Hurray US Troops.
-
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
-
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."
bryce wrote: 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. I agree. It just happens that the US is the one most loudly proclaiming its human rights motivations at the moment. My own country of Australia is completely hypocritical on the human rights issue, as evidenced by our unsympathetic attitude toward refugees fleeing Iraq for Australia. bryce wrote: I would also say that iraq is the hell of a lot worse than the US or even turkey. Domestically, the US record is generally excellent (in common with other Western nations). I am not sure that Iraq is a "hell of a lot worse" than Turkey. bryce wrote: Turkey is also a country more amenable to discussion and political pressure Haven't seen much evidence of that thus far. bryce wrote: 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." As I said, the problem is not with US domestic policy. The issue is US foreign policy --- the regimes that the US supports. Yet a lot of people insist on using domestic policy to judge foreign policy, which is just illogical. John Carson
-
yer, and so what's you're next point. Things change, and so what's you're next point. When the Iranians seized ours for 444 days who should we support? Bryce
Am I missing something? Did US not have a military then to fight a war or what? Why did they need Iraq - that too a dictator who belongs to an organization whose sole aim is a unified and strong Arab country? Everyone makes mistakes. That was a blunder of the US foreign policy. No one wants to acknowledge that - probably because of ego issues. But, personally I feel that a little introspection is in order. Acknowledging this does one more thing - no one can use that in arguments like it comes up now :-). If the president of the US - "Supporting Saddam was a mistake. We did not realize his true colors then. He is a threat to everyone and should be removed as soon as possible."; then it sounds more sincere - and difficult not to support. In any case, when USA signs a chemical weapon treaty in 1971, they should not have been selling it to Iraq. That was another mistake made. US is in violation of that treaty. Being a super-power, US don't have to be accountable for it. All this is not meant as an anti-american stand; or a pro-Saddam stand. It is said just so that the claimed high moral ground is exposed for what it is. The war in Iraq or in Afghanistan has nothing to do with liberation of the people there - it is more to do with strategic control of the region. The liberation part is just a spin put on it for the consumption of the common people. Just my opinion. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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
When you are a super power, why do you NEED regime A to undermine regime B? Just something that I never understood. :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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
Ofcourse US and all members of NATO are ok with it. There is no mention of that even in peace times, is there? If Saddam never attacked Kuwait against US wishes, he would even now be a faithful ally - do you have any doubts? It is all about control of the region. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
bryce wrote: 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. I agree. It just happens that the US is the one most loudly proclaiming its human rights motivations at the moment. My own country of Australia is completely hypocritical on the human rights issue, as evidenced by our unsympathetic attitude toward refugees fleeing Iraq for Australia. bryce wrote: I would also say that iraq is the hell of a lot worse than the US or even turkey. Domestically, the US record is generally excellent (in common with other Western nations). I am not sure that Iraq is a "hell of a lot worse" than Turkey. bryce wrote: Turkey is also a country more amenable to discussion and political pressure Haven't seen much evidence of that thus far. bryce wrote: 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." As I said, the problem is not with US domestic policy. The issue is US foreign policy --- the regimes that the US supports. Yet a lot of people insist on using domestic policy to judge foreign policy, which is just illogical. John Carson
John Carson wrote: Domestically, the US record is generally excellent (in common with other Western nations). I am not sure that Iraq is a "hell of a lot worse" than Turkey. might i suggest you view the amnesty international website? Now we have established that the US does in fact have a better human rights record and that they do complain loudly when required, its also important to note that they do also work quietly when the situation calls for it, one deals with ones friends and helps them sort out their problems in a different manner to how one sorts out someone less than friendly. by the way, I love a good argument :)
-
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
:-D If people just take the efforts of all countries for what it is - effective control of the region, and making some money selling weapons and think about the consequences later - everything gets explained. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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
Good points. I agree. I hope we could end this with minimal casualities on both sides, and give Iraq back to the people, to establish a government of their choosing. I understand not everyone in the world is ready for democracy, and I believe we will not force that upon them, however they have a right to not be under corrupt officials out lining their pockets. (iraqi republican guard and company implied here) - 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
Thomas George wrote: Saddam seems to enjoy support from his army; otherwise they would have already upstaged him in this moment of crisis Interesting point. The question is why? The army knows that they will be defeated for sure. Unlike OBL this guy doesnot use Religion to influence them.
-
Thomas George wrote: Saddam seems to enjoy support from his army; otherwise they would have already upstaged him in this moment of crisis Interesting point. The question is why? The army knows that they will be defeated for sure. Unlike OBL this guy doesnot use Religion to influence them.
The problems that I see 1. US supports Israel. Israel gets the highest aid from US. This makes US ineligible to be a mediator in the Palestine issue. By not relinquishing that role to some other party who can be seen by the Arab world as neutral, US gets little goodwill. 2. Previous support of dictators and human rights violators; and no sense of regret for these actions expressed to the people of those countries by any US administration. To sum up, they may see Saddam as one of their own (even if he is a nightmare), where as US is seen as someone who might sell them out to another dictator, if that is the best strategic option for US to control the region. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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 Martin is back. [quote] 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. [/quote] Both Blair and Howard will lose the next election, and I have no doubt their parties will take a generation to recover. Neither the UK or Australia backs this war, it's our leaders who are spineless. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
-
When you are a super power, why do you NEED regime A to undermine regime B? Just something that I never understood. :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Just something that I never understood. From reading your posts there is a LOT you don't understand. Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles