Thanking U.S. Military Services for Defending Our Freedom

[sk8cynic]

Re: W.O.M.D.

And he said that any captured coalition forces would be treated well.

So far Hussein's batting a thousand in the credibility department.



How long until the non-existent chemical and/or biological weapons make an appearance?

 

[HamiltonBrowningFan]

Re: Thanking U.S. Military Services for Defending Our Freedo

I'm not trying to spam my youth group's website... but I'm in the process of added pages for the youth of my church who are defending America and our Freedom....

www.geocities.com/unashas...rtney.html

so far we only have one overseas, so she got the first page(that and the fact that I don't have anyone else's email yet :lol: )

anyway, I'm sure she'd appreciate the support

 

[Mathman3]

Re: W.O.M.D.

I hope they don't, Sk8Cynic. So far, with the helicopter crash and the American soldier that threw a grenade into his own tent, there have been more casualties by "friendly fire" than by anything Saddam Hussein has done, if he is even alive.

On the other hand, if the Iraqis DO have anything to fight with, now is the time. ANY country, facing invasion by a foreign army, is obliged to fight back with whatever they've got, be it ever so pitiful.

Still keeping my fingers crossed.

Mathman

 

[Ladskater]

Re: Thanking U.S. Military Services for Defending Our Freedo

I thought the war was being fought to free the Iraquis.

Ladskater

 

[Nadya Lyubova]

Re: Thanking U.S. Military Services for Defending Our Freedo

The weapons the iraqis have used so far were no weapons of mass destructions. Those still haven't been found. There have been rumours about Iraqis being ordered to use VX as soon as any troups would enter a certain red circle around Bagdad, but there are no confirmed news yet, since the press is not being told anything there.

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: W.O.M.D.

According to an inspector who went into the former soviet union, they never would have found weapons hidden there without the help of ex-soviet scientists who told them where they were hidden. Iraq is a big country and they had plenty of time to hide any weapons they wanted to with the months and months of UN 'negotiations'.

At any rate, Tony Blair, during his press conference yesterday morning, basically said he is very happy that he is now free to say that the main reason for this war is to remove Saddam and his regime. When going to the UN for approval, they thought using the removing WPM/chemical weapons as the main reason would go over better than removing a maniac from power. He remained steadfast in his belief that Saddam has banned weapons, in fact, I believe he did use some already - 3 which landed in Iran which Iran first accused of being US/coalition missiles but later retracted and said they were made in Iraq - and many missiles which have been shot down by patriot missles or have landed in Kuwait and now there is news that Russia - one of the UN veto countries - has probably been selling them banned military equipment and showing them how to use them. Oh my.

Tony Blair then went on to say he was sure Saddam was hiding illegal or chemical weapons because if he wasn't he would never have given the UN inspectors any trouble and he would not have designate a 'chaperone' (person who will kill them if they say something they aren't supposed to) to every Iraqi citizen speaking to the press. If he had nothing to hide, why would he worry about what people, in particular his scientists, would say? Why would he worry about inspectors?

I should also note that on the news last night a plane-load of American human shields arrived home from Iraq and they are no longer against the war. One guy, a priest or a reverend of some sort, said every Iraqi person he was able to talk to alone told him they are afraid for their lives of Saddam and his cronies and that he is a pychotic maniac. One man even told him if Saddam is not removed this time he is going to commit suicide.

as for Iraqi civilians being killed, there would be far less if Saddam did not purposely put everything he knows that will be bombed in civilian areas, or putting civilians purposely where military strikes are sure to take place, just so he can say there are civilian casualties. He is a very sick man and I would not believe a word coming out of his regime.

With that said, I do hope there is a swift end to this war with as few dead as humanely possible, although it is not looking very promising. Afterwards, hopefully there will be a rebuilding. Rebuilding has worked in the past - for Germany, Japan and So. Korea to name a few.

I have to agree with whoever said you need to back up your statements. Give a valid argument for your beliefs, if you have any, and an alternative to helping people who have been terrorized by their own government for decades.

 

[heyang]

Re: W.O.M.D.

I was watching World News Tonight. A reporter interviewed some Iraqui's who were receiving relief packages. Some said they hated the USA and wanted to be left alone. Off camera, one said that he didn't want Saddam and he didn't want the US either.

 

[mathman444]

Re: W.O.M.D.

A rock and a hard place, Ang. I try to imagine myself in the position of the Iraqi people. Which do you want, a brutal homegrown dictator or a foreign invading army?

Can I see what's behind door number three?

Mathman

 

[John King]

W.O.M.D.

Yes,Mathman,behind door #3:A liberating force!America has no plans to conquer Iraq,but to rid it of a dictator who is a menace to the free world as well as to his own people.War is hell,yes.But in this case,it is also necessary.

 

[Nadya Lyubova]

Re: W.O.M.D.

John, I do think the Iraqi people feel invaded (I don't know if American media show any interviews or reactions from Iraqi citizens who still live there, but it does not sound like they want to be liberated <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> ). I think the problem is a) the USA have not made themselves very popular in the entire Arabic world, to put it mildly, and b) we have to look at what the iraqis can expect for the time after the war - there are 3 possibilities:

1. democratic elections - which will probably lead to a Muslimic theocracy like in Iran
2. an Iraqi governor from the regime of Saddam - but there aren't many guys who the allies could install there
3. a US-American governor - which would be considered an invasion by the people. Show me one Arab country that wants an American governor.

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: W.O.M.D.

Many of the Iraqi people do not feel safe yet. For instance, while military (either US or British) were passing one town, some people cheered. Afterwards, one of the women were hanged because she was seen cheering. There are still Saddam's men in many of these towns so they may not feel free to voice their opinions yet.

As for the person who said he hates Saddam and the USA - well good for him, at least he feels free to speak his mind. It is no wonder they hate the US as they have been raised to do so. How many Germans in Germany hated Jews in the 1930's? They were raised to hate them and forced to join the Hitler youth. If you raise someone to be racist, most likely they will be.


"democratic elections - which will probably lead to a Muslimic theocracy like in Iran"

well if that's what they want, that's what they should have

"an Iraqi governor from the regime of Saddam - but there aren't many guys who the allies could install there"

I doubt if the allies 'install' anyone into power they would pick anyone from the Saddam regime. Anyone know to be part of his regime would likely be killed or put in jail.

"a US-American governor - which would be considered an invasion by the people. Show me one Arab country that wants an American governor."

I don't think an American person is going to be the new presient of Iraq. Perhaps a British person since they have a history of colonisation, or the French or Spanish as they do too.

 

[heyang]

Re: W.O.M.D.

I'm not sure about this....Has the 'western' world ever been successful at rebuilding a country? If yes, how long did it take?

From what I recall, the US does not have a good history of backing the 'right' leader. The Shah of Iran is the 1st that comes to mind and he was overthrown and exiled.

Europe (and the US to a lesser extent) have colonized many areas of the world at one time or other. When they left, they didn't always leave the colony in better shape.

 

[Nadya Lyubova]

Re: W.O.M.D.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"democratic elections - which will probably lead to a Muslimic theocracy like in Iran"
well if that's what they want, that's what they should have[/quote]
In this case I'm wondering in how far their situation has become better than before and in how far they will have been "liberated" then...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"an Iraqi governor from the regime of Saddam - but there aren't many guys who the allies could install there"
I doubt if the allies 'install' anyone into power they would pick anyone from the Saddam regime. Anyone know to be part of his regime would likely be killed or put in jail.[/quote]
Well, who else is there in Iraq at the moment? If you pick an Iraqi, you will either have to choose a Sunnit or have elections 8see above)....I don't see what other choices you have...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"a US-American governor - which would be considered an invasion by the people. Show me one Arab country that wants an American governor."
I don't think an American person is going to be the new presient of Iraq. Perhaps a British person since they have a history of colonisation, or the French or Spanish as they do too.[/quote]
I doubt the Americans are going to choose any other person than somebody from Bush's political background. That's totally against the political goals they have named in context with this war before. Besides that a non-Iraqi couldn't be president I think (?), just a governor, which would lead us to yet another problem - the Iraqi people being occupied by another country (which is already a grave insult to the Arab world, esp. as soon as the US are involved). I think that's the worst of all options, but this is what's going to happen. Anything else is simply against the political aims of the US government. Maybe option no. 2, but there definitely won't be any democratic elections I think.

 

[John King]

Well,Heyang....

Have you ever heard of Japan?Germany?(at least the Western part at first;finally Eastern Germany joined in 1990).Italy?Granada?Countries that had been liberated from dictatorship.Also,who ever said that the Iraqi civillians aren't viewing the Americans as liberators?Every news account I've come accross says the American troups were greeted with cheers and Iraqis blowing kisses.

 

[Nadya Lyubova]

Re: Well,Heyang....

Let me have a guess - you're viewing American TV exclusively? Here in Europe we get both sides. Today in the morning BBC World interviewed people on the streets and they said they didn't want the US there more than one day, or things like they wanted the UN, not America. America is not exactly the best friend of the Arab world....which is why I don't think they would feel liberated if they were put under American control after the war. You can already see what's happening in most other Arab countries, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc.....there you can see how "popular" Bush Sr and Jr, and Clinton have made the USA in the Arab world....

 

[JOHIO2]

Re: W.O.M.D.

Manny,

Many thanx for the link. I'm passing it on. Also, love the new moniker and the cadeuceus (sorry Grgranny, i am unwilling to spend time looking up the spelling or translating spellcheck's attempt to offer me the correct term!).

also, pati, i too love your rosebud.

And, last but not least---cynic, i too wondered what kind of internship they had for so long. and how they got it if they were that uninformed about the company! at least they don't say "dude"!!!!!!

 

[HamiltonBrowningFan]

Re: W.O.M.D.

if they base their opinions on Clinton(if anyone does) as the base for their opinions on America then greater fools are they....

Clinton should never have been given 8 years in the white house...

 

[mathman444]

Re: W.O.M.D.

Toni, I see that your signature is getting longer and longer! :lol: I wonder if Colin Powell has ever heard of the war against Mexico, or the Spanish American war -- or for that matter, the many wars of the U.S. against the native American nations.

The U.S. will never allow a democratic election in Iraq (or anywhere else where we have suficient influence to prevent it) if there is a good likelihood of victory by Islamic fundamentalists. Morocco and Algeria come to mind.

If the Iraqis don't like Saddam, wait till they see what life is like under a clique of religious nutcases. Think of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- a regime so evil that even the chaos that replaced it is an improvement.

This, by the way, is one of the goals of El Quaida -- to get rid of the secular leaders of the Arab world and replace them with clerics who would impose a stricter Islamic rule.

(Of course we all know that Saddam is big on democracy -- in the last election he got 100% of the vote.:lol: )

A rock and a hard place. I wish I could feel more optimistic about all this. Maybe it won't turn out as badly as I think.

Mathman

 

[heyang]

Re: W.O.M.D.

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">Have you ever heard of Japan?Germany?(at least the Western part at first;finally Eastern Germany joined in 1990).Italy?Granada?Countries that had been liberated from dictatorship.</blockquote>

Japan and Germany and Italy were the losers in WWII. They invaded other countries. The Emporer of Japan was in power due to his birth. I believe Hitler was voted into his leadership role - granted it may have been fishy. Italy had a fascist regime in power, but I don't know if they were voted in or took oaver by force. I don't consider these countries as having been liberated from dictatorship - they were defeated after being the aggressors. These countries could never view themselves as the being invaded - they were the losers and knew they would have go change.

With the exception of Japan, these countries had a parliamentory or republican or democratic government. It was a matter of going back to that freedom.

Sorry, don't know anything about Granada.

In Iraq, we already had strong anti-American sentiments before this operation began. While the Iraqui's may not want Saddam, they do not want to be under American rule, either. Iraq views themselves as being the Attacked and as being Invaded. It's an uphill battle to capture the hearts and minds and gain cooperation when there is already such a strong sense of hostility. As Americans, we should have no expectation of being received with open arms. I'm sure there will be some who will be pleased, but I hope the wrong guy doesn't get supported by the US again.

 

[Joesitz]

Re: Our (USA) Freedoms

I'm not at all sure about how our freedoms are being prevented? Please explainj.

Joe