What they don't show us here in the US

To add something to the friendly fire conversation...

In the US friendly fire accidents, equipment malfunctions, and other military accidents happen frequently enough so that we can see them for what they are: accidents due the the military personel being human. The US is a large country with a massive military...accidents happen and no one is perfect. Here's an example. Before the war, a Black Hawk went down during a training mission and 12 soldiers died. As tragic as that is, it's one of the hazards of the job. So to harp on each individual incident, reporting it ten times an hour, is excessive and unnecessary. We know what happened, we are able to view it in perspective, and there is just no need to rahash it 24/7.
 
Mize said:
are you for or against the liberation of the people of iraq?

This war isn't about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Don't be so naive. Originally this war was about WMDs. When that didn't stick it was about 911. When that didn't stick it was about liberating the Iraqi people. Don't kid yourself, this war is about resources and money and those are VALID reasons to go to war, but don't expect me to buy into the latest propaganda.

I *am* for liberating the Iraqi people, however. After all, we helped create the evil dictator that has oppressed them all these years - we ought to at least help get rid of him. Unfortunately we're going about this "liberation" in the wrong way...so much so that the people being liberated are turning against us rather than welcoming us as liberators.

My best friend grew up in Iraq (I'm godfather to his daughter) so I know a bit about how the Iraqi people feel about our approach. I'm sure you, however, know better, right?

....

The sad fact is that Saddam was nowhere near the ruthless maniac he is today before the '91 war and sanctions. What fails to make me proud in all of this are the following:
1. We helped create Saddam while Bush Sr. headed the CIA. Both Rumsfeld and Bob Dole have met the man and patted his back.
2. We encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and then watched as they were mowed down, providing no help.

Yes, Saddam should be taken out and he's largely our responsability so we should certainly help. There are, however, better - much better - ways than this.

Yes, don't be so naive. This war is about all of the things you listed. This is about 9/11. This is about WMD. This is about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq. This is about many Arab gov'ts supporting and allowing their citizens to support terrorists. They funnel money, they shelter training camps, they support and encourage their populace to take their anger out on the US instead of their own gov't. This war is about resources and money used to harm American interests. This is about US's most vital interest: their people's welfare. And the 2nd most vital by extension: their economy.

The anger and contempt was already there before this war. The US had already won an economic and to a lesser extent cultural war with the countries of the world.

You ask Egyptians about the Iraqi people and they only talk about Israel. You ask North Koreans about the Iraqi people and they talk about the death of their schoolgirls and North Korea. You ask Turkey about the Iraqi people and they are concerned about their failing economy, getting into the EU, and US possibly supporting the Kurds. You ask France about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with their own influence in Arab countries and being the center of an EU power. You ask Iran about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with US possibly staying in the region and watching their own dealing.

And there is the heart of the matter. No one really seems to care about the Iraqi people, at least not above more immeadiate interests.

You see this already happening. Saddam using his people as shields for the military. Turkey sending in troops to 'watch' the Kurds. Iran rousing the Shia population against Saddam and the US to hopefully annex a piece of Iraq. Syria sending supplies to Saddam. Al-Jazeera is busy demonizing the US in a propaganda war. France is trying to demand a part in the reconstruction of Iraq. Israel is proclaiming their willingness to fight if attacked by Iraq. Egyptians and Palestinians using the fight to demonize the US. Democrats claiming bad diplomacy so they can be reelected. Jesse Jackson meeting with Kofe Anon. Charlie Rangel saying Bush wants to kill women and children. Republicans claiming Democrats are unpatriotic so they can get reelected. US media claiming the military bungled after only a week of war. Military blaming politicians. Message board posters espousing their hatred for the administration and arm chair generaling. Posters proclaiming their undying support for Bush.

There is always someone else to blame for the worlds ills. The US let Saddam slaughter the rebellion, the UN did, the Zionists did, the Sunni did, the Shia did, the Iraqi people did. The US made Saddam, Iran made Saddam, the Soviet Union made Saddam, the Zionists made Saddam, the Arab gov'ts made Saddam, the Sunni made Saddam, the Shia made Saddam, the Iraqi people made Saddam, God made Saddam, Saddam made Saddam. Blame it on human weakness.

Shall we get rid of Saddam through 12 years of sanctions and inspections that improverish the Iraqi people? Shall we get rid of Saddam through a coalition of UN countries looking out for their own interests or a coalition of 20 countries looking out for their own interests? Shall the coalition have 30 countries signed on but 30 fighting, or 30 signed on but 2 fighting? In the end what makes it any better? Do the Iraqi people really care or just the rest of the world?

I don't know what is right way to help the Iraqi people, but this seems as good as any solution I've heard. With someone like Saddam there are going to be deaths to get rid of him.
 
The US did no more to "create Saddam" than we did to create Stalin. During WW2, the Allies had a temporary alliance with Stalin to defeat Germany. Did we make Stalin? Should we not have aided the Soviets during WW2 with food?


Around the 1980s, Iraq was a Soviet client state. The US did not even have diplomatic relations with them. Prior to 1979, we "made" the Shah of Iran. Iraq has no US manufactured weapons, it uses Soviet and French equipment.

After 1979, Iran became our enemy. When it appeared that Iraq might lose to Iran, we supplied 3 things to Iraq:

#1 satellite photos and intelligence on Iranian military disposition
#2 agricultural loans
#3 we dropped opposition to French arms sales (that were happening on a smaller scale, but opposed by US state department).

We certainly did not want the fundamentalists in Iran to win, so yes, aid was given. But we are not seeing "blowback" like we saw in Afghanistan, because the aid given was of trivial value. The real blowback is from the years of Soviet weapons sales, weapons that Russia continues to sell to them today.


The claims that Saddam was armed and financed by the CIA are inaccurate. They attribute too much influence and power to the CIA. If the CIA were so good at coups, we wouldn't need military force. Everytime so socialist or communist government falls or turns into a Thugocracy, it is blamed on the CIA, yet, usually the same people describe the CIA as grossly incompetent. CIA information or bribes simply aren't powerful enough to make the difference between a coup happening ornot. There has to be local support for it, preexisting.

The fact is, Saddam and the Baathists got some intel to help with their coup, but they would have likely pulled it off anyway. After Baathists came to power, the Soviets eventually regained control of their client, and today, if anyone is responsible for the "build up" of Saddam, it's the xUSSR.

The leftwing movements like to overexaggerate the abilities of the CIA in order to justify their vilification of the US and drawing of moral equivalency.

However, if we accept that the US did build up Saddam (untrue), then isn't our responsibility to "clean up" the mess too?
 
Mize said:
we're doubling the force there

Originally, we wanted Turkey to let us use their bases, etc for a northern front. Anyone know how many troops we would have up there if Turkey allowed us to use their bases, and since they didn't, where those troops have been sent?
 
RussSchultz said:
I'm sorry, we generally do not show pictures of babies with half their heads. We don't show gaping wounds with bones protruding. We don't dwell on closeups of people with bullet wounds to their foreheads.

Normally, that which is shown on news channels here is corpses from a distance, blood on the walls, dead covered by blankets, etc. And those are generally only as stills or as short clips as backdrops for the talking head story.

Maybe they should. Regardless of whether this is new or not, if they showed that stuff it might give people a more realistic understanding of what war is. Instead they just show a bunch of bombs exploding over Baghdad and then switch to a news briefing assuring the American public that they are "smart weapons" and none of the are hitting civilians.

War isn't about bloody blankets covering bodies, it's about people being shot and bleeding everywhere, bombs exploding, causing body parts to fly everywhere, carnage, death, etc. If that stuff is offensive for to see then maybe they shouldn't support sending people to war to kill and be killed. To me it's ridiculously hypocritical to shield the American public from what's really happening, and I don't understand how you can view it as anything other than propaganda?

Joe DeFuria said:
I do understand where you're coming from, and I do agree that much of the U.S. journalists, at least initially, does have that "video-game" like mentality. However, I don't see that as hindering their reporting of the facts.

Quake 3 is a fun game to play, and pretty harmless. But what if people were really dying in the game?

The problem is: this war is being portrayed like Quake 3 and the connection to the people dying just isn't there.

Yeah, it doesn't hinder the reporting of the facts, in the least. :rolleyes:

Lezmaka said:
Originally, we wanted Turkey to let us use their bases, etc for a northern front. Anyone know how many troops we would have up there if Turkey allowed us to use their bases, and since they didn't, where those troops have been sent?

Originally we were hoping the moons and planets would align in such a way, that a ray of light coming from the star Alpha Centauri would be bent in such a way that it would shine on the Iraqi people, and they'd all just throw down their arms and put on an 80s dance party instead.
 
Deflection said:
Yes, don't be so naive. This war is about all of the things you listed. This is about 9/11.

I thought Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. If not, why the hell have we wasted all this time hunting for Osama bin Laden? There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda...if anything we should attack Saudi Arabia since that's where most of the terrorists were from.

Deflection said:
This is about WMD.

Are you going to be willing to admit you were wrong when no WMD are found? Will you be mad at the President for misleading you, or will you just give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that our security agency really is so incompetent they actually thought there were weapons when there weren't any?

Deflection said:
This is about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq.

Don't make me laugh. Bush couldn't come up with any real reason for going to war (disliking Saddam just didn't cut it), so he just kept naming off half-assed reasons on the assumption that eventually most people would find one of them to latch onto. Apparently it worked.

By the way, the Iraqis aren't going to thank us for this. You don't "liberate" people by bombing them back into the stone age. If we wanted to liberate Iraqi, we should have done it by arming the people. But why would they even trust us, anymore? After all, we're the ones who are responsible for their suffering under the embargo for the last 12 years. We're the ones who told them to rise up against Saddam and then just let them get slaughtered.

Face it, the US doesn't give a damn about the people in the region. I doubt you lose much sleep over their plight either, do you?

Deflection said:
This is about many Arab gov'ts supporting and allowing their citizens to support terrorists. They funnel money, they shelter training camps, they support and encourage their populace to take their anger out on the US instead of their own gov't.

Has it occurred to you that the people of the region might actually hate the US, and they might even have good reason to do so? Changing governments is not going to change that. The reason we support the dictators there now is because they are friendly to the US. It's actually kind of ironic: if the leaders actually listened to their citizens the US would not be welcome in the region at all.

Deflection said:
This war is about resources and money used to harm American interests. This is about US's most vital interest: their people's welfare. And the 2nd most vital by extension: their economy.

Unfortuantely, this is absolutely false. There's a reason we support the arabic dictators: it results in regional stability.

Have you taken the time to think about what will come to pass if the "liberation" of Iraq actually succeeds in setting off a democratic revolution in the region? Well here's what will happen: the region will be engulfed in total chaos. Oil production will essentially stop. Oil prices in the US will sky rocket. The US economy will tank.

Apparently Bush hasn't thought this one through either? I don't claim it's right to support the dictatorships in the mideast, but at least I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't understand the reasoning behind this at all...

Deflection said:
The US had already won an economic and to a lesser extent cultural war with the countries of the world.

So did Greece, so did Rome, so did China, so did the mideast back about 1000 years ago. Look where they are now? This isn't like Civ III. Things change, there is no winner. This could just be the first mistep which puts the US on the way out.

Deflection said:
You ask Egyptians about the Iraqi people and they only talk about Israel. You ask North Koreans about the Iraqi people and they talk about the death of their schoolgirls and North Korea. You ask Turkey about the Iraqi people and they are concerned about their failing economy, getting into the EU, and US possibly supporting the Kurds. You ask France about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with their own influence in Arab countries and being the center of an EU power. You ask Iran about the Iraqi people and they are concerned with US possibly staying in the region and watching their own dealing.

And there is the heart of the matter. No one really seems to care about the Iraqi people, at least not above more immeadiate interests.

I actually agree with this, but unfortunately this seems to contradict everything you just posted.

Or are you saying the US is somehow exempt from this selfishness? I really hope you're not suggesting that... :rolleyes:

Deflection said:
Shall we get rid of Saddam through 12 years of sanctions and inspections that improverish the Iraqi people? Shall we get rid of Saddam through a coalition of UN countries looking out for their own interests or a coalition of 20 countries looking out for their own interests? Shall the coalition have 30 countries signed on but 30 fighting, or 30 signed on but 2 fighting? In the end what makes it any better? Do the Iraqi people really care or just the rest of the world?

I don't know what is right way to help the Iraqi people, but this seems as good as any solution I've heard. With someone like Saddam there are going to be deaths to get rid of him.

You want to know what's right? We should mind our own business and not get involved. You can't give people freedom, they have to win it themselves. If the Iraqis aren't willing or able to do so, then that's too bad. If we were really that concerned we should have armed their people. But maybe the truth is, the people don't have it so bad that they'd care to rise up? Who knows what they're thinking?

Either way, they will not see us as liberators after we demolished their buildings, killed their brothers fighting for their country, and killed their friends and family with errant bombs.

See, that's the thing: the people in Iraq aren't fighting for Saddam, they're fighting for their country. Just like our soldiers are fighting for the US, not fighting for George W. Bush. You can't separate the two.

In the end, Saddam may be gone, but we're going to roll in and find the people mad as hell and ready to send us packing.
 
There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

Actually the Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq were (majority) trained and outfitted in Afghanistan under Osama bin Laden. This is only one of many groups that have been identified with ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq.
 
Nagorak said:
Quake 3 is a fun game to play, and pretty harmless. But what if people were really dying in the game?
/offtopic
I'll recomend you a book original name sounds like "The labyrynth of reflections", written by a russian writer Sergey Lukianenko, I won't be surprised if in several years his vision can become reality .... and it is a good "rusiian-look at cyber-punk" IMHO :), after all, in US you do have choice and can buy non-english written/translated books ? :)
 
A long one (auto-translated by AltaVista)

This comes from a russian forum. Claims are this comes from Russian army analytics(day per day). I just think that you should see what kind of info is given to Russians ...
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION for the evening?night 30?31 March situation on the American?Iraqi front it began to be peaked.There are all signs/criteria of the fact that troops of coalition began new approach.In Kerbely region after three-hour artillery preparation and several night avia of films the troops of coalition entered into the combat contact with the Iraqi parts, attempting to go around the positions of iraktsev from the east.Thus far allies are limited to probing the forward edge of iraktsev, attempting to reveal density and organization of Iraqi defense after almost five days of bombing and artillery impacts/shocks.There are no communications/reports about the wedging into the Iraqi defense in this sector of the front as yet.In also the time, morning photographs and data of wireless interception revealed the motion of the large column of American troops around Razzaza lake.It is not thus far clear that it is the target/purpose of this march/flight/marsh?the output/yield to the town of eras -Ramadi4 or turning maneuver with the output/yield in mezhduozer'e under the city ale -Falludja.Another column (to 100 units of technology) is noted in the district of the city of Al- Hill by direction to the southeast in 30 km from the strategic route/course Baghdad?Basra.Already toward the evening, if it does not meet with resistance, advance units can saddle this important road.Thus far the data about the losses from this region it did not act.Under the N -Nadjefom were renewed the attacks of American subdivisions on the position of iraktsev.American grouping was here intensified, as a minimum, by three battalions of marines from the composition of reserve and now Americans attempt to master this key city.On the reports of American reconnaissance Iraqi garrison here counts to 3 thousand soldiers and officers and to 1500 volunteers and party activists.In arsenal of iraktsev of approximately 30 tanks T -55, T -62, to four batteries of artillery and more than 300 different means PTO city storm subdivisions 1 of division of marines with a quantity to 6 thousand soldiers and officers with the support of 80 tanks and 60 instruments.Furthermore, air support is achieved to 40 helicopters.Americans did not thus far succeed in making room enemy.Today early in the morning in the suburb N -Nadjafa was destroyed American tank.As the minimum its two crew members perished.In N -Nassirii region active skirmishes continue.For American marines does not thus far succeed in enlarging, occupied of seven days ago, bridgehead/beachhead on the left shore Of efrata.The bridge, which connects bridgehead/beachhead with basic forces of coalition, is practically destroyed and is shot through by iraktsami, which hold defense in coast blocks.Therefore to the aid to the garrison of bridgehead/beachhead it is possible to move only small subdivisions with the light small arms and only at night.Only within the last night on the bridgehead/beachhead marines lost 2 people killed and 5 by injured.Position complicates that the fact that the residential sections, in which are defended iraktsy, approach close to the water, which gives great advantage to defended iraktsam, which control river and approaches to it.Now artillery and aviation of allies systematically destroys these blocks, attempting to push aside iraktsev from coast feature.Data of wireless interception make it possible to draw the conclusion that to the engineer-sapper parts of marines (?morsbi?)is posed the problem of directing pontoon crossing/passage higher than N -Nasirii and to move by the left shore Of efrata to three battalions of marines and landing force members of 82 VDD for organizing the impact/shock into the rear to garrison N -Nasirii.The command of allies would be preparedly go around other defended crossings/passages through Yefrat, if not one fact?in the composition of grouping proved to be only two field-engineer - pontoon companies.However, the arrival of new pontoon subdivisions is expected not earlier than the middle of April.In Basry region continues the opposition of British marines and garrison Of basry.Britons by local impacts/shocks do try, how it is possible more densely to?prizhat'sya?to Basre, and to stiffen blockade, but this little thus far by them succeeds.Thus, during the night - the morning Englishmen do attempt to take city?the satellite Of basry al -Xasyb, arranged/located in 7 kilometers to the southeast from Basry and, after leaving to ale- Arabian river, to cut defense from the Iraqi parts in this region, after cutting off from Basry those defending in Fao peninsula detachments.
To the battalion of Englishmen with the support of technology at 8 A.M. they entered into the city from the south, but only the hour they were after stopped by fire/light and they inquired the aid of artillery and aviation.Now combat for the city continue.In them already it perished, at least, 2 British marines, 3 soldiers obtained injury.Burned down one BTR.On the reports of British commanders in combat it is killed the minimum of 50 iraktsev, 10 soldiers it is undertaken into the captivity.In the region of the river port of ez-Zubair, which another week was ago declared undertaken under the complete control by troops of coalition, was shot in the ambush English military launch with crew and group of marines aboard.As the minimum of 4 British soldiers it was killed, 9 people are injured.The sound-recording yesterday numbers of the losses of coalition appear, as a minimum?zapazdyvayushchimi?.57 killed, acknowledged by the command of coalition are the number of losses to the morning on 26 March.On this in the confidential conversation one of the chief/leading physicians, the hospital of that developed in el-kuveyt reported to the correspondent OF VVS.to?U us there is order to recognize the death only of those soldiers, who were delivered into the hospital, they were identified, brought into appropriate order and they were prepared to the sending to the native land.The process of identification, if it is necessary - identification and subsequent required standard embalming occupies a certain time.Sometimes days.But only commander does know, how much we did lose killed today, and you about this do learn the day through three??- this conversation was written down by correspondent to the Dictaphone film, and it was?peregnana?in the editorial staff through the channel of telephone honeycomb communications.According to the data of wireless interception and intra-net information of American hospitals the number of losses of coalition comprises to today's morning not less than 100 people of the soldiers OF THE USA by those killed and not less than 35 killed Britons.Furthermore, that disappeared to bezvesti is acknowledged 22 Americans even 11 Englishmen, the fate still approximately of 400 soldiers now is refined.The number of injured exceeded 480 people.The working with the staff coalitions American experts studied the hit and destroyed tanks MYA2 and the struck armored carriers.They arrived at the conclusion/derivation that iraktsev undoubtedly have contemporary anti-tank means, capable of striking the tanks of all available in coalition in arsenal modifications, but thus far the application of these means it bears?ves'ma the limited nature?.Only three tanks were struck by the controlled weapon, which from the first entry/incidence destroyed target/purpose.Rest were disabled by conventional means.The most common forms of damages/defeats are:the projectiles of anti-tank instruments (of about 40%), the impacts/shocks of manual grenade dischargers (25%), underminings on mines (25%).In this case the high effectiveness of antitank artillery was noted.of high-speed projectiles does not always destroy tank and its crew, but in 90% of cases is rendered inoperable it, forcing crew to leave tank on the field of battle??- it is said in the report.Report itself was disseminated for studying the commanders of the advancing/attacking parts and transmitted in OKNSH OF THE USA.The Russian servicemen of analytical geometry warn the command of Iraqi army against superfluous optimism.It goes without saying, which for the army OF THE USA did not succeed by?blits-krigom?to master Iraq and to destroy its army, it is obvious, that the Americans stuck in Iraq and military campaign clearly slips, but the danger of the underestimation of enemy now appeared before the Iraqi management/manual.As yet there are no reasons whatever to doubt the persistence of Americans, and their resolution to attain the goal presented?the complete military occupation of Iraq.In reality, in spite of obvious errors and errors of the highest military command of coalition, troops, which were wedged in into Iraq, preserve high combat efficiency and readiness to battle.The losses, carried in twelve days of combat, although are extremely unhealthy for the pride and impressive for the public opinion, completely not essential from a military point view.Initiative also tightly is located in the hands of coalition.Under these conditions of statement about the fast victory over the enemy they can lead into error friendly forces and population of Iraq and, as a result, lead to demoralization and weakening of the potential of resistance?
According to the estimations/evaluations of Russian military analysts?kriticheskim?for THE USA with the period of war is the campaign the duration more than 90 days, when in this time by Americans will be lost more than 1000 people killed.Under these conditions the serious political crisis is not avoided both in themselves OF THE USA and in the international association

note: 2 days ago the most interesting part of it was that (according to this source) "US army's worst enemy is desert and sand, with almost twice the number of damaged in combat vehicles being almost "dead" and hard to use because of failures"
 
It'd be nice if they used a little more punctuation and paragraphs. That dense text is too hard to read.

Plus, I don't believe much of anything that comes out of Russia in terms of reports on US actions. I can't remember which source it was, but there were reports of thousands of US dead in Afghanistan being shipped out of Uzbekistan (which, of course, never was true).
 
I have to say I agree with most of what Nagorak said.

Just before the war started, I was slightly pro war and hoped for a quick and clean regime change; It seemed to hold some light for a broader democratization of the middle east. But now with people going in by the thousands to suicide bomb and fight till the death, I dont' see how any Iraqi will buy the 'liberator' story. Sure we've seen a handful of positive images on welcoming the US army but it's the radicalists that are the real trouble. The British had a hard time colonizing Iraq and I fear this time it will be even worse.

On a bigger scale the amount of anti-American sentiment across the globe is disturbing. Southern Asia, East Asia, Europe, Middle East - everywhere people by the millions protesting. I know from experience a lot of them are ill-informed but it's also true that not all of them are. There are plenty of knowledgable and intelligent people and officials highly against recent action. I personally think taking no action and continuing the policy of containment is a horrible choice, but looking at it now this military conflict is unfolding to something possibly even worse.

I'm probably the few who think that there is no suitable solution, rather than chosing the one sided view of "peace!" or "war!". (Kind of like the a function with no real solutions). If no action is taken, in a few years Iraq aquires WMD and capable deliverance systems. Horror.

On the other hand, following the current course of invasion, eventually the US is going to win and establish some government. A lot of Iraqis are going to oppose it. American companies lined up to exploit the resource of post war Iraq is going to find thems in a security nightmare. The whole middle east region is going to be filled with a new generation of 'militant islam', the very people this war is trying to eventually eradicate. This hate isn't going to go away no matter how much they love their democracy (assuming that democracy even gets established!). And the whole arguement of exchanging short term security for long term will be bogus as people in this region are NOT going to forgive or forget what is done to them.

Look at South Korea. For all their economic achievements, democracy, standard of living, a huge portion of the people (no, not just the trade union members) still hate America's guts. Why? History is not lightly forgiven. It's easy for you to justify a war as saying it's to 'help' a certain nation but the actual intepretation of what you were doing solely rests in the people of that nation. Iraqis are not going to let go of what the U.S. did to them because their interpretation is not going to be of liberation but occupation.
 
Back
Top