community, because the community is the target in flame passions which up until now has not happend.

Insurgents are no longer able to acheive their goals (look at the election)
There is no doubt that we will be ther ea long time.. but the goals are clear.. To have the govenrment of IRaq able to sustain its own security measures... this is not an impossible task, but not one that will be acheived quickly.. you desire an exist strategy, but would you be so pleased if the administration suggested it would be 4 or 5 years before we are totally out ? No, this would be used as a political wepon. This is all the people who call for such a plan are looking for, either to cirtize for the amount of time we will be there, or critize if we are unable to meet that date, or critize if we attempt to meet that date (just like the elction day) First they cried to have power given to the Iraqi government then cried for elections then cried that the government wasn't preapred and that it would be a disaster.. Do you see the pattern ?

Setting a date is unrealistic.. because that date is dependent upon when the Iraqi forces are aready. Its as simple as that..when that day comes.. we've won! Victory to me.. is quite clear, though not easy or quick.

And i disagree with your assement on Israel.. i think they are closer then they have ever been. Arafat could have had his country and 99% of his demands during the peace acords.. but he wasn't ready to make the jump from militant leader to statesman. And so the process stoped and stayed there. Now they have statesman ready to move forward.. and look.. (atleast for now) there is peace, an unthinkable thing 3 years ago

where are you getting this information that the people do not support the terorists? this goes back to my telling truth to power argument, the polls are probably biased. either way, i dont see the insurgents dissapearing any time soon as you just said, so in that way the insurgents are exactly like those in israel. im grasping at straws here.

and you are optimistic. hamas wont just lay down their weapons because palestine tellsthem to. they wont be happy untiull israel gets pushed off into the sea and certain conservatives in israel wont be happy untill they see evey last person with hamas ties dead. but i dont want to debate this. we're just in a high ebb in israel-palestine, something always derails it.

but, back to iraq. the question is, was this worth it? any regime now knows that the us can invade you, but it will hurt them. a lot. and it will take a long time to win. i say our deterent power just got owned by this war. we lost respect, for our military, not diplomatically, although that happened too. maybe we should stick it out till the end? but again, how stable do they have to be before we feel comfortable leaving? if they elect a taliban of their own free will, do we let it stand? are we now responsible to make sure that iraq is always under free and democratic rule? and how do we toe the line between puppet government and protector of democracy? we couldnt pull it latin america, why will it be different in iraq? i still dont really see victory conditions, but maybe thats just me.

my point is that there can be an extremly unpopular occupation and no commitment to democracy other than that propped up by the us and people can still turn up in droves to vote. turning up to vote could also mean that you want a return to national sovereignty, no matter what form it takes.

I think it is clear that the people of Iraq want national sovereignty, but I doubt if they want a return to Sadam and his croonies. I really don't think the person who send the letter was just spouting propaganda. He was sharing his opinion. An opinion that was formed through his first-hand experience. That is different than propaganda.

the point is the people of Iraq wanted a government that was elected by them.
This is a noble goal and if that is what all this was about then great but the US has ulterior motives for being in Iraq.

To reward themselves, the US will lay claim to unfettered foreign investment, control of the oil, and establishment of US bases.

TECHNICALLY.. IRaq is already sovergin and if the IRaqi government asked today for the Americans to leave, we would be obliged to do so, and the military has said it would do so if asked.. Your point that people show up in droves because of thier displeasure with America and their desire to have America leave will be proven or disproven in the immediate actions of the newly empowered government.. If they move to expel AMerican forces, you'll have been right, if not, it will be a validation of America's presence and the desire for democracy.
and TECHNICALLY the government in south vietnam was sovergin and if they asked the US to leave, they would. that didnt mean that it was the beginning of some glorious south vietnamese democracy, nor did it make america any more popular in the eyes of the vietnamese. when the north came in, the south showed their true colors.

I think it is clear that the people of Iraq want national sovereignty, but I doubt if they want a return to Sadam and his croonies. I really don't think the person who send the letter was just spouting propaganda. He was sharing his opinion. An opinion that was formed through his first-hand experience. That is different than propaganda.
it wasnt propoganda, but it was still biased. i think propaganda is a word thats being thrown around way too much these days. as is patriotic and american and freedom and all those other charged words that mean nothing and get people all riled. sadam was bad, yes. lots of dictators are bad. lots of them to terrible nasty things. we cant overthrow all of them. and we risk our reputation and make enemies to destoy US everytime we step in and "liberate" them from these dictators.

where are you getting this information that the people do not support the terorists? this goes back to my telling truth to power argument, the polls are probably biased. either way, i dont see the insurgents dissapearing any time soon as you just said, so in that way the insurgents are exactly like those in israel. im grasping at straws here.

and you are optimistic. hamas wont just lay down their weapons because palestine tellsthem to. they wont be happy untiull israel gets pushed off into the sea and certain conservatives in israel wont be happy untill they see evey last person with hamas ties dead. but i dont want to debate this. we're just in a high ebb in israel-palestine, something always derails it.

but, back to iraq. the question is, was this worth it? any regime now knows that the us can invade you, but it will hurt them. a lot. and it will take a long time to win. i say our deterent power just got owned by this war. we lost respect, for our military, not diplomatically, although that happened too. maybe we should stick it out till the end? but again, how stable do they have to be before we feel comfortable leaving? if they elect a taliban of their own free will, do we let it stand? are we now responsible to make sure that iraq is always under free and democratic rule? and how do we toe the line between puppet government and protector of democracy? we couldnt pull it latin america, why will it be different in iraq? i still dont really see victory conditions, but maybe thats just me.

... i base my knowledge that Iraqi's dont support the insurgency from 2 places... the FACT that Iraqi's are not voicing more discontent with the US "occupation" (if you suggest they are submissive to power i will simply make the argument that they were only submissive because a tyrant was in power, directly proceeding the war there were protests to american occupation voicing discontent) and TWO.. LOGIC!! average citizens are the targets, women, children, men, nuns, doctors it dosn't matter. Will a population support an insurgency that is using them as a political/physical tool ? NO! As well if they really supported the insurgency would they not have heeded the "ban/boycot" of the election ?

i maybe optimistic.. but thus far what i belive has come true, a ceasefire has been signed and no further terrorist attack has taken place. AS well Isreal has givin into some of their demands pulling out of settlements and releasing prisioners.. to me i see an envorinment which has never existed before.

Was it worth it ? whose to tell now.. one canot say of the success or failor of a war but 2 or 3 years after it.. it takes decades to see the real result.. If democracy remains, yes it was worth every single american death.. (south Korea was worth the war) .. if it falls into chaos then no, we fought for nothing (every life lost in vietnam was a waste). Its as simple and as compliated as that. HAve we lost respect for our military.. I dont see how, the objective of any government is to stay in power.. no leader wants to end up where sadam is, because even if their armies stay and fight an insurgency, they've lost. If North Korea didn't care about what the US was saying or had any fear of the US's power, they wouldn't be demanding 1on1 talks, they would be ignoring us completely.

No, for the most part democracy failed in LAtin america, but it succeed in Japan, and Korea. It seems the places where we invest the most resources we make sure succeed.. and I wouldn't call Japan or South Korea Puppet governments <.< ... ONe suggestion already (rise of majority of religious backed sunni parties) leads me to belive Iraq is already taking its own direction. I would have belived if this was a puppet democracy, the current interm governmental parties would have been far more successful (all be it through submissive means) ..

AT the end of the day we know this... Victory will come as long as we commit ourselves, no matter how long the insurgents fight.
No timeline can be given because the exist strategy is dependent on uncontrolled factors the sastainability of the Iraqi forces.
And we dont know how worthwhile the entire endvore was because we have to look to the future for the real success not today.

Americas main reason for going in was to get rid of a massive destabilising influence in the middle east, Saddam Hussein. Its no secret that he was considered a nut job by his neighbours and was far from liked by his own people.

The real question is what did America stand to gain from removing him?

Increased security? No. If this were the case there are far more dangerous nations that pose more of a threat to America.

Decrease terrorism? No. In fact Iraq has now become a training camp for would be Jihadists. If this were the case then Syria or more troops in Afghanistan would have been a better choice. (sidenote. Opium production is up past pre invasion numbers, the warlords are back to their old tricks and the election can only be considered a success in the more urban/built up areas)

America is trying to create an America friendly middle east to further trade relations and to make life easier for Israel. Of course America has helped organise elections. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing if a candidate not to their liking is elected? They helped bolster Saddam Husseins position in Iraq and look what happened to him(admittedly he deserved tobe ousted.)

Pax Americana, a New World Order.

it wasnt propoganda, but it was still biased. i think propaganda is a word thats being thrown around way too much these days. as is patriotic and american and freedom and all those other charged words that mean nothing and get people all riled. sadam was bad, yes. lots of dictators are bad. lots of them to terrible nasty things. we cant overthrow all of them. and we risk our reputation and make enemies to destoy US everytime we step in and "liberate" them from these dictators.

Do we have a responsibilty to stop genocide? If so why not overthrow dictators.. almost in every case they impose their power, they repress and brutalize their citizary, and they were not elected.

If we do not have the responsibility to stop genocide, why do we waste our time with the UN.. that was its main purpose Even though it can't even succeed in its most basic goal today.

Is it right only when there is a multilateral aproach.. every recent multilateral effort through the UN asdie from the tsunami disaster has met unequaled failor..

Dahfur, Rwanda, Bosnia... in each case Multilateralism has or is failing... and only after the US's intervention has it been met with success. Multilateraterlism may in theory be the most ideal way to address an issue, but within the instution of the UN it is the most ineffective and inefficent way.

Americas main reason for going in was to get rid of a massive destabilising influence in the middle east, Saddam Hussein. Its no secret that he was considered a nut job by his neighbours and was far from liked by his own people.

The real question is what did America stand to gain from removing him?

Increased security? No. If this were the case there are far more dangerous nations that pose more of a threat to America.

Decrease terrorism? No. In fact Iraq has now become a training camp for would be Jihadists. If this were the case then Syria or more troops in Afghanistan would have been a better choice. (sidenote. Opium production is up past pre invasion numbers, the warlords are back to their old tricks and the election can only be considered a success in the more urban/built up areas)

America is trying to create an America friendly middle east to further trade relations and to make life easier for Israel. Of course America has helped organise elections. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing if a candidate not to their liking is elected? They helped bolster Saddam Husseins position in Iraq and look what happened to him(admittedly he deserved tobe ousted.)

Pax Americana, a New World Order.


<.< i wouldn't disagree with most of this... Much of this played a factor in our actions and is a fair anaylsis

Do we have a responsibilty to stop genocide? If so why not overthrow dictators.. almost in every case they impose their power, they repress and brutalize their citizary, and they were not elected.

If we do not have the responsibility to stop genocide, why do we waste our time with the UN.. that was its main purpose Even though it can't even succeed in its most basic goal today.

Is it right only when there is a multilateral aproach.. every recent multilateral effort through the UN asdie from the tsunami disaster has met unequaled failor..

Dahfur, Rwanda, Bosnia... in each case Multilateralism has or is failing... and only after the US's intervention has it been met with success. Multilateraterlism may in theory be the most ideal way to address an issue, but within the instution of the UN it is the most ineffective and inefficent way.

its a slippery slope though. why not invade mexico, or canada? should the europeans start spending money on military? absolutly. but just because they arent doesnt give us a free pass to invade whatever country we feel like. besides, most of these problems are caused by the way the US screws them over with foreign debt in the first place. we would do a lot more for these countries by forgiving national debt than we would by giving them foreign aid or invading them the way we did iraq. i wish i could keep talking to you, but i NEED to get my reading done. im sure ill see you around, its been fun.

here is what is really causing instability and a rise in dictatorships:

http://www.alternet.org/story/21245

How is it your attributing the rise of dictators from this political mockery ? Id like specific examples of countries changing from democracy to dictatorships which directly resulted from outlandish loans from the WTO and the US.

SEcondly i read some of that article.. to suggest the impoversihed do not benifit from infastructural investment such as powerplants, ports, highways, and roads in their own country is absolutouly perposterous at best. It is such infastructual investments which spure international investment, enable transportation, and increase the overall standard of living through the growth of buisness.

http://countrystudies.us/iran/17.htm
this account of entire incident gives a far different tone to the political implications that hack of an author you qouted...

and you do speak of a slipery slope.. yet it is a far cry from Iraq to canada.. Saddams Iraq was responsible for genocide, usage of wepons of mass destruction, corrupting the food for oil program, spittin in the face of the UN for 12 years expelling wepons inspectors, with US policy to depose Saddam embeded in the US's agenda since Clintons time.

How is it you magically then suggest we invade Canada for no reason. As i stated before, the IRAQI invasion did not materialize from nothing, if looking at the intellegence objectivily it is clear one could easily determine IRAQ as a clear and present danger as the UN did with resoultion 441.

This is like making the argument the US shouldn't be the policeman, the UN shouldnt be a policeman, no country should interfere with the affairs of another under any circumstances including genocide... Very large steps taking inbetween each isn't there....

Well, Iraq followed Saudi Arabia. After our tremendous success in Saudi Arabia, we decided we should do the same thing in Iraq. And we figured that Saddam Hussein was corruptible. And, of course, we had been involved with Saddam Hussein anyway for some time. And so the economic hit men went in and tried to bring Saddam Hussein around, tried to get him to agree to a deal like the royal House of Saud had agreed to. And he didn't. So, we sent in the jackals to try to overthrow him or to assassinate him. They couldn't. His Republican Guard was too loyal and he had all these doubles.

So, when the economic hit men and the jackals both failed, then the last line of defense that the United States, the empire, uses these days, is the military. We send in our young men and women to die and to kill, and we did that in Iraq in 1990. We thought Saddam Hussein at that point was sufficiently chastised that now he would come around, so the economic hit men went back in the 1990s, failed once again. The jackals went back in, failed once again, and so once again the military went in – the story we all know – because we couldn't bring him around any other way.

First off.. if im counting right, he suggests we sent military forces into Iraq.... 3 times, if u include the most recent invasion.. interesting, because history tells us differently.. but obviously this man is far more inteligable!

lines such as " And Osama bin Laden, of course, is very against it" show his great command for the english language.

Dont you love this account of the first gulf war.. its not as though Iraq invading Kwait was of any importance ? or the fact that they had just before that committed genocided and fougth a war with their neigbor Iran.. IRaq was but a poor victim of the US's lst for oil .. of course.. the oil, who could forget the oil, even though we didn't go in to depose him, never took control of that oil, and even today pay the most for that oil in history over 1 trillion a day or 50 dollars a barrel.

... and he suggests the oil fields in Iraq are larger then those in Saudi Arabia.. -.- .. need I say more.. To qoute John Perkins is to spit in the face of all that is intelligable and unbias.

Americas main reason for going in was to get rid of a massive destabilising influence in the middle east, Saddam Hussein. Its no secret that he was considered a nut job by his neighbours and was far from liked by his own people.

The real question is what did America stand to gain from removing him?

Increased security? No. If this were the case there are far more dangerous nations that pose more of a threat to America.

Decrease terrorism? No. In fact Iraq has now become a training camp for would be Jihadists. If this were the case then Syria or more troops in Afghanistan would have been a better choice. (sidenote. Opium production is up past pre invasion numbers, the warlords are back to their old tricks and the election can only be considered a success in the more urban/built up areas)

America is trying to create an America friendly middle east to further trade relations and to make life easier for Israel. Of course America has helped organise elections. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing if a candidate not to their liking is elected? They helped bolster Saddam Husseins position in Iraq and look what happened to him(admittedly he deserved tobe ousted.)

Pax Americana, a New World Order.
Very good annalasys with 1 exception. Pretty much all Jihadists that engage directly with US troops have been killed, removeing much of the training value of the insurgency. If you mean the IEDs, then I suppose, yes, they are recieveing limited training in the contruction of bombs, but that kind of training would probably be better done in a more friendly enviroment.

Other than that, it seems like a fair analasys of the situation. Keep it up.

its a slippery slope though. why not invade mexico, or canada? should the europeans start spending money on military? absolutly. but just because they arent doesnt give us a free pass to invade whatever country we feel like. besides, most of these problems are caused by the way the US screws them over with foreign debt in the first place. we would do a lot more for these countries by forgiving national debt than we would by giving them foreign aid or invading them the way we did iraq. i wish i could keep talking to you, but i NEED to get my reading done. im sure ill see you around, its been fun.

here is what is really causing instability and a rise in dictatorships:

http://www.alternet.org/story/21245

As well.. funny you should mention national debt... the debt of Iraq was excused.. much to the great protest of France ... why you wonder ? France was Iraq's main lender, and had the most investment in Iraqi oil industry... HOW INTEEERESTING one might think, especially since pre-war it was FRANCE pushing for removal of sanctions, giving them access to all those investments they made, assurance they would be paid back on their loans and.. oh yes.. make good on their promises which were bought with oil for food funds.

We should all be so peace loving like the French
and people wonder why after passing resolution 441 acknowledging they belived Iraq was a critical threat they would threaten a veto to any security council resolutions after Hans blix described the clear violation of 441 by the Iraqi government..

I meant IED aswell as Jihadists. I should have been clearer, my bad.

The current situation in Lebanon is an interesting one as it also involves Syria and potentially Iran. I would not be surprised to see America use it as an opening or a chance to influence the political landscape in the form of leverage against Syria for its links to terrorists and as a chance to isolate Iran. Could happen, who knows.

I personally am not in favour of whats going on and think the war couldve and shouldve been handled better. I am however trying to be as objective (and polite :D ) as possible.


All hail mighty Spevna, vanquisher of non native speakers. Salutation to his brother in arms, the ever stalwart Latka. Hail to thee, hail to thee both!

I understand, as I said it was a very good analasys.

There is no question that the US is going to try to use the current sittuation to leverage more pressure against Syria, and has already begun doing so, noted by the recall of our ambasidor. I'm not sure on the specifics that we might be trying to achive, but Isolateing Iran from Syria right after their "Mutual defence" alliance would be an excellent achivement in geting Iran to stop it's nuclear weapons program (Like they need it for energy in an area that oil-rich).

Also, if we keep Syria and Iran from helping each other, an Iranian revolution is more likely to be successful, meaning we'll not have to take millitary action against them.

His barracks are in the Green Zone. He makes regular patrols and gets shot at on a fairly frequent basis.


lmao!

Aren't you contradicting the letter you posted with this post?

That cracked me up.

Yeah Iraq is so peaceful, even though he gets shot at regularly.

Hi from the Green Zone,

I have a few minutes, so I thought I'd give a view of how I see things from on the ground here. Remember, this is MY VIEW, not any kind of official
view.

...

Nick


I approve of this message.

Dr. Josef Göbbels
Reichs-Propaganda Minister

What kind of dupes do you take us for, Eutrusca?

okay, you are dense. im not saying sadam should come back. im saying that even if people are represed and angry at the powers that be, most of them will not show their true colors to the forces of the enemy. slaves in america were very polite to the slave masters even though they resented their servitude very much. the subjects of the crown in india or burma would pay high respects and lip sevice and pretend they were grateful that the british brought them civilization, but among themselves, they fantasized about the brits leaving. what people say to soldiers is biased and based on the fact that speaking the truth is likely to get them killed. that is all im saying. i know the kurds are very brave. i know that saddam is mighty unpopular. i also know he could get most kurds to say they loved him more than puppies if they thought he would torture them if they didnt. two seperate points. saddam was not loved, but he could make people tell the outside world that they loved him.

okay, follow this so far?

the us comes in with guns and hauls resisters off to prison or else kills them. so if you say you resist the us or resent them, you are in danger of being thrown in prison or killed. so when a us soldier asks you what you think of the war, will you tell them you resist it or will you tell them you thirst for democracy? this is why i am saying that the viewpoint of a us soldier might be a little biased.

I'm dense? Well I know where my opinons come from, I was there, I talked to those people. Hey, I know not everyone in Iraq loves the US. I know that there are people that want the US forces to leave. But I also kow that there are alot of people that are thankful for the US for what they have done. I talk alot about the Kurds because thats where I was stationed. I spoke with many Kurds and the vast majority thanked my team for being there. We were constantly being invited to stay and eat lunch with them. We were treated like guests. There are two phrases I heard from the Kurds regarding how they felt about the US. "America and Kurdistan are brothers untill the mounatains fall. And, "THe mountains used to the Kurds only friends, now our friends are the mountains and the Americans." Doesn't sound like they were just blow sunshine up my ass.
But I'm sure that your experiences talking to the people in Iraq differ.

I agree. Strange, is it not, how so many on here rail on and on about how "right wing" all American newspapers are, but then scoff at someone boots on the ground who has no particular ax to grind and states that the good things being done in Iraq aren't getting coverage. Sigh. None so blind as those who will not see. :(
Bolding is mine. Perhaps he has no ax to grind??? but he certainly is wielding it in a "liberal" manner?

Letter from "The Green Zone."

When I hear people, especially politicians, saying the crap I have heard on the news, it is just sick to me. I don't give two damn's if you are a die-hard member of the opposition to President Bush, the stuff that Kennedy, Biden, Rangle and all those are spewing.I have to tell you, and this is the truth, that is scarier to the troops I talk to than the terrorists. (Not insurgents, not guerillas, but terrorists or criminals!) You can have all the views you want, but I am here to tell you, being here, there is some real dislike for the current leadership of the Democratic Party and how they couch things in "we support the troops but." I have to say, they don't appear to support us.

Eutrusca, it would appear that your comprehension is different that others reading this letter? Those words are directed at certain Democrats in particular and the leadership of the Democrat party in general. I call it for what it is.....partisan "propaganda" and yet you would suggest that it is not?

To give your words right back to you....."Sigh. None so blind as those who will not see."

Originally Posted by Eutrusca
His barracks are in the Green Zone. He makes regular patrols and gets shot at on a fairly frequent basis.

Even though in his letter "Nick" states:

Letter from "The Green Zone."

"As I sit at my desk we have a bank of TVs on, with CNN, BBC and FNC all
showing".........

"On another note, working the press desk is a lot of fun."

If this guy working (as a desk jockey?) in perhaps the safest area of Iraq...the Green Zone", and is getting shot at "on a fairly frequent basis", how does this qualify him to comment on the situation that exists in other more dangerous parts of Iraq?

Somehow, this letter and your comments appear to be contradictory to say the least.

Finally, this part of the letter is intriguing:
Letter from "The Green Zone."
But damn, to read the papers and watch TV, you'd think every day was the Battle of the Bulge here.

People, it just ain't so.

I am willing to say that more people are murdered every day in the States,
hell, in DC or Detroit.
What does that say about your/his own country? However unflattering that comment may be, the reality is that the US has 12 times the population of Iraq. Throw away those rose coloured glasses....

January 2005 is on record as the 3rd worst month for US military deaths in Iraq at 107 deaths.

The worst was November 2004 at 137 deaths. That is only 3 months ago.

Total US casualties to date: 12,000

Yuppers....those bad newspapers!!

BTW, the news here reports all the deaths and not just that of the soldiers as Nick claims:

From Friday's news:

http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/18/baghdad050218.html

Dozens die in blasts aimed at Iraqi worshippers

Just another day in paradise?

This is at least the tenth "letter" I have seen like this one -- same complaints, same dislike for the media coverage, same rosy, pro-Bush-policy sentiment, same completely unattributable source (well, ok -- the name is usually different, but it's always just a generic, given name). This is the kind of stuff my fundie relatives like to forward, stuff they probably had forwarded to them in the first place, which was probably found in some blog, which was in turn lifted from some other questionable source, and so on. What I wonder is, how can anyone even believe it's coming from Iraq at all?

Of course, even if it's not for real, some of its sentiments could be genuine. After all, while the troops might not in general be as privileged as this made-up muthfucker, with his press-room and all, we do know now that they are daily treated to such balanced programs as the Rush Limbaugh show over armed forces radio, to say nothing of the 'official' propaganda they must receive.

good post Canuck!

to say nothing of the 'official' propaganda they must receive.

exactly I doubt this Nick guy is a real person at all.

and as for teh propaganda, did you see teh daily show where they were showing the cigarettes that they were giving to iraqis that had a message to rat on their neighbors on them? Or the comic book with white kids on it, trying to show Iraqi children how to fall in line?

This is at least the tenth "letter" I have seen like this one -- same complaints, same dislike for the media coverage, same rosy, pro-Bush-policy sentiment, same completely unattributable source (well, ok -- the name is usually different, but it's always just a generic, given name). This is the kind of stuff my fundie relatives like to forward, stuff they probably had forwarded to them in the first place, which was probably found in some blog, which was in turn lifted from some other questionable source, and so on. What I wonder is, how can anyone even believe it's coming from Iraq at all?

Of course, even if it's not for real, some of its sentiments could be genuine. After all, while the troops might not in general be as privileged as this made-up muthfucker, with his press-room and all, we do know now that they are daily treated to such balanced programs as the Rush Limbaugh show over armed forces radio, to say nothing of the 'official' propaganda they must receive.
You raised good points and certainly they would be more credible than this "Letter from the Green Zone".

I'm dense? Well I know where my opinons come from, I was there, I talked to those people. Hey, I know not everyone in Iraq loves the US. I know that there are people that want the US forces to leave. But I also kow that there are alot of people that are thankful for the US for what they have done. I talk alot about the Kurds because thats where I was stationed. I spoke with many Kurds and the vast majority thanked my team for being there. We were constantly being invited to stay and eat lunch with them. We were treated like guests. There are two phrases I heard from the Kurds regarding how they felt about the US. "America and Kurdistan are brothers untill the mounatains fall. And, "THe mountains used to the Kurds only friends, now our friends are the mountains and the Americans." Doesn't sound like they were just blow sunshine up my ass.
But I'm sure that your experiences talking to the people in Iraq differ.

the kurds were mistreated, yes. they were happy to see you, yes. why? they want their own country. they are using the powers that be, the us, to further their goals toward an iindependant kurdistan. the us representsz a great force in iraqi politics now, and there are going to be many people with many agendas blowing sunshine up your ass as you put it. you are being fed lots of propaganda. there are lots of people with ultirior motives. there are also, i am sure, lots of people that are scared of the americans. hell, im scared of the americans and im not even in iraq.

did you ever read the part in catch 22 where the old man tells yossarian when the nazis came he was out there flying the nazi flag and when the americans came he was flying the star spangled banner? this is what that country is all about. their loyalties dont lie with the americans until the mountains crumble, their loyalties lie with whoever is most likely to get them an independant kurdistan.

but then again, i have no right to my opinion because i cant possibly know whats going on since im not in the unique and unbiased position of a us soldier.

exactly I doubt this Nick guy is a real person at all.
Well, whoever wrote the letter is a "real person", but whether his name is Nick, whether he served any time in Iraq, or whether he has any credibility at all, could be questionable.

The bottom line is that the letter is indeed "propaganda" of an insidious nature. :(

the kurds were mistreated, yes. they were happy to see you, yes. why? they want their own country. they are using the powers that be, the us, to further their goals toward an iindependant kurdistan. the us representsz a great force in iraqi politics now, and there are going to be many people with many agendas blowing sunshine up your ass as you put it. you are being fed lots of propaganda. there are lots of people with ultirior motives. there are also, i am sure, lots of people that are scared of the americans. hell, im scared of the americans and im not even in iraq.

did you ever read the part in catch 22 where the old man tells yossarian when the nazis came he was out there flying the nazi flag and when the americans came he was flying the star spangled banner? this is what that country is all about. their loyalties dont lie with the americans until the mountains crumble, their loyalties lie with whoever is most likely to get them an independant kurdistan.

but then again, i have no right to my opinion because i cant possibly know whats going on since im not in the unique and unbiased position of a us soldier.

Never said that you can't have your own opinion. I just believe that your opinion is partially wrong. Yes, partially; I know that there are those that will support whoever is in power at that moment in order to not rock the boat. But I also know that there is a portion of the population that is genuinely thankful for the liberation and is grateful to the US. You seem to come across as saying that everyone only says that they like the US because we got the guns.
By the way, the US has told the KRG (Kurdish Regional Government) from the beginning that the US does not and will not support an indepnedent Kurdistan. This is to avoid angering Turkey, a NATO ally. The KRG accepted this and while they still want independence, they are willing to accept continued autonomy in the new Iraq. At least for the time being. Also to the Kurds, the mountains are a strong part of their heritage. They are a homeland and their refuge. I doubt that references to the mountains would be included in a line of BS to US forces. They could just have easily said thanks alot we appreciate you efforts. To me the mountains mean nothing but to the Kurds, they're a significant part of their heritage. Again its just my opinion formed by being in Iraq and not just watching it on TV.

I'm amazed that people are surprised the news networks would only report the bad things that are going down in Iraq.

I mean, they tend to focus on the bad things that go on here.. How much more time is devoted to the bad things celebrities do as opposed to any charitable work they do? When's the last time a school bake sale for charity made top story of the evening? How much time is devoted to the horrible car crash compared to how much time is devoted to showing the marvellous recovery of a victim not exptected to survive?