Hurray US Troops.
-
I'm here to voice my support of the US troops doing the right thing in Iraq. You have my support and God Bless America. Go kick some booty, and liberate Iraq for the benefit of its poor citizens who have long suffered under Saddam. This should have been done long ago, but unfortunatly Clinton had no backbone and too many Monika problems. Thank God George Bush is taking us in the right and moral path. Thank you Mr. Bush, and our allies the British and Aussies who are helping us with this effort. Tony Blair and John Howard, you are wonderful, and I thank you all for helping the US troops liberate Iraq.
-
And let's not forget who funded Iraq to badger Iran years back...
"I was in a computer game. Funny as hell, it was the most horrible thing I could think of."
-
How do you figure that it "clearly has nothing to do with liberating people or fighting terrorism"? I'd say it has a little bit to do with all of that. As well as a little something to do with the fact that Saddam doesn't give a rip about any security council declarations and does whatever he pleases. As far back as 1996 we knew that he had biological and chemical weapons as well as terrorist training camps in Iraq. Unfortunately the U.N. and the U.S. administration care.
tidge, you've been around here long enough to know how some people think (or don't) :~ Think of it as trying to explain abstraction and polymorphism to a VB programmer. :rolleyes: - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
I'm not going to a pro-war no-war debate. Quite frankly its a little late to argue. I support the British troops out there, they are the teeth behind the politics. They may not agree with the war, but like it or lump it they are out there prepared to die for the leaders of our country's ideals. Because that is their JOB. When I saw the wide angle shot of a British battle unit, tanks and all, I did feel proud that they are out there, and frankly, whether or not they have WMD, the Iraqi army lacks the crucial element to its force. I can't put a name to it, maybe its skill/presence/determination, I don't know. But the tactical brilliance of the british, and american, armed forces on an individual level are a force to be rekoned with. They have my support and I am proud of them all. Martin Marvinski wrote: God Bless America Geez, you guys crack me up, theres patriotism and there is obsession.
"De most compwehensive image seawch on de web."
- Google in Elmer Fudd Language
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]Jonny Newman wrote: the Iraqi army lacks the crucial element to its force. I can't put a name to it, maybe its skill/presence/determination, I don't know. Try faith, honor, trust, and pride towards their leadership. The only ones who will fight are the republican guard, for they are the only ones who have anything to lose. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
And let's not forget who funded Iraq to badger Iran years back...
"I was in a computer game. Funny as hell, it was the most horrible thing I could think of."
I hate to break the news to you guys, but practically every major European nation and many Asian and nations also armed Iraq. Legend used in this list: A = nuclear program, B = bioweapons program, C = chemical weapons program, R = rocket program, K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants. After the list of US firms are these remarks: "In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories." (Anu's translation) US CORPORATIONS 1 Honeywell (R, K) 2 Spectra Physics (K) 3 Semetex (R) 4 TI Coating (A, K) 5 Unisys (A, K) 6 Sperry Corp. (R, K) 7 Tektronix (R, A) 8 Rockwell (K) 9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A) 11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K) 12 Dupont (A) 13 Eastman Kodak (R) 14 American Type Culture Collection (B) 15 Alcolac International (C) 16 Consarc (A) 17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K) 18 Cerberus (LTD) (A) 19 Electronic Associates (R) 20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K) 21 Bechtel (K) 22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R) 23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A) 24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A) Zusätzlich zu diesen 24 Firmen mit Stammsitz USA werden in dem irakischen Rüstungsbericht knapp 50 Tochterfirmen ausländischer Unternehmen aufgeführt, die ihre Rüstungskooperation mit dem Irak von den USA aus betrieben. Außerdem werden die Washingtoner Ministerien für Verteidigung, Energie, Handel und Landwirtschaft sowie die Atomwaffenlaboratorien Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos und Sandia als Zulieferer für Iraks Rüstungsprogramme für A-, B- und C-Waffen sowie für Raketen benannt. CHINA 1 China Wanbao Engineering Company (A, C, K) 2 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (K) 3 China State Missile Company (R) FRANCE 1 Commissariat a lEnergie Atomique (A) 2 Sciaky (A) 3 Thomson CSF (A, K) 4 Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R) 5 Cerbag (A) 6 Protec SA (C) 7 Thales Group (A) 8 Societé Général pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A) GREAT BRITAIN 1 Euromac Ltd-Uk (A) 2 C. Plat
-
tidge, you've been around here long enough to know how some people think (or don't) :~ Think of it as trying to explain abstraction and polymorphism to a VB programmer. :rolleyes: - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
How do you figure that it "clearly has nothing to do with liberating people or fighting terrorism"? I'd say it has a little bit to do with all of that. As well as a little something to do with the fact that Saddam doesn't give a rip about any security council declarations and does whatever he pleases. As far back as 1996 we knew that he had biological and chemical weapons as well as terrorist training camps in Iraq. Unfortunately the U.N. and the U.S. administration care.
tidge wrote: How do you figure that it "clearly has nothing to do with liberating people or fighting terrorism"? 1) because there are other countries out there whose people are far more oppressed than Iraq; North Korea, for starters; and several African countries, and 2)The terrorist connection is specious. The CIA says Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11; his payments to Palestinian suicide bomber's families is more a publicity stunt than anything. tidge wrote: As well as a little something to do with the fact that Saddam doesn't give a rip about any security council declarations and does whatever he pleases. Securty council resolution violation scorecard Iraq: 18 Israel: ~47 tidge wrote: As far back as 1996 we knew that he had biological and chemical weapons as well as terrorist training camps in Iraq. Unfortunately the U.N. and the U.S. administration care. See, that's when I start wondering who to believe. We "knew" he was trying buy uranium from Nigeria; except that turned out to be a ploy by .. British intelligence, if I remember. We "knew" that Iraq was throwing babies out of incubators after invading Kuwait.. except that that, too, turns out to be a lie. And _this_ list - the list of lies and coverups involved in this whole Iraq affair - just goes on and on. So excuse me if I can't see any rational reason for this war.
-
bryce wrote: which isnt a relevant issue today It's part of how we got here.
-
bryce wrote: which isnt a relevant issue today In supporting Iraq in the 1980s, the US acted in what it perceived was its national interest. The US is doing the same now. Nothing has changed. The desire of the US to have an alliance with Turkey, which tortures and murders members of its Kurdish population shows how nothing has changed. John Carson
-
bryce wrote: which isnt a relevant issue today It's part of how we got here.
-
bryce wrote: which isnt a relevant issue today In supporting Iraq in the 1980s, the US acted in what it perceived was its national interest. The US is doing the same now. Nothing has changed. The desire of the US to have an alliance with Turkey, which tortures and murders members of its Kurdish population shows how nothing has changed. John Carson
Not to be frivelrous, but so what. Do those have a complaint of (communist) Viet-Nam stopping the genocide in Cambodia? Do they have a problem with the ending of the slaughter of Muslems in Siberia. If they were more consistant . . . Lenin's "useful idiot's" comes to mind. Bryce
-
bryce wrote: which isnt a relevant issue today In supporting Iraq in the 1980s, the US acted in what it perceived was its national interest. The US is doing the same now. Nothing has changed. The desire of the US to have an alliance with Turkey, which tortures and murders members of its Kurdish population shows how nothing has changed. John Carson
-
I'm here to voice my support of the US troops doing the right thing in Iraq. You have my support and God Bless America. Go kick some booty, and liberate Iraq for the benefit of its poor citizens who have long suffered under Saddam. This should have been done long ago, but unfortunatly Clinton had no backbone and too many Monika problems. Thank God George Bush is taking us in the right and moral path. Thank you Mr. Bush, and our allies the British and Aussies who are helping us with this effort. Tony Blair and John Howard, you are wonderful, and I thank you all for helping the US troops liberate Iraq.
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank you Mr. Bush, and our allies the British and Aussies who are helping us with this effort. Presidency is the way Kennedy acted during the Cuban Missiles crisis. If you don't know what I am talking then watch the "Thirteen Days" movie. :rose: Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
What is Cricket?[^] -
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank you Mr. Bush, and our allies the British and Aussies who are helping us with this effort. Presidency is the way Kennedy acted during the Cuban Missiles crisis. If you don't know what I am talking then watch the "Thirteen Days" movie. :rose: Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]
What is Cricket?[^] -
i wonder if people really think "we" are ok with the likes of turkey dealing to the kurds in such a way. i think that its very expediant to throw up another problem to undermine a current one. Bryce
bryce wrote: i wonder if people really think "we" are ok with the likes of turkey dealing to the kurds in such a way. i think that its very expediant to throw up another problem to undermine a current one. It is not "throwing up another problem". It is all part of the same problem, namely that the US in general, and the current administration in particular, does not have a consistent policy on human rights, but instead pursues US national interests and talks selectively about human rights when it happens to suit its purposes. Moreover, the Turkey problem is very "current"; indeed the whole Kurdish issue is of great importance for the human consequences of the war in Iraq, since one possible consequence of that war is renewed attempts on the part of the Kurds to secure self-government, which may provoke additional brutal repression from Turkey. John Carson
-
Yeah, and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. :wtf::rolleyes::laugh: Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Hey don't pick on Kennedy he's my hero, he did Marlyn Monroe and Jackie Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Not to be frivelrous, but so what. Do those have a complaint of (communist) Viet-Nam stopping the genocide in Cambodia? Do they have a problem with the ending of the slaughter of Muslems in Siberia. If they were more consistant . . . Lenin's "useful idiot's" comes to mind. Bryce
bryce wrote: Not to be frivelrous, but so what. Do those have a complaint of (communist) Viet-Nam stopping the genocide in Cambodia? Do they have a problem with the ending of the slaughter of Muslems in Siberia. If they were more consistant . . . Lenin's "useful idiot's" comes to mind. Interestingly enough, the US had a big problem with Vietnam's actions and for 13 years thereafter insisted that the genocidal Pol Pot regime was the legitimate government of Cambodia and therefore the Pol Pot regime retained Cambodia's seat in the UN. The US also gave "humanitarian" assistance to Pol Pot's allies during the 1980s while Pol Pot was waging a guerilla war against the Vietnamese backed regime. You are right that it may be OK to use bad regime A to undermine bad regime B. Where the hypocrisy comes into it is when no interest is shown in doing anything about bad regime A. John Carson
-
bryce wrote: i wonder if people really think "we" are ok with the likes of turkey dealing to the kurds in such a way. i think that its very expediant to throw up another problem to undermine a current one. It is not "throwing up another problem". It is all part of the same problem, namely that the US in general, and the current administration in particular, does not have a consistent policy on human rights, but instead pursues US national interests and talks selectively about human rights when it happens to suit its purposes. Moreover, the Turkey problem is very "current"; indeed the whole Kurdish issue is of great importance for the human consequences of the war in Iraq, since one possible consequence of that war is renewed attempts on the part of the Kurds to secure self-government, which may provoke additional brutal repression from Turkey. John Carson
I would say that is a worldwide problem, i could name a number of first world countries off the top of my head which do not have a consistent policy on human rights. Its hypocritical not to point fingers at one but not all of them. I would also say that iraq is the hell of a lot worse than the US or even turkey. Turkey is also a country more amenable to discussion and political pressure, whereas iraq couldnt give a toss what others thought of its internal humans rights issues. Also, "we" do not have a consistanty policy on human rights. OK, so where in the US do we cut out women's labias and clitoris'. Yes, te US had had some foul things done there. The last lynching was in 1932. Tell that to Cambodia. The communists in Viet-Nam saved many. I'm not a commie basher, but I hate people that feed people into shreders Head first they die quickly, feet first they "die screaming."
-
Hey don't pick on Kennedy he's my hero, he did Marlyn Monroe and Jackie Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jonny Newman wrote: the Iraqi army lacks the crucial element to its force. I can't put a name to it, maybe its skill/presence/determination, I don't know. Try faith, honor, trust, and pride towards their leadership. The only ones who will fight are the republican guard, for they are the only ones who have anything to lose. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
The problem that Saddam Hussain has with is army is that it is too depleted after the Gulf war I, and could not obviously be re-built because of sanctions. All he could do till now was to fire two missiles. He does not even seem to have any airforce. It is obvious that pride, honour and trust does not make up for any of these. Like all the other cases, courage, pride and honor is not expressed when you walk right in front of a superior enemy. It is in being alive first and IMO, fight their battles only at the places where they have an edge. I think the Iraqi defense will be more on the lines of a guerilla warfare - with suprise attacks on ground troops etc. But, they do not have the weapon systems to sustain any kind of defence. If Iraq had the half the military capacity as US, the same amount of trust, honor and especially trust would not have been there. There would have been lot more questions by the political opposition and the general public. The same would have been true, if Saddam Hussain was the president of Mexico - because the physical proximity would have made any president think twice. This is a war against an almost weaponless opponent, too far away from home to affect the military or the population in any significant way. There is nothing to be demoralized about. All the factors that you said comes into picture, when the casualties become large and the military gets stretched. Saddam seems to enjoy support from his army; otherwise they would have already upstaged him in this moment of crisis. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers