Army Guy
Well-known member
Poison, Vance.... where did we go wrong???
Poison, Vance.... where did we go wrong???
Vance
Member
:wtf1:
That "documentary" is a propaganda laiden pile of **** buddy. I love the statement, "The US/American goal is global domination" - which Americans are you talking about? I know plenty of US soldiers and they couldn't give a **** about global domination. I know many Americans and they couldn't give a **** about global domination either. The whole blood for oil argument is beyond ****ing retarded.
If you want to make a reasonable argument in relation to control of oil in the middle east by America the only argument that holds any water is the one in relation to the 'petro-dollar' if you don't know what I'm talking about do yourself a favour and google it and there are plenty of websites out there that will tell you what your opinion now is. Better yet though, how about you read both sides of the argument and come up with a reasoned opinion of your own rather than relying on wikipedia/youtube/antiwar.com to tell you what to think?
The assertion that the 'jews' dominate foreign policy in the US is the biggest load of poorly veiled anti-semetic bull**** in the world. ****ing idiots like Glenn Beck would have you compare Obama (An African American) and plenty of JEWISH democratic senators and representatives as 'nazis' and completely miss the irony because they're too ****ing stupid to know what irony is in a non-Alanis-Morisette way.
The 'jews' aren't the problem buddy. Not in WW2 and certainly not now. If you're going to make some sweeping statement about the so called 'jewish agenda' being pushed in US policies back it up with more than anti-semetic rhetoric. If you like Iran so much go apply for a job as the president's PA, it sounds like the two of you would have some really good discussions denying the holocaust together.
We're trying to make reasoned, logical and realistic arguments to people who watch Fox News and rely on other propagandist media to tell them what to think. It's a waste of time.
The same douchebags who scream, "Blood for oil" and "Bring back our troops" and "Make peace not war" are the same douchebags who will be screaming bloody murder the second the oil price goes up by 10c or they can't run their air conditioning 24 hours a day in summer due to energy shortages. They're also the same douchebags who wanted reciprocity for 9/11 and now that we're in Afghanistan can't stomach it because they get upset by the idea that bullets and bombs kill people. The joys of a digital age.
You have to wake up and realise people that there is only so much in the way of resources, money, water, oil, food and power to go around. The entire world can't live in air conditioned comfort watching a 52" plasma like you - there isn't enough to go around. So while you sit there on your high horses in your ivory towers ask yourselves would you be willing to give it all up in the name of 'peace and love man'? If the answer is yes then I suggest you do so and prove it. If the answer is no then stop your ****ing complaining, the boys on the wall and in the **** are the ones who provide you the luxuries you enjoy while pissing and moaning like you do because you're a ****ing hypocrite.
With the regimes you are talking about you are dealing with two diametrically opposed ideologies. It is *not* a matter of sitting down over a beer to work out these problems, it's a matter of picking what side your on. There are people in the world who want what you have and are prepared to kill you to take it from you - even if only to burn it to the ground. So... Pick a side and get on with it.
**** or get off the pot peeps.
poison
Board Sponsor
Sarcasm, friend. I'm an israeli-american dual citizen.
Army Guy
Well-known member
Vance, Poison, I think Luther is done. Haven't seen him in a few days. Agreed with all Vance, this guy is killing me. It sucks BEING that guy on that wall and every now and then turning around and seeing turds like this pissing on the very constitution that gives them the right to protest in the first place. Makes you want to run off and become a farmer or hermit.
Vance
Member
I've been in the forces too man. I know what it's like.
Nothing ****s me more than hippies. The other thread about Afghanistan Luther made a comparison between Afghanistan and Vietnam (Which one couldn't have less to do with the other anyway) while spouting the usual cut and pasted diatribes.
The same hippies that made the US cut and run from Vietnam were the same hippies who got us involved in the first place. "Look at the evil commies brutalising the peaceful South Vietnamese! Why doesn't someone do something?!" Skip forward a few years and if you're in uniform you're a baby killer.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
:sucks:
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Luther, you are worse than Alex Jones.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Invalid Link Removed
Since I am so hopelessly ill informed,lets let the Winter Soldiers who were in Iraq speak:
Winter Soldiers in the Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Monitor's interviewed IVAW members at Winter Soldier for an audio slideshow. Vincent Emanuele, a former Marine who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005, commented on why he testified:
Invalid Link Removed
"This is not about being unpatriotic. I think this is about being as patriotic as you can possibly be. Being honest and saying, 'Hey, listen, our government has been doing some bad things in a Middle Eastern country,' and that's ok to admit that. Because if we don't admit that, and don't learn from that, we're going to continue down this very same path."
Also:
"The veterans are not against the military and seek not to indict it – instead they seek to shine a light on the bigger picture: that the Abu Ghraib prison regime and the Haditha massacre of innocent Iraqis are not isolated incidents perpetrated by “bad seeds” as the military suggests, but evidence of an endemic problem. They will say they were tasked to do terrible things and point the finger up the chain of command, which ignores, diminishes or covers up routine abuse and atrocities.
Some see it as their responsibility to speak out – like Jason Washburn, a US marine who did two tours in Afghanistan and one in Iraq; Logan Laituri, a US Army forward observer in Iraq; and Perry O’Brien, an army medic deployed to Afghanistan in 2003. They believe that, as veterans, they are the most credible sources of information. They say they were put in immoral and often illegal positions. They will speak about what they saw, and what they were asked to do. "
lutherblsstt
Guest
Invalid Link Removed
Jason Washburn, 28, grew up in San Diego, California. He always wanted to do something to make a difference, and he enlisted in the US marines in December 2001. He wasn’t itching to go into combat, but he wanted the training.
He fought in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 where, he says, he met little resistance. Most people were surrendering.
“There were massive amounts of artillery strikes before we even invaded. We saw the results of that. Streets full of bodies – women and children – body parts, extremely indiscriminate. I’m talking about rolling through villages here, not military encampments.”
He was told there was a military structure in one village. “I didn’t see it. I didn’t see any army uniforms. Or weapons. All I saw were civilians.”
Washburn speaks slowly and with obvious discomfort. This was his introduction to Iraq.
“I still believed everything we were force-fed: weapons of mass destruction and possibly even a nuclear weapon. We felt, like, we’re going to go in, overthrow this evil dictator and give these people some peace, finally. We thought we were doing a good thing.”
Over the course of his three tours, there were more home raids than Washburn can remember. He explains how it worked. “Usually it was based on a tip – we’re told someone in the home is an insurgent. We would pick up people who had nothing to do with anything, keep them locked up until they came up with something.”
He is glad that he didn’t witness some of the techniques used to get them to talk. “That’s not something I want on my conscience.”
It was not a scientific process. Most tips came from people with personal grudges. Washburn and his platoon would kick down the doors in the middle of the night. He was warned not to be complacent. There could be weapons in the children’s beds. In all of the home raids, too many to count, he never found children with weapons. They would take the father away and they never knew what would happen after that.
By the time Washburn served in Haditha he was on his third combat tour. He was there on November 19, 2005, the day of the massacre when 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed, including women and children.
“My squad was doing medivacs out of the town. I was not there to witness the shooting, but I know many marines who were.”
It was a squad in his unit that went on the rampage after their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED).
“I have a lot of feelings about this incident. A friend of mine from my first two tours was in that squad. He was the guy they gave immunity to to testify against the squad leader.
“The people on the ground are looking at serious prison time. Like life. The people who were giving orders were only relieved of command. And I don’t think that’s right.”
Washburn says Haditha was not an isolated incident. “It’s the one that just happened to be uncovered.”
lutherblsstt
Guest
Iraq War Quiz from the Bush era:
1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
d. All of the above.
2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define patriotism?
a. Patriotism means emulating **** Cheney, who serves as Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up for major contracts in post-war Iraq.
b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.
c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, **** Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be killed in Iraq.
d. All of the above.
3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might be considered less than truthful?
a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA analysts doubted their authenticity.
b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student article.
c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed following the 1991 Gulf War.
d. All of the above.
4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What should Fleisher have said to defend himself?
a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council member states that were undecided on war.
b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access to U.S. markets that it “not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests”?
d. All of the above.
5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?
a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come."
c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.
d. All of the above.
6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are part of the "coalition of the willing." Which of the following statements about this coalition is true?
a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority, often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.
b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are actually a coalition of the unwilling – unwilling to reveal their names.
c. Coalition members – most of whose contributions to the war are negligible or even zero – constitute less than a quarter of the countries in the UN and contain less than 20% of the world's population.
d. All of the above.
7. The war on Iraq is said to be part of the "war on terrorism." Which of the following is true?
a. A senior American counterintelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups….And it is a very effective tool."
b. An American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a battle cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.
c. France's leading counter-terrorism judge said: "Bin Laden's strategy has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that the West, and especially the U.S., is starting a global war against Muslims. An attack on Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I am very worried about the next wave of recruits."
d. All of the above.
8. The Bush administration says it is waging war to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following is true?
a. The United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, viewed worldwide as the litmus test for seriousness about nuclear disarmament.
b. The United States has insisted on a reservation to the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the U.S. President the right to refuse an inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds, and blocked efforts to improve compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
c. Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends with respect to WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek these capabilities for regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter or offset U.S. military superiority."
d. All of the above.
9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Which of the following is true?
a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the U.S. war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country's "increasingly anti-American population deeply opposed to the war."
b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic governments in the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has backed undemocratic regimes in the region ever since.
c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein revolts in Iraq in 1991.
d. All of the above.
10. Colin Powell cited as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link an audiotape from bin Laden in which he called Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party regime "infidels." Which of the following is more compelling evidence?
a. An FBI official told the New York Times: "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there."
b. According to a classified British intelligence report seen by BBC News, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network."
c. According to Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, "Since U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001, I have examined several tens of thousands of documents recovered from Al Qaeda and Taliban sources. In addition to listening to 240 tapes taken from Al Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
d. All of the above.
Answers and Sources
1. d (a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03, Invalid Link Removed. (b) Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many Children in Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post, 3/19/03, p. A29. (c) See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W. Bush, 3/20/03 Invalid Link Removed Melissa B. Robinson, "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press, 7/31/02; Jason Tait, "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune (Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02, Invalid Link Removed
2. d (a) Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, " Ousting Hussein could open the door for U.S. and British firms. French, Russian and Chinese rivals would lose their edge," Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03, p. I:1; Robert Bryce and Julian Borger, "Halliburton: Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor, Bush deputy gets Dollars 1m from firm with Iraq oil deal," Guardian (London), 3/12/03, p. 5 (which notes that Halliburton "would not say how much the payments are; the obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of" $100,000 and $1 million. (b) Seymour M. Hersh, "Lunch with the Chairman," New Yorker, 3/16/03; Stephen Labaton, "Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing," NYT, 3/21/03, p. C1. Perle is to be paid $725,000 for his lobbying effort, including $600,000 if his lobbying is successful. (c) New Hampshire Gazette, "The Chickenhawks," Invalid Link Removed.
3. d (a) See the evidence collected in Cong. Henry Waxman's letter to George W. Bush, 3/17/03, Invalid Link Removed. (b) See Glen Rangwala's report, Invalid Link Removed. (c) See Glen Rangwala's report, Invalid Link Removed.
4. d (a) Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The Observer (London), 3/2/03. (b) Quoted in Phyllis Bennis, Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN, New York: Olive Branch, 1996, p. 33. (c) Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh, Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?: How The Bush Administration Influences Allies in Its War on Iraq, Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 2/26/03, p. 4.
5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press, updated ed. 2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He Reveals That British Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent, 3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el, "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz, 3/14/03, Invalid Link Removed.
6. d (a) See, for example, the revealing comment of Secretary of State Powell: "We need to knock down this idea that nobody is on our side. So many nations recognize this danger [of Iraq's weapons]. And they do it in the face of public opposition." Quoted in Steven R. Weisman With Felicity Barringer, "Urgent Diplomacy Fails To Gain U.S. 9 Votes In The U.N." NYT, 3/10/03, p. A1) (b) U.S. Dept. of State, Daily Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 3/18/03. (c) Country list: White House, Statement of Support from Coalition, 3/25/03, Invalid Link Removed population calculated from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Washington, DC: 2001, table 1327. Total includes USA. The White House list includes countries whose leaders have done no more than state their support for the United States, and the listing changes from day to day, with some countries being added and some removed.
7. d (a) Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler, "Anger On Iraq Seen As New Qaeda Recruiting Tool," NYT, 3/16/03, p. I:1. (b) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03. (c) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03.
8. d (a) Colum Lynch, "U.S. Boycotts Nuclear Test Ban Meeting; Some Delegates at U.N. Session Upset at Latest Snub of Pact Bush Won't Back," Washington Post, 11/12/02, p. A6. (b) Amy E. Smithson, “U.S. Implementation of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker, The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions, Monterey Institute, April 2001, pp. 23-29, Invalid Link Removed Jonathan Tucker, "The Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention," Feb. 2002, Invalid Link Removed. (c) Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, excerpted at Invalid Link Removed.
9. d (a) Craig S. Smith, "Saudi Arabia Seems Calm But, Many Say, Is Seething," NYT, 3/24/03, p. B13. In fact, "Though the Saudi government officially denies it, the bombing campaign is being directed from Saudi Arabia – something that few Saudis realize." (b) On Syria, see Douglas Little, ACold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945‑1958,@ Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55‑57. On Iran, see Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup D'Etat in Iran," International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, Aug. 1987, pp. 261-86. (c) Andrew ****burn and Patrick ****burn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: HarperPerennial. 1999, chap. 1.
10. d (re audiotape, see David Johnston, "Top U.S. Officials Press Case Linking Iraq To Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/12/03, p. A1; Mohamad Bazzi, "U.S. says bin Laden tape urging Iraqis to attack appears real," Newsday, 2/12/03, p. A5. (a) James Risen and David Johnston, "Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/2/03, p. I:13. (b) "Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 2/5/03. (c) Rohan Gunaratna, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: No Evidence of Alliance," International Herald Tribune, 2/19/03.
Interpreting Your Score
9-10 Correct: Excellent. Contact United for Peace and Justice, Invalid Link Removed, and work to fight the war and the system that produced it.
6-8 Correct: Fair. You've been watching a few too many former generals and government officials who provide the "expert" commentary for the mainstream media. Read the alternative media!
3-5 Correct: Poor. Don't feel bad. George W. Bush only got a C- in International Relations at College.
0-2 Correct: Failing. You have a bright future as an "embedded" journalist.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Invalid Link Removed
Try to tell Iraqis who are not part of the ruling circles that their situation has improved since the occupation and they will remind you not only of the countless dead and injured but also of the million-plus orphans and widows, the 2 million who fled the country, and the 2 million internal refugees, most of whom live in dreadful squalor.
They will tell you about the sewage covering the streets of many towns and cities, the lack of clean water, fuel and electricity, and the ever deteriorating health and education services.
They will tell you about the more than 50% unemployment, the kidnapping of children, the fear of women to move freely, and the rapid rise in drug abuse and prostitution.
They will describe the horrific methods of torture inflicted on the tens of thousands of prisoners in Iraqi and American jails.
They will remind you that if a "world-famous patriot" such as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who threw his shoes at President Bush, was tortured by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's own guards and forces, what chance ordinary citizens?
Iraqis will also instantly refer you to the corrupt rulers who came to Iraq "on the backs of US tanks".
They will tell you of the division of ministries and senior posts among the various sectarian and ethnically identified political allies of the US.
Indeed, corruption has reached such levels that the minister of trade and his brothers have been accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars by the "Integrity Committee", while the deputy transport minister was caught receiving $100,000 as the "first instalment" of another huge bribe.
While Iraq and its people continue to suffer, with most of the western media ignoring their plight, President Obama is still pursuing President Bush's goal in Iraq – to have a government in Baghdad that is closely allied to the US. This is incompatible with bringing about a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. What US strategists have yet to learn is that the Iraqi people will not freely accept a pro-US regime in Baghdad and that the "exit strategy" will inevitably result in long-term occupation, and bring only more bloodshed and destruction.
Why are the Iraqi people expected to elect a disparate collection of corrupt and sectarian pro-US politicians? The only realistic exit strategy must start with the right of the Iraqi people to self determination, free of American intervention.
Army Guy
Well-known member
Luther, you're an idiot. I already refuted 90% of what you just said. Lies unwrapped, and then rewrapped in different packaging doesn't change the fact that they are lies. I acknowledged there have been some mistakes, but to go out and find a group of hippies that served in Iraq and say that they represent the military is an insult to every guy that has spilled his blood, or seen his buddy spill his. So out of the nearly 1,000,000 different people who have served in these two wars over the years you find less than 50 who talk the way you think... well done. that's what less than .5%
And don't even THINK that you have the authority to speak on behalf of the Iraqi people. reading an article on one of your America hating websites when I ACTUALLY LIVE WITH THESE PEOPLE. You are going to say YOU know better than I do??? Are you kidding me??? Sewage in the streets??? unemployment 50%???? this is all fabricated garbage. The average Iraqi had the chance to remove the Americans, how???? THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. what did they choose???? nearly 90% VOTED TO KEEP THE US IN IRAQ for the time being. Sounds like they hate us don't they.
Oh that quiz you did, not even worth my time. I answered you point by point on your last one, and not with fancy quotes and articles..., but with facts gathered from MY OWN EYES. Oh, and the reason that kid never knew what happened to the guys that were detained, he was the guy that was part of the force that GRABBED HIM. He was not the guy who had to build the intelligence package and present it to the proper authorities. He wasn't the guy who then in turn interrogated him in prison. He had no idea the loser was responsible for killing hundreds of HIS OWN PEOPLE in markets. Give it a rest bro. And, by the way, there are more torture interrogations in the state prisons and in prisons throughout the world than there are in Iraq. How can I make such a claim, BECAUSE I WAS THE Officer In Charge, or OIC, of the prison in Baqubah. I will end with this little story:
In honor of a national Iraqi holiday, CF decided to release a few thugs from prison. It just so happened that Al Jazirah, the American hating terrorist loving network was there. They immediately grabbed one of these guys and talked to him. What horrible things did he have to say???
1. He had not had 3 better meals a day in his life
2. The US paid him for his time in prison, as we do all detainees... something we don't even do in the states
3. There is NO WAY he would rather be in Iraqi care because they would have beat him
4. He wished that the Americans would keep him there at the jail because it was better than his home and they treated him with respect unlike his wife and family.
Al Jazirah never ran the story..., and YES I watched this with my own 2 eyes.
Luther... life isn't about what you read on left leaning American hating websites, it's about WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE YOURSELF. Don't disrespect the guys who stand on that wall... in the end... you and your code pink sisters will get bit on the butt
And don't even THINK that you have the authority to speak on behalf of the Iraqi people. reading an article on one of your America hating websites when I ACTUALLY LIVE WITH THESE PEOPLE. You are going to say YOU know better than I do??? Are you kidding me??? Sewage in the streets??? unemployment 50%???? this is all fabricated garbage. The average Iraqi had the chance to remove the Americans, how???? THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. what did they choose???? nearly 90% VOTED TO KEEP THE US IN IRAQ for the time being. Sounds like they hate us don't they.
Oh that quiz you did, not even worth my time. I answered you point by point on your last one, and not with fancy quotes and articles..., but with facts gathered from MY OWN EYES. Oh, and the reason that kid never knew what happened to the guys that were detained, he was the guy that was part of the force that GRABBED HIM. He was not the guy who had to build the intelligence package and present it to the proper authorities. He wasn't the guy who then in turn interrogated him in prison. He had no idea the loser was responsible for killing hundreds of HIS OWN PEOPLE in markets. Give it a rest bro. And, by the way, there are more torture interrogations in the state prisons and in prisons throughout the world than there are in Iraq. How can I make such a claim, BECAUSE I WAS THE Officer In Charge, or OIC, of the prison in Baqubah. I will end with this little story:
In honor of a national Iraqi holiday, CF decided to release a few thugs from prison. It just so happened that Al Jazirah, the American hating terrorist loving network was there. They immediately grabbed one of these guys and talked to him. What horrible things did he have to say???
1. He had not had 3 better meals a day in his life
2. The US paid him for his time in prison, as we do all detainees... something we don't even do in the states
3. There is NO WAY he would rather be in Iraqi care because they would have beat him
4. He wished that the Americans would keep him there at the jail because it was better than his home and they treated him with respect unlike his wife and family.
Al Jazirah never ran the story..., and YES I watched this with my own 2 eyes.
Luther... life isn't about what you read on left leaning American hating websites, it's about WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE YOURSELF. Don't disrespect the guys who stand on that wall... in the end... you and your code pink sisters will get bit on the butt
nopeace
Member
It has nothing to do with jews. Any criticism of Israel is always misinterpreted as anti-Semitic.
Despite what many people refuse to believe Israel does influence our choices in the middle east, ask any politician who has criticized Israel. I'm not going to start another debate about U.S. Foreign policy and Israel because you only need to google that subject to find out what I am talking about. And again, none of this is nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric.
nopeace
Member
I was not implying jews, Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Before you dismiss that there is indeed a heavy influence on US foreign policy in the middle east by Israel please do some research yourself. Just google "US foreign policy and Israel and/or AIPAC".
I understand the "petro-dollar" relationship, that's probably why we sent two naval battlegroups over there where they made mention of selling in Euros.
Here is another documentary.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98"]YouTube - The Israel Lobby (Marije Meerman, VPRO Backlight 2007)[/ame]
poison
Board Sponsor
You fingered aipac. Aipac is jews, not israelis, american jews. Of course aipac influences us policy in the middle east, but no more than halliburton influenced the current war in iraq, or the health indurance lobby influences the healthcare issue. Jews got their **** together, like other groups, and use their power wisely, including throwing their weigfht behind obama. Yup, something ridiculous, like 80%, voted obama. So don't make out like 1)aipac is bad for us interests, 2) israelis the cause of everything wrong in the middle east.
ryanp81
Well-known member
I wouldn't take into account anything these armchair quarter back writers have to say, and nor would I take anything that the IVAW has to say. Luther, do not take anything that those poseurs at IVAW has to say, they are a disgrace. I will now bite my tongue gentleman, carry on.
IVAW site:Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
IVAW site:Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
nopeace
Member
AIPAC also consist of Christians not just jews. I must disagree because AIPAC is not good for US interests, much like how halliburton isn't good for our Interest.
I think Zionism is the problem and even some jews agree with this. (There I'm done talking about Israel because we already had 2 other threads with this topic)
nopeace
Member
As for Iran however, even if they acquired nuclear weapons they would be stupid to even think about attack Israel or the US. Israel has an immensely powerful sophisticated military that would turn Iran into ruble with in days. Not to mention Israel would nuke the hell out of them before they had time to celebrate there one-shot nuke launch.
I feel China and/or Russia are a greater threat than Iran could be. China especially since they've made it there mission to advance their military with no current threat to their nation.
I feel China and/or Russia are a greater threat than Iran could be. China especially since they've made it there mission to advance their military with no current threat to their nation.
poison
Board Sponsor
That's like looking at a shaved headed Muslim, who's sweating and wearing a bulky ski jacket in 90 degree heat, and walking towards a packed bus stop muttering allhuakhbar with his finger on the button, and saying 'he's not stupid enough to do that, no human would!'. We all know how that works out.
Your logic and morals don't apply over there. YOU wouldn't build a nuke and tickle your biggest nuclear neighbor with it, and risk your populations total annihilation, but Ahmedinejad might, Khameini might. Iran isn't in the most stable region of the world. What if Iran nuked a neighbor? Could it trigger a WW? Could we be dragged in?
So what alternative use would Iran have for a nuke?
Your logic and morals don't apply over there. YOU wouldn't build a nuke and tickle your biggest nuclear neighbor with it, and risk your populations total annihilation, but Ahmedinejad might, Khameini might. Iran isn't in the most stable region of the world. What if Iran nuked a neighbor? Could it trigger a WW? Could we be dragged in?
So what alternative use would Iran have for a nuke?
lutherblsstt
Guest
Bechtel’s Dry Run: Iraqis Suffer Water Crisis
Invalid Link Removed
Something As Basic As Water. I think it is
sad how the USA’s government went to all that trouble to proclaim that the USA “cares” about the regular, non-terrorist citizens of Iraq, and then neglects their basic needs.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
- George Orwell
Also,from independent US journalist Dahr Jamail in Iraq:
Colonizing Culture
by Dahr Jamail
Invalid Link Removed
Transgress
The geo-strategic expansion of the American empire is an accepted fact of contemporary history. I have been writing in these columns about the impact of the US occupation on the people of Iraq in the wake of the “hard” colonization via F-16s, tanks, 2,000-pound bombs, white phosphorous and cluster bombs.
Here I offer a brief glimpse into the less obvious but far more insidious phenomenon of “soft” colonization. That scholars and political thinkers have talked at length of such processes only establishes the uncomfortable reality that history is bound to repeat itself in all its ugliness, unless the human civilization makes a concerted effort to eliminate the use of brute force from human affairs.
Gandhi, the apostle of non-violent resistance said:
“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people’s houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave.”
This is an idea rendered irrelevant in the current scenario, where the mightier among the world’s nations have secured the mandate to invade, with impunity, any society and any state that can be exploited for resources. Unlike earlier times, modern-day invasions are invariably camouflaged by a façade of elaborate deceit that claims altruistic intent as the motive of assault. In this new scheme of things, resistance is deemed as insurgency and dissent is unpatriotic. Those that are invaded do not have the luxury to decide between being beggar and slave. Culture would be the last thing on their minds as they struggle to stay alive. Yet it is the loss of their culture that ultimately causes the disintegration of these societies to the absolute advantage of their victors.
It is said that history is written by the victor. What is not said is that destroying the enemy is only half the purpose of a victor. The other half is the subjugation and drastic alteration of the self-perception of the enemy, so as to gain unquestioned control over every aspect of the subjugated state, its populace and its resources, so that having won victory it can get on with the “much bigger business of plunder,” according to Franz Fanon, philosopher, psychiatrist, author and a pre-eminent thinker of the twentieth century.
At one level we have the Human Terrain System (HTS) I have written about previously wherein social scientists are embedded with combat units, ostensibly to help the occupiers better understand the cultures they are occupying. The veiled intent is to exploit existing schisms and fault-lines in these societies to the occupier’s own advantage through the policy of divide and conquer.
As Edward Said stated in “Orientalism”:
“… there is a difference between knowledge of other peoples and other times that is the result of understanding, compassion, careful study and analysis for their own sakes, and on the other hand knowledge - if that is what it is - that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation, belligerency, and outright war. There is, after all, a profound difference between the will to understand for purposes of coexistence and humanistic enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control and external enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control and external dominion.”
It is extremely obvious that the HTS belongs to this second category.
At another unquestioned level, the “democratization” and “modernization” of a “barbaric” society goes on. The embedded scholars of HTS evidently find no evidence of these cultures having withstood decades of international isolation and assault, yet sustained their sovereignty by the sheer dint of their education, culture and a well-integrated diverse social fabric. So the US sets up a range of state-funded programs, ostensibly to empower the women and youth of the target society, in the ways of democracy and modern civilization. Whether or not that suspect goal is accomplished, the badgered collective consciousness of the invaded people, traumatized by loss and conflict, does begin to submit to the “norms” of behavior prescribed by the victor, even when they are in violation of actual norms of society that may have prevailed prior to invasion.
Transform
Fanon said:
“A national culture under colonial domination is a contested culture whose destruction is sought in systematic fashion.”
Describing the psychopathology of colonization he said, “Every effort is made to bring the colonized person to admit the inferiority of his culture which has been transformed into instinctive patterns of behavior, to recognize the unreality of his ‘nation’, and, in the last extreme, the confused and imperfect character of his own biological structure.”
Fanon’s speech to the Congress of Black African Writers in 1959 is an uncanny description of Iraq’s tragedy today:
“Colonial domination, because it is total and tends to over-simplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. This cultural obliteration is made possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women …
“For culture is first the expression of a nation, the expression of its preferences, of its taboos and of its patterns. It is at every stage of the whole of society that other taboos, values and patterns are formed. A national culture is the sum total of all these appraisals; it is the result of internal and external extensions exerted over society as a whole and also at every level of that society. In the colonial situation, culture, which is doubly deprived of the support of the nation and of the state, falls away and dies.”
At times we may witness blatant violations as in the distribution of backpacks with US flags to Iraqi children.
A more repulsive example is the Skin White Serum. One of many companies engaged in selling skin-bleaching cream is Skin White Research Labs. They proudly sell Skin White Serum in “over 30 countries.” There are countless other companies involved in this market, selling similar products, like Skin White Bleaching Cream and Xtreme White.
The hidden message here is that, politically, those in the culture being colonized should seek to cover their brown skin, which is in fact part of their ethnic identity, and aspire to the culture, power and influence of the dominant culture at the expense of their own.
Somewhat less subtle is the corporate colonization of Iraq’s culture. An example of this is Iraqi girls carrying Barbie backpacks in the Sadr City area of Baghdad.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the dominant culture for a while now has been the US military. Since it has all the firepower and the brute force, it sets the norms and the standard. This is done by repeated suggestions through propaganda, and advertisements suggesting that the local population is of lesser worth than the occupiers of their country in their appearance, their beliefs, their customs and their way of life.
The material practices of society sustain its culture, which is the lifeline of identity, and affirmation that the progress of a nation depends on. Social custom, production systems, education, art and architecture are a few of the visible pillars of culture.
Community and custom become the first casualties when an entire people, unequal in the face of military might, struggle to survive under perpetual fear of loss and death. In a state of vacuum, the threatened society will grasp whatever is offered by the occupier as a “better” way of living. In the process it is bound to lose its own tried and tested self-sustaining modes of living.
With the destruction of infrastructure, education, health and livelihood sources are destroyed. When rehabilitation and restoration come packaged in alien systems of knowledge (read-USAID), that, too, is accepted in the absence of what existed earlier.
Literature, art and architecture meet with more systemic demolition.
My artist friends in Baghdad have reported,
“The occupation forces encouraged the rebels to loot museum and libraries. Five thousand years of history and art were irretrievably lost in hours. It is a loss for the world, not Iraq alone. Buildings can be fixed, so can electricity, but where can I find another Khalid al-Rahal to make me a new statue for Abu Fafar al-Mansoor? How will I replace the artifacts dating back to thousands of years? Iraq is altered forever.”
I have heard from ordinary men and women in Iraq, “We need our art, because it connects us with what has brought us here, and reminds us of where we are headed.” Dr. Saad Eskander has been director general of whatever remains of Iraq’s National Archive and Library and he says, “This building was burned twice, and looted. We have lost sixty percent of our archival collections like maps, historical records and photographs. Twenty-five percent of our books were lost … It has crippled our culture, and culture reaches to the bottom of peoples’ hearts, whereas politics do not.”
It is not difficult to see that the extent of devastation caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq goes beyond loss of life, livelihood and property. The historical and cultural roots of the nation have been destroyed.
ryanp81
Well-known member
Luther you crack me up you wikipedia a bunch of quotes by famous people and then add your two cents into it that, freaking outstanding, if you can do a better job with providing better diplomacy with the "current scenario" go over to the sandbox and make sure you bring Sean Penn and his camera with you, also bring some knock off van gough's and picasso's so you can reintroduce there cultural "roots" with some new artwork.
Army Guy
Well-known member
Luther until you post your own opinions based on what you have personally seen, I'm done with this. I refuse to answer your articles written by people with an agenda. I have given you a fair and honest assessment as I have personally seen it, and you quote idiots. I have personally been part of water projects over here. Don't blame us for an infrastructure that your buddy Saddam let fall to ruin. We have invested billions in this economy and infrastructure. So, until you post something original, I leave you to Poison, Vance, and Ryan. Love you like a brother, but grow a pair and read something other than hate America filth.
AG
AG
lutherblsstt
Guest
Yes,the agenda is ending a needless occupation ASAP.
By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?
You only say what you have personally seen and never rely on accounts from second or even third parties? Sure.
Why do you call the people I quote idiots,because they disagree with you? The last guy I quoted is an independent journalist in Iraq.
I also posted vids of "Winter Soldiers" who have seen what you have seen,been through what you have been through and completely disagree with what you say,guess they are idiots too,huh?
By the way,what does criticizing a horrific policy that lead to a horrific war have to do with hating America?
Army Guy
Well-known member
Holy crap, you didn't quote something. Ok, I will answer you point by point again.
you said:
By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?
My only agenda is getting the heck out of this country and seeing my family again. I will not, however, slacken my responsibilities in the process. I have been deployed 4 times, and I for one am done with the wars. Your arguements don't sit well with me because
1. Afghanistan is not a senseless war, they attacked us first... case closed
2. Iraq could be argued either way. Nevertheless, the people themselves are extremely happy Saddam is gone, and THEY voted by 90% to keep us here at least until 2011.
So I want to go home, yes, but I also want to finish the job and finish it right. Let the politicians argue over the why's
You only say what you have personally seen and never rely on accounts from second or even third parties? Sure.
Once again, you are assuming. I have, as an intelligence officer, done more research than you could possibly imagine on what we call "Atmospherics" which is gauging the populace and other Soldiers on what their accounts and opinions are on our "occupation." What does the research show???? there is a VERY SMALL minority that wants us gone now. However, as stated above, and being proven in the local election, the overwhelming majority want us here and say that we are 100 times better than the Saddam regime, which they despised.
Why do you call the people I quote idiots,because they disagree with you? The last guy I quoted is an independent journalist in Iraq.
Point taken. You are correct, I shouldn't call them idiots. That is just an opinion. I have been around, escorted, and interviewed with numerous reporters while here, and let me tell you one thing... they are after the story that will sell headlines. They will twist and turn quotes to fit their own agendas. Don't just take my word for it, ask any Soldier who has been interviewed by these guys and have had to read their misquotes in the paper the next day. Does it happen all the time??? No. Does it happen???? All the time. There are some great reporters out there, from both sides of the isles, but in my opinion over 75% start out Anti war, Anti Bush, Anti American, or just Anti Anti! You for one should take your own advise. I HAVE first hand experience, and you dismiss me as well.
I also posted vids of "Winter Soldiers" who have seen what you have seen,been through what you have been through and completely disagree with what you say,guess they are idiots too,huh?
No, but they offer another viewpoint, and I might add that THEIR view is not what 90% of others in the military think. Remember that!!! you are putting all your $$ on the 10%. Good luck at that bro.
By the way,what does criticizing a horrific policy that lead to a horrific war have to do with hating America?
Hating America comes when you openly and forcefully oppose all that it does. America is the strongest nation in the world, and every time someone needs help, they call us. The war is horrific, yes, but that is war. What America needs is support for the troops and misinformation to stop. You are quoting the MINORITY of people's opinions, and make to sound like it is the MAJORITY. That is a huge issue to me and many other Americans. And, frankly, it is offensive
So, line by line bro. I hate war too, in fact more so given that I am going to be away from my family for yet another Christmas. That said, I will do my job and do it the best I can. I don't set policy, I enforce it, as do those who serve with me side by side. We don't ask you to toe the line on this. Good debate is needed and is what keeps a capitalistic society afloat. However, do the world and this forum a favor and don't try to pass off a few people's opinions, who are few and far between, as being how it is everywhere. That is misleading. I respect your opinions, you are entitled to them, just don't degrade me and my fellow brothers in arms by spreading misinformation, and yes that is exactly what it is.
AG
you said:
By the way,you mean to tell me you have no agenda?
My only agenda is getting the heck out of this country and seeing my family again. I will not, however, slacken my responsibilities in the process. I have been deployed 4 times, and I for one am done with the wars. Your arguements don't sit well with me because
1. Afghanistan is not a senseless war, they attacked us first... case closed
2. Iraq could be argued either way. Nevertheless, the people themselves are extremely happy Saddam is gone, and THEY voted by 90% to keep us here at least until 2011.
So I want to go home, yes, but I also want to finish the job and finish it right. Let the politicians argue over the why's
You only say what you have personally seen and never rely on accounts from second or even third parties? Sure.
Once again, you are assuming. I have, as an intelligence officer, done more research than you could possibly imagine on what we call "Atmospherics" which is gauging the populace and other Soldiers on what their accounts and opinions are on our "occupation." What does the research show???? there is a VERY SMALL minority that wants us gone now. However, as stated above, and being proven in the local election, the overwhelming majority want us here and say that we are 100 times better than the Saddam regime, which they despised.
Why do you call the people I quote idiots,because they disagree with you? The last guy I quoted is an independent journalist in Iraq.
Point taken. You are correct, I shouldn't call them idiots. That is just an opinion. I have been around, escorted, and interviewed with numerous reporters while here, and let me tell you one thing... they are after the story that will sell headlines. They will twist and turn quotes to fit their own agendas. Don't just take my word for it, ask any Soldier who has been interviewed by these guys and have had to read their misquotes in the paper the next day. Does it happen all the time??? No. Does it happen???? All the time. There are some great reporters out there, from both sides of the isles, but in my opinion over 75% start out Anti war, Anti Bush, Anti American, or just Anti Anti! You for one should take your own advise. I HAVE first hand experience, and you dismiss me as well.
I also posted vids of "Winter Soldiers" who have seen what you have seen,been through what you have been through and completely disagree with what you say,guess they are idiots too,huh?
No, but they offer another viewpoint, and I might add that THEIR view is not what 90% of others in the military think. Remember that!!! you are putting all your $$ on the 10%. Good luck at that bro.
By the way,what does criticizing a horrific policy that lead to a horrific war have to do with hating America?
Hating America comes when you openly and forcefully oppose all that it does. America is the strongest nation in the world, and every time someone needs help, they call us. The war is horrific, yes, but that is war. What America needs is support for the troops and misinformation to stop. You are quoting the MINORITY of people's opinions, and make to sound like it is the MAJORITY. That is a huge issue to me and many other Americans. And, frankly, it is offensive
So, line by line bro. I hate war too, in fact more so given that I am going to be away from my family for yet another Christmas. That said, I will do my job and do it the best I can. I don't set policy, I enforce it, as do those who serve with me side by side. We don't ask you to toe the line on this. Good debate is needed and is what keeps a capitalistic society afloat. However, do the world and this forum a favor and don't try to pass off a few people's opinions, who are few and far between, as being how it is everywhere. That is misleading. I respect your opinions, you are entitled to them, just don't degrade me and my fellow brothers in arms by spreading misinformation, and yes that is exactly what it is.
AG
nopeace
Member
Pakistan has nukes and Al Quaeda seems to be vacationing there. We should probably worry about them instead. Iran would be a costly war and right now our military isn't doing well in Afghanistan/Iraq. We could not afford to start a full-fledged war with Iran. Russia would almost certainly have some interest in stopping US expansion in the region as well.
Iran won't fire a nuke at Israel even if it had the capability.
Iran won't suicide itself for one nuke launch. Khameini/Almedinejad wont sacrifice an entire nation to blast israel once and disappear. You can't equate that to a suicide bomber who is only risking his own life. I think Iran's interest in nukes is more defensive than offensive if any at all.
Iran is not a threat to the US. N. Korea already has a nuke and a delivery system but yet there is no talk about them in the news nearly as much as Iran. I honestly think there are worse threats out there to the US than Iran gaining nuclear energy.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Senator Fulbright:
"To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
lutherblsstt
Guest
Afghanistan is senseless because:
A certain group of men,none of which are from Afghanistan,attacked the US. Why not invade Saudi Arabia where most of them were from? How much sense would it make for the Sandinistas to attack the US because the Contras trained at the SOA in Fort Benning?
You are not there to help the people but to obtain control of strategic territory and resources,helping the people of Iraq is a smokescreen used as a talking points by pro-war pundits.
See : The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives
by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Invalid Link Removed
By the way:
"Iraqis have wanted the U.S. out of their country almost from day one. Various surveys show that a solid majority of citizens want coalition troops to leave within a year.
Invalid Link Removed
In 2004, 86% of Iraqis wanted U.S. troops out - 41% immediately and 46% after a new government
was established.
Invalid Link Removed
At the start of 2006, 94% of all Iraqis supported their government setting a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from immediate departure to a timed departure over two years.
A few months later, even a poll by the U.S. Department of State showed nearly 70% of citizens wanted U.S. occupation to end.
Invalid Link Removed
Polls in 2007 and 2008 conducted by a variety of organizations demonstrate that a majority of Iraqis want foreign troops to leave."
Invalid Link Removed
I do not dismiss you and your experience,I dismiss your labelling of others who have firsthand experience but a view diametrically opposed to your own as "idiots" and "leftists".
"Iraq war veterans against the war have been shunted aside for a few reasons.The officer corps is now composed disproportionately of self-identified political conservatives and Republican partisans.
Invalid Link Removed
The Iraq war has opened up an unprecedented partisan divide, and Republican support has been remarkably resilient. While there have been signs of mounting discontent—including surprisingly large active-military contributions to Ron Paul, the only Republican presidential candidate to oppose the war—the current crop of veterans is less fertile soil for the IVAW's plow than for its Vietnam-era counterpart. Put simply, veterans have been quiet partly because many are strong partisans who, at least until quite recently, have been committed to the administration, the war, or both."
Invalid Link Removed
By the way,more recently we have:
Military Families Question Iraq War as Support for Bush Slips
Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Kent Fletcher, an Iraq war veteran, says he enthusiastically voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, he is a registered Democrat who questions the need for the war, the way it has been managed and the treatment of returning veterans.
``Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat and the culmination of my career was that war and it wasn't necessary,'' says Fletcher, 32, a financial analyst in Bluffton, South Carolina, who served almost 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.
"A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Fletcher's skepticism about the war reflects a growing disenchantment within the broader military community, long a bastion of support for the Bush administration and Republicans. Among active-duty military, veterans and their families, only 36 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. This compares with an Annenberg survey taken in 2004, one year after the invasion, which showed that 64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.
The views of veterans and their families are now closer in line with overall public sentiment. The poll shows that 32 percent of the general population supports the war.
`Enormous Sacrifices'
The change isn't ``surprising,'' says Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in May. ``Military families have been asked to make enormous sacrifices.''
Senator Fulbright died eleven years ago, but many observations continue to be topical today, e.g. this quote about "superpatriots" from his book The Arrogance of Power:
" There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic; one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."
From the same book:
To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation.
Army Guy
Well-known member
Alright bro there are a few things I am going to point out. First, I never said that all the troops support the war. In fact troops hate war more than you and your war hating buddies. The difference is we understand the NEED for it and do our best to fulfill that need. Of course there are Soldiers and Officers out there who hate Bush and what he did and are forever going to blame him from everything with the war to the extinction of the dinosaurs. That is life. There are anti war groups of vets all over the place. But what you are failing to recognize is that the overwhelming majority of us, those who have bled and seen friends die, completely disagree with these jokers. You are still trying to push off their opinions as the majority opinion. And who cares what political party they come from. It comes down to wanting to finish the job and do it right.
Another thing, those polls you quote are not in context. You only briefly mention one time that the Iraqis want us gone AFTER the government is secure. Hello??? Why didn't you complete that point. Of course the Iraqis want us out of their country, and WE want out as well. The point is they want us out AFTER their own bubbas can do the job and not a second before. You slightly alude to this, but perhaps we can agree on this one point. They want us out, YES. We want out, YES. Both parties only want that to happen when Iraqi troops and government are ready, YES. The Iraqis themselves set the time table for 2011. I was hoping sooner, but they ASKED us to stay until then. So be it.
Bro by you saying removing Saddam was a smoke screen to get resources is full blown fabrication. Did you know that the Iraqi government was sitting on over 4 billion $$$ in excess fuel their last fiscal year??? Did you know that instead of letting us have, use at a discount price, or even use period never happened??? That they, in most places, still rely on the US to give their military fuel, like where I am. Dude we haven't gotten a dime from these guys. We still ship all our fuel in from out of country for this war. There are also no contracts out there to get any. I am not saying that the old administration wasn't banking on getting cheaper fuel, I can't read their minds. But we don't. We use mostly American made gas over here. And as far as other resources go... what other resources... dates??? they taste good, but I don't think this war is for dates.
Afghanistan..., dude how soon people forget. Had the terrorist been IN Saudi and the Saudi government openly funded them and gave them people and land in support of their effort to kill the west, we would have went over their and kicked their Rolls Royce driving butts. However, it was the Taliban that did that. The Taliban helped these losers, gave them money, land, food, shelter, and then refused to let the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY come and try these losers for these attacks. THEY ATTACKED US and that is pretty easy.
Dude there is a difference in being critical of policy and the ways things are done in war and politics and doing what you do. You find articles that support your view and slant them to your means. Dude, I am in the military and don't need someone NOT in the military telling me how the military thinks and works. We don't ask you to toe the line. I already said that debate is good and what keeps this nation strong. It is using one sided facts and misrepresentations that gets guys like me in a huff. I am all for you questioning why... I do it all the time. But I work with these Iraqis and have been all over this country. You have not... you read articles of guys who, not all, have huge agendas. The truth is out here, and the sooner we get home the happier THIS Army Guy will be
AG
Another thing, those polls you quote are not in context. You only briefly mention one time that the Iraqis want us gone AFTER the government is secure. Hello??? Why didn't you complete that point. Of course the Iraqis want us out of their country, and WE want out as well. The point is they want us out AFTER their own bubbas can do the job and not a second before. You slightly alude to this, but perhaps we can agree on this one point. They want us out, YES. We want out, YES. Both parties only want that to happen when Iraqi troops and government are ready, YES. The Iraqis themselves set the time table for 2011. I was hoping sooner, but they ASKED us to stay until then. So be it.
Bro by you saying removing Saddam was a smoke screen to get resources is full blown fabrication. Did you know that the Iraqi government was sitting on over 4 billion $$$ in excess fuel their last fiscal year??? Did you know that instead of letting us have, use at a discount price, or even use period never happened??? That they, in most places, still rely on the US to give their military fuel, like where I am. Dude we haven't gotten a dime from these guys. We still ship all our fuel in from out of country for this war. There are also no contracts out there to get any. I am not saying that the old administration wasn't banking on getting cheaper fuel, I can't read their minds. But we don't. We use mostly American made gas over here. And as far as other resources go... what other resources... dates??? they taste good, but I don't think this war is for dates.
Afghanistan..., dude how soon people forget. Had the terrorist been IN Saudi and the Saudi government openly funded them and gave them people and land in support of their effort to kill the west, we would have went over their and kicked their Rolls Royce driving butts. However, it was the Taliban that did that. The Taliban helped these losers, gave them money, land, food, shelter, and then refused to let the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY come and try these losers for these attacks. THEY ATTACKED US and that is pretty easy.
Dude there is a difference in being critical of policy and the ways things are done in war and politics and doing what you do. You find articles that support your view and slant them to your means. Dude, I am in the military and don't need someone NOT in the military telling me how the military thinks and works. We don't ask you to toe the line. I already said that debate is good and what keeps this nation strong. It is using one sided facts and misrepresentations that gets guys like me in a huff. I am all for you questioning why... I do it all the time. But I work with these Iraqis and have been all over this country. You have not... you read articles of guys who, not all, have huge agendas. The truth is out here, and the sooner we get home the happier THIS Army Guy will be
AG
poison
Board Sponsor
Read the news recently? We, and the Paki's, are.
We're doing very well in Iraq, thanks.
Oh yes, yes we could start a full-fledged war with Iran. Full-fledged is the best kind, the one we excell at like no other nation excelled before. A half-assed peacekeeping/insurgency quelling mission is another matter.
So unlimp thy wrist, and stop jumping on the 'we're losing' bandwagon that is perpetually wrong (we've been losing in Iraq since before we kicked Saddam 6 ways from Sunday, until today).Russia would have an interest in protecting the $4b they've sunk into Iranian nuke reactors, first and foremost. **** Russia.
Promise?
ORLY? You know Ahmedinejad, on a first name basis with Mahmud? Hang with Khameini?
Until then, conjecture. Fact is, he says otherwise, and does otherwise. If you are honing a knife, and say you're gonna stab me, with a crazed look in your eye...you better watch yourself.
Anyway, he's not developing nuke weapons, remember? Peaceful purposes only! Ya, mahn.
You know nothing about suicide bombers. I do. I combated them in Israel and Lebanon for several good years. Suicide bombers are perfectly willing to take out Muslims with whoever else is along for the ride. They believe that it's just fine to kill unwitting Muslim kids on the bus with the Israeli kids; they're serving Allah's will, even though they had no idea they were going to die.
So depending on how whacked Ahmedinejad/Khameini is, or their successor (we know how unstable the ME is), it's is absolutely not my kind of odds to assume that they'll behave in a manner familiar to and consistent with our Western morals, values, and logic.
Seriously, think. You say they aren't stupid enough to attack with the nuke, but want that nuke as a deterrent.
The fact is, one nuke means nothing to us, in the grand scheme. However, no nation can allow a city to be wiped away by a nuke, and that's the threat: that Ahmedinejad will take a million with him even as he himself goes out. That's intolerable to us, and that's his leverage.
Leverage? What's this? Essentially the plan is this: convince the world he's bat **** crazy, BEFORE he has a nuke. Without a nuke, bat**** crazy is just crazy, no one will touch him. Once he has the nuke, hold back on the crazy talk so as not to provoke the itchy trigger fingers, pose some semblance of respectability, and start making demands. Trust me, he's got lots, and none are good for the West. Build up his arsenal/armaments, increase his authority in ME affairs, become top dog in the Middle EAst, all under an (militant) Islamic flag. Allhuakhbar!
How hard would it be for him to cause the start of a major regional war which involved us eventually? Is it worth letting him have that capability, in the name of 'fairness'?
You just said above Iran's interest in nukes is defensive, now you say it's energy. Which is it?
NK? They're 3 days away from starvation, and can't get a nuke to work to save their lives. SK, Japan, and China are in their business 24/7.
I'd say Iran is a bigger threat.
nopeace
Member
I honestly don't think we're doing to well in Iraq. Until recently at least.
If we can't even commit troops to Afghanistan what makes you think we could commit another 100-200k to invade/Iran?
Do you know Almidinejad personally to know that he would launch a nuke at Isreal?
Why does Iran have to be the US's problem? shouldn't Israel handle it themselves since they feel more threatened? Why wait for the US to do it for them? I think Israel won't go in because their F-16/15's would probably get shot down by Iran's s-300pmu systems.
It seems to me that most of your post was speculation and not factual (mine wasn't factual either) you don't know if Almadinjad is going to make demands from the world. If he got a nuke and started making demands then he would be stamped out.
If Iran was allowed to have peaceful energy in which the Uranium was enriched in Russia I see no problem at all since they won't have the materials necessary for a warhead. I honestly don't think Iran would be worth spilling American blood over.
If we can't even commit troops to Afghanistan what makes you think we could commit another 100-200k to invade/Iran?
Do you know Almidinejad personally to know that he would launch a nuke at Isreal?
Why does Iran have to be the US's problem? shouldn't Israel handle it themselves since they feel more threatened? Why wait for the US to do it for them? I think Israel won't go in because their F-16/15's would probably get shot down by Iran's s-300pmu systems.
It seems to me that most of your post was speculation and not factual (mine wasn't factual either) you don't know if Almadinjad is going to make demands from the world. If he got a nuke and started making demands then he would be stamped out.
If Iran was allowed to have peaceful energy in which the Uranium was enriched in Russia I see no problem at all since they won't have the materials necessary for a warhead. I honestly don't think Iran would be worth spilling American blood over.
lutherblsstt
Guest
That is your opinion and I respect it,I also respect the opinion and observations of these guys:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv7zg7Q06hc&feature=related"]YouTube - 冬の兵士 - Winter Soldier (1)：イラク帰還兵 戦争の実態を語る[/ame]
First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout."
Second, PIPA released the results of its latest round of polling Invalid Link Removed, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year.
By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country."
Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."
Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).
Invalid Link Removed
You must be kidding! LOL! So the US invaded for humanitarian purposes?
THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO
by Greg Palast
Excerpt from 'Armed Madhouse'
The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:
The report is submitted on the understanding that [the State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.
For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team.
Our big break came when James Baker's factotum, Amy Jaffe, first reached on her cellBaker in Amsterdam, then at Baker's operation in Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan's title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy's headings matched mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry.
The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover, Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of the oil industry -- including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the James A. Baker III Institute.
Read the rest here: Invalid Link Removed
or
Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation about blood and oil for 'Ring of Fire' from Air America.
Invalid Link Removed
No there isn't.
Much of my source material comes from others also in the military now or in the past.
Example:
WAR IS A RACKET
by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
Invalid Link Removed
poison
Board Sponsor
The initial invasion went extremely well; despite the hand-wringing of people like you, the US military obliterated the iraqi military and had control of the country in days. What happened next is not a shortcoming of the military or our country, but 1 man, Rumsfeld. If we had invaded with 250k troops instead of 40k, the insurgency would never have taken off. But they followed Runsfeld, and here we are. Despite that hiccup, we are still winning, things are going a good direction.
Again, try to control your ADD and understand it'll take some years for the iraqis to get the hang of this whole democracy thing.
I love it when non-military personell comment on military affairs. Who ever said we planned on or needed to invade Iran? No one has ever said anything like that. We can take his **** out right now, with very limited boots on the ground, in and out quick.
Your naivety is astounding. I never made any claims as to what he will or won't do; you did, and so it's on you to support that with evidence. Fact is, you can't, the evidence supports his use of a nuke more than not: his obfuscation of the UN and Iaea, his lies, his 'now you see it now you don't', his double talk, his open threats against israel, his blazen attacks on the US in Iraq, his attacks on israel through support of terror in israel, his support of hizbullah and their attack on israel in 2006, his open jew-hatred...he is developing a nuke, make no mistake, and says he'll use it.
If I point aloaded gun at your head, and say I'm gonna kill you, would argueing that I'm not going to make any sense?
Iran has been the US problem since Iran supported the Iraqi insurgency and caused the deaths and permanent injury of thousands of US troops.
What happens if Iran gets a nuke, and provokes a regional war? It's not too hard to imagine.
All any of us can do is speculate. However, there are certain fact out there that you can use to form a basis for your speculation. How do I know he is going to make demands? Because he already IS making demands, and this is without a nuke to back it up. He wants israel gone, he wants the US out of the middle east, he wants oil traded in euro, he wants, he wants, he wants. He wants to be the biggest player in the middle east. Listen, persians have a lot of pride as one of the oldest cultures on the planet. Their history goes way back, and they see themselves as part of something greater, a continuation of a story. Americans in their individualism and n00bishness, can't even begin to fathom anything like this, or what it means. Persians have a lot of pride, it goes deep, and some of them desire a return to the glory days. That's fine, great, but mix that with militant islamist ideals, and it gets ugly.
There are certainly a huge number of iranians who would love to see militant islam gone and an open western society allowed to flourish.
It seems you've settled on iran's nuke project being peaceful. Last post you said it was defensive only, which implies weaponized nukes. I really think you should ponder the issue, and solidify your opinion. Be sure to take into account his lies, deception, threats, and so on.
If it was purely peaceful, i'd say 'fine'. But if it's purely peaceful, why the game of three card monty? Why the deception? Why is he instigating and attacking his neighbors (iraq and israel), in tandem with an ambiguous nuke program and verbal threats, if he has peace on the brain?
I was a paratrooper in the idf. I spent many months in the west bank and lebanon, fighting hamas, islamic jihad, george habash, hizbullah, etc. I've seen it first hand. If I see a guy with a winter jacket and shaved head (traditional for suicide bombers) acting weird, sweating, and he yells allahhuakhbar, I'm going to aim my weapon at his head, and iif there are people around, shoot. I don't need to wait to see the explosion to act.
If your somewhat troublesome teenager comes to you with a smirk on his face and says 'guess what dad, I just bought some crack', are you going to say 'haha, pfft, that's funny', and walk away, or are you going to sit him down and take the issue to its very end until you're sure of what exactly is the case?
When people talk, you should listen. If they threaten, you should pay attention. If they display the intent and means, it's on. Question is, does iran have the means? Not yet, but much points to them aquiring the means, and soon.
nopeace
Member
Ok, first and foremost. Let me clear up about what I think about Iran's intentions. I think they do want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, they offered the US a "grand bargain" back in 02. You are right about them being full of pride, I think this is why they are really adamant about gaining nuclear energy more as an act of defiance.
Firstly, (I think) Iran wants energy.
Secondly, if they do want nuclear weapons it would serve primarily as a defensive measure because using them offensively would mean certain death for everyone in iran.
As for striking Israel it would make no sense because they would likely lose within a matter of minutes. They wouldn't sacrifice their entire population to hit one Israeli city.
On a side not about the Iraq invasion, of course the invasion went well Iraq had no military to fight with. It was the occupation that cost the Americans, when I see the death toll and the results, I do not think the US has gained anything from the war, only more problems. Its not democracy they don't understand I think it's more about the differences in religions in the region that are causing all of the problems. I do agree however that if more troops were committed to staying and fighting in Iraq that the insurgency would have never taken hold like it did.
I also do not think we will actually invade Iran that would be tremendously costly in lives. But if they did have to do a gulf war style invasion it would be very costly.
poison
Board Sponsor
Do you see iran being torn apart by ied's suicide bombers, with 50-100k killed? Nope. That's because the US is not sponsoring terror in iran. They do, however, sponsor opposition groups and student protests. Not quite the same thing.
poison
Board Sponsor
Last night israel seized a ship carrying hundreds of tons of iranian arms to hamas, in what was apparently a joint US/Israeli operation. This shipment was 10 times the size of the 2002 ship that got caught, the Karin A.
One more instance of iran meddling in the regions affairs; they supplied the insurgency in iraq with disasterous effect, and they do the same with Hizbullah and hamas.
Peaceful, my ass.
One more instance of iran meddling in the regions affairs; they supplied the insurgency in iraq with disasterous effect, and they do the same with Hizbullah and hamas.
Peaceful, my ass.
lutherblsstt
Guest
By the way,Army Guy,the reason I mentioned Saudi Arabia is because of the funding by Saudi Sheikhs of the over 20,000 wahhabi madrassas found in Afganistan where people like Mullah Omar were "educated" in wahhabism,which is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia.
A World bank study in 2001 estimated that Saudi funded madrassas were teaching as many as 2 million of Pakistan's students an Islamic based curriculum. It is estimated that more than 80,000 of these young madrassa students became Taliban recruits. So I ask again,why not invade Saudi Arabia,where the extremists funding originates?
This special explains it even better:
Invalid Link Removed
A World bank study in 2001 estimated that Saudi funded madrassas were teaching as many as 2 million of Pakistan's students an Islamic based curriculum. It is estimated that more than 80,000 of these young madrassa students became Taliban recruits. So I ask again,why not invade Saudi Arabia,where the extremists funding originates?
This special explains it even better:
Invalid Link Removed
lutherblsstt
Guest
Sounds extremely fishy,you mean in the midst of all the scrutiny of the nuclear program,just so happens that Israel captures a ship with weapons from,of all places,Iran! LOL! Pretty timely huh? Kind of like the Weapons of Mass Destraction in Iraq.
Invalid Link Removed
"The Israeli Navy captured an Antiguan ship today near the island of Cyprus, which officials are touting as the largest capture of arms ever by the Israeli military.
Israel officials claim that the ship was loaded down with weapons sent by the Iranian government to Hezbollah to use against Israeli civilians, though the only evidence they presented to back up this claim was that some of the shipping containers found on board had “Iranian Shipping Lines Group” written in English on them. Invalid Link Removed
The Israelis also claim to have proof the ship left Iran and was heading to Syria, though they did not release this proof publicly.
Israeli diplomats have been ordered to use the capture of the ship to rally international support against the Iranian government. Israeli embassies across the world have been ordered to issue press releases accusing Iran of turning the Mediterranean Sea into a terrorist base.
The Iranian government denied the allegations and insisted the ship was heading to Iran, not from Iran, and that it was carrying Syrian goods on board.
Invalid Link Removed
The UN has insisted it has no evidence of ongoing arms smuggling to Hezbollah.
Invalid Link Removed
poison
Board Sponsor
You find this surprising? If there was some massive subterfuge going on, why didn't the US just plant nuke material in iraq after the invasion? Or simply lie? But somehow you think someone set up a ship with tons of russian and iranian made arms, and planted it in the mediterranean?
If you kept up on things, you'd know that this isn't the first time ships have been caught smuggling. The scrutiny over the nuclear issue is exactly how they got caught: US satellites tracked it leaving iran, all the way up into the mediterranean.
Iran is heavily involved in arming hizbullah; hizbullah is pretty much owned by iran, funded and provided for; russia is the other major supplier to hizbullah. This has been the case since well before I served in the idf, and I saw it first hand while serving in lebanon. Iran has been arming hamas in gaza with longer range missiles, smuggling in experts, and the last gaza op was run under iranian tutelage. Iran utilizes all means to smuggle these goods. including native bedoin in the sinai and even pirates, by sea. A score of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen died in the 2006 lebanon war. Why? They were directing hizbullah, who attacked israel under iranian auspices.
If you were paying attention, there was a little publicized story in the news a couple months ago, a ship that got hijacked by somali pirates en route between russia and iran. The russian military went WAY out of its way to 'resolve' this issue, and it was very clear that there weren't just dates on board. The crew got sick, and several died under strange circumstances.
You may not believe iran can do any wrong, but I've seen it with my own eyes.
As for the UN, they didn't see the slaughter or hear the screams, even as they sat 500 yards away on their hotel rooftop in rwanda and other places in africa. What the **** makes you think they 'see' hizbullah accepting arms shipments? How about this? I myself have seen UN personall shield hizbullah terrorists, in full weaponized military garb, heading to and from operations, inside lebanon. This is against their own rules and those by which they operate in lebanon. I've been heading out on operations in lebanon with my squad, in the middle of the night, and had UN troops do everything in their power to alert hizbullah as to where were were, indluding firing flares, using spotlights, following us, etc. I've seen UN checkpoints allow armed hizbullah through, a violation of their rules. I've seen them turn many a blind eye to hizbullah terror activities, and sometimes even aid them.
Hizbullah was able to pony up 30,000 missiles, hardened underground bunkers, their own separate communications system before the 2006 war, all under direction from iran, all under the eye of the UN, literally. There were hizbullah bunkers and missile silos within hundreds of feet of UN bases. And you're trying to tell me that iran doesn't supply hizbullah, the ship is bs? Because you read it somewhere?
I spent months fighting hizbullah, I spent months inside lebanon. We killed 6 hizbullah terrorists trying to sneak across the border into israel, in 3 separate instances within 2 months. Israel used sophisticated equipment to scan the border, but the wadi's were out of sight, so hizbullah would creep, unseen, through the wadis to get into israel, where they would kill israeli civilians. The idf has informants in hizbullah, as well as other intelligence; they would tell us when a terror squad was supposedly trying to come through. We would set an ambush in the wadi they were expected to pass through. We would sit, camo'd up, in a bush, for 3-7 days, eat and drink what we brought, **** in bags, piss in bottles, and carry it all out so as not to leave a trace. Myy company had 2-3 ambushes running at any given time, for months straight. Hizbullah wouild attack our base, shell us, so the whole thing was underground. They would poison the local water, so we had to truck it in; I showered 7 times in 3 months, once. They attack our convoys, ied the roads. One of my jobs was to walk in front of the convoy, every time it went in or out, 3 times a week. I would walk on the left side, my buddy on the right, and we were to look ahead for signs of ied's or ambushes. Essentially my job was to trigger an ied before the convoy got there, sacrifice myself. I did this for monthe. There was an intersection where they would ied it every time we passed; one time there were 29 high grade ied's within a miles or so.
We killed 2 guys headed toward the road I swept every convoy. In their backpacks they had ied material, drug paraphanelia (they get high before attacking, like the mumbai terrorists), and a nice handicam. Later that day a patrol found additional gear which completed their ied setup, and a camera tripod. They were going to set up ied's on 'my' road, blow me up, and videotape it to broadcast on HizzieTV.
Wtf do you know about hizbullah and iranian arms?
If you kept up on things, you'd know that this isn't the first time ships have been caught smuggling. The scrutiny over the nuclear issue is exactly how they got caught: US satellites tracked it leaving iran, all the way up into the mediterranean.
Iran is heavily involved in arming hizbullah; hizbullah is pretty much owned by iran, funded and provided for; russia is the other major supplier to hizbullah. This has been the case since well before I served in the idf, and I saw it first hand while serving in lebanon. Iran has been arming hamas in gaza with longer range missiles, smuggling in experts, and the last gaza op was run under iranian tutelage. Iran utilizes all means to smuggle these goods. including native bedoin in the sinai and even pirates, by sea. A score of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen died in the 2006 lebanon war. Why? They were directing hizbullah, who attacked israel under iranian auspices.
If you were paying attention, there was a little publicized story in the news a couple months ago, a ship that got hijacked by somali pirates en route between russia and iran. The russian military went WAY out of its way to 'resolve' this issue, and it was very clear that there weren't just dates on board. The crew got sick, and several died under strange circumstances.
You may not believe iran can do any wrong, but I've seen it with my own eyes.
As for the UN, they didn't see the slaughter or hear the screams, even as they sat 500 yards away on their hotel rooftop in rwanda and other places in africa. What the **** makes you think they 'see' hizbullah accepting arms shipments? How about this? I myself have seen UN personall shield hizbullah terrorists, in full weaponized military garb, heading to and from operations, inside lebanon. This is against their own rules and those by which they operate in lebanon. I've been heading out on operations in lebanon with my squad, in the middle of the night, and had UN troops do everything in their power to alert hizbullah as to where were were, indluding firing flares, using spotlights, following us, etc. I've seen UN checkpoints allow armed hizbullah through, a violation of their rules. I've seen them turn many a blind eye to hizbullah terror activities, and sometimes even aid them.
Hizbullah was able to pony up 30,000 missiles, hardened underground bunkers, their own separate communications system before the 2006 war, all under direction from iran, all under the eye of the UN, literally. There were hizbullah bunkers and missile silos within hundreds of feet of UN bases. And you're trying to tell me that iran doesn't supply hizbullah, the ship is bs? Because you read it somewhere?
I spent months fighting hizbullah, I spent months inside lebanon. We killed 6 hizbullah terrorists trying to sneak across the border into israel, in 3 separate instances within 2 months. Israel used sophisticated equipment to scan the border, but the wadi's were out of sight, so hizbullah would creep, unseen, through the wadis to get into israel, where they would kill israeli civilians. The idf has informants in hizbullah, as well as other intelligence; they would tell us when a terror squad was supposedly trying to come through. We would set an ambush in the wadi they were expected to pass through. We would sit, camo'd up, in a bush, for 3-7 days, eat and drink what we brought, **** in bags, piss in bottles, and carry it all out so as not to leave a trace. Myy company had 2-3 ambushes running at any given time, for months straight. Hizbullah wouild attack our base, shell us, so the whole thing was underground. They would poison the local water, so we had to truck it in; I showered 7 times in 3 months, once. They attack our convoys, ied the roads. One of my jobs was to walk in front of the convoy, every time it went in or out, 3 times a week. I would walk on the left side, my buddy on the right, and we were to look ahead for signs of ied's or ambushes. Essentially my job was to trigger an ied before the convoy got there, sacrifice myself. I did this for monthe. There was an intersection where they would ied it every time we passed; one time there were 29 high grade ied's within a miles or so.
We killed 2 guys headed toward the road I swept every convoy. In their backpacks they had ied material, drug paraphanelia (they get high before attacking, like the mumbai terrorists), and a nice handicam. Later that day a patrol found additional gear which completed their ied setup, and a camera tripod. They were going to set up ied's on 'my' road, blow me up, and videotape it to broadcast on HizzieTV.
Wtf do you know about hizbullah and iranian arms?
poison
Board Sponsor
How did Israel do it? Israel must have some intelligence that led to the operation, but the Jerusalem Post emphasizes due diligence:
After several days of the Israeli military monitoring the ship, IDF Navy Seals boarded it in the middle of the night. Suspicions were raised after the Seals uncovered certificates within containers that documented Iran as the point of origin for some containers, with Syria as the intended destination.
Upon receiving permission from relevant authorities, including the political establishment, the seals commandeered the ship and brought it to Israel. When the vessel was already en route to Israeli shores, Israel apprised the government of Antigua and the company that owns the ship of the situation, said the officials.
After leaving the Bandar-Abbas port in Iran, the cargo was shipped through the Suez Canal, unloaded at the Mediterranean port of Damietta in Egypt and then loaded onto the ship that was captured by the navy. The intended destination was the port of Latakia in Syria, with the contents of the shipment to be sent to Hizbullah, they said.
The ship's crew was unaware of the weapons on board, as the armaments were disguised as humanitarian aid and hidden behind sacks of polyethylene.
According to the Israeli military, containers aboard the ship were owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines Group and each container contained sacks filled with 25 kilos of silicon made by the Natural Petrol Company in Iran. Upon opening the containers used for smuggling the weapons, only the sacks were visible, but behind the sacks lay weapons. The Jerusalem Post article on the seizure includes the video below showing the concealment of the weapons.
Invalid Link Removed
After several days of the Israeli military monitoring the ship, IDF Navy Seals boarded it in the middle of the night. Suspicions were raised after the Seals uncovered certificates within containers that documented Iran as the point of origin for some containers, with Syria as the intended destination.
Upon receiving permission from relevant authorities, including the political establishment, the seals commandeered the ship and brought it to Israel. When the vessel was already en route to Israeli shores, Israel apprised the government of Antigua and the company that owns the ship of the situation, said the officials.
After leaving the Bandar-Abbas port in Iran, the cargo was shipped through the Suez Canal, unloaded at the Mediterranean port of Damietta in Egypt and then loaded onto the ship that was captured by the navy. The intended destination was the port of Latakia in Syria, with the contents of the shipment to be sent to Hizbullah, they said.
The ship's crew was unaware of the weapons on board, as the armaments were disguised as humanitarian aid and hidden behind sacks of polyethylene.
According to the Israeli military, containers aboard the ship were owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines Group and each container contained sacks filled with 25 kilos of silicon made by the Natural Petrol Company in Iran. Upon opening the containers used for smuggling the weapons, only the sacks were visible, but behind the sacks lay weapons. The Jerusalem Post article on the seizure includes the video below showing the concealment of the weapons.
Invalid Link Removed
lutherblsstt
Guest
You are putting words into my mouth,I said it smells fishy,especially given the timing and the US is engaging a full court press on Iran right now so what are you talking about?
By the way:
Also See: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons:* A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has reported. Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
To Iran, Hamas is no Hezbollah
While there certainly is an underlying rivalry between Israel and Iran that has come to fuel many other otherwise unrelated conflicts in the region, not every war Israel fights is related to Iran. In this specific case, the parallels to the 2006 Lebanon war are inaccurate. Iran's ties to Hamas are incomparable to the much deeper relationship Iran enjoys with Hezbollah. Iran's close relationship with Hezbollah is rooted in the Iranian view that Shiite minorities in Arab countries are Iran's most likely allies and agents of pro-Iranian sentiment; consequently, backing Hezbollah is viewed to be in Iran's core national interest. In contrast, Iran's relationship with Hamas is a marriage of convenience at best.
In spite of its ardent pro-Palestinian rhetoric, Iran's relationship with Palestinian groups -- including Hamas -- has often been strained. Tensions with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization were mostly rooted in Arafat's insistence on defining the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a secular Arab nationalist cause -- leaving non-Arab Iran with no opening to play a leadership role in the Muslim world's cause célèbre. Differences with Hamas, however, derived from a mix of politics and ideology. Hamas' intellectual roots go back to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni fundamentalist movement. Furthermore, during the Iraq-Iran war, both the PLO and Hamas expressed support for Saddam Hussein.
Throughout the 1980s, Iran was better at offering rhetoric than practical support to the Palestinian cause, due to Iran's immediate security concerns. This changed in the mid-1990s, when Iran feared that the Oslo peace process was partially aimed at securing Iran's prolonged isolation and political exclusion. But even after the outbreak of the second Intifada, the Iranians took the lead in making grandiose speeches about Iranian backing of the Palestinian cause, but seldom tried to live up to the standards set in its statements. As I describe in Treacherous Alliance - The Secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press), European diplomats in contact with representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas visiting Iran after fighting between Israelis and Palestinians had broken out reported back that both groups were utterly disappointed with their Iranian hosts whom they accused of making empty promises -- Tehran neither provided them with money nor weapons. A joke in the streets of Tehran reflected Iran's pretense: "Why aren't there any stones left to stone the adulteress? Per the order of the Supreme Leader, all the stones have been shipped to Palestine as Iran's contribution to the Intifada."
Again, history seems to be repeating itself. After daily demonstrations in Tehran in favor of the Palestinians, including a six-day sit-in at Tehran airport by hard-line students demanding government support for sending volunteers to fight in Gaza, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei contained the protesters by thanking them - while pointing out that Iran was not in a position to go beyond rhetorical support since "our hands are tied in this arena." Other Iranian officials have reinforced that message. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that Hamas does not need military support to defend itself. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brother indicated to the demonstrators at Tehran airport that Iran's support for the Palestinians would be limited to "spiritual support for the victimized people of Gaza."
Why Israel's Offensive in Gaza Should Worry Obama
Tehran's complex, if not conflicted, response to the assault on Gaza can best be understood in the context of its broader strategic aims. By rejecting any material Iranian support or involvement in the Gaza battles, Iran's strategic imperatives trumped its ideological concerns and pretenses once more. Khamenei's statement regarding Iran's hands being tied resembles Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to support the Lebanese Shiites by directly entering into war with Israel in 1984 through his edict that the road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala. That is, until Iran has defeated Saddam Hussein, it will not be sucked into a conflict with Israel, regardless of Tehran's ideological opposition to the Jewish state.
Contrary to the neo-conservative narrative that the fighting benefits Iran, Tehran seems to view the Israeli assault on Gaza as highly problematic for several reasons. First, there are suspicions in Tehran that Israel's offensive is a trap with the aim of drawing both Hezbollah and Iran into the fighting. With only weeks left till President Elect Obama takes office, any direct conflagration between Iran and Israel would significantly reduce Obama's ability to deliver on his campaign promise of opening talks with Tehran without preconditions.
Second, increased tensions and polarization in the Middle East undermines Obama's ability to pursue a new policy towards this region, including a shift in America's 30-year old policy of isolating Iran. In fact, polarization along the imagined Gaza fault lines - and a misleading equation of Hamas with Tehran - traps the incoming Obama administration in an involuntary continuation of the Bush policies that contributed to the increased instability in the Middle East in the first place. From the vantage point of Israeli hardliners, this may be a welcomed outcome since it will make compromise with Tehran more difficult and pressure on Israel less likely. Hence, Tehran seems poised not to help reduce Obama's maneuverability.
Third, the conflict is creating unwelcome tensions between Iran and key Arab states. Arab dictatorships fearing that the rise of Iran would weaken America's position in the Middle East and that the survival of Hamas would embolden Islamic nationalist opposition groups throughout the region - both of which would undermine these Arab governments' undemocratic rule - initially sided with Israel by remaining silent or explicitly putting the blame on Hamas. But as the casualties rose and the images of slaughter spread on Arab satellite TVs, the anger of the Arab streets reached the Arab palaces and courts. A similar pattern was seen in 2006 when many Arab governments initially welcomed Israel's air assault on Hezbollah in Lebano\n. There, the change of heart had less to do with the images of Lebanese casualties and more to do with Hezbollah's surprising resilience and fighting power.
Though it is true that increased tensions enables Iran to score propaganda victories on the Arab streets, since many Arab states have either remained silent or secretly collaborated with Israel to defeat Hamas, this does carry a great risk for Tehran. If the fighting in Gaza goes on for too long, the spillover effects will be felt in increased Arab-Iranian tensions at a time when Tehran is more interested in soothing ties with the Arabs in order to minimize Arab disruption to any potential US-Iran opening.
The neo-conservative narrative and its imagined fault lines may temporarily add fuel to the US-Israeli alliance, but it will neither bring stability nor order to the region. Rather, it will push the Middle East further into endless conflict and restrict America's next president to a mindset and a policy framework that risks making the promise of change a dream unfulfilled."
---------
Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US," a silver medal recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award. Andreas Persbo is a senior researcher at the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre.