US launching huge air attacks in Iraq

Former Member

His lack of compassion?! Oh yeah, like you're some lovely, cuddly teddy bear who loves the Iraqis. You truly are deluded. Now, let's see if we can get a straight answer out of you. I'm now against the occupation, and I'm right-wing. (though thankfully nowhere near as much as you are) Why should I support what's going on now?

I actually think that the left wing case for the war is far more convincing and coherent than anything Bush said. I'm not going to give it you in full, but if you want to learn more then read stuff by those lefties who were (and are) for the war.

Good examples include Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen and Johann Hari.

Of course, from checking out most of your posts, you seem like a typical Daily Mail reading moron who isnt interested in real intellectual debate, so I don't expect you to read any of them.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

It would have been even less dire if they hadn't actually supported Saddam Hussein and armed him to the teeth during the 80s.

Or, if they really thought they are the self-elected world policemen, had targetted all dictators everywhere, not just those who happen to sit on billions of barrels of oil reserves.

As if the US and British governments really gave a fuck about brutal dictators, torture and human rights anyway... South America, Israel, Africa, China anyone? :rolleyes:

Well, America does get involved in South America all the time, they just fuck it up alot.

Israel is an ally with an elected Government so they are not tyrants and i do not think Human Rights really come into any decisions made.

Africa is Americas biggest fear because it is a jungle war scenario and they have no idea how to fight such a thing so they claim it is British and European sphere of influence, nice excuse to stay away though.

China, HA, i say it again, HA! Nuclear powered near superpower Billion strong nation. it would be like declaring open warfare on USSR at its height of power would it not?

No, no, no, America is doing one thing that is sensible...though they still manage to fuck it up;

"You fight the battles you can win, not the battles that need fighting."

Is Americas motto.

Former Member

The Matadore wrote:

Of course, from checking out most of your posts, you seem like a typical Daily Mail reading moron who isnt interested in real intellectual debate, so I don't expect you to read any of them.

And from checking out most of your posts, you come across as a deluded, extremely right-wing cretin who lives in Dubya's World.

Former Member

The Matadore wrote:

I dont see a war which liberates an entire country from under the thumb of a murderous thug and his rqually repulsive sons as 'pointless and counterproductive'. Given the choice between Saddams rule for the next 50 years and a chance, no matter how slim (because it would be opposed by Islamists who are also fascists) of a democracy, I'd always pick the latter. And I suspect most Iraqis would do the same.

What liberation?

What democracy?

What rose-tinted glasses are you using to look at Iraq? Can I have a go?

I know perfectly well that, even with American power, you cant depose everyone at once. I'll settle for one dictator at a time.

LOL! You choose to support fascist dictators when it suits your political beliefs and the agenda of your idols the Republican movement of the US. Such as the mass murdering, Thatcher buddy Augusto Pinochet.

As I said, only when it suits you.

As for you, my revulsion at your lack of compassion, hand wringing defence of fascism and arm chair arrogance in assuming the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam knows no bounds.

Revulse away. Perhaps one day you will mellow out in your dotage and reflect on your attitudes and beliefs in your youth, and you will see how selective compassion you actually had.

From Chile to Central America to the Middle East to Asia, your alleged concern for freedom and against dictators and fascists only extends as far as the US foreign policy does. Had you, me and the internet been 20 years earlier I have no doubt you would have been defending Saddam Hussein as he shook hands with Rumsfeld and telling us how the lives of those Iraqis were a small price to pay. Just as you have said of fascist brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet, and you probably think of child-slaving President Karimov of Uzbekistan (though maybe not any more since he decided a few months ago to kick the US bases out of his country).

Are you really that blinded to your own incredible double standards and hypocrisy, or just ignoring them?

Former Member

I can’t be bothered to read through all the posts but my general feeling is that the ‘anti-war movement’ has really lost the plot. While the anti-war brigade was relevant three years ago that they’re still banging on making the same tedious point is pretty pathetic. Coalition forces did invade, they did remove Saddam – and the focus must be on stabilising Iraq, overcoming the terrorists that wish to destroy hopes of democracy in Iraq and helping to foster a new democratic Iraq.

The barbarity of much of the anti-war activists is displayed not only by the fact that they would rather Saddam was still in power but also in that they would – with no qualms withdraw all British and American troops from Iraq, leaving the country in anarchy open to the advances of the most vicious and violent terrorists. Saddam’s brutal genocidal regime butchered thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. It’s unfortunate that those against the war would rather Iraqis were still living under Saddam’s evil regime. In hindsight there are perhaps some regrets – history will be the judge but in the context of considering current affairs the focus must be on ensuring security and stability for the people of Iraq. And withdrawing troops will go no way towards achieving that and have catastrophic consequences.

I support Iraq and I support the troops supporting Iraq – it’s a shame that so many instead of caring about the welfare of Iraq instead wish to score cheap political points at the expense of Tony Blair and George Bush, who have both shown exceptional leadership and great courage.

Former Member

Dis, your a loon.

Getting rid of Saddam did not, in no way shape and or form require a full scale military invasion.

Secondly, regrettable support for large scale murder would be what most sane people would tend towards if they did have such dodgy rational thinking skills as to advocate war.

By contrast, your bloodthirsty tub thumping is pretty sickening.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I can’t be bothered to read through all the posts but my general feeling is that the ‘anti-war movement’ has really lost the plot. While the anti-war brigade was relevant three years ago that they’re still banging on making the same tedious point is pretty pathetic. Coalition forces did invade, they did remove Saddam – and the focus must be on stabilising Iraq, overcoming the terrorists that wish to destroy hopes of democracy in Iraq and helping to foster a new democratic Iraq.

The barbarity of much of the anti-war activists is displayed not only by the fact that they would rather Saddam was still in power but also in that they would – with no qualms withdraw all British and American troops from Iraq, leaving the country in anarchy open to the advances of the most vicious and violent terrorists. Saddam’s brutal genocidal regime butchered thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. It’s unfortunate that those against the war would rather Iraqis were still living under Saddam’s evil regime. In hindsight there are perhaps some regrets – history will be the judge but in the context of considering current affairs the focus must be on ensuring security and stability for the people of Iraq. And withdrawing troops will go no way towards achieving that and have catastrophic consequences.

I support Iraq and I support the troops supporting Iraq – it’s a shame that so many instead of caring about the welfare of Iraq instead wish to score cheap political points at the expense of Tony Blair and George Bush, who have both shown exceptional leadership and great courage.

Would you support an international alliance waging an illegal war on Israel and expulsing them from Palestine by force?

Actually, don't answer that question... :rolleyes:

But suffice to say that despite my strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and my great desire that Israel would withdraw in full from the West Bank and the appalling abuse the Palestinians have endured was ended, I would not support the use of force against Israel as things stand.

For precisely the very same reasons I did not suppor the war on Iraq.

Try to work out what those reasons are- you will find some clues in post #80.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I can’t be bothered to read through all the posts but my general feeling is that the ‘anti-war movement’ has really lost the plot. While the anti-war brigade was relevant three years ago that they’re still banging on making the same tedious point is pretty pathetic. Coalition forces did invade, they did remove Saddam – and the focus must be on stabilising Iraq, overcoming the terrorists that wish to destroy hopes of democracy in Iraq and helping to foster a new democratic Iraq.

The barbarity of much of the anti-war activists is displayed not only by the fact that they would rather Saddam was still in power but also in that they would – with no qualms withdraw all British and American troops from Iraq, leaving the country in anarchy open to the advances of the most vicious and violent terrorists. Saddam’s brutal genocidal regime butchered thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. It’s unfortunate that those against the war would rather Iraqis were still living under Saddam’s evil regime. In hindsight there are perhaps some regrets – history will be the judge but in the context of considering current affairs the focus must be on ensuring security and stability for the people of Iraq. And withdrawing troops will go no way towards achieving that and have catastrophic consequences.

I support Iraq and I support the troops supporting Iraq – it’s a shame that so many instead of caring about the welfare of Iraq instead wish to score cheap political points at the expense of Tony Blair and George Bush, who have both shown exceptional leadership and great courage.

I love the way you completely misrepresent people to suit your own political agenda.

Former Member

the anti war's hijack the the threads again, gianging up and spreading crap as usual.

Former Member

Much as I try, I can't make head nor tail of most of walkindude's posts.

Former Member

The Matadore wrote:

I know perfectly well that, even with American power, you cant depose everyone at once. I'll settle for one dictator at a time.

Oh dear. You do realise the US has supported every mass-murderous right wing dictator since WW2 don't you?

As for you, my revulsion at your lack of compassion, hand wringing defence of fascism and arm chair arrogance in assuming the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam knows no bounds.

1 in 20 Iraqis are now dead and the country is an absolute warzone on the brink of civil war, which could quite possibly result with Iraq effectively becoming a Western district of Iran. How's that an improvement on a stable, secular dictatorship with a successful middle class?

Former Member

To be fair, if it was to resutl in every Iraqi been killed then no one would be left to fight so there would be peace, which maybe what some people mean when they say "struggling slowly towards peace in Iraq."

Also, America hasnt supported every single mass-murderous right wing dictator...some of them were self-sufficient.

Did anyone read about the money loss? I dont mean poor investment or wasted funds...i mean actually money lost. $250million dollars was kept in the American strong hold in American dollars and were willfully given out to warlords, tribal leaders, balh blah blah and now its all gone. Yet it was suppose to be used to aid people...that show America manages money...Deficit come to anyone minds?

Former Member

subject13 wrote:

Also, America hasnt supported every single mass-murderous right wing dictator...some of them were self-sufficient.

Which? I can't think of any.

Even if there was an exception, it's an irrelevency - to suggest that the US goes to war over human rights is the height of gullability.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Dis, your a loon.

Getting rid of Saddam did not, in no way shape and or form require a full scale military invasion.

Only problem with assassination is that leaders get edgy if their lives are on the line. Which is why I prefer it. I was doing research on it, assassination was a staple part of political life and foreign policy until the 17th century. Now there are "gentleman's agreements" so that troops and poor people get killed instead. Gotta love our caring leaders, so willing to put their lives on the line for our safety. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Which? I can't think of any.

Even if there was an exception, it's an irrelevency - to suggest that the US goes to war over human rights is the height of gullability.

I didnt say they did.

Teh_Gerbil

Blagsta wrote:

Much as I try, I can't make head nor tail of most of walkindude's posts.

I gave up long ago trying.

Former Member

Walkindude wrote:

the anti war's hijack the the threads again, gianging up and spreading crap as usual.

so because someone is anti war, they should not be allowed to post?

if it wasnt for the anti war people, tony blair would probly still have a strong power base, as opposed to a string one, and could do whatever he likes

Former Member

Its actually pretty amusing, since an "anti-war person" *cough cough* started it. I thought Walkindude meant more that the conversation was getting bogged down in arguements over the war's justification than what was happening now. If that is the case, then thats understandable.

Former Member

Cain wrote:

Its actually pretty amusing, since an "anti-war person" *cough cough* started it. I thought Walkindude meant more that the conversation was getting bogged down in arguements over the war's justification than what was happening now. If that is the case, then thats understandable.

yes it might be the biggest airbourne assault since they started the war, but looking at things perspectively, are the iraqui's in one province really going to notice that theres an extra 100 helicopters spread all over the country?

Former Member

I question the effectiveness of helicoptors as a counterinsurgent weapon from the outset. As I recall, the vast majority of US helicoptors are outfitted for anti-tank operations, with the weapons necessary for this. Another Cold War hangover.

They need more units on the ground, full stop. Thats politically untenable though, with Bush. They need more intelligence on the ground too, but the CIA Operations Directorate is always first in line for cuts. They needed to get the local militias on side, such as Al-Sadr and the Kurdish groups. They have had only half hearted success at that. And they really need the Iraqi Army working properly. I dont believe for a moment the figures that come from the White House on how many units are combat ready, let alone trained in counter-insurgent operations.

Former Member

Getting local militias on side has been a huge mess! They handed them in cash millions of dollars with out even bothering to find out who was pro-american and who was going to help, they just handed them money and left most of them to run away with it and turn against the americans.

Using helicopters is a brilliant tactic, they are not exactly going in to take prisoners are they? They are going in to purge the area of insurgents with extreme prejudice. Ground troops at this early stage would leave a huge American body count, which is not what the americans want. They want a huge insurgent body count.

It is unlikely this will be a turning point in the fight for peace, but the Iraqi army is supposedley armed and of a sufficient number to take over many operations from coalition troops. The government is still a shambles and Saddams trial is still going now where. Iraq will be a 10 year investment for America, just as it was was going to be when they finished the invasion. Acting like it should all be done and sorted by now is very naive.

Former Member

subject13 wrote:

Using helicopters is a brilliant tactic, they are not exactly going in to take prisoners are they? They are going in to purge the area of insurgents with extreme prejudice. Ground troops at this early stage would leave a huge American body count, which is not what the americans want. They want a huge insurgent body count.

Unfortunately all the Americans usually manage to do is to kill as many civilians as insurgents (if not more). Regardless of the criminal loss of life due to the the cowboy tactics used, such operations likely result in the recruitment of many more fighters for the insurgency.

I know that my family was killed by a missile fired by the glorious 'liberators' in their usual contempt/incompetence/ignorance, I'd spend the rest of my days taking out as many of them as I could manage.

Former Member

The catch22 of that is, everytime an American soldier is killed the whole American army takes it the same way, escalating the issue even more.

You know the term cowboy tactics refers to Colonel Custer last stand and how he went down in American history as a hero for getting all his troops killed.

Ironic, when you think Benedict Arnold went down in American history as a traitor because he was sentenced to death for wanting to surrender a fort to keep his men alive when they were outnumbered with no hope of victory.

Former Member

Yes, things have certainly changed. Until not too long ago in history 90% of war victims were military. Nowadays the immense majority are civilians. Says all you need to know.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Yes, things have certainly changed. Until not too long ago in history 90% of war victims were military. Nowadays the immense majority are civilians. Says all you need to know.

Don't think that's true - with a few exceptions such as the Falklands the vast majority of deaths have always been civilians.

The major change is that people who used to sit ensconsed safely at home can see the horrors and because they've seen a two-minute news report on BBC news think they're an expert in infantry tactics.

Former Member

I've certainly read the statistic somewhere (though I'm aware that 78% of statictics are made on the spot ) and I reckon it is quite close to the mark if we look a bit further down in history. In particular to those times when armies would have a prearranged meet on a field to 'sort things out' and civilians and cities were left alone altogether.

Former Member

Aladdin is correct.

Until the invention of the gun, weapons were very firmly only in one set of hands.

Reason being that any well armed serf army soon wouldn't be serfs.

Former Member

So are we saying that in the beginning of warfare everyone was a target even civilians, which they were in the days of Eqypt, Babylon, Greece, and the Vikings, Saxons. But then after that nations became civilised they only fought on battlefields?

Statistics! Statistics? Please, statistics can be used to prove anything, 60% of all people know that.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Don't think that's true - with a few exceptions such as the Falklands the vast majority of deaths have always been civilians.

It certainly is true, prior to WW2. Go back a couple of hundred years and the firepower wasn't there to pound entire countries into submission. Totally different style of warfare.

Former Member

1066 ...no one in manchester knew it had happened for months.
battles used to fought on battle fields ...the civilians being a prize and not a target.
the first world war changed that and the second completed it.