War from an Iraqi's perspective

[oldenglish]

seeking.

speak on this topic.

[timeago]

I don't see how anyone thinks we are actually fighting this war for Iraqi people. Bush is a seperatist in the basic form and doesn't care about Iraqi people. (cares about oil) The same way Bush and most republicans see themselves as not part of the same world as Iraqi's, third world countrys, people in poor socialeconomic situations, native americans, african americans; what ever the current american label of a "savage" is. They dehumanize, and devalue human beings. People that live in suburbs, don't feel part of the same community as the "savages" and set up endless laws to sepeate themselves. And the united states does the same thing on the international level. Our bullshit pride. Our bullshit needs. We pay nothing for everything. Third world countries are our slaves and we set up their leaders to keep it that way. We take advantage of "savages," and broken people fight back in broken ways. And that's why we got 911. It's the 4.20 Colombine at a world level. The Iraqi people's point of veiw is symbolic to the rest of the third world. They feel shitted on because they get shitted on. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take out Saadam. I'm not saying I'm not a fucking idiot. I'm not saying that there is a better place to live than the U.S., but we don't really care about the rest of the world.

(someone smart destroy my comment)

[Guest BROWNer]

:tongue:

[Guest willy.wonka]

in one of those pictures, it looks like somebody was out shooting peoples heads off..what person with a gun woundn't see that its a lady in a dress and head gown?people are sick and stupid..

[Esai]

Bunch of spoiled ass prowar pussies. Why dont any of you cowards enlist if youre so amped about this war? Answer these questions:

Why does bush have to lie to justify this war?

Why has the Govt become bed buddies with the general media?

Why is any form of dissent downplayed by the media?

If Iraquis are so happy about the US, why is there so much unexpected resistance from the Iraqui citizenry?

Why do yall count on half assed arguments to justify a war?(Saddam might have weapons, he might have al quaida ties, He may eventually attack the US or Israel, Hes a evil dictator(like the other 200), We need to liberate Iraquis(if we care so much about Iraquis why did we continue sanctions that killed a good chunk of the population, after several years common sense would tell you its not working at all), why does Bush disrespectfully use 911 in 2/3rds of his speeches even though theres not a grain of evidence to connect al quaida with Iraq(and boy arent the media trying so hard to push that one?).

If I beat someone up because I thought they were training to hurt me, I would still go to jail, If I used the excuse that the homeboy beat his wife and kids and I wanted to help them out, Id still go to jail . This war is a bunch of bullshit, and so are all your pussy ass arguments. Russia had nukes 100 miles off the US coast yet we managed to keep peace, so why steamroll over a tiny powerless dictator?Oh yeah, do any of you remember how the CIA admitted to lying about the stregnth of the russian military to continue the cold war? It was the mid 90's and it was a fairly big story that was downplyed tremendously, but its still A well known fact. History repeats itself, so try and use your brains and make the connection. Bring on the bullshit

[Smart]

So, if the gaggle of kooks usually found around here can't justify the war to you... then... WHAT?

 

Will the Pres. call off our troops? Will we apologize and back out of the country whispering something like "It was Akbar!"

 

Before you come tell me how I'm some war monger just quit... I'm a truth monger, and the truth is that we are at war... and you can't stop it...

[Esai]

^^Actually, I wasnt really referring to you, You have some good points and arent as gung ho as the other clowns. I feel all this crap should be noted, and remembered in 2004. Plus, The argument that the war is already going on should be another thread, because thats another argument. I was stating my discontent on a war that stresses my conscience very much. I dont know what we should do now, Im still trying to get a hold of all the bullshit being fed to our people. Any dimwit can realize that we cant just retreat(or could we?), but this whole war began in bullshit and will end as bullshit, with a couple thousand dead. I dont appreciate seeing dead young men from my area daily, why do yall? PS they need to get rid of those fuckin helicopters already, I saw a TV special on how the govt keeps on purchasing these defective pieces of shit like 2 years ago!!

[Smart]

right on, well, I'm mainly trying to get the straggling thinkers who are still angry and hooked on the war to look forward right NOW! There were months of pro/anti war arguments but that time has past, there is probably only a week or so before a new government is installed in Iraq, HELL, Rumsfeld wants to do it now.

 

The next seven days will probably decide our policy on Iraq for the next 10 years...

[seeking]

smart,

if you were such a 'truth monger', you would present the truth to people, as opposed to just claiming they are wrong with absolutely no backing, as you have ALWAYS done. you're arguments are some the most loudly voiced, least factually based of any ever presented on this site. you speak in this incredulous tone, as if someone is so c wrong that you are almost stupified, yet this is very seldom the case.

i was alive during the 'cold war' too. i know all about 'the button'. i also know all about the thousands of since declassified documents that have proven how much of a fabricated and perpetuated situation that whole fucking thing was. we created the cold war to give us an arch enemy with which to pacify the people. russia never wanted war, russia wanted to feed its people. they 'kept' up with us out of necessity. and soon as the opportunity arose, they abandoned their nuclear weapons development (regardless of the fact that we would not.)

also, i think dudeds comments about russias warheads were simply pointing out the potential for disasster that exists, not implying russia was going to bomb us. with the financial state of so many of the former soviet nations, and the thousands of war heads sitting out in questionably guarded area, it would not be difficulot at all to procure one or two of them. especially since its been rumored for years that russian gangsters have control of nuclear weapons.

 

while it is a give in that only two people in any given situation know the truth, i would be much more inclined to believe the majority, who have a whole lot less to gain, than the minority (us). Of course we are going to continue filling up everyones heads with the bullshit ide of 'liberation', its the last fucking excuse we have left.

first it was because saddam had ties to bin laden. then it turns out bush himself has more ties to bin laden than saddam does. so then it was because iraq had weapons of mass destruction. now it turns out he has nothing of the sort. and that our 'evidence' for this was largely based on obviously FORGED documents. so now its all about 'liberating' iraq. right. how concerned with the iraqi people have we been for the last 10 years while our sanctions were killing thhem by the thousands? how concerned were we for the 'freedom' of his citizens when we gave him the chemical weapons he used on his own people? hell, how concerned were we for the 'freedom' oof 3000 suspected taliban supports in afghanistan, when we stood by and watched northern allience forces MURDER them as they were locked inside of a metal container. save me the humanitarian bullshit.

 

honestly, i cant even continue with this. not for lack of opinion, or lack of backing, but because you dont even fucking deserve it. you'll just reply with one liners intended to imply some monopoly of knowledge, never mind the fact that for all your claims, you've never backed up a single fucking thing you and i have 'argued' about.

 

tease,

dude, just fucking shut up. you're like one of those yippy little dogs. anytime anyone makes a decently worded statement, no matter how erronious the philosophy, you claim to agree with them. its fucking pathetic. you make yourself look like nothing but a simple minded fool. if you are so easily swayed by complete sentences and proper punctuation, why don't you go pick up this great book called 'mein kampf' you'll like it, it's got alot of great ideas inside.

[Smart]

I don't claim it as a monopoly at all, and I only call it truth because it so often stands the test of time... I just call 'em like I see 'em

[seeking]

oh, and one last thing...

 

you can not just simply say 'well, the war is on now, so who cares if it's a 'just' war. thats a crock of shit. the 'justness' of the war is in direct relation to how far we are willing to take it, and at what cost it should be carried out.

thus far, not a siingle one of our 'excuses' for this war has held any water. in every instance, grandious claims turn into premature allegations in hindsight. how many times have we found chemical weapons only to find out they were nothing of the sort? how many times did we take umm qasar before we actually did? now they claim we have seiged the airport, never mind the fact that every other news agency, including BBC is claiming otherwise. oh, we also have troops in the center of baghdad. right. well then why are all the journalists who are actually IN baghdad denying this claim? why are we continuing to hold these claims of 'liberating' a people from their 'cruel and ruthless dictator', yet they are showing no major signs of any support for 'our (their?)' cause? of course our media makes it real rosey, but why is it our media alone who paints this picture? even our allies media often stands in stark contrast to our claims.

its all a complete crock of shit. we will have control in a week? where is this idea coming from? even our own (always unrealistic) claims are atleast 2 to 4 weeks. and this is made while seemingly ignoring the fact that saddam has nearly 390,000 troops that we have yet to encounter, and we have no idea where they are. thats alot of fucking people we cant seem to find.

this war is far, far from over, and that is integral in deciding the course of action we will take in the coming weeks.

to say that once the war starts, we should just blindly follow it is insane.

but i mean, who cares about reality, right?

[Smart]

Originally posted by seeking

oh, and one last thing...

 

you can not just simply say 'well, the war is on now, so who cares if it's a 'just' war. thats a crock of shit.

 

yes it is, that's probably why it's not what I said... I said:

 

The war is on and will not stop until it's reached it's goal. Regime change. There are no two ways about that. So, arguing over the 'justness' now is pointless because it will achieve NOTHING. Wait until we have achieved our goal and the Iraqi people have some sort of voice of their own, let's hear their side, because we're going to make Sadaam a moot point.

 

At this time, Rumsfeld is attempting to establish an Iraqi government in exile built ENTIRELY of his choices and ALL expatriots, Powell wants to include the 'liberated' people in country and wants to start in Iraq... this argument is taking place NOW. If you trust Rumsfeld, then fine. If you want to somehow be involved in current issues, this is where you need to be. We have the next 10 years to also survey the justness of an action that, though incomplete, has only one outcome.

 

I never said you had to 'believe in' the war, I said please believe, the war is on.

[seeking]

Originally posted by mr_president

also, you have know idea my intelligence level first of all, you only can assume what you do from what i say on here, and let me tell you, i don't put any effort to what i say here...

 

...im not saying youre stupid, but you try to shard to word things perfectly, and use larger vocabulary, like youre a fucking genius or something... whatever, if thats you, be you. but i think you try way to hard to sound smart.

 

you're right, i have 'know' idea of your intelligence level.

and some of us deal in matters that can not be summed up with such simpleton phrases as 'getting brains' and 'fly spanish bitch'. in those situations, you sometimes have to respond pollysylabically.

 

seeks/'i write what i feel, sue me if its empty'

[BitchAssSlut]

Originally posted by Esai

Bunch of spoiled ass prowar pussies. Why dont any of you cowards enlist if youre so amped about this war?

 

id LOVE to take part in this war.. i seriously would. But, for one.. im canadian... and two, id hate to join up, do the training and be a qualified marine just as the war has ended..... i mean, its not like i want to fight north korea, which is probably whats coming next.

 

Id just really enjoy picking off some fucking arabs.

[seeking]

Originally posted by BitchAssSlut

Id just really enjoy picking off some fucking arabs.

 

yeah man, if theres anything i hate more than writers, its sand niggers!!

 

death to the towel heads! viva la canada!

[Smart]

OH SHIT!!! Bring snipers to my town!!! I'll hunt them bitches for SPORT! I know the cuts for like city and country, got fishermen and pilots as allies... damn, that would be hot, to be under seige...

 

Still, probably alot of Iraqis believe this too but I'm sure we can all appreciate the scale difference between an Iraqi city's occupation and the signifigance of the same situation in America... (not to sound all Right, but still, if somebody successfully occupied one of our cities it would throw the entire world economy, and world in general into turmoil)

[timeago]

It's progressive to still argue over the "justness" of the war because we keep doing the same thing over and over and don't care enough to change our mistakes. We didn't even finish with Afganistan.

[Smart]

so, unless your pro-taliban, Afghanistan is pretty much in a maintenance stage... progress from now on will be slow... keep an eye on it but don't expect the soup to smell good for a year or so...

[villain]

First of all, why are all these people tripping about the portraits of Saddam Hussein? Iraq used to be a British colony and it is customary in Britain to have a portrait of the king and queen over your mantle. I don't see people bombing Britain because some court painter influenced the culture of that nation.

Secondly I have heard conflicting reports about the number of civilian casualties from the same news sources.

Third, why are so many people not aware of the Iran contra affair? Probably one of the biggest public scandals in recent history?

[Guest willy.wonka]

hello!!! im just waiting for north korea to surprise america with a nuke dropped on honolulu!!

 

something most of us hawaiians think about when war talk is in the air.

if it happens, i just want all of you to know that it wasnt worth it, and i dont mind.

[dojafx]

peep the fucking steez

the us government is already talking about de-nationalizing the oil industry, but before i thought bush said the oil belonged the the iraqi people?

what is going on here guys?

 

heh

wet panties

[Esai]

None of you prowar pussies answered my questions, que paso?

[Guest SIVIK]

Seeking is sayn it like it is!!!

 

As 4 snipers ive often asked that but i think its hard 2 actully pin point sadham coz of the imposters he uses 4 his public appearences.Imagine if the US gunned down the wrong "sadham" theyd look foolish once again but im sure a positive spin would be put on it.

 

Australia view isnt as biasted as the US although our prime minister did send our SAS & navy 2 iraq 4 some reason.

 

Regarding someones comments bout the americans actully careing bout the iraqie ppl as they watched thousands of taliban supporters stuffed in2 shipping containers only a few short months ago that story abosolutly blew me away, i watched a doccumentry on that flimed by a britsh company in afghanistan shortly after the incident so it wasnt as biased as what u may think.Deffinate dodgey shit happened there & the US did well 2 conceal it.There honesty is questionble.

 

One other thing baghdad has a population of 5million people 7 days my ass & the iraq airforce hasnt even been called in not once sure they'll get blown outta the sky but does that stop there army taken on tanks with a hand rifle,does that raise the question of all they mite need is 1 iraqie plane with one particulr bomb??Also there was areport that an apache helicopter was shot down by a farmer with his old rifle!I feel this is a load of shit but why would the US fabricate that?Propaganda.U throw rocks at my house il throw rocks at yours.

[Esai]

Tease has no response to my statements and therefore must resume his pussy ass behavior, fucken spoiled bitches.

[Guest BROWNer]

lets all have a drink and celebrate the depth of

indoctrination we all blindly enjoy.

ignorance is fucking beautiful isn't it?

[KaBar]

Life Ain't Perfect

 

One of the reasons Saddam Hussein was able to mount such a repressive government is because Iraq is basically (still) a tribal society. Like Afghanistan, a minority tribe was able to get control of the government and Army, and has lined their own pockets at the expense of the majority tribe. Most of his political and military leaders were relatives, cousins, brothers-in-law and so forth. The guy had his OWN SONS-IN-LAW EXECUTED. I mean, what kind of monster would make widows of his own daughters? They tried to escape Iraq and take Saddam's daughters with them. Saddam swore that if they came back, he would work things out. When they came back he had them tortured to death. The guy is a straight-up fuckin' MONSTER. He's ever bit as big a criminal as Hitler, just on a less Teutonic scale.

 

I can't say exactly why the U.S. chose to abandon the last Iraqi uprising. It seems to me like we should have done this whole bit in 1991. I heard that the reason Schwartzkoff didn't invade Iraq back then was that the U.S. and the Allies had cut a secret deal with Saudi Arabia, that Saudi tanks would be the first into Kuwait City (in 1991) and that no Westerners would ever actually conquer Baghdad. That is why we stopped 60 miles short of the Badhdad city limits last time. They have some sort of silly-ass thing about western forces of democracy conquering Arab states.

 

Too fuckin' bad. This time, it looks like the U.S. is going the distance, and will not stop until every last vestige of Saddam's government is erradicated. I understand the U.S. Marines and U.S. Army is re-arming and re-training Iraqi forces into the Free Iraqi Army right now, and that they will be used in the eventual final attack upon Baghdad, and in broadcast efforts to convince Saddam's die-hards to surrender. One thing is certain, the capture of a city of FIVE MILLION PEOPLE is not going to be easy. I would not be surprised if we lose 10,000 men or more taking Baghdad. Maybe a lot more, before it's all over.

 

To put this in perspective, we lost 330,000 men in WWII (1941-1945.) Ten thousand Americans died just taking the Japanese-held island of Okinawa alone. That was 3,000 in three days of fighting, and another seven thousand in the next four or five days, before the island was declared secured. In addition to that there were 20 or 30,000 Japanese killed, as well as thousands of Okinawans.

 

EVERY SINGLE YEAR over 440,000 Americans die because of cigarette smoking. Lung cancer, heart disease, strokes, etc. Anybody on here smoke cigarettes? Far, far, far more WWII veterans have died from smoking than died in combat.

 

So far, we have lost less than 200 known American dead in Iraq.

 

Not bad, considering how heavily armed the Iraqis are.

[ModelCitizen]

Re: Life Ain't Perfect

 

Originally posted by KaBar

I can't say exactly why the U.S. chose to abandon the last Iraqi uprising. It seems to me like we should have done this whole bit in 1991. I heard that the reason Schwartzkoff didn't invade Iraq back then was that the U.S. and the Allies had cut a secret deal with Saudi Arabia, that Saudi tanks would be the first into Kuwait City (in 1991) and that no Westerners would ever actually conquer Baghdad. That is why we stopped 60 miles short of the Badhdad city limits last time.

 

To add to that possibility:

I've read that, at the end of the Gulf War, the U.S. wanted to blunt the sword of Saddam; but at the same time saw his presence in Iraq as a useful "balance of power" against Iran, who had been buying U.S. weapons along with Iraq for quite a while.

 

But who knows. Information about U.S. foreign policy, especially nowadays, seems so shady to me, regardless of the source.

[Guest BROWNer]

Originally posted by KaBar

They have some sort of silly-ass thing about western forces of democracy conquering Arab states.

Too fuckin' bad.

 

do you even know iraq's history beyond the gulf and iran/iraq war?

too fuckin' bad? explain what makes this a 'silly-ass thing'.

i guarantee the past will inform iraq's future.

[dojafx]

well, if your "teammates" feel like the vast majority of 12oz'ers

you would get shot by them

and it probably wouldnt be just a coincidental accident either.

[KaBar]

FRATRICIDE

 

"Friendly fire" is now officially termed "fratricide" (the killing of one's own brothers) and it is a feature in modern warfare because of the extremely effective nature of modern battlefield weapons, the extreme degree of accuracy of modern weapons, and the high degree of confusion and uncertainty about who-is-who and where they are.

 

Because of the accuracy and effectiveness of modern weapons, there is a growing tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. If you don't shoot within moments of acquiring the target, there is an excellent possibility that the enemy is acquiring you. If you hesitate, there is a good possibility that your (tank, truck, platoon, etc.) will be hit any second by rounds fired from that "enemy" position.

 

Fraticide accounted for about 10-15% of deaths in WWII. It was somewhat of a problem in Korea, but definately a problem in Vietnam. In the confusion and smoke of a battle, sometime people get shot by accident, especially if your unit is "on the move." Modern weaponry will probably increase the likelihood of fratricidal casualties.