Jump to content

IRAQ IS A DISASTER


TheoHuxtable

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 918
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Apache Helicopter Downed In Baghdad

 

U.S. Helicopter Shot Down in Baghdad

1 hour, 12 minutes ago

 

By LOURDES NAVARRO, Associated Press Writer

 

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Gunmen shot down a U.S. attack helicopter during fighting in western Baghdad on Sunday, and the fate of its two-member crew was unknown. Insurgents and Marines called a cease-fire in the besieged city of Fallujah, but the fragile peace was shaken by a gunbattle that wounded two Americans.

 

A pall of black smoke rose on Baghdad's western edge where a military spokesman said the AH-64 Apache helicopter was downed by ground fire in the morning. More helicopters circled overhead, while U.S. troops closed off the main highway — a key supply route into the capital.

 

"The condition of the (Apache's) crew is unknown," the spokesman said.

 

Heavy firing was heard, and tanks and Humvees moved into the area near the suburb of Abu Ghraib. Where masked gunmen have wreaked havoc in the suburb for the past three days, attacking fuel convoys and blowing up tanker trucks. Insurgents kidnapped an American civilian and killed a U.S. soldier in the area Friday.

 

The captors of the American hostage — Thomas Hammil, a Mississippi native who works for a U.S. contractor in Iraq (news - web sites) — threatened to kill and burn him unless U.S. troops end their assault on Fallujah by 6 a.m. Sunday. The deadline passed with no word on Hammil's fate.

 

Video footage aired on Arabic television Sunday showed the bodies of two dead Westerners — apparently a pair of Americans seen by APTN cameramen on Friday being dragged out of a car on the Abu Ghraib highway, in a different incident from Hammil's kidnapping.

 

The cameramen fled the scene Friday, and the fate of the two men was unknown. But one of the bodies in Sunday's footage resembled one of the Americans taken out of the car.

 

The new video showed the bodies surrounded by gunmen, who are heard on the tape saying the two are American intelligence officers. One of the bodies lay sprawled on the pavement, his face bloodied and his right leg drenched in blood. The other body had been rolled face down, his shirt lifted to reveal a bullet hole in his back. Both wore dark T-shirts and khaki pants often worn by private contractors.

 

Meanwhile, Fallujah — 35 miles west of Baghdad — saw occasional sniper fire, but was still the quietest it has been all week. Sunni insurgents and Marines agreed to a cease-fire starting early Sunday and due to last until the evening amid talks between Iraqi officials on how to end the violence.

 

Hundreds of U.S. reinforcements moved in place on the city edge, joining 1,200 Marines and nearly 900 Iraqi security forces already involved in the fighting. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt warned that an all-out assault could resume if talks don't produce results.

 

The most serious break in Sunday's peace came when a sniper opened fire on U.S. patrol, wounding two Marines, commanders said. In the ensuing gunbattle, at least one insurgent was killed. After the firefight, the city was largely quiet again.

 

"They are not playing by the rules, sir," Marine Capt. Jason Smith radioed to his commander after taking fire in another incident in which the troops did not fire back.

 

U.S. forces have been instructed not to launch offensive attacks on the rebels, said Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, which is deployed in the city's south.

 

A guerrilla commander in Fallujah's al-Jolan neighborhood told Al-Jazeera television that his fighters would abide by the truce.

 

"I have ordered my fighters to adhere to the cease-fire," said the commander, identifying himself only by the nom de guerre Abu Muadh. "But I warn everyone: If the enemy breaks the cease-fire, we will respond."

 

He added that the truce was due to last until 10 p.m. (2 p.m. EDT), but that talks were ongoing in an attempt to extend it.

 

Sunday was the first that gunmen have said they were joining the halt in offensive operations that Marines have largely stuck to unilaterally since noon Friday.

 

U.S. commanders called the halt at the request of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, where many members have been angered by bloodshed from the Fallujah campaign launched April 5.

 

Councilmembers were holding a second day of negotiations with city representatives Sunday in an attempt to win the handover of Iraqis who killed and mutilated four American civilians on March 31 and of other militants.

 

"Were we not at this point observing (the halt) it could well have been that we would have had the entire the city by this point," Kimmitt said Saturday. He said fighters must "lay down their arms" and renounce their membership in extremist groups to fully end the insurgency that has made Fallujah its stronghold.

 

About a third of the city's population of 200,000 fled the city Friday and Saturday, streaming out in cars, though Marines turned back any military-age men trying to leave, Byrne said. During the lull, Marines distributed food to beleaguered residents near the area held by U.S. troops.

 

"Families are holed up in houses. They have been told to stay inside. But they are running out of water and food. We are trying to get rations to them," said Marine Capt. Jason Smith, 30, from Baton Rogue, La.

 

The week of fighting has been hard for Fallujah residents, with heavy battles involving tanks, AC-130 warplanes and helicopter gunships taking place around mosques and in residential neighborhood.

 

Hospital officials said Wednesday that more than 280 people have been killed, but no updated figures have been obtained since and many bodies have been buried at the city's main soccer field without even being taken to the hospital. At least five Marines have died in the fighting. Kimmett said 60 insurgents had been captured, including five foreign Arabs.

 

In southern Iraq, some 1.5 million Shiite pilgrims marked one of their holiest religious days, al-Arbaeen. In the city of Karbala, hundreds of Shiite militiamen — but no police — patrolled the street preparing for a possible U.S. assault against rebellious followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

 

U.S. commanders have suggested they will move against al-Sadr, whose militia has control of Karbala and two other cities, after the al-Arbaeen ceremonies, which mark the end of a 40-day mourning period for a 7th-century martyred Shiite saint.

 

In fighting across the country over the past week — including in Fallujah and in the uprising by al-Sadr's Shiite militia in the south — 47 American soldiers and more than 550 Iraqis have been killed. At least 649 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

 

In other violence:

 

_ Gunmen ambushed Iraqi police before dawn Sunday in the northern city of Kirkuk, sparking a battle joined by U.S. troops. Four attackers were killed, said Iraqi Col. Sarhad Qadir.

 

_ Insurgents attacked two Iraqi police patrols in Mosul on Saturday in fights that killed two Iraqi police, a gunman and two passers-by, according to the hospital.

 

_ Armed men clashed with U.S. soldiers in the Sunni neighborhood of al-Azamiyah in Baghdad on Saturday. Four Iraqis were killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the level of denial the administration is in right now is disgusting. did anyone catch bremer talking about how polls show most iraqis are still behind the occupation. THE POLL?? does anyone believe you could take an acurate poll of anything there right now? the only iraqis willing to talk to the pollsters would be wildly biased, I'd imagine. its just getting absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered about those polls myself. How in the world would they conduct one? Almost certainly they would be forced to use Iraqi civilians to go out amongst the people and ask the polling questions at random to get an accurate statistical sample. I imagine that at least 1,000 or 1,500 respondents would be required, in order for it to have statistical validity.

 

My opinion still stands that the majority of Iraqis do not support the uprising. If they did, our casualties would be in the thousands, not less than one thousand. And their casualties would probably be in the tens of thousands, since the combat casualty ratio seems to be running about 10 Iraqis for every American.

 

Well, let me modify that statement. I think the majority of Iraqis are not participating in the uprising. They may be resentful and not in opposition to the fundamentalists, but not actually fighting, sort of like the way the white racist majority in the South supported the Ku Klux Klan in the '50s, but did not actually light any crosses themselves personally. The fundamentalist gunmen may enjoy the support of the average Iraqi, according to the Iraqi parable "I support my brother against my cousin, and my cousin against any stranger." (I like that saying--it has the ring of truth. Too bad we Americans are the "strangers.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shits not looking good. I've heard alot of stories about Falleuja on the news and what not and it's not looking good at all. About people being shot during the cease fire. Women, children and the elderly being shot. Who here gets al jazeera? I hear they are showing alot of that stuff. They are saying it is MOSTLY noncombatants killed. I heard that at least a battalion of the iraqi security force defected. One member of the iraqi governing council resigned... 4 more are threatening to.

 

And I know these are not the most surgical strikes in the world. I've already heard plenty of stories about our troops using .50 cals and tank rounds to take out snipers in buildings and about shooting iraqis in vehicles who are unarmed (though they didn't know it) who are trying to run a checkpoint. All kinds of stuff. It's not like our neighborhood swat team who is going to stake a place out and wait for the most opportune time to get their target, with the least civilian interference, and using special domestic equipments such as frangible ammunitions to prevent overpenetration and what not.

 

I remember in the beginning of the war there was no such thing as militias in iraq, there was the baathist party, and the republican guard, and the army.... since saddam was secular he had no need for fundamentalist militias because they were a threat to his power. Now they are everywhere. Seems that for every innocent killed there are 10 more radicals made. I'm afraid it may get to the point where a majority become militant, instead of just harboring militants and providing support structures which some are doing now. We need that support.

 

Let's not forget that back when we were on the other side of the fence gearing up for this war Saddam was doing gearing up of his own. He encouraged all his people to buy guns. Do you people remember this in the news? I think it's safe to say a large portion of the iraqi population is armed to the teeth. It's a good idea not to just go around pissing people off.

 

EDIT: Also British senior military officers are threatening to pull out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by villain

Saddam ....... encouraged all his people to buy guns. Do you people remember this in the news? I think it's safe to say a large portion of the iraqi population is armed to the teeth. It's a good idea not to just go around pissing people off.

 

I just read KaBar's post then read this, and it reminded me when he would say that its important to be armed because it might be the only hope if the government turns on the populace or gets overthrown.

 

Sort of proves his point, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by effyoo

I just read KaBar's post then read this, and it reminded me when he would say that its important to be armed because it might be the only hope if the government turns on the populace or gets overthrown.

 

Sort of proves his point, doesn't it?

 

It does indeed. And I've always agreed with him on that. It's just that in this day and age the most powerful weapons are psychological. "Free yo mind, and yo ass will follow." 45% of our media now comes from the same company.

 

Go my little graffiti gremlins! Go forth with your guerilla art!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KaBar2

 

 

Well, let me modify that statement. I think the majority of Iraqis are not participating in the uprising. They may be resentful and not in opposition to the fundamentalists, but not actually fighting,

 

In any given conflict, isn't that how it usually is? The "majority" of the population is not going to be participating in fighting. The civilian population always outnumbers the conventional military and/or guerillas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's Washington Post:

 

A Strategy for Iraq

 

By John F. Kerry

 

Tuesday, April 13, 2004; Page A19

 

 

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

 

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

 

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.

 

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy. Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.

 

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

 

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

 

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

 

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheoHuxtable

In any given conflict, isn't that how it usually is? The "majority" of the population is not going to be participating in fighting. The civilian population always outnumbers the conventional military and/or guerillas.

 

There are plenty of countries that REQUIRE thier citizens to serve in the military. Personally I think any arab nation has a great potential of becoming heavily militant. But hopefully in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Villain

 

Yeah, one of those countries that REQUIRE universal military service or alternative civilian national service is SWITZERLAND. That whole country is one gigantic fortress, with mountains hollowed out for Air Force runways, a million hidden artillery positions in caves, interlocking mortar and machinegun positions at EVERY SINGLE CROSSROADS IN THE RURAL CANTONS, and every single male between the ages of 16 and 60 being members of the militia (what? What was that? THE MILITIA?) yes, that is correct. Every single able-bodied Swiss male must serve in the Army, and when his Army duty is over, in the militia, by Law. Every single male in the militia must keep a full set of military equipment and uniforms at home, along with his Government-issued fully automatic military rifle. Rifle marksmanship is the national pasttime in Switzerland, like baseball is here in the States.

 

Every new home built in Switzerland MUST have a BLAST SHELTER built underneath it, and this is subsidized by Government-supported loans. The entire fucking country is one huge warren of militia riflemen, each with his own family nuclear blast shelter.

 

Now WHY IN THE FUCK can't the United States be that smart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Villain

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

Yeah, one of those countries that REQUIRE universal military service or alternative civilian national service is SWITZERLAND. That whole country is one gigantic fortress, with mountains hollowed out for Air Force runways, a million hidden artillery positions in caves, interlocking mortar and machinegun positions at EVERY SINGLE CROSSROADS IN THE RURAL CANTONS, and every single male between the ages of 16 and 60 being members of the militia (what? What was that? THE MILITIA?) yes, that is correct. Every single able-bodied Swiss male must serve in the Army, and when his Army duty is over, in the militia, by Law. Every single male in the militia must keep a full set of military equipment and uniforms at home, along with his Government-issued fully automatic military rifle. Rifle marksmanship is the national pasttime in Switzerland, like baseball is here in the States.

 

Every new home built in Switzerland MUST have a BLAST SHELTER built underneath it, and this is subsidized by Government-supported loans. The entire fucking country is one huge warren of militia riflemen, each with his own family nuclear blast shelter.

 

Now WHY IN THE FUCK can't the United States be that smart?

 

 

this is bullshit. well, alot of it is. ive been to rural switzerland a few times myself, to visit my family there, and they do not have nuclear blast shields, or is everyone in the militia, my cousin is 19 now and he has to do his service right away, hes been fighting to not go, but he has to. the mountains are not hollowed out, switzerland is not some sort of militia haven. the swiss guards are in the castles in the alps, but not to the extent your mentioning. actually, i dont think any of my family members there own any guns. and their farmers. the swiss have all the insurance they need, its called money. and they are not short in that. but just in case, ill do some investigating this summer when im there again. maybe i can cop a militia uniform or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read of german history they have always been pretty heavily fortified. While most nations and fiefdoms would have their castle and in case of invasion the people would retreat into the castle, in germany they often built castle wall extending out around farmland as well. Quite alot of walls there from what I gather. Minus the Berlin wall. I also heard that you cannot see the great wall of china from space. Pink Floyds the wall is interesting.

 

But of other interest the 9-11 commission may be quelled from within....

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG404A.html

 

Thank god for media transparancy....

 

http://www.mediatransparency.org/

 

Unfortunately John Kerry is getting no media attention and may not even want to be president. Or at least his wife doesn't want him to be.

 

Here's an article on DU and wartime contaminations by Scientific American ....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&...05980A84189EEDF

 

But for those who care, for those who decided to live outside of the matrix, for those who understand what the REAL matrix is, here's a bunch more links for you.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/links.html

 

And for dataminers, many many articles from many publications here:

 

http://www.findarticles.com/PI/index.jhtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Switzerland like many other european nations don't have an army, but defensive forces. And the difference between the two is that a country like switzerland couldn't run a military operation far away on the other side or the planet since they lack aeroplanes, trucks, navy, troops etc to support an army that's been spread widely and far away... I'm sure there are people living on earth that would like the U.S. military to be like that too, but that's their fantasy. I'm sure they have a civil service alternative in switzerland, otherwise all these amnesty human rights organizations would freak about it all the time. Besides even russia recently arranged a civil service of their own. It's still quite brutal: lasts about three years, and something like every 5th recruit have the chance to get there!! (any russian here might want to correct these numbers)

 

Anyway first I thought Iraq would be a disaster. I could already see american marines struggling in the major cities house by house killing everything, getting killed themselves and rather secure those houses with a hand grenade than checking out for civilians. Gladly the Saddams royal army was a buch of chickens and everything went smoothly...Too bad it seemed to be too smooth, remember the promises of the first gulf war? Those memories sit tight in their brains, they were bullshitted. Now it seems like the few Iraqis, whatever their agenda turns out to be, have found out about the guerrilla tactics and now they're making roadside bombs and kalashnikov drive-bys just like the people in Chechnya have done for years already. it's all caught on video too, quite entertaining in a fucked-up kind of way: http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/video/

 

The tricky thing here is that you can start calling these guys terrorists and try to wipe them out. But they are tied to the ground and the people, they are Iraqis and they are basically just pissed-off civilians with guns as far as we know. You'd have to kill them all. I'm not sure if UN or any other organization/army would be able to pull this off, it's ethnical and religional... I hope it gets settled and at least not escalate everywhere in middle east

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ted Wakowski

Kind of aimed at kabar

 

I rarely agree with the majority of what kabar has to offer on here, but he always seems to have a really well-informed, experienced perspective (or at least knows how to effectively present himself that way).

 

So, kabar, that being said, I'm curious of your opinion as to whether or not the U.S. government made the right decision by starting this war with Iraq in the first place. Do you think a different course of action could have been taken to achieve the same set of (ostensible?) goals -- one which might have left behind fewer casualties on both sides?

 

I ask you specifically because I think your response may prove enlightening.

 

As for myself:

Like most, I think it's good that Saddam is finished, and I'd be happy as an American if something ultimately positive could emerge from the war and its aftermath. But, seriously, I personally see very little indication from the Media (which, as a common citizen, is my only source of information on the subject, limited and slanted in either political direction as it may be) that the Iraq situation is good for the health of America or the Middle East. I mean, where is this whole thing REALLY going? As a nation, will we pull out of Iraq in a more secure or better overall standing than we enjoyed before the war? Iraq may, so it seems, at least compared to Saddam's day, but who the fuck knows what new kind of bubbling shitstorm a bunch of profit-mongering corporations can muster up in that region when left, somewhat unfetterred, to their own self-interested devices? And yes, anti-American sentiment might have continued to build its own momentum whether Iraq was invaded or not, but that idea is still merely speculative, and a concrete truth is that the Iraq invasion is clearly a motivational force encouraging the terrorist interest we are being made to fear right now in the U.S.. I sure as hell don't want to wake up here in New York to another attack killing thousands of people, knowing that the attack itself was more than likely inspired or influenced by some Washington assholes' idea of foreign policy; nor do I want to see more Middle-Eastern people slaughtered under some blurry pretense serving an ultimate purpose that's never really made clear to the average citizen.

 

This shit was all a big fairy tale until 9/11 happened. Recently we've seen Madrid. What the fuck is next? And 1.whatever percent of U.S. troops dying along with however many Iraqi people sounds like way too many when the objective seems so vague and everchanging.

 

As far as I can see, Iraq DOES look like a bit of a disaster, but I'm still too uninformed and lack the foresight to really know what's up. I guess you could say I'm confused ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rumble

The tricky thing here is that you can start calling these guys terrorists and try to wipe them out. But they are tied to the ground and the people, they are Iraqis and they are basically just pissed-off civilians with guns as far as we know. You'd have to kill them all. I'm not sure if UN or any other organization/army would be able to pull this off, it's ethnical and religional... I hope it gets settled and at least not escalate everywhere in middle east

 

Exactly. The way things are looking it seems that there is a popular resistance forming against US troops. As the violence escalates it could trigger a global war of racism and theism. Thus Bush's "crusades" would be born ww3 would likely begin and we'd all be fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by villain

Haha...

 

Damn after reading what KaBar said about switzerland I want to see that place. Holy shit...

 

I usually respect what a lot of what KaBar has to say, but I think he's exaggerating about Switzerland. From Swiss people that I've known in school to what I've read, it actually seems on the contrary to what KaBar says -- Switzerland has always been known as a "neutral" nation with a small military. Plus the guy in this thread said he's visited family there and that it's nothing like that.

He's making it sound like it's the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

 

Also I wouldn't exactly say it would be smart to make America like that. That would contradict our "freedom" culture to require every able-bodied male to serve in the military and have the entire country look like a fucking fortified encampment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob

http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancol...287521120764481

 

This is rather disturbing.

 

Nothing surprising. I still can't believe the majority of Americans think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that he sponsored bin Laden's group. The fact is that bin Laden hated Saddam and considered Saddam an infidel along with the Americans. The only thing they had in common was that they both saw America as an adversary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to believe me

 

Go look it up for yourself on the internet. In a way, I really LOVE the internet, it is an incredibly powerful tool for the good, but of course, it is just as powerful when used for bad.

 

Switzerland's canton system, representative republic and militia system PREDATES the United States, and was partially used as a model for the original militia system here. (We call our cantons "counties," like in Great Britain.) We certainly did not use the British model for everything---they were, at that time, our BITTER ENEMIES. One reason Americans prefer coffee over tea is that drinking tea was a British custom, and all things British were loathsome. We came very close (one vote, I understand) to adopting German as the national language. German is, of course, one of the three national languages of Switzerland, as well.

 

The difficulty we are having here is the politically correct image that Switzerland cultivates, and the military reality. You think the only reason the Nazis did not invade Switzerland is because they are supposedly neutral? Think again---Hitler could not have cared less about Switzerland's vaunted neutrality. What he was concerned about was the fact that every single male in the country was armed with an exceptionally accurate repeating rifle, the K31 straight-pull infantry rifle chambered in 7.5mm Swiss caliber (if memory serves, these are called "Schmidt-Rubin" rifles.) These rifles are still available as surplus on the market for as little as $125.

Switzerland's nuclear war survivability is very well known among survivalists. Every newly-constructed house must have a blast shelter built underneath it. The government helps finance them with very low-interest, long-term loans. The Swiss have numerous air fields built into the sides of mountains and carefully camouflaged. There are entire Army bases built inside of mountains. The average visitor would never see any of this, they go to great lengths to conceal it, nevertheless, it does exist.

 

PLEASE, read "The Swiss Report" in it's entireity. (It's kind of long, but very enlightening.)

 

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/swissrep.html

 

http://www.geocities.com/goodlordtom/neutrality.html

 

http://www.constitution.org/jw/mil-m.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by HYDRO BILL

Villain and Theo...

Why did you enlist? sorry if you have said it somewhere else but you both seem too clever. Why? Personally I would enlist to fight Bush sooner than Hussein.

 

Somebody asked that question on page 3 of this thread. I copied and pasted the response below.

 

Also I don't think serving your country should be associated with having a lack of intelligence. Although I've met my fair share of ignorant morons here.

 

I don't like Bush nor do I support this war. I only partook in the initial stages "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (February 2003 - May 2003) when our carrier battlegroup was in the Persian Gulf launching cruise missles air sorties.

 

CILONE pretty much summed it up. Everyone has different reasons.

 

The most common reasons in my humble opinion:

 

-unsure of what they want to do with themselves after high school.

 

-want to serve their country.

 

-people saw the ads and movies and saw it as being an exciting adventure.

 

-wanted to see the world.

 

-needed money for college and/or wanted to attend college for free while in the military.

 

-family tradition (i.e. father & grandfather in military... etc.)

 

-some needed discipline. (i.e. their parents, peers, or themselves suggested it)

 

-in extreme cases, some were on the verge of homelessness and unemployment and the military was like their only way out. The military guarantees 2 paychecks a month, a roof over your head and food in your mouth, so it is a good deal.

 

-some had special sentences to either choose the military or prison.

 

I think MOST people aren't limited to just one reason. Me personally joined for a combination of everything except for the last two. I'm almost at my 4 year mark and I'm preparing to get out. I had my ups and downs here. I do appreciate the fact that the military caused me to do a lot of growing up. After high school due to my immaturity I was scared of the real world... after my time in the military I feel more responsible, disciplined, focused, wiser, etc... and therefore the "real world" doesn't seem that "scary" as I saw it in high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BROWNer

you know what's pretty amazing?

how the bush campaign thugs are trying

to characterize kerry's vet status..

it's amazing.

i mean, if they think they are gonna rock

kerry at this game and he won't hit back

at some point, considering the shadiness

of bush's record...yikes.

either they have some serious dirt, or

they know the press is in their back pocket

on this..

 

*oh, looky here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/In...s_040425-1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...