Iraq War - A different view

[toodles]

Stole this from another forum - a couple of good points.

----------------------------------------------------------

Commments from John Glenn (US Senator and former astronaut)

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID ABOUT THE IRAQI WAR...


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.



When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, State the following facts:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked the US on multiple occasions.

In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has:

- Liberated two countries,

- crushed the Taliban,

- crippled al-Qaida,

- put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,

- removed from power and eventually captured a murdering tyrant who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people, and

- enabled the people of two previously down trodden countries to elect their own representatives.




The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but:

- It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

- We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

- It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.

- It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!





But wait there's more.......................


JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 200411:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading.

Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies -in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids In the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"



For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

[Gonzo]

Just a few comments on the sppech
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....

I doubt this takes into account the number of iraqi's killed who seemingly don't matter.


When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, State the following facts:

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.


This seems to imply that because they have done stupid things in the past it is alright to more stupid things. Surely looking at this figures you would say that the us is pretty stupid to have done what it has.

In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has:

- Liberated two countries,


I think invaded would be a better term.


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but:

- It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.



Last I checked the yanks are still fighting in Iraq so it's a bit much to say that they have taken the country.

[toodles]

Meh, I just got it and decided to post it. I wanted to lure Johnny into a fight.

[nickz]

Nice post toodles. It's funny how many Americans pat themselves on the back for such a quick push to Baghdad, where they thought that the army deserted etc. Changing from their uniform to civilian clothes has made these people so much more deadly and apparently extremely difficult to handle for the US army.

[Laurie]

i don't care what anyone says I still believe that George W. Bush is a moron. Having said that God Bless America, hopefully they can get someone with real potential into the White House to start sorting out the mess Bush has left the country in.

[Daver]

Hang on, JFK entered Vietnam after 2 US frigates were attacked. Korea was entered after they threatened US troops. In fact, i disagree with just about everything said there. America entered WW2 after they were attacked in the Pacific on numerous accasions.

Proves that there is not just one moron in Amercan politics...

Edit: 'bout as accurate as the innocence of Schappelle Corby...

[CHEWY]

Thats almost as biased as a Micheal Moore movie.

[johnny]

Meh, I just got it and decided to post it. I wanted to lure Johnny into a fight.

Oh, so you wanna fuckin go do ya?! :mad:

Well I haven't been able to follow much of the Iraq thing for most of this year, but I'll try and be as argumentative as possible for you :)

[freeride_this]

hrmmm. well im american, and i dont agree with 90% of the stuff there. the iraq war sucks... and so does Bush... but anyways, just my oponion :D

[johnny]

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID ABOUT THE IRAQI WAR...


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

This is relating combat deaths to civillian murders. That is eroneous to begin with. One should compare murder to murder. How many kidnappings happened in Detroit over January?



When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, State the following facts:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked the US on multiple occasions.

Not sure what the point is with all that

In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has:

- Liberated two countries,

The "liberation is only a perspective, some in the countries see that they have been occupied by a foreign force. It's far too early in the piece to say whether both have been successful.

- crushed the Taliban,

Three US Marines were killed by the Taliban yesterday in Afghanistan. They have not been crushed yet. Where is Mullah Omar?

- crippled al-Qaida,

To say that a force has been crippled means that they are no longer a threat. If this is the case, why does the war on terror continue, why has Zarqawi, who is still highly active been linked to al Qaeda if they have been crippled?

- put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,

Libya has given up it's WMD ambitions to join the world community to trade in oil. These trade sanctions were put in place due to the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing, which was the main reason they were on the terror sponser list. It had very little if nothing to do with Iraq.

There are NO inspectors in Nth Korea, I don't why he thinks there is?? North Korea has actually pulled out of the 6way talks and refuses to until the US appologises for say that Kim is a dictator. The US has refused to talk directly to the DPRK unless they close the Yongbyon plant. Neither is going to happen and the DPRK is getting ready to do a nuke tset in the comming weeks. Things are getting worse there, not better. Also one may ask whether the invasion of Iraq actually compelled both DPRK and Iran (the other two parts of the axis of evil) to accelerate their nuclear ambitions. If one thing Iraq taught the world, it's that the US will not invade a country that actually does have nuclear capablities. One may also ask the question why is the US not pressuring Pakistan, India and Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty? Doesn't their reluctance to do this make them rogue states? Especially considering that it was Pakistan that sold Libya, DPRK, Iraq and Iran the nuclear capabilities that they possesed!

- removed from power and eventually captured a murdering tyrant who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people, and

Which was done with the support and sometime encouragement of the west, namely the USA, Russia, France and Germany. Seems we remember only the parts of history that support our case.....

- enabled the people of two previously down trodden countries to elect their own representatives.

Donald Rummsfeld explicitly said that the US would not tolerate the people of Iraq voting in a Muslim fundementalist government. Once again, being that the Iraqi cabinet was only just formed a matter of days ago, I think it's way to early to gauge the success of this.




The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but:

- It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

- We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

- It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.

- It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!

I am not interested in partisan politics, but there are some glaring anomalies here: Looking for WMD, well remember that the invasion was based on WMD.....and there weren't any there FFS!! It took less time to take Iraq than count Florida votes....well whose fault was that :rolleyes: I seem to remember that there was quite a Republican hand in the 2000 US election fiasco!





But wait there's more.......................


JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 200411:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading.

Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies -in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids In the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"



For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.


Wayne T McMurtrie
CPL
RAP 10 FSB

What a load of shit FFS!

Of course being in the military is a real job, I won't argue that for a second. But to say that we owe our freedom to these people is fucking idiotic. First off, both sides of a war involve soldiers, America seems to forget that sometimes. Soldiers are only there because state leaders are many times incapable of efficient and rational thought. Just ask the Kaiser, Hitler and Hirohito how rational their plans turned out. Ask Lyndon B. Johnson how efficienbt and rational the Vietnam war was. Ask Clinton how rational and efficient the MArines behaviour and mission was in Somalia.

Ask any historian how efficient and rational the landing at Gallipoli was.

Soldiers are only required when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy can only fail when our representatives fail. That goes for both sides in any conflict.

If you are speaking English thank a vet, Christ that's so fucking stupid and ignorant. Ask a son who's daddy never came home whether he'd rather thank him for the sacrifice or curse the fact that the sacrifice had to be made.

People need to take off this blinkered, subjective approach towards history.

Most soldiers couldn't give a shit about the cause. In peace time they want war, when they are at war, they pray for peace.


Was that argumentative enough for ya? :D



Not proof read, Naz just turned up.

[Dan]

im all for the war....something had to be done to that place. in the long run it should be ok.

[Laurie]

im all for the war....something had to be done to that place. in the long run it should be ok.

Yeah I agree Saddam was a mass murderer but the US should have concentrated on fixing Afghanistan first and getting Bin laden. The way they went about Afghanistan was completely wrong they could have cut him off from escape quickly and bagged him. But I guess that doesn't matter that much because there will always be someone else to take his place.

[ajay]

the whole war will go around in circles for ever...

You cant simply solve the problem by occupying someone elses country with millatry.

Put yourself in the Iraqy's posistion, you wouldnt want another nations millatry occupying your land. No matter what the cause is... The war has caused many more problems then it will ever solve. So why do humans deem it neccessary to fight? Johnny made a good point about when diplomacy fails etc, but is it the only alternative? surely not...

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Eh.... i'm meant to be writing an essay.
I'll be argumentative for a change.

Daver: Don't be so sure that the Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened. There was an investigation... punch was served.


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
I'm not sure that I like what this statement suggests about the legitimacy of the US government's insistance on taking the moral highground when it comes to human rights. When a government can fail to make inroads into the relatively basic problems of social and state-sponsered (ie: welfare, health care, etc.) inequality it certainly diminishes its position as a purveyor of global human rights.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. Civilians, bombings of beurocratic buildings, civil war casualties, friendly fire, etc. None of these are counted as "combat related killings" yet have made up a far more significant death toll than represented in such statistics.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, State the following facts:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.Firstly, using historical failures as a guide for future decision-making is a path fraught with danger... the fact that men who are now regarded as statesmen led their country into wars which inflicted heavy casualties upon their own citizens does not make such decisions sensible. Especially when circumstance differs greatly today.
Secondly, comparing the loss of life sustained by Americans in these conflicts to that of today is not felpful. The nature of warfare has changed. It is worth noting that the ratio of soldiers and civilians killed in most of these conflicts is completely opposite in modern warfare. In other words, the use of technology (eg: smart bombs, etc.) has meant that the number of soldiers killed has decreased because there is not the same level of front-line engagement. It has also meant that the collateral damage caused by newer weapons includes a greatly increased number of civilians. Therefore, the comparison of military casualties in each war is not a worthy one, indeed, on face value, it falsely represents the nature of warfare in Iraq.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN consent. Bosnia never attacked us.Here's another terrible comparison. Humanitarian intervention in a "country"'s civil war v. outward attack on the regime of a sovereign nation. As for the subject of UN consent, Clinton's campaign was staged to intervent quickly in a genocidal war. As has since been seen, the Iraq war was staged on false premises of a clear and present threat. These are very different situations.
And anyway... when the hell did Iraq ever attack the US?

removed from power and eventually captured a murdering tyrant who slaughtered 300,000 of his own peopleCambodia, Chile, Somalia, Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo..........
Why does the US government only seem to care about human rights abuses when it suits their own strategic ends?
Anyway, a large proportion of those killings happened when the US was supporting Sadaam. Surely it's somewhat hypocritical to take issue with it now.

enabled the people of two previously down trodden countries to elect their own representatives.The disparity between the words "elect" and "vote for" has never been so profound.

The rest of my thoughts have pretty much been covered by Johnny.
Nice work Toodles... certainly got me thinking.

[toodles]

Nice work Toodles... certainly got me thinking.

Don't thank me - thank the moon's gravitational pull. Oh wait - nevermind.

nah I just got it and decided to post it without fact-checking it.

Why does the US government only seem to care about human rights abuses when it suits their own strategic ends?

Why shouldn't they? Sure I'm as sick as everyone of hearing them use it as an excuse for their actions but in the long run, there's few other countries prepared to do anything so what ever the reason they BS about it's better than complacency.

Was that argumentative enough for ya? :D


No. Please try to be less coherent so I've got more arguments to poke holes through :D

[johnny]

Hang on, JFK entered Vietnam after 2 US frigates were attacked. Korea was entered after they threatened US troops. In fact, i disagree with just about everything said there. America entered WW2 after they were attacked in the Pacific on numerous accasions.

Proves that there is not just one moron in Amercan politics...

Edit: 'bout as accurate as the innocence of Schappelle Corby...

Damn, I missed this the first time round.

Daver, I don't know where your info on the Tonkin incident comes from, but I'll take mine from Robert MacNamarra, he was the head of defence for the start of Vietnam. Do yourself a favour and hire the movie "Fog of War", it's MacNamarra's explination of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam. It has all the voice recordings of the commanders of the boats that were supposedly attacked by Nth Vietnamese subs: "But you were definately fired upon?" "Oh I'm sure, I think....." That's the conversation the Vietnam war hinged on, it's there to be heard.

Daver I think you should review your knowledge of modern history before you become so concrete in your views. The Gulf of Tonkin incident has been shown to be baseless for years, it really is quite common knowledge (check your local video shop, the information is that available). You may also wish to read up on some alternative views of Pearl Harbour as well. MAny historians and military analysts claim that the US had prior warning about PH but allowed it to happen giving the US the chance to enter the war. This may sound silly until you look at the big picture. The US mainland was NOT attacked, it was a small set of islands in the middle of the Pacific. After the war the US had bases in Japan, South Korea, The Philipines and various small Pacific islands. America effectively now owns the Pacific. Without having that, the US would have been at a distinct disadvantage in the coming Cold War.

This is not some kind of Cancer Man/X-files conspiracy, it's a run of the mill realist paradigm of geo-political strategy. It's not to say that it's 100% true, but there is far more than one plausable version of history!

[Daver]

Daver, I don't know where your info on the Tonkin incident comes from, but I'll take mine from Robert MacNamarra, he was the head of defence for the start of Vietnam. Do yourself a favour and hire the movie "Fog of War", it's MacNamarra's explination of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam. It has all the voice recordings of the commanders of the boats that were supposedly attacked by Nth Vietnamese subs: "But you were definately fired upon?" "Oh I'm sure, I think....." That's the conversation the Vietnam war hinged on, it's there to be heard.

Fair enough then, i'll have to have a look at that. But as far as i was aware (although Vietnamese history never seemed intriguing) that was the case.

Daver I think you should review your knowledge of modern history before you become so concrete in your views. The Gulf of Tonkin incident has been shown to be baseless for years, it really is quite common knowledge (check your local video shop, the information is that available). You may also wish to read up on some alternative views of Pearl Harbour as well. MAny historians and military analysts claim that the US had prior warning about PH but allowed it to happen giving the US the chance to enter the war. This may sound silly until you look at the big picture. The US mainland was NOT attacked, it was a small set of islands in the middle of the Pacific. After the war the US had bases in Japan, South Korea, The Philipines and various small Pacific islands. America effectively now owns the Pacific. Without having that, the US would have been at a distinct disadvantage in the coming Cold War.

Pearl Harbour was an excuse to make the US enter officially, there were reports of US forces being involved earlier on in both Britain and in Southern Italy, but after Pearl Harbour their troops seemed to increase astronomically.

Once again though, i'll have to agree with Johnny though.

[johnny]

Go you good thing Georgie Boy!

The country that says it's spreading peace and democracy (after it supported dictatorships, theocracies and autocracies for the last 50 years and has invaded two countries in the last three years) is now on the warpath against those who opposed their actions.

1) this speaks of a culture of vengence. Not a healthy mindset, kind of fundementalist if you ask me.....

2) the way in which this vengence is being dealt is not legal nor moral. This also speaks volumes of those who claim to be the rightful leaders of the world http://www.newamericancentury.org/

3) this attack on the UN (along with those on the International criminal court and the international red cross, amnesty international etc.) shows a nation state aiming to break down any basis of internationalisms to be replaced by Americana-isms. Once again, this is true to the premise of http://www.newamericancentury.org/



US guilty of oil for food scandal, not me: Galloway
May 18, 2005 - 12:20PM


British MP George Galloway today sought to turn the tables on US politicians alleging he pocketed Iraqi oil kickbacks, and accused the United States of unparalleled corruption and waste in Iraq.

The fiery left-wing politician came to Congress to defend his name against allegations he pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal funds from the UN Oil-for-Food program during Saddam Hussein's regime. But he said it was his US accusers who must answer for the "disaster" caused by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the deaths seen since.

"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq, and I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies," he told a Senate panel. "Everything I said about Iraq turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people have paid with their lives," he told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee.

He said US military action against Iraq was based on "a pack of lies".

He vehemently denied ever receiving oil kickbacks from Saddam's regime.

He dismissed the hearing as "the mother of all smokescreens", saying the relentless focus on alleged UN wrongdoing by some US politicians deflected attention from the far bigger transgression of the US-led invasion. "I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader," he told the panel, calling the charges against him "utterly unsubstantiated and false".

"You have nothing on me ... other than my name on lists ... many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet Government in Baghdad," the pugnacious politician said. Several US congressional committees are carrying out investigations into scandals at the UN Oil-for-Food program.

The $84.7 billion humanitarian program was designed to allow UN-supervised sales of Iraqi oil to buy medicine and food to lessen the impact of international sanctions against the people of Iraq. But millions of dollars in kickbacks are said to have been paid to foreign officials, who in turn made contributions to Saddam. The US Senate committee said it had "detailed evidence" Mr Galloway received about 20 million barrels of oil in allocations from the Saddam regime.

Mr Galloway, who was drummed out of Britain's ruling Labour Party because of his opposition to the Iraq war, swept aside those charges. "Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars? The answer is nobody," he said. And far from being an avid supporter of Saddam, as congressional accusers have alleged, Mr Galloway said he had been an active opponent of the regime.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do. "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein at a time when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

Mr Galloway proudly waved his anti-war credentials at the hearing. His scathing denunciation of the Iraq venture left some US politicians squirming in their seats, particularly when he urged them to refocus their UN investigations from the world body and onto the role played by Washington.

"Have a look at the real oil for food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad when $US8.8 billion [$11.6 billion] of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch," he said.

"Have a look at the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where."AFP

Oh yeah, that little thing called objective truths just seems to stick it's head out when you least want eh Uncle Sam? ;)


Mr. im all for the war....something had to be done to that place. in the long run it should be ok. I respect your right to have an opinion and stand by it. But I do not respect an opinion formed on ignorance. One must investigate and analyse such complicated and delicate situations a bit deeper than something had to be done to that place. in the long run it should be ok to have any real credibility.

This isn't meant to be a shot at you mate, just a little nudge to say "have you really looked into this before making your mind up either way"?

[wombat]

Edit: 'bout as accurate as the innocence of Schappelle Corby...
Care to fill us in with your information Dave?

[looseunit]

Hang on, JFK entered Vietnam after 2 US frigates were attacked. Korea was entered after they threatened US troops.

The American were supporting the French military involvement in Vietnam well before 2 frigates they were attacked.

You may also wish to read up on some alternative views of Pearl Harbour as well. Many historians and military analysts claim that the US had prior warning about PH but allowed it to happen giving the US the chance to enter the war. This may sound silly until you look at the big picture. The US mainland was NOT attacked, it was a small set of islands in the middle of the Pacific.

You have to wonder why most of the ships were sunk in Pearl harbor were old and out of date. The Americans also had most of there newer boats out at sea, that were based at peal harbour. There is no doubt that the Americans Knew what was going to happen in Pearl Harbour.


Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

That figure is very wrong it is only the number of American dead not including any of their Allies or civilians. I think France lost something like 90,000 before America enter Vietnam, Australia lost well over 1000 and god know how many North vietnamese were soldiers were lost. There were also something like 3 million dead civilians.

[johnny]

Hang on, JFK entered Vietnam after 2 US frigates were attacked. Korea was entered after they threatened US troops.

Hang on, it's far from certain, probably even doubtful that any US ship was actually attacked in the Gulf Of Tonkin. I would even go as far as to say that the USS Maddox wasn't attacked at all. If you want to know more about this and even hear the recordings between the ships Captain and US def. Dept. Hire out "Fog of War" which is simply Robert MAcNamarra telling the whys and wherefores of both the Cuban Missile crisis and the first half of Vietnam. Or read his book "Argument without end", it tells the whole story to minute details. On fog of war, you can also hear the telephone conversation that kicked off the Vientam war (in full swing troop deployments that is) between LBJ and MacNamarra.

There are also credible conspiracy theories about 9/11 that go hand n hand with Pearl Harbour's. Same story, the US stood to benifit from a chance to exert it's military and industrial supremacy. If you haven't read it yet, go here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ and read how the vice president, the presidents brother, the secretary for defence, the head of the world bank, the head of the US energy Dept. etc. said that America needed another Pearl Harbour to wake it up, but this was written in the late nineties well before Al qaeda was on the global map. It's all there.........and they've put their names to it.

I don't think 9/11 was set up, but I do seriously question whether a few knew something was coming. So many incredible loose ends such as the FBI reports alerting of Arab men learning how to fly jumbo jets (without wanting to know take off or landing procedures) that was ignored. Why wasn't Zacarias Moussawi's computer contents dealt with properly when he was arested. Why were 5 Mossad agents found on a roof filming it as it happened, picked up by the FBI, released back to Israel. This story, which has many civillian witnesses was admitted to by the FBI, but never actually explained.

etc. etc.

[danielmcb]

I dont know much about this but to my understanding america is taking out every country that is a threat to them, which is good in some ways coz they are getting rid of terrorists, but doesnt that make them a threat to every one else??

[johnny]

I dont know much about this but to my understanding america is taking out every country that is a threat to them, which is good in some ways coz they are getting rid of terrorists, but doesnt that make them a threat to every one else??

Hi dude, welcome to Farkin. I'm Johnny and I will be your resident political antagonist. I hope you enjoy your stay, now onto what you've said:

Iraq was never a threat to the USA. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said exactly this as Secretary for the state Dept. and head of the NSA respectively. Then 9/11 happened and the neo-con hawks saw their chance to take over and control an energy rich country that could help China's power assentions (sp?) so the perspective shifted literally over night to Saddam having HUGE stockpiles of every conceivable WMD. Iraq was never a threat no matter how many dossiers were sexed up.

Getting rid of terrorists: Not exactly, Iraq didn't have any car bombs and such going off prior to the invasion. The invasion itself has been a precursor to terrorist like actions in that country. It also helps demonise the west in the global Ummah (Islamic community).

Danger to everyone: by your own rationalle this means that everyone but America and it's allies are terrorists?? Well mybe by Don Rummsfeld's analysis, but not mine ;)

One thing that I've learnt is that these matters are so goddamned complex that it's impossible to have a credible opinion without imersing yourself in the issue and actually becoming part of it. This is why I do not have an opinion on VSU/USU, State politics, Immigration (except for the length of detentions), Drought relief, health policy, etc.......

[johnny]

He was a hero before he even got to the war. Now they want to ignore him altogether. As usual the people calling the shots only want to be surrounded by supporters and yes men. No one wants to hear from nay sayers like me and my bleeding heart lefty mates..........even if everything we have said has born out to be true.

BTW, I'm not a lefty, I just call things as I see them.......

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Questions-for-Tim-Collins/2005/06/12/1118514914282.html

Questions for Tim Collins
June 12, 2005
The Sun-Herald


Colonel Tim Collins's powerful 2003 speech to his men before they went to war in Iraq gained international attention. Now he feels betrayed by the politicians and military leaders who sent them to war and he has quit the British army. Interview by Frank Walker.

You gave such an optimistic speech to your troops before you went into Iraq. Do you think it was all worth it?

In hindsight there was a certain naivety about it. What I was saying to the Irish contingent in our group was to reflect on all the hopes and aspirations of what we were doing, but the evidence of preparedness for putting Iraq back on its feet is scant. It was more incompetence than malice, but it is regrettable.

What went through your mind in making the speech?

I was about to lead men into battle and they would be asked to take other men's lives and possibly lose theirs. I felt they deserved an explanation. I had also heard a lot of talk about kicking the Iraqi's arses and I wanted to make it clear we were going to liberate the Iraqis not to shoot 'em up.

You finished your speech saying "let's leave Iraq a better place for us having been there". Are the Iraqis better off now than they were under Saddam?

I think they will be, but they have a difficult road to go down. We heard that Saddam had a long-established plan for destruction should he ever be removed and we are seeing that in the attacks now. The Fedayeen (Saddam's martyrs) don't even have to do the suicide bombing themselves as they get more than enough volunteers from fanatical fundamentalist foreign fighters. They used to be bitter enemies with the Ba'athists but now they are unified against the coalition. When we liberated Al Amarah the place was a smoking ruin and in chaos. When we left water was running, electricity was back on, sewers were working and policemen were directing traffic. I wish that had happened across Iraq. Removing the police and local authorities elsewhere led to disaster.

Have the Americans gone in with the wrong attitude towards Iraqis?

It is a cultural issue and the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.

A lot of the US troops are National Guard and reservists. Are they well trained for what they are asked to do in Iraq?

They are well trained and they are an effective army. But a lot of these folks have very little experience or knowledge of the world outside America. Very few have travelled the world and they are not equipped to deal with foreign places.

In your book (Rules Of Engagement) you question the reasons given by politicians for the war, but you say it was worth getting rid of Saddam. What were the real motives for the war?

Lifting the burden of oppression from the people of Iraq can only be a good thing. But the White House and the British Government procured the war on the basis of an immediate and imminent threat. They presented it as an altruistic war to protect the rest of mankind. We have seen the evidence they produced was, at least, enhanced. They did interfere with the evidence to bring the people to that conclusion. It's the same as a policeman interfering with evidence to take a known murderer off the streets. It is regretable as you bring yourself down to their level.

How long will Coalition troops be in Iraq?

I see Coalition troops being there for a minimum of five years, possibly up to 10 years. It is too late now to dwell on the invasion and why we went in. Now we have to work towards helping Iraq stabilise itself and emerge as a free and independent nation. The international community has no choice but to get behind the Coalition for the good of Iraq.

Have we walked into another Vietnam?

We could turn it into Vietnam if we are not very careful, but I am optimistic we have learned the lessons just in time. It could become another Vietnam if there is over-interference in the affairs of the new Iraqi Government. We have to let them learn themselves. In South Vietnam the government was a puppet of the US, and you can't allow that to happen in Iraq.

You were congratulated by Prince Charles for your speech to the troops and President Bush is said to have pinned it to his wall. You should have returned from the war with honours, but instead you were accused of war crimes and your name dragged through the mud. What was behind that?

I still don't know. I was accused of things that were so minor and slight they should have gone away within days. But the army system with a lasting suspicion of the Irish launched an investigation which turned up all sorts of nonsense. It all became very petty and in the end there was nothing to answer to, but it all left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Is that why you left the army?

I was struggling to be promoted but I knew that the bond of trust had been broken. I felt it was time to pursue a new career as it was like a bad marriage. We ended on mutual agreement.

What have you done since you left the army?

I have worked with private military companies. I've written the book and I have returned to Iraq as a journalist for the Mail On Sunday to cover the election last January. I am now a professional heckler.

The battle group was mainly Irish but included Australians, Americans, Canadians, Nepalese Gurkhas, Fijians, South Africans and Zimbabwean soldiers.

This is an edited extract of Colonel Collins's speech to his men on March 19, 2003.

"We are going to Iraq to liberate and not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land will be their own. Show respect for them.

The enemy knows this moment is coming too. Some have resolved to fight and others wish to survive. Be sure to distinguish between them . . . if you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.

In the near future you will see things that no man could pay to see, and you will have to go a long way to meet a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by the hospitality they will offer you, even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees in their own country.

Their children will be poor. In years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they got up this morning and got dressed they did not plan to die this day.

Allow them dignity in death. Bury them with due reverence and properly mark their graves.

As for ourselves let's bring everyone home safely and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north. Good luck."

[strogonoff]

i see Americas escapades turining into a second 100 years war not disimilar to the one on and off between Britain And France for 100 years. it is now America Against the rest of the world with a few silly followers like hyenas waiting for the scraps left behind.





Strog.

[Carl]

i doubt there will be any north americans left alive in the world in 100 years