0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 02:49 pm
c.i. - it is definitely Japanese, it's either one of the clean itself ones or it is a pay toilet! :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:11 pm
It could be both. Wink
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:35 pm
Watching the news made me angry again. The journalist showed us pictures of the looting.
Hospitals looted
German embassy =>looted
Private houses of the leadership=>looted
Ministry of information=>looted
Ministry of trade=>looted

All the ministries were looted except one. Heavily guarded with tanks and armoured vehicles. the ministry of OIL

So people are dying because the US soldiers stood by while the looters took all they could lay there hands on. Saying it was impossible to protect all the buildings.

Why did they protect the ministry of OIL instead of the biggest hospital in Bagdad? Medical staff and civilian volunteers are defending some of Baghdad's hospitals with guns so bad has the looting become, a BBC correspondent reports. Why dont the move the troops away from an empty building and to the hospitals in order to protect at least these from the looters?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:41 pm
frolic, get over it; read my lips - It's not about OIL Surprised Cool
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 05:10 pm
From today's Christian Science Monitor:

Quote:
US troops' anguish: Killing outmatched foes
....Earlier, in a battle to isolate Najaf, US commanders called for airstrikes partly out of an aversion to mowing down Iraqis with direct fire. "There were waves and waves of people coming at them, with AK-47s, out of this factory, and they were killing everyone," says Lieutenant Colonel Radcliffe. "The commander called and said, 'This is not right. This is insane. Let's hit the factory with close air support and take them out all at once.'" For some soldiers, trauma is already sinking in. "For lack of a better word, I feel almost guilty about the massacre," says one soldier privately. "We wasted a lot of people. It makes you wonder how many were innocent. It takes away some of the pride. We won, but at what cost?"...

..."The average soldier now is 19 to 21 years old," says Sergeant Mack. "You have 21-year-old sergeants. They're not experienced enough to maintain control over themselves or their soldiers in the heat of the battle. They're just two years off the streets. We have WIAs [Wounded In Action] wearing Purple Hearts who are 20 years old." As the longest-deployed Army division in the region and the one that provided the bulk of the Army's combat power, the 3rd Infantry Division is not likely to serve as an occupying force in Iraq. Instead, it should be one of the first arriving home. But before that, officers stress, the soldiers must have time to decompress. "The reality is, we've got a bunch of steely-eyed killers that have destroyed all the enemy forces they've come into contact with," worries Radcliffe. "The switch is on right now, and you can't just turn it off."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p03s01-woiq.htm
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 05:46 pm
I recall hearing about some old gardens near Baghdad. Probably was a nice place to hang out, maybe even have a little sex. Folks over there have been putting more time into war and politics of late. Its cetainly about time to concentrate on flowers and frolic for a while, I'd think.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 05:50 pm
http://www.cartoonweb.com/images/attackiraq/attackiraq11.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 06:55 pm
If it ain't about oil, what was all this killing about? c.i.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 08:39 pm
It was to liberate ah.... to protect us from the WMD of the uh... to change the regime of er.... to stop the training of terrorists of uh....

HELL, I DON'T KNOW!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 08:44 pm
snood, you are with the troops. What do your fellow soldiers think about all of it...the reasons for the war, the war that is happening, the after-war part. Do they listen to Rumsfeld, and then what do you all say after he has finished talking?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 09:29 pm
How about ...... the only way Bush will get re-appointed is if voting agains him is considered un-patriotic because the country is involved in a war.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 09:59 pm
Kara wrote:
snood, you are with the troops. What do your fellow soldiers think about all of it...the reasons for the war, the war that is happening, the after-war part. Do they listen to Rumsfeld, and then what do you all say after he has finished talking?


Believe it or not Kara, the only people who feel free to be vocal about how they feel are those who are cookie-cutter version, "let's roll", dyed-in-the-wool hoorah types. You know, the kinds who say things like "President Bush is sure a good speaker, isn't he?" Murmured much more quietly are the doubts and concerns about the direction this country, and this military have chosen. Spoken much more personally are the resentments about a president whose vision escapes them, whose bravado leaves them cold, whose rhetoric is empty to them. Mind you, these who I've heard voice their displeasure about the present leadership would pick up a weapon and go, no less quickly than their flag-waving comrades. But the two kinds of voices and perspectives are real, and distinct.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 10:12 pm
Just the way I would expect it to be snood - hasn't changed much in that regard since I was there. Good hearing from you! Smile
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 10:19 pm
Interesting thoughts, snood. What if you had been deployed to the Gulf? Could you have done this without concern for your personal feelings about the reasons for the war? (Or are you not in the sort of position to have been sent there?)

Have you thought about fellow troops being faced with the situation that is happening now? Crowd control and civil admin., what about looters? Have you and fellow soldiers been trained for this?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 10:27 pm
Kara, snood will speak for himself - which he is very capable of. I wanted to put a few thoughts here of my own. When I went to Viet Nam I was against the war - but I had to go for a number of personal reasons - I couldn't just protest without knowing what it was all about.

When I came home, I had 6 months left and got assigned to Fort Carson, CO. Our number one assignment, which we were trained for, was protest control - mainly out of Chicago, which was a major problem area. I would have refused to go if we ever had been called out for a protest - I would have been court martialed and probably got a dishonorable discharge - after being combat infantry in Nam. Didn't have to be call out!
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 10:59 pm
dyslexia wrote:
as i am sure every post military person here would agree, using combat troops for police is not going to work at all, MP's MUST be brought it immediately.


i agree completely with dys on this. from what i read on bbc, various organizations are working on this situation.
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 11:00 pm
on a lighter note, has anyone gone to this site yet?

http:/www.WeLoveTheIraqiInformationMinister.com

the site is currently down (being moved to another server) should be back online tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:57 am
Bravo, snood.

You've dissected the difference between being a partisan and a patriot.

joe
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 06:19 am
And bravo Joe for pointing that out and providing, at least me, with an 'oh yeah' moment.
Thank you Snood.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 06:27 am
George, did you really think the rest of the world would just sit on their collective asses and watch?
Syria will truly be the shot heard around the world.

"Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the US-led coalition not to attack other countries under the pretext of promoting capitalist and democratic values after having defeated Iraq's dictatorial regime."

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,182642-1-9,00.html


All in the name of anti terrorism .......

http://www2.warblogging.com/tia/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 186
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 11:49:05