Oh no not again.... - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 2

Oh no not again....

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last
  1. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,407
    Answers
    1
    Rep Power
    700731

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

    But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  2. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,407
    Answers
    1
    Rep Power
    700731

    Quote Originally Posted by heater
    Okay maybe that's true for the people you know. Do they know when the job will be DONE. What is the mission......are we trying to establish a new government or just be the police. I am not saying we shouldn't be there because right now, we have to be.

    Morale, I believe, is somewhat in the hands of the commanders. If they don't have a positive outlook and can't tell the troops what end goal is, the moral will be sh****.

    The media has always played a big part in what we all believe and think. Unfortunately (first hand experience) the media portrays things in a way different light that what is truth.
    Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  3. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    It's a war, says Iraq minister


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up
    It's a war, says Iraq minister

    10apr06

    A SENIOR official in the Iraqi Government has for the first time admitted the country is in a state of civil war.

    Deputy interior minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic service: "Actually, Iraq has been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months.

    "On a daily basis, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians are being killed and the only undeclared thing is that a civil war has not been officially announced by the parties involved.

    "Civil war is happening, but not on a wide scale."




    Wave of sectarian violence in Iraq; 85 bodies found
    http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/15/stor...1507671600.htm

    Police on Tuesday found the bodies of 15 strangled men, their hands and feet bound and showing signs of torture, abandoned in a vehicle in Western Baghdad. Officials discovered the bodies at night in the Khudra area, near where the bodies of 18 men reportedly killed in a similar way were found in a minivan a week ago.
    http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_En...275302211&par=

    BAGHDAD, Iraq — The bodies of four men who had been shot in the head were found hanging Monday in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, near a note scrawled on a piece of cloth that read: "Those are the traitors."
    http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...q/14091694.htm


    'Women bombers' kill at least 79 at mosque

    http://www.itv.com/news/305665.html

    Police found 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter -- most of them beheaded -- dumped on a village road north of Baghdad.
    http://www.local6.com/news/8274852/detail.html
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Morale


    Third Retired General calls for resignation of Rumsfeld
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...181629,00.html


    Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/wa...rtner=homepage
    April 10, 2006
    By THOM SHANKER
    WASHINGTON, April 9 Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.

    It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.

    Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.

    To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.

    The incentives resulted in additional three-year commitments from about one-third of all new officers entering active duty in 2006, a number so large that it surprised even the senior officers in charge of the program. But the service's difficulty in retaining current captains has generals worriedly discussing among themselves whether the Army will have the widest choice possible for its next generation of leaders.

    The program was begun this year to counter pressures on junior officers to leave active duty, including the draw of high-paying jobs in the private sector; the desires of a spouse for a calmer civilian quality of life at a time when the officers can be expected to be starting their families; and, for the past two years, the concerns over repeated tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has had a far more difficult time in its recruiting than the other services because the ground forces are carrying the heaviest burden of deployments and injuries and deaths in the war.

    One member of the West Point class of 2000 who left active duty last year is Stephen Kuo, who took a job with a medical equipment company in Florida. Mr. Kuo said his decision was based on "quality of life." He is now recruiting classmates for his company.

    "With the rotation of one year overseas, then another year or so back at home, then another overseas rotation it does take a toll on you," said Mr. Kuo, who served a year in combat in northern Iraq. "Plus, I was not enjoying the staff jobs desk jobs I was looking at for the next 8 to 10 years. Furthermore, the private sector had many lucrative offers."

    But the chance at a free master's degree persuaded Brandon J. Archuleta, a West Point senior, to sign up for an extra three years in uniform.

    "Education is extremely important to me, and I know I want a master's degree at the very least," Cadet Archuleta said. "The Army has a wonderful relationship with some of the top-tier graduate schools, especially in the Ivy League. I want to attend a school of that caliber."

    In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army's young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

    The statistics are even more striking among West Point graduates, who receive an Ivy League-quality education at taxpayer expense and, in the view of many senior officers and West Point alumni, owe the nation and the Army a debt of loyalty beyond the initial five years of active duty.

    The retention rate at the five-year mark for the West Point class of 1999 was 71.9 percent in 2004, down from 78.1 percent for the previous year's class. And for the class of 2000, the retention rate fell to 65.8 percent, meaning that last year the Army lost more than a third 34. 2 percent of that group of officers as they reached the end of their initial five-year commitment.

    That is the highest rate of loss over the past 16 years among West Point officers reaching the five-year mark. For young officers receiving their commissions in 2006, the Army will guarantee slots in the most sought-after branches of the service aviation, armor or intelligence, for example in exchange for an extra three years in uniform.

    Similarly, if a young officer wants an initial posting to a desired location or an opportunity to earn a master's degree, the Army will guarantee either choice in exchange for three more years of active duty.

    The West Point graduating class of 2006 responded at levels even higher than anticipated by senior officers at the military academy, with 352 of the 875 seniors 40.2 percent signing on to the program as they approached the date in late May when they would be commissioned as second lieutenants.

    "It is an amazing response," said Lt. Gen. William J. Lennox Jr., the West Point superintendent. "It has exceeded how I thought the class would respond."

    Across the entire Army this spring, 3,420 newly commissioned junior officers are expected to enter active duty, according to the Army's personnel office. Of those, 1,124 about one-third have agreed to serve an extra three years in uniform under the new program.

    According to Army statistics, 718 signed up to choose their career track, 289 contracted for the graduate school opportunity 257 of them from West Point and 117 wanted to pick the location where they, and their families, would be based.

    The graduate school program was carefully structured to keep officers in uniform even beyond the extra three-year commitment.

    After completing a master's degree program, an officer also has to repay the Army with three months of service for every month back in the classroom. This could push some officers beyond an automatic 8 years of service, toward 12 years at which point, goes the thinking of the senior officers who devised the program, they may decide to stay in for a full 20.

    "Today's officers make a career decision to come or go at the three- or four-year mark, while a decade ago they made it closer to the seven- or eight-year mark," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's senior personnel officer.

    "One of the salient issues in this information age is that if they are going to be competitive when they leave the Army whether at the 4-year mark, the 10-year mark or after 20 they have to maintain critical skills," General Hagenbeck said. "They want to have graduate schooling."

    The cost of the program will depend on how many young officers enter graduate school in a given year, but Army personnel managers say that whatever the individual annual tuition fees, they are far less than the cost of training and preparing a new officer. The Army will cap individual tuition at $13,000 per year, although the service has already negotiated with a number of schools to waive the difference in fees.

    At the five-year mark in their career, Army captains usually are in command of a company, a junior leadership position putting them at the center of the day-to-day fight. The Army needs even more company-level officers today, as it expands the number of its deployable brigade combat teams.
  5. New Member
    heater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    19
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    113

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

    I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.
  6. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,407
    Answers
    1
    Rep Power
    700731

    Quote Originally Posted by heater
    Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

    I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.
    So far its been two different individual taskers.. so not with my unit... assigned to different forces each time. Thanks.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  7. New Member
    heater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    19
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    113

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

    Adams
    I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

    I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

    You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.
  8. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,407
    Answers
    1
    Rep Power
    700731

    Quote Originally Posted by heater
    I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

    I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

    You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.
    I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  9. New Member
    heater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    19
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    113

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

    Adams
    Thats good. I had a commander that almost destroyed my unit. I hope you keep the positive attitude.

    If the top hat has a good attitude, the rest of the boys and girls will also.
  10. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    263

    Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

    I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

    I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.
  11. New Member
    brandozzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    227
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    227

    Frigggin Armegedon
  12. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/wo.../09report.html
    April 9, 2006
    U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
    By ERIC SCHMITT
    and EDWARD WONG

    .

    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.



    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.


    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."


    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.


    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  13. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

    I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

    I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.

    No, they won't go up. Its a fact of presidents as war goes on. Some of the most popular presidents in the world had awful approval ratings as war's dragged on. Check the history books

    "Presidents who seek to change the nation's direction know that they are bound to alienate those who profit from the status quo. Great presidents go ahead anyway. "Judge me," FDR said, "by the enemies I have made." Truman's approval rating at the end of his presidency was down to 31 percent. Look where he ranks now."

    Approval ratings means jack ****. History repeats itself.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  14. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Here is a pretty good analysis of second term presidents:

    "At this point, we can see a first pattern:
    Presidential failure in the second term consistently has been the result of
    unsatisfactory wars or perceptions that the president was a criminal. Wilson
    fought the First World War successfully but tried to bring it to an
    unacceptable conclusion at Versailles. Truman could not terminate the Korean
    War; Johnson could not terminate the Vietnam War. All were perceived, by the
    end of their terms, as having entangled themselves in a war with unrealistic
    goals. It was not always the war itself that damaged the presidents' service,
    but the growing sense that these presidents did not have a strategy in the
    war that served the national interest.

    The issue, however, is more
    complex than this. All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of
    their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower,
    though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the
    press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings --
    however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the
    others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second
    terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic,
    irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to
    constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between
    the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the
    troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack.
    Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the
    defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver
    significantly.

    The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed
    not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents
    became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost
    basic confidence in them. Wilson had suffered a revolt among the Democrats.
    Truman no longer could get the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that
    Johnson could have won his party's nomination had he sought it. Nixon
    collapsed when Republican senators turned on him. On the other hand, no
    matter what attacks were launched against FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan or
    Clinton, their base held like a rock. Even when FDR was outgunned by the
    isolationists, he held his base, and he was never broken.

    Bush's
    problem, therefore, is the war in Iraq. But the issue is not his Democratic
    opposition, nor even whether his opponents swell to become a majority. The
    threat to Bush's presidency will come if, and only if, his own political
    base breaks. By all polls, that base -- which historically has been at about
    40-42 percent -- is holding. If that continues to be the case, he will be
    able to execute foreign policy effectively. If that base is shattered, he
    fails."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  15. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  16. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,407
    Answers
    1
    Rep Power
    700731

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    hehe... roger that... NOW I have seen the light.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  17. Registered User
    rocketscientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    46
    Posts
    227
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    217

    I'm afraid we're going to be biting off more than we can chew. With our troops (including reserves) already being deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq we don't have all the resources available that we would like to have. We can still run air strikes, but it is debatable how effective these would be and what the consequences would be. Iran after all is a significant power on the oil market which gives them a lot of leverage.
    At the same time we would be messing around with yet another Islamic country (the self-declared most Islamic of all Islamic countries), though I'm not sure if we can make things any worse with respect to our image in the mid-east.

    The only real option would seem to me as another democratization of a lucky country, but that would require troops from somewhere... hmmm - seeing it like that, bush could actually pull the troops out of Iraq - hey, isn't that what everybody wants anyway - and move them into Iran...

    Finally - at some point with the costs for all our endeavors piling up, the s*** will hit the fan.

    I think this is a bluff - given the list above I can't realistically see how this should work out for us. But I've been wrong many times...
  18. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    2681

    Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...eut/index.html
  19. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Of course they will because it will only hurt them in terms of public opinion.

    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it because lets face it, the news mdeia and the current administrsation do not get along especially when you have the vice president publically blasting them. From that point on the media has another objective besides making money and that is to embarrass the White House.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  20. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    3037

    Again, none of this is really new news. The US is always planning preemptive military plans when/if it sees a threat. And last I recall, the US has been going through the UN to use their diplomacy with the situation in Iran...

    Someone just decided to write an article to the masses as "breaking news," suggesting as if these military plans were "imminent."
  21. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    3037

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it
    You beat me to it...
  22. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Ha! Same thought, same time.


    This is like someone digging up battle plans for the invasion of Cuba and writing how we are planning to invade.

    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  23. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    3037

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    Exactly!!
  24. Registered User
    rocketscientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    46
    Posts
    227
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    217

    Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:
    Yeah - I heard bush this this morning. Whatever it may mean... Then he said something like 'Didn't I tell you so, when I put them in the axis of evil'...
  25. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    2681

    You guys are right...after looking into things further, that first report wasn't from the white house. Just from the sensationalist media. Granted, Im sure there are plans drawn up for a military strike - but the US was discussing using tactical bunker buster nukes at the beginning of the Iraq war too, could have been someone just digging for a story.

    BV
  26. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    Stay safe.
  27. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.

    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.

    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."

    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.

    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
  28. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
    I read the article. Its pure spin.


    The New York Time expects the US to wage war with no casualties, have every contigencny plan 100% fool proof and for every report to be 100% accurate. If not, its a conspiracy.

    "If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American."



    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.




    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.


    I would like for all of you that think this is Armegeddon to feel secure in your position, Ben Aflack is on your side!!! Check out his latest quotes. You guys are in good company....
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  29. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.

    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.

    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
  30. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at. I will attach the report so everyone can see it. You are inlcuding crimes since the beginning of the war which is NOT a reflection of what is happening now.


    Here is another source:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/


    Sorry, I don't see anything that indicated 50-100 people being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured every single day. Its not even close.

    Now lets look at your stats from 2005-2006.

    Car bombs March 2005 - 69 March 2006 - 22
    Car bomba April 2005 - 135 April 2006 - ?


    What you do have is more Iraqi Police being killed as they are handling more situations. What you also have is multiple fatality bombings up since last year but overall less bombings. In other words the incidents are much less but the ones that od happen kill more people.


    Look at most stats in that PDF and I don't see any evidence its getting worse at all. I see the opposite. I also don't understand why you comparing 2004-2005 when civil war wasn't even mentioned at that point.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  31. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.

    Actually it doens't because if you look at the stats from 2005-2006 in the pdf above the trend is the complete opposite of what you are stating.

    Its war. Its not supposed to be conflict free. War and conflict tend to go together and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get something done. It seems the the vets on this board tend to believe in what they are doing.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  32. Registered User
    rocketscientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    46
    Posts
    227
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    217

    I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
  33. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at.
    Page 10. Bottom right-hand corner of the boxtable: Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war including deaths from crime as of April 3, 2006: 44,000 to 89,000.

    My math: (3 years since invasion) 365 x 3 = 1095 days. 44,000 divided by 1095 = 40.1 deaths per day. 89,000 divided by 1095 days = 81.2 deaths per day. Thus, 40 to 81 per day. These figures also exclude the deaths of all police and security forces and the death of civilians that took place during the initial stages of the war (when it is regrettable but expected that civilians will die).

    As to the 2006 data, the same report qualifies their data saying that numbers for 2006 are incomplete, don't include any of the deaths since the February 22nd mosque bombing (after which violence took a radical upswing) and are "most probably lower than the actual number."
  34. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    787

    Angry


    The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

    And this is why we should destroy Iran? Because Israel says they're developing a nuclear bomb faster than we figure? Who's next on Israels list? Why not just have the silly ole United States send ALL their troops and spend ALL their money to fight Israel's battles?

    In going to war against Iraq (like will be with Iran), America fought against Itself. It launched a war certain to cause more hatred and terrorism against the U.S., cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and inflicted terrible damage to American economic and diplomatic interests at home and abroad.

    Even more importantly, it was a callous betrayal of the brave fighting men of the American military who should never be put in harms' way other than for the true security and freedom of the American people.

    The Israeli lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America's congress is in the service of a foreign nation.
  35. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    2681

    I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
    I think our leaders were foolish to think that this wouldnt happen. After all...I can't think of one democratic country on the map today that wasnt born from destruction, chaos, and outright civil war.

    I think its more of a human issue than anything else...people are *******s - in general they just cant live and let live. Just like chimps that have to raid and kill other chimp clans in the forest because they dont like the way they look. (Did you know that chimpanzees and man share that similarity in that they both declare organized war on eachother?) We are what we are

    BV
  36. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    10344

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketscientist
    I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    You make an important point. Iraq was configured the way it is as a convenience to the British Empire after World War I (when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled). It never made sense as a nation because it mixed ethnic groups with historic animosity and split apart ethnic groups who should have been put into the same nation (ex. the Kurds becamse split between Iraq and Turkey).

    Here is an interesting piece from the BBC on the predictability of today's situation:

    How predictions for Iraq came true

    By John Simpson
    BBC World Affairs Editor

    It was a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, three years ago. I was interviewing the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in the ballroom of a big hotel in Cairo.

    Shrewd, amusing, bulky in his superb white robes, he described to me all the disasters he was certain would follow the invasion.

    The US and British troops would be bogged down in Iraq for years. There would be civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The real beneficiary would be the government in Iran.

    "And what do the Americans say when you tell them this," I asked? "They don't even listen," he said.

    Over the last three years, from a ringside seat here in Baghdad, I have watched his predictions come true, stage by stage.

    Falluja fallout

    The first stage was the looting.

    As Saddam Hussein fled Baghdad, people started attacking every symbol of the old system, no matter how self-destructive that might be.

    I saw crowds of people sacking a hospital, running out with bits of equipment which were useless to them, but essential to the running of the hospital.

    At the information ministry, I watched them stripping the claddings from the walls and the underlay from the floors. The American soldiers outside did nothing to stop them. Sometimes they would fire in the air, but the looters scarcely even looked round.

    Until then, most Iraqis had thought the US was all-powerful, and was there to help them. The perception started to change then and there.

    For the next year, if you were careful, you could wander round Baghdad, and even drive to other parts of the country.

    When we arrived for a tour of duty we travelled by road to Baghdad from Jordan, through places like Falluja, or else from Kuwait, past Nasiriya and Hilla. It was sometimes nerve-racking, but we always got through. Now there is no alternative to flying in.

    The BBC, like most other news organisations, is based in the city centre, not inside the Green Zone. It still is, but now our bureau is protected like a fortress.

    Everything in Iraq changed in April 2004, with the American onslaught on Falluja. The town is small, but it took a long time to subdue - and it never has been subdued entirely. The ferocity of the American attack angered a broad swathe of Iraqi opinion.

    At the same time, against the advice of many Iraqi politicians, the Americans also took on the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

    After that, the towns and cities of central Iraq became markedly more dangerous. We started hearing more of the American acronym IED, or improvised explosive device (it simply means a bomb).

    Post-traumatic stress

    The Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer handed over to an interim Iraqi administration in July 2004.

    There is an all-out effort to provoke a civil war. The bombings of Shia shrines are always followed by the murder of individual Sunnis
    It made little difference: the corruption had already started, and people now realised that neither the coalition nor the Iraqi administration could do anything about the failing water, power and fuel supplies.

    The next key moment was the election of January 2005. The violence dropped noticeably, as the insurgents saw the size of the turnout and felt the general enthusiasm, and waited to see if they could do a deal with the new government.

    But there was no new government for a full three months. The politicians squabbled among themselves, and the moment passed. The violence soon returned to its former level.

    By July of last year there was already talk of civil war. A referendum and another election followed, and an effective administration was as far away as ever. Four months after the December election, Iraq still has no government.

    'Easier targets'

    The insurgency is fading a little now. Fewer American, British and Iraqi troops are dying, and there are less frequent attacks on the Iraqi police.

    Instead, easier targets present themselves. There is an all-out effort to provoke a civil war. The bombings of Shia shrines are always followed by the murder of individual Sunnis: sometimes dozens at a time.

    There is a quiet movement of population, as people leave mixed areas and head for places where others like them live. Marriages between Sunnis and Shias used to be frequent; now they've dropped away to almost nothing.

    A psychiatrist at one of the main hospitals in Baghdad told me that serious mental illness in Iraq in the past had affected fewer than 3% of the population. Now, he said, the figure was 17%.

    Another psychiatrist told me that in the days of Saddam Hussein, his patients had shown the effects of living under a ferocious dictatorship: stress levels were very high.

    Now, he said, most of his patients suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. It's no longer the fear of violence and injury which troubles them, it's the daily reality of it.

    While we were filming, someone fired a gun close by. I won't easily forget the terrified way some of the patients flinched.

    Doing and undoing

    Just over three years ago, when I interviewed the Saudi foreign minister, I asked him why he thought the US was determined to invade Iraq.

    He said he had put the same question to Vice-President Cheney. Mr Cheney had replied: "Because it's do-able."

    It was. The trouble is, undoing the kind of damage the Saudi foreign minister foresaw is proving very hard indeed.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894148.stm
  37. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    Page 10. Bottom right-hand corner of the boxtable: Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war including deaths from crime as of April 3, 2006: 44,000 to 89,000.

    My math: (3 years since invasion) 365 x 3 = 1095 days. 44,000 divided by 1095 = 40.1 deaths per day. 89,000 divided by 1095 days = 81.2 deaths per day. Thus, 40 to 81 per day. These figures also exclude the deaths of all police and security forces and the death of civilians that took place during the initial stages of the war (when it is regrettable but expected that civilians will die).

    As to the 2006 data, the same report qualifies their data saying that numbers for 2006 are incomplete, don't include any of the deaths since the February 22nd mosque bombing (after which violence took a radical upswing) and are "most probably lower than the actual number."

    That included crime data up to the start of operations, crimes that would be committed regardless. THe amounts of death per day are recorded each day by various sites so you don't need to even do your math based on data for a 3 year period especially when the worst of the action and military operations is over. That is like stating Germany was in a civil war in 1946 based on 1944's statistics. Its not accurate at all.

    If you want to include the police and securtiy forces then do so and you wouldn't even come close to a 50-100 per day death rate. The stats are in the PDF.

    The mosque bombing caused an upswing that has since decreased dramatically. Look at the statisitics for April already. You seem to be only looking a tthe number form last year and applying it to now...They said the civil war is happening now and according to the data it isn't even close as the frequencny of bombing is down, the death rate is down almost across the board except for the police force because they are handling the situation at an increased frequency. This is something they were not even doing this time last year.

    Of course 2006 data isn't complete. 2006 isn't complete but look at the data for Feb and March. You know, the time they stated a civil war is occurring.


    Deaths in March - Max 450 Min 257 Average 353/30 = 11.76/day in a nation of 25 MILLION.

    Civil war? Don't think so.


    Even if you wanted to do some comparisons then we could compare it to some of our current cities.

    City of Chicago had a DROP in murder rate. 2004 they were 448 people murdered in a city of 2.8 million people. 2.8mil/448 equals 1 murder for every 6250 people. Remember this isn't deaths from crimes, just murder rates.

    As of last March there are 11 people killed per day in a nation of 25 million. So thats 25mil/4015 (11 x 365 days) total deaths which equal 1 death for every 6226 people.

    I guess Chicago is in a civil war as well. You sure you want to base everything on how a statistician would calculate it?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  38. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance
    The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

    And this is why we should destroy Iran? Because Israel says they're developing a nuclear bomb faster than we figure? Who's next on Israels list? Why not just have the silly ole United States send ALL their troops and spend ALL their money to fight Israel's battles?

    In going to war against Iraq (like will be with Iran), America fought against Itself. It launched a war certain to cause more hatred and terrorism against the U.S., cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and inflicted terrible damage to American economic and diplomatic interests at home and abroad.

    Even more importantly, it was a callous betrayal of the brave fighting men of the American military who should never be put in harms' way other than for the true security and freedom of the American people.

    The Israeli lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America's congress is in the service of a foreign nation.

    Oh god give me a break. Yeah, Israel determines our actions.


    Maybe you should read the UN's decree.


    "U.N. Security Council OKs statement on Iran nukes
    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

    Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  39. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    7016

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketscientist
    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    ?
    The Kurds tried. They were gased to death.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  40. Professional Member
    Grunt76's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  272 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,131
    Answers
    0
    Rep Power
    1783

    In history there is one thing that stands out: numbers. When the people decide in numbers that things change, they change. Nothing to do about it.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. OH NO! Not ANOTHER Superdrol/PP Log!!
    By ex-tightend83 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 06:12 AM
  2. Not again...
    By jjohn in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 07:51 PM
  3. Sore Nip question. ( No, Not gyno )
    By Stinger124 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 02:07 PM
  4. Oh no...I'm on a roll....
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-28-2003, 12:00 AM
  5. No! Not the "natural guy!"
    By bigpetefox in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in