Bush`s Vietnam

[(CotL-Q)Asmodian]

America's two "great victories" since 11 September 2001 are unravelling. In Afghanistan, the regime of Hamid Karzai has virtually no authority and no money, and would collapse without American guns. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are re-emerging. Regardless of showcase improvements, the situation of women and children remains desperate. The token woman in Karzai's cabinet, the courageous physician Sima Samar, has been forced out of government and is now in constant fear of her life, with an armed guard outside her office door and another at her gate. Murder, rape and child abuse are committed with impunity by the private armies of America's "friends", the warlords whom Washington has bribed with millions of dollars, cash in hand, to give the pretence of stability.

"We are in a combat zone the moment we leave this base," an American colonel told me at Bagram airbase, near Kabul. "We are shot at every day, several times a day." When I said that surely he had come to liberate and protect the people, he belly-laughed.

American troops are rarely seen in Afghanistan's towns. They escort US officials at high speed in armoured vans with blackened windows and military vehicles, mounted with machine-guns, in front and behind. Even the vast Bagram base was considered too insecure for the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during his recent, fleeting visit. So nervous are the Americans that a few weeks ago they "accidentally" shot dead four government soldiers in the centre of Kabul, igniting the second major street protest against their presence in a week.

On the day I left Kabul, a car bomb exploded on the road to the airport, killing four German soldiers, members of the international security force Isaf. The Germans' bus was lifted into the air; human flesh lay on the roadside. When British soldiers arrived to "seal off" the area, they were watched by a silent crowd, squinting into the heat and dust, across a divide as wide as that which separated British troops from Afghans in the 19th century, and the French from Algerians and Americans from Vietnamese.

In Iraq, scene of the second "great victory", there are two open secrets. The first is that the "terrorists" now besieging the American occupation force represent an armed resistance that is almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis who, contrary to pre-war propaganda, opposed their enforced "liberation" (see Jonathan Steele's investigation, 19 March 2003, www.guardian.co.uk). The second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the true scale of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the bloodbath Bush and Blair have always denied.

Comparisons with Vietnam have been made so often over the years that I hesitate to draw another. However, the similarities are striking: for example, the return of expressions such as "sucked into a quagmire". This suggests, once again, that the Americans are victims, not invaders: the approved Hollywood version when a rapacious adventure goes wrong. Since Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled almost three months ago, more Americans have been killed than during the war. Ten have been killed and 25 wounded in classic guerrilla attacks on roadblocks and checkpoints which may number as many as a dozen a day.

The Americans call the guerrillas "Saddam loyalists" and "Ba'athist fighters", in the same way they used to dismiss the Vietnamese as "communists". Recently, in Falluja, in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, it was clearly not the presence of Ba'athists or Saddamists, but the brutal behaviour of the occupiers, who fired point-blank at a crowd, that inspired the resistance. The American tanks gunning down a family of shepherds is reminiscent of the gunning down of a shepherd, his family and sheep by "coalition" aircraft in a "no-fly zone" four years ago, whose aftermath I filmed and which evoked, for me, the murderous games American aircraft used to play in Vietnam, gunning down farmers in their fields, children on their buffaloes.

On 12 June, a large American force attacked a "terrorist base" north of Baghdad and left more than 100 dead, according to a US spokesman. The term "terrorist" is important, because it implies that the likes of al-Qaeda are attacking the liberators, and so the connection between Iraq and 11 September is made, which in pre-war propaganda was never made.

More than 400 prisoners were taken in this operation. The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram, from where people are shipped to Guantanamo Bay. In Afghanistan, the Americans pick up taxi drivers and send them into oblivion, via Bagram. Like Pinochet's boys in Chile, they are making their perceived enemies "disappear".

"Search and destroy", the scorched-earth tactic from Vietnam, is back. In the arid south-eastern plains of Afghanistan, the village of Niazi Qala no longer stands. American airborne troops swept down before dawn on 30 December 2001 and slaughtered, among others, a wedding party. Villagers said that women and children ran towards a dried pond, seeking protection from the gunfire, and were shot as they ran. After two hours, the aircraft and the attackers left. According to a United Nations investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children. "We identified it as a military target," says the Pentagon, echoing its initial response to the My Lai massacre 35 years ago.

The targeting of civilians has long been a journalistic taboo in the west. Accredited monsters did that, never "us". The civilian death toll of the 1991 Gulf war was wildly underestimated. Almost a year later, a comprehensive study by the Medical Education Trust in London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqis had died during and immediately after the war, as a direct or indirect consequence of attacks on civilian infrastructure. The report was all but ignored. This month, Iraq Body Count, a group of American and British academics and researchers, estimated that up to 10,000 civilians may have been killed in Iraq, including 2,356 civilians in the attack on Baghdad alone. And this is likely to be an extremely conservative figure.

In Afghanistan, there has been similar carnage. In May last year, Jonathan Steele extrapolated all the available field evidence of the human cost of the US bombing and concluded that as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the bombing, many of them drought victims denied relief.

This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.

In a remarkable series of reports for the Christian Science Monitor, the investigative reporter Scott Peterson has described radiated bullets in the streets of Baghdad and radiation-contaminated tanks, where children play without warning. Belatedly, a few signs in Arabic have appeared: "Danger - Get away from this area". At the same time, in Afghanistan, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, based in Canada, has made two field studies, with the results described as "shocking". "Without exception," it reported, "at every bomb site investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium."

An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs, many of which will have failed to detonate on impact. These usually lie unnoticed until children pick them up, then they explode.

In the centre of Kabul, I found two ragged notices warning people that the rubble of their homes, and streets, contained unexploded cluster bombs "made in USA". Who reads them? Small children? The day I watched children skipping through what might have been an urban minefield, I saw Tony Blair on CNN in the lobby of my hotel. He was in Iraq, in Basra, lifting a child into his arms, in a school that had been painted for his visit, and where lunch had been prepared in his honour, in a city where basic services such as education, food and water remain a shambles under the British occupation.

It was in Basra three years ago that I filmed hundreds of children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair. Now here he was - shirt open, with that fixed grin, a man of the troops if not of the people - lifting a toddler into his arms for the cameras.

When I returned to London, I read "After Lunch", by Harold Pinter, from a new collection of his called War (Faber & Faber).

And after noon the well-dressed creatures come To sniff among the dead And have their lunch

And all the many well-dressed creatures pluck The swollen avocados from the dust And stir the minestrone with stray bones

And after lunch They loll and lounge about Decanting claret in convenient skulls.

John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent, his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994) .

[ductonius]

Wow, what a load of BS. How are the victories "unraveling"? Yes, there is still fighting and complete and total victory has not been achieved, but that only comes years after military victory.

First, the govornmet in Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban has been, and has always been propped up by American power. Its not as if the situation has gotten worse since thier defeat, the fighting there among the factions and the remnants of the Taliban has been present since day one.

That country has been a quagmire of civil war for so long loyalists to the various factions cannot see past thier liminted loyalties. True peace in that country will only happen after at least 20 years when children who only know the various factions in a limited sense are old enought to have authority in society.

Second, what makes people think that what is happening in Iraq is any different than any other conflict this century? Are people so ignorant of history to think that all fighting in Germany stopped on May 8, 1945?

Gurilla attacks by Baathist loyalists and terrorists are not a sign of failure, they are what is to be expected when when toppeling a regieme that has been in place for so long.

No, the americans have not failed in any sense of the word. The fact that remnants of the Taliban still exist, and that tribal loyalties die hard in Afghanistan is not a sign of failure. Similarly, gurilla attacks in Iraq are to be expected, just as some nazi units fought to the last man, and some Nazi loyalists carried out gurilla attacks after the war ended.

The rest of this artical is just making weak comparisons playing on the semantic similarities and multiple meanings of words. It also uses verbatim figures, unsupprted by any evidence and perpitrates blatent falshoods. Prime example: blaming the Iraqi embargo for lack of medical equiptment. The fact of the matter is that the emarbo never blocked food or medical supples.

Total garbage.

[Wormboy]

What is the source of this article? I usually provide a link when posting articles.

[Loki]

Probably www.pravda.ru :rolleyes:

[(CotL-Q)Asmodian]

source: John Pilger/New Statesman

[Loki]

How many Russian soldiers died in Chechnya in the last month? I thought Russia already won that war as well.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Why do some ppl keep refering to this conflict as another "Vietnam"? I'd really like to see a comparison list.

We won this conflict (umm, well, twice now).

American troops aren't dyin in droves, or bein tortured/imprisoned, we aren't draftin anyone, and the majority of the American public has been, and still is, behind it.

So. Understandably, I'm like... :bulb:

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Loki
How many Russian soldiers died in Chechnya in the last month? I thought Russia already won that war as well.

I saw some footage from one unit in Chechnya a few months ago. It was of a russian solier who was shot with a grenade launcher at close range, so close that the grenade didnt arm before it embedded itself in his leg. The video was of the surgons delicatly trying to remove the grenade without arming it.

Eventually they did, but had to go back in when they found the detonator had come out as well.

Freaky.

[X_Trence_X]

Small majority now, and declining.

Vietnam, nah, more of a Bosnia. You'll be stuck there for years to come at a very high cost in materiel, money, morale and regional goodwill.


It'll be years though before everyting is clear, and at that point the US public won't care about things like use of illegal weapons (which is bad if the enemy uses them, good if the US uses them)
I'm referring here to clusterbombs which are banned under the treaty banning landmines as weapons that are uncontrolled and likely to mutilate and kill civilians for years to come.

But it's a little too early to say you've won, remember that historically many wars have lasted for decades and the true pacification of a region may take even longer

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
Why do some ppl keep refering to this conflict as another "Vietnam"? I'd really like to see a comparison list.

We won this conflict (umm, well, twice now).

American troops aren't dyin in droves, or bein tortured/imprisoned, we aren't draftin anyone, and the majority of the American public has been, and still is, behind it.

So. Understandably, I'm like... :bulb:

We haven't really won yet. We are still over there and shots are still being fired. It is not as bad as when it started but it still goes on. As for drafting people we still have Gaurd and Reserve members who ere called up and are still on active duty supporting this. The draft would just be the next step. They didn't want to use the draft because it would go against the all volunteer force that we have.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by X_Trence_X
It'll be years though before everyting is clear, and at that point the US public won't care about things like use of illegal weapons (which is bad if the enemy uses them, good if the US uses them)
I'm referring here to clusterbombs which are banned under the treaty banning landmines as weapons that are uncontrolled and likely to mutilate and kill civilians for years to come.

I'm sorry, but this is another little piece of BS that tends to be passed off. Cluster bombs are not banned in any way shape or form. The bomblets are not counted as landmines by any military in the world (because anyone with ground attack cabalility has them) and they are not banned by any treaty.

The treaty banning landmines bans just that, landmines. Clusterbombs are not counted as landmines becuae of various technical reasons relating to how they are detonated and reason relating to their intended useage.

This whole thing about calling bomblets "landmines" was started by some anti-american bigots who were deperatly trying to pin some sort of evil on the US. Its propoganda and hypocritical since virtually every military that can afford them uses them.

[Ganon]

Bush doesn't have his 'Nam yet. He might never get one, poor guy... I doubt the next 'Nam will come until... well, until we actually attack North Vietnam or Korea again.

[X_Trence_X]

not yet, but it wouldn't matter as the US never signed the ban on landmines.....

However the clusterbombs are banned under the Geneva convention as you cannot be sure where the bomblets end up and they lie dormant for years.

Not everyone who critisizes the US is a bigot, those who say otherwise are.

[Writing Wraith]

Originally posted by Ganon
Bush doesn't have his 'Nam yet. He might never get one, poor guy... I doubt the next 'Nam will come until... well, until we actually attack North Vietnam or Korea again.

Did I miss something? When did Korea become unified and Vietnam split again?:confused:

Anyway, the only time there could be another Vietnam type conflict is if someone was stupid enough to invade a heavily fortified jungle region with a sharply divided population. Right now I'd say at worst Bush may soon have his own personal Chechnya (Afganistan) and something like the British occupation of India (Iraq).

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by X_Trence_X

Not everyone who critisizes the US is a bigot, those who say otherwise are.

I have to steal this line for home use.:up:

It sums up exactly how I feel.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by X_Trence_X
However the clusterbombs are banned under the Geneva convention as you cannot be sure where the bomblets end up and they lie dormant for years.


The Geneva convention says nothing of the sort. Try reading it before you cite it.

It deals with the way prisoners, the wounded and civilains are to be treated in war zones. What little it does mention about weapons says that being in the vicinity of civilians does not protect miltary targets from attack.

Neither the landmines treaty nor the Geneva conveniton ban clusterbombs.

Originally posted by X_Trence_X
Not everyone who critisizes the US is a bigot, those who say otherwise are.

Did I ever call everyone who criticises the US a bigot?

Answer: No.

[AR81]

Asimodian might be right when comparing Vietnam and Iraq if you think of American soldiers dying in a land where they are supposed to be loved by the population.

Also, the fact that in Vietnam, the enemy wasn't caught. Indeed, neither Osama or Saddam or WMDs have been found. So none of those wars have been won yet.

You might tell me that the objective in Iraq was to liberate or to change regime, but if you set a limited objective you get a limited result. Precisely, the victory of Japan in Pearl Harbor was a limited one.

In many other aspects it looks like the comparison of Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam doesn't make any sense.

I can't say if USA is an angel or a demon, it is just a country which is ruled by people who make decisions.

I just hope those decisions bring welfare to all people in the world.

-------------------------------
Regarding the matter with Turkey, letting turkish soldiers to enter Irak could become a problem in the future.

USA might be overwhelmed by problems in Iraq. However, if Turkey enters the picture, they could end up ruling the whole Kurdistan and ultimately Iraq.

[Dreadnaught]

That article makes a lot of lofty accusations and idle comparisons. And just because the author says that people are too tempted to compare things to Vietnam doesn't mean that he isn't doing just that.

I'll grant that Afghanistan has become very messy mainly because of the unwillingness of the US and other countries to contribute enough for its re-building.

However a lot of what this guy says is pretty baseless. EG, there is no evidence at all that there is an extensive resistance "almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis" combating the US. That sounds like Comical Ali for God's sake.

Or about about this part: "The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram." So far I haven't seen any other journalist there mention thousands of people at Baghdad airport. I seriously question who is "reporting" to this guy.

Furthermore, once again there is not enough evidence supporting the notion that depleted uranium is a major carcinogen. Or even that so many people had cancer in Iraq. Considering that Sadaam never let the UN or anyone else besides Sean Penn have an open look at the hospital facilities, there are no reliable estimates as of now.

This guy is trying to make bets on this whole affair way too early.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
We haven't really won yet.
Now that is really news to me.


Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
We are still over there and shots are still being fired.
Well, you'll always have sore losers.

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
It is not as bad as when it started but it still goes on. As for drafting people we still have Gaurd and Reserve members who ere called up and are still on active duty supporting this. The draft would just be the next step. They didn't want to use the draft because it would go against the all volunteer force that we have.
ummm. (?)
Sorry bro, I have no idea what yer tryin to say.
The guard AND reserve members ARE volunteers and have known since they signed up that when war or conflicts arise, guess what? yer country IS gonna call you.


Plus, there are no tortured/beaten, humiliated, and/or imprisoned Americans in Iraq. And the American ppl are still, as a majority, continuing to support the war.


My point was; There is absolutely no comparison between these wars and Vietnam with the exception that they are wars.


Originally posted by AR81
Asimodian might be right when comparing Vietnam and Iraq if you think of American soldiers dying in a land where they are supposed to be loved by the population.
We die in the lands of our allies, and in places we were invited, and in countries that need food and medical assistance and where we respond with aid.

Originally posted by AR81
In many other aspects it looks like the comparison of Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam doesn't make any sense.

Agreed.

[Per Gessle]

After two hours, the aircraft and the attackers left. According to a United Nations investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children. "We identified it as a military target," says the Pentagon
I bet this was headline in American media :rolleyes:

[Dreadnaught]

It would be a big headline. So far I can't find the results of any such UN investigation on the UN website. Somehow I think that this reporter is confusing something with the mistaken air attack on a village last summer that killed 40-50 civilians during a wedding.

Despite the fact that it was confused as a military target (pilots thought that they were being fired upon when in fact the villagers were just firing their guns in celebration), even that is not a fair comparison to My Lai because

1) My Lai was a ground assault
2) My Lai was conducted by stressed-out soldiers who had been fighting in close combat for months. They went nuts.

[bruinb77]

WOW. Lots of nice numbers and anonymous quotes. Reports of massacres and deaths, but nothing about it at the UN web site (which is strange since it was a UN investigation). I really liked how the landmine treaty and Geneva convention were changed (oh, and the US didn't sign the landmine treaty).

The article seemed to express many OPINIONS without much substance to support it other than there is still fighting and that there is hostility which is understandable. Perceptions in a country are hard to change overnight when you're told and shown one thing for over 10 years.

And the draft will not happen. That "threat" of the draft is used to stir up anti-war movements. The draft is not feasible anytime in the near future. It just won't happen since it is politically not possible (not to mention logistically impossible too)

[Varky]

Lord knows nobody can wait more then two months for Iraq to stabilize before jumping to conclusions.

[Chaloobi]

Wow - this thread should have a 'tread with caution' label on it. I'm worried that a reasonable post bucking the common sentiment is going to draw everyone's wrath. But, here goes anyway. . .

I don't know how accurate some of the more obscure facts in this article are, but I have heard echoes of the general trends in Afghanistan and Iraq the article describes. I see in the news almost every day that US troops are killed or wounded in some guerilla attack in Iraq. I hear less about Afghanistan, but that may be because US troops are less involved in an occupation role. It certainly isn't reasonable to just disregard every claim the article makes just because it's overwhelmingly anti-US.

About the continuing 'terrorist' activity in Iraq - The US government keeps describing the guerilla attacks in Iraq as uncoordinated terrorist attacks, not guerilla warfare. IMO that's ridiculous. Terrorism is really just a particularly nasty subset of guerilla warfare, one means to make war on a militarily superior enemy. And the tactics they're using in Iraq, like ambushing patrols, doesn't sound much like terrorism to me, but it DOES sound like traditional guerilla warfare tactics.

Unfortunatley we won't really know if this is a 'quagmire' until a few years down the road when we're scratching our heads wondering when these isolated terrorist attacks are going to stop. . . . And of course, by then it's too late. Who am I trying to kid, if it's destined for 'quagmire' status, it's already too late!

IMO the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate response to 9/11. That's where the enemy resided and the US had every right to stomp him into the ground. And if it does end up a quagmire of guerilla warfare, it's still better to have the war going on over there instead of bombs going off and planes crashing here in the US.

Iraq is another matter altogether. All the excuses that were floated for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq are bunk. In fact, other than attempting to assassinate George Bush Sr., Iraq has never made an aggressive move against the US (unless you count the USS Stark, but that was an accident and the pilot, ah, lost his head for it). There apparently weren't any WMD ready to go like we were told. There was no active nuclear weapons program. There was no connection to Al Qaida. And the Saddam government, despite it's face savng rhetoric, was scared to death of an invasion by the US. IMO this war was completely unnecessary for the security of the US.

On the other hand, Saddam et al were a nasty bunch and the concept of replacing his regime with a more benevolent one is not altogther immoral. But I as a citizen of the US, for reasons too numerous and complex to describe here, don't really want my country going around doing 'regime changes' to help out the oppressed. I don't think that is in the best interests of the country.

[Wormboy]

I think we should wait before passing judgement on Iraq. We don't really know what is going to happen there.



As for Afghanistan, I've been pointing out for months that it was a mess and that the US had dropped the ball there.

However, Afghanistan certainly doesn't look like a Vietnam to me. Certainly its dangerous for US troops, and the US totally failed to re-establish a normal government there. But Vietnam was a war where MANY PEOPLE were under arms against the US. I'm not sure this is comparable. The magnitude is WAY off.

Iraq theoretically has the potential to become a Vietnam, though it certainly isn't yet. I think the most likely course is that you will continue to get disruption of utilities, and occasional Americans killed. I think resentment towards the US will skyrocket, and the reputation of the US in the arab world will get even worse (if that's possible).

I doubt it will become a mess like Vietnam, but it is already a mess. Fer gods sake, if you're gonna do something like this, do it right.

[AR81]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
That article makes a lot of lofty accusations and idle comparisons. And just because the author says that people are too tempted to compare things to Vietnam doesn't mean that he isn't doing just that.
Erich Von Danikken (a famous UFOlogist) uses to make a guess and then he build a whole theory but the foundation is very weak.
I'll grant that Afghanistan has become very messy mainly because of the unwillingness of the US and other countries to contribute enough for its re-building.
Not reducing poverty in arab world is likely to cause USA to be seen as a conqueror, a resource leech or merely like a bringer of poverty. That kind of perception could cause that antiUS leaders could reach power in the future, or repression should be needed to prevent that. however, repression in arab countries is likely to explode in one way or another, since arabs are a bit vengeful.

So the only way not to have populations supporting terrorists in 10 or 20 years, would be to rule Afghanistan and Iraq as if those were states of USA and their populations were just American citizens with a different culture. That's the only mindset that will work
However a lot of what this guy says is pretty baseless. EG, there is no evidence at all that there is an extensive resistance "almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis" combating the US. That sounds like Comical Ali for God's sake.
Reuters mentioned that US analysts considered the risk of an uprising. It is too soon to say if an uprising is possible, IMO.

The only way to prevent arab uprising would be to administrate those territories as if those were American states. It would look bad to have poverty and starvation in American states. I think USA still has the opportunity to correct that and prevent uprisings by reducing poverty. Poverty can only be reduced with enough employment, education, adequate massive transport...

If USA doesn't fight poverty due to lack of interest, the world could see arabs signing peace with Israel and then aiming at USA. That would be the worst scenario that could be anticipated.

Enforcing antiterrorism efforts means that poverty must be reduced in conflictive areas.

Neither USA or USSR solved the problem of the unbalance of supply and demand that causes poverty, let alone a way to solve the problem quickly, so it is a must that a solution could be found.

The more time poverty is there, the more chances that criminals recruit poor people to fight USA.
Or about about this part: "The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram." So far I haven't seen any other journalist there mention thousands of people at Baghdad airport. I seriously question who is "reporting" to this guy.
If he is not based on reliable sources, that's just yellow journalism.
Furthermore, once again there is not enough evidence supporting the notion that depleted uranium is a major carcinogen. Or even that so many people had cancer in Iraq. Considering that Sadaam never let the UN or anyone else besides Sean Penn have an open look at the hospital facilities, there are no reliable estimates as of now.
DU could be more or less than cigars. It took many years and many deaths to prove a point. If DU is so effective in weaponry, no wonder that no one would like to pay independent studies regarding health and DU.
This guy is trying to make bets on this whole affair way too early. I hate when people make a guess without facts. If those people were smart, they could spot a risk and ten make a proposal. However, most of people who write are not that smart or informed to make a proposal.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Wormboy
I think resentment towards the US will skyrocket, and the reputation of the US in the arab world will get even worse (if that's possible).

You forget that the rules of respect in the Arab world are far different than they are in the US.

In the Western world, those who start conflicts unneccisaraly and make flagerent shows of force and strength are concidered uncivilized and thus deserving less respect.

In the Arab world, such displays are concidered good, and you will gain respect for them.

Example: The Oslo accord was signed in 1993, two years after George Bush beat the tar out of Saddam and before the Arabs knew what a peacnick Clinton was. They knew the US for its military strengh and not its words. When the figured out that Clinton was a miltary push-over, we get the start of car bombings and then the intefada. Envoy after envoy from Clinton did nothing to ease the tention and bring peace.

Along comes George W. Bush who promptly beats the tar out of the Taliban and Saddam. Now, guess what. With his urging, the palistinians and Isrealis are suddenly, inexplicably calling for a cease-fire. Coincidence?

[Loki]

US dead in Vietnam = ~50,000
US dead in Iraq = ~200

Enough said.

[earthJoker]

lets say
long int US_dead_in_Iraq = 200;
while(war)
US_dead_in_Iraq++;

[Chaloobi]

Loki - Iraq has just begun. Vietnam took years to get ramped up. So it's not a good comparison at this point. Hopefully it never will be.

earthJoker - huh?

[earthJoker]

thats c syntax also used in c++ c# and java

it means
as long the war is on, increase the deaths

[Chaloobi]

Example: The Oslo accord was signed in 1993, two years after George Bush beat the tar out of Saddam and before the Arabs knew what a peacnick Clinton was. They knew the US for its military strengh and not its words. When the figured out that Clinton was a miltary push-over, we get the start of car bombings and then the intefada. Envoy after envoy from Clinton did nothing to ease the tention and bring peace.

I don't believe for a second the two events - the war in Iraq and the Palestinian intafada rising and falling - are in any way connected. In fact, during the Clinton administration there was a very real chance at peace, until Rabin was assassinated by an ultra-orthadox Jewish student. The ensuing political chaos in Israel, coupled with some well timed Palestinian bombings, led to the whole thing falling apart, and continuing to fall apart, until very recently.

I've been keeping up with the Palestinian/Israeli struggle for a number of years now and one interesting thing I noticed: several times right at the beginning of a peace initiative, when everyone had either agreed to a cease fire or was about to, the Israeli army would carry out a 'targeted killing' - usually a Hamas leader. And then there's a followup bombing. And then there's fighting in the streets of Gaza. And chaos. It almost seems like there are entities in the Israeli government, or military, bent on undermining peace initiatives despite what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

I've also seen suicide bombings timed the same way. There are definitely elements in the various Palestinian resistance organizations that would prefer to fight than to negotiate. We've seen that recently too. But peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis will not come just because the US army trounces Iraq. The Israeli army is every bit as capable as the US army and they've been trouncing the Palestinians for years. Decades even. And they haven't been able to frighten the resistance into rolling over so why would you think the US trouncing a totally different country would have any affect on them????

US influence attempting to broker peace diplomatically is the only thing I've ever seen have a positive affect on this conflict. The reason you're seeing cease fires today is the intense DIPLOMACY from the Bush Administration (finally), not the fact that they kicked Iraq's teeth in three months ago.

[Chaloobi]

Oh, ok. Makes sense to me.

[Wormboy]

Agreed Chaloobi. :up:

If Oslo had happened 5 years after Iraq I, people would still give the credit to Bush I. Pfft. Sounds like post hoc spin to me.

Also agreed that both sides have been guilty of deliberate sabotage (IMO). Let's ee if this current one flies....

BTW, if it does work, it would be a huge coup for Bush II. And if it doesn't, I doubt anybody would blame him. That makes it more or less a freebie, from a political standpoint.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Agreed Chaloobi. :up:

If Oslo had happened 5 years after Iraq I, people would still give the credit to Bush I. Pfft. Sounds like post hoc spin to me.

Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991 (http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html)

Olso accord of Sept 13, 1993 (http://www.multied.com/Israel/Documents/Oslo.html)

[Chaloobi]

It's so bad over there now it can only get better - big opportunity to get election points.....

The only reason that whole sabotage-the-peace-process thing works is the culture of revenge in the Middle-East --- 'Eye for an Eye.' God forbid Israel should NOT respond to a terrorist bombing obviously timed to derail peace by provoking a military response. . . . They're too into it to see they're being manipulated. Hate will do that to you.

[Chaloobi]

Duct: ? :confused:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Chaloobi
I don't believe for a second the two events - the war in Iraq and the Palestinian intafada rising and falling - are in any way connected. In fact, during the Clinton administration there was a very real chance at peace, until Rabin was assassinated by an ultra-orthadox Jewish student. The ensuing political chaos in Israel, coupled with some well timed Palestinian bombings, led to the whole thing falling apart, and continuing to fall apart, until very recently.

I've been keeping up with the Palestinian/Israeli struggle for a number of years now and one interesting thing I noticed: several times right at the beginning of a peace initiative, when everyone had either agreed to a cease fire or was about to, the Israeli army would carry out a 'targeted killing' - usually a Hamas leader. And then there's a followup bombing. And then there's fighting in the streets of Gaza. And chaos. It almost seems like there are entities in the Israeli government, or military, bent on undermining peace initiatives despite what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

I've also seen suicide bombings timed the same way. There are definitely elements in the various Palestinian resistance organizations that would prefer to fight than to negotiate. We've seen that recently too. But peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis will not come just because the US army trounces Iraq. The Israeli army is every bit as capable as the US army and they've been trouncing the Palestinians for years. Decades even. And they haven't been able to frighten the resistance into rolling over so why would you think the US trouncing a totally different country would have any affect on them????

While I don't agree with the premise, the logic does fit together. Yes, the IDF has been demonstrating it's strength, but it's been demonstrating it on the Palestinians. Any intimidation factor is trumped by grief and anger. The US, however, was not hitting Palestinians. It was demonstrating strength, but not in a fashion that can raise anything but a fairly weak and abstract anger among the Palestinians. So there's nothing undermining the demonstration.

[Chaloobi]

Fuzzy -

That's about the closest we've come to agreeing on anything since we started crossing threads. There's a milestone here somewhere LOL.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Fuzzy -

That's about the closest we've come to agreeing on anything since we started crossing threads. There's a milestone here somewhere LOL.

That's nothing. Alber and I have been reading each other's posts for something approaching two years now, I think, and we still haven't come close to agreeing on anything :)

[Chaloobi]

That's nothing. Alber and I have been reading each other's posts for something approaching two years now, I think, and we still haven't come close to agreeing on anything

No kidding? I should check out some of his posts. He and I might have some common ideas - - - ;)

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Chaloobi
No kidding? I should check out some of his posts. He and I might have some common ideas - - - ;)

If you start spouting Tranhumanism, you're going on my ignore list :p

[Zhucov]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/necromancer.jpg

Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

[AR81]

Is Pilger a serious reporter??
Can anyone refute what he says other than saying "it's BS"?

[Chaloobi]

Originally posted by Zhucov
<snip>

Necormancer has a supernatural ability <snip> but no one really knows. [/B] You are obviously bored with your life. . . .

[Zhucov]

I copied that from the webpage in the "what are you" thread. You can't really think I worte that, can you? It doesn't even hint at the vast Zionist conspiracy.

[Khendraja'aro]

You might consider editing it a bit to correct a minor logic flaw...

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them.

while that should be:

Unlike Archivist who compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them.

Drop the first "Necromancer" and the "while" and you're good to go.

[Zhucov]

It's really not my work.

It comes from here (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/index.htm), which was the topic of this (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=443440) thread, which is still on page one at the moment.

That'll teach me not to provide a source.