Bush's anti-terror crap

[EliteWolf]

i think our government and the rest of the world need to get knocked around a bit, this whole "war on terror" will never end, we will never win it, and it will just drain us of our resources and energy. the fact of the matter is simple, no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will always be people in the future who beleive radically in the same principals and ideas, comon sense would tell most decent folks that riding the world of terrorists is impossible. i support bush personally, i think hes a unique president who gets things done unlike others who push things off onto the next person in office (clinton), but he needs to wake up and realize that his war on terror is just gunna go in circles. like i said before, in the past present and future there WILL ALWAYS be people who are extremist with there ideas and beliefs. even the muslim religion is not at fault, ohomo bin laden twists the facts of the religion to support his own way of doing things, and there will always be others in the future who do that as well..

the main thing to do to protect ourselves from it is to keep it from coming accross our borders, we need strong military presence along the borders and i think pat buecanan is right, we need to shut down the borders completely and stop leting people into this country. i dont feel bad for the mexicans in mexico if they cant come over here for a better life when a little hard work and determination could change things in there own country, and as long as we keep letting people into this country more terrorists will blend in with the crowd and come over as well. the only way to keep them out is to keep everyone out! i know people are going to disagree with this but i think we can all agree on the fact that we need to change our strategy, because the way we are doing things now wont get us anyhere. i know our forefathers had dreams of making this country a place where anybody could come but they didnt deal with the bull**** we have to deal with today..and unless we do something things are only gunna get worse.

[Ratamacue]

The "War" on Terrorism isn't so much of attacking the Terrorist cells themselves any more (though I'm sure there's plenty behind-the-scenes). From what I can tell, it's primarily evolved to taking down governments that support terrorism (i.e. Taliban) and/or extraordinarily corrupt governments (i.e. Iraq) in order to wither down Terrorist "safe houses."

If the "war" was actually meant to go outright at the cells themselves, I would agree. The war would never end. Cut off the arm, new one grows back. Cut off the leg, new one grows back. Cut off the head, new one grows back, just takes longer.

[Minjin]

I agree that this "war on terror" is going to be ineffectual. If anything it will breed more hatred of the USA, and bring more terrorists into action. Making war on nations will not get rid of terrorists, it will just make them move around.

And as far as closing American borders, that would be bad. If our borders were closed to your country (I am Canadian) then I would want my country to not let anything through. If our people cannot pass, then neither can the power or goods you guys get from us. Pat Buchanan is not overly well informed about Canada, from all his ludicrous statements he has made in the past. Education first, Action second.

A new all around strategy would be nice to see though, and if it were a good one then I think the US would find a great deal of support up here in Canada.

[GearGod]

First of all I think the CIA's SOG is doing one hell of a job either now or in the future.. Theyre working behind enemy lines working with the people in coutries and doing all kinds of stuff.... What about getting some CIA guy to attempt to join Al-Queda or some terror cell then bust them? Be one of them then take them out

[a. enders]

War on Terror is the same as War on Drugs.It is a waste of time,money,and other resources that could be spent doing plenty of other things that might actually help others.Soon it'll be gobbling down some insane budget,taking away from NASA,military,schools,shelters,etc. that actually DO something.
Crying shame.


PS-Remember to buy your duct tape and plastic sheeting! :roll:

[GearGod]

I believed in the alcohol prohibition. I believe in the war on drugs. I also beleive in the war on terror. Doesnt seem like a waste of anything to me.

[snake6264]

How about the tooth fair and the easter bunny??
War on drugs a joke!!
war on terror bad joke!!!!

Step out of ohio and see a small part of the sh*t hole called earth

This is not a personal attack you adam but wake up and smell the coffee
son

Respectfully
Snake6264

[hood]

Well, I think the point is that when you believe in something, you have to fight for it. It doesn't matter if it's a losing cause, you're still not going to take defeat sitting down. You may not be able to stop all drugs and terror, but wouldn't you agree that 500 bodies on the street of NYC is better than 3000 or more?

[Minjin]

Hood I agree with you....to a point. But I think things are going a little far right now. For example, the latest osama tape. Colin Powell says it shows how Osama is working hand in hand with Iraq. However, if the translation I watched on CNN is true, then all Osama said is that basically he wants Iraqis to join his cause and rise up against the US and her allies. Now, this may just be ****ty reporting on the part of the media (like usual, lol) but it seems like a stretch to find a reason to fight Iraq. Perhaps I am off base a bit, but it seems a bit strange.

[Kitsune]

In fact the voice on the tape says that the iraqi leadership are godless heathens. Nonetheless the people of Iraq should defend against the U.S. (ahem...says the voice not me).
Wether its really Osama bin Laden is not sure at present.
And even if.... for Al Qaida the attack is not that bad:

1) The Iraqi government of today will be destroyed... not to bad they were never friends of Al Qaida.

2) In the aftermarth there could be chaos...a tleast in some parts of Iraq... Al Qaida could hope to use this for their cause.


3) That a stable democratic regime in Iraq is installed (a REAL democratic one that is) is not that probable. On the other hand Anti-Americanism and Muslim-Fundamentalism will most probably rise in the Near East for years.

So I do not think that Osama (if he is really still alive) is that much opposed to the war on Iraq.
For the U.S. governement its a welcome opportunity to "prove" the connections between Al Qaida and Iraq...

As far as i know CIA has never officially stated that there were a real alliance between the two, even now when the Bush government so desperatley wants that there is one...

But thats propaganda... War is gonna happen soon. Whatever Al Qaida wants.

I wager: Saddam Hussein will not see April 1st 2003. Anyone bet against it ???

[hood]

Yeah, the quick link to Osama's speech and Iraq was pushing it a bit. I agree that if we're just talking about his speech, the alliance between the two is pretty thin. The other evidence by Powell was convincing to me, but saying this was a definitive answer was a stretch. I think whether Hussein will survive the war is really up in the air. On the side of him dying, unlike Afghanistan, we've been studying every nook and cranny of Iraq for well over a decade. We've had intelligence people in there for a long time, and we have many defectors who've given us secret info on hiding spots. On the downside, look at O B L. If anyone proved that a speedy getaway is possible, it was him.

Concerning the idea of growing anti-Americanism, Iran publicly came out about a month ago and said that they will fully support whatever government ends up in Iraq. They realized that by not supporting the Afghan regime change, they missed out on big opportunities both ideologically and monetarily. As someone said ( i can't remember who said it first) the most a depressed and impoverished country can hope for, is to be invaded by the US because of all the aid we pour into that country after the government's been changed.

Besides, to top it all off, both yesterday and today, there's been a long stretched police van outside the Iraqi embassy in NYC, and this morning someone put a huge amount of red white and blue balloons on their front gate... gotta love it.

[snake6264]

my biggest bitch with GWB is that he needs to stand up and say any terrorist attck in the USA or its intrest with be an attack by Iraq with a full military response

Its not a matter of attacking one particular country but you need to make it known in the middle east that attacking americans will not go

You got to walk it like you talk it

Its time America became the BIG STICK!!
Really its the only thing that Arabs understand

I also would not fight the Iraqies in the cities I would surrond them and let them get real hungry

Then see how they want to play it

We have already kind of blown it Afgahnistan
Its simple you have to control
Food
Water
Medical
No one can go any where with out you ID
no ID your detained
Its quite simple

Any how
my 2 cents
Not worth much
Snake6264

[Minjin]

Snake6264, you are making some rather broad (and disturbing) generalizations there.

"Its time America became the BIG STICK!!
Really its the only thing that Arabs understand"

Funny, I have some Arab friends who are not like that at all. I think most of the Arabs I have ever met do not condone violence. If you mean the fundamentalists or something, then fine, but don't generalize about a group like that. If everyone did that, there would be problems. I, for example, don't judge all Americans to be bad just because I have met some whom fall into that category. I have also met a lot of really great people from the US. I don't generalize, and neither should you.

[hood]

America unveiled today, its anti-terror mascot: Blaze Riprock.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030207/capt.1044660330.afghanistan_us_military_ny180.jpg

[JiJoMacLE45]

Just a few articles I came across and thought I'd throw up:

"Excuse me. I am not convinced."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, lecturing to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Munich last week, after Rumsfeld's argument for war against Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld may have convinced the leaders of 18 European nations, but not you, Mr. Fischer. It's personal. This seems to me the right way to look at it. The question of failing to convince must be seen in the context of whom we have failed to convince. Sometimes
"who" explains "why."

Mr. Fischer, who are you?

You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.

But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing on that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, "as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt."

In 2001, Stern magazine published five photographs of you in action that day. What these pictures depicted was described by Berman in a deeply informed 25,000-word article, "The Passion of Joschka Fischer" (The New Republic, Sept. 3, 2001). The photos showed you, Mr. Fischer, inflicting a "gruesome beating" on a young policeman named Rainer
Marx: "Fischer and other people on the attack, the white-helmeted cop going into a crouch; Fischer's black-gloved fist raised as if to punch the crouching cop on the back; Fischer's comrades crowding around; the cop huddled on the ground, Fischer and his comrades appearing to kick him . . ."

As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968. This was the left that produced and supported the Baader-Meinhof Gang (or Red Army Faction), which, as Berman wrote, "refrained from nothing," including "kidnappings, bank holdups, murders." You were not a terrorist yourself, but you were a good and active friend to terrorists, weren't you, Mr. Fischer?

In 1976, to protest the death in prison of Baader-Meinhof founder Ulrike Meinhof, you planned and participated in a Frankfurt demonstration in which, Berman wrote, "somebody tossed a Molotov cocktail at a policeman and burned him nearly to death." You were arrested but not charged. In 2001, Meinhof's daughter, Bettina Rohl (who gave those damning photos to Stern) told the press that you were responsible for the throwing of that firebomb. Other contemporary witnesses, Berman reported, said that you "had never ruled out the use of Molotovs and may even have favored it." You denied it, for the record.

In 2001 the German government put on trial your old friend Hans-Joachim Klein, who had been an underground "soldier" in the Revolutionary Cells, an ally of the Red Army Faction and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Revolutionary Cells helped in the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, and Klein himself took part in a 1975 joint assassination operation with Carlos the Jackal in which three were killed.

During your testimony at Klein's trial, you were accused of having harbored Red Army Faction members in your Revolutionary Struggle house, the Frankfurt center for the group Revolutionary Struggle, which you co-founded with housemate Daniel "Danny the Red"
Cohn-Bendit. You were forced to admit there was some truth in the accusation after it was revealed, as Berman reported, that Margrit Schiller, "who had served jail time for her connections to the Red Army Faction," had in her memoirs "plainly stated that she had
spent a 'few days' in the early 1970s living in the Revolutionary Struggle house." (After your testimony, you shook hands with your old terrorist friend Klein. Sweet.)

In 1969, you attended the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in which the PLO resolved that its ultimate aim was the extinction of Israel -- that is to say, the extinction or expulsion of the Jews of Israel. Seven years later, Revolutionary Cells terrorists led by your Frankfurt colleague, Wilfried Boese, hijacked an Air France plane to
Entebbe, Uganda. The hijackers intended to murder all the Jewish passengers on that flight but were killed by Israeli commandos. "Suddenly," Berman wrote, "the implication
of anti-Zionism struck home to [Fischer]. What did it mean that, back in Algiers in 1969, the PLO, with the young Fischer in attendance, had voted the Zionist entity into extinction? Now he knew what it meant."

So, that's who you are, Mr. Fischer, the man we haven't convinced. You are the man for whom Munich wasn't enough, the man who needed Entebbe to convince him that murdering Jews was wrong. You ask to be excused. You have been excused.

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

-- In a stunning reversal of policy, French President Jacques Chirac announced today that the French government will be supporting
the 'War on Terror' after all. Five hundred soldiers from the elite Battalion du Specialistes d'Abandonnement of France's Armees de la Terreare preparing for movement to Iraq, where they will advise the Iraqi Republican Guards on their impending surrender to the
American Armed Forces.

"Eet eez important to be haughty and insufferable when surrendering," said Colonel Philippe Marie-Jeane Yves-Montand Gauloise du Pepee, Commanding Officer of the Surrender Battalion, who has personally surrendered in countless battles dating back to Dien Bien Phu in 1954. "We French are world masters at surrendering, n'est ce pas? Not
like you arrogant Americans, who never surrender. Ha! I spit on your feelthy American victories!"

President Chirac also announced that his government will be sending 3000 advisors from the elite Force du Collaborateurs Francaise to assist the Iraqis in avidly collaborating with the Americans, while pretending to be part of a resistance.


Q: How may soldiers does it take to defend Paris in case of attack?
A: No one knows because its never been tried.

Q: Why did the French plant trees along their roads?
A: German soldiers did not like to march in the sun.


The Complete Military History of France

* Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

* Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

* Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

* Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

* Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

* War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

* The Dutch War - Tied

* War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

* War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

* American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; " France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

* French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

* The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

* The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

* World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

* World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

* War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

* Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

* War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?" France's resistance to U.S. policy on Iraq, capped off by its role in blocking U.S.-backed plans to bolster Turkish defenses against a possible Iraqi missile attack, is resulting in a massive outpouring of U.S. anger against France, evidenced by the 1,124 angry calls received by the French Embassy in Washington, D.C., in just one day.

Coming in the wake of Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. on Iraq, the embassy felt under siege, reports the Scotsman newspaper.

"It never stopped. It was crazy. Unbelievable," said one French diplomat.

Although the embassy's Nathalie Loiseau notes that some letters and e-mail are supportive of Paris' position, she admits in a Financial Times report that some "would like to boycott France and French products."

With some U.S. talk radio shows openly calling for repatriation of America's war dead, noted the Scotsman, the phrase "if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German" has become a popular refrain.

"The French attitude is self-defeating," says Gary Schmitt of the Project for a New American Century, said the report. "They are undermining the credibility of the U.N. and now throwing NATO into disarray. I don't know if they realize how they're also causing a split in Europe. If you total up all the things they are interested in, you find that they're making a hash of all of them."

Meanwhile, as WorldNetdaily reported this week, France was found to be more unpopular among Americans now than at any time in the past decade in a new Gallup poll. Unfavorable opinions of France have jumped 17 points in the past year while favorable opinions have dropped 20 points.

American attitudes toward Germany, another European power unwilling to support the U.S. on Iraq, also have become more negative, according to the annual Gallup Poll Social Series Update on World Affairs, conducted Feb. 3-6.

In its editorial yesterday the Washington Post argued that France and Germany now "behave as if they share the same over-riding goal as the Iraqi dictator: thwarting U.S. action even when it is supported by most other NATO and European nations."

Great Britain ranked at the top of the list of 26 nations with a +83 percent favorable rating, while Iraq rounded off the bottom with a -85 percent score. Iran and North Korea, the other two nations identified by President Bush as comprising the "axis of evil," joined Iraq at bottom of the list.

Bush 'disappointed'

The White House yesterday scoffed at Paris's offer to fortify U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq after President Bush complained he was "disappointed" with France's refusal to cooperate with NATO.

The Bush administration's exasperation with Paris is affecting public perception, reported the Financial Times, noting as an example the New York Post's coverage of the international dispute. The paper ran a picture of WWII American soldiers' graves near Omaha Beach Monday, headlined: "They died for France but France has forgotten."

New York Post reporter Steve Dunleavy, depicted near the grave of a young American soldier, wrote: "The air is chilled, but I feel an unnatural glow of rage -- I want to kick the collective butts of France. These kids died to save the French from a tyrant named Adolf Hitler. And now, as more American kids are poised to fight and die to save the world
from an equally vile tyrant, Saddam Hussein, where are the French? Hiding. Chickening out. Proclaiming, Vive les wimps!"

Presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday that French President Jacques Chirac hadn't mentioned France's intention to block Turkey's request for NATO assistance during his meeting last week with Bush. He claimed Bush didn't feel exactly "blindsided," but rather "disappointed at the "setback" for both NATO and Turkey.

Clinton administration deputy national security adviser Jim Steinberg says anti-French feeling is increasing in the U.S., according to the Financial Times. Concerned that it could get worse, Steinberg added: "The next two weeks are going to have a profound impact on transatlantic relations. There is a consensus that whatever the U.S. has done wrong, it does not justify the way the French and the Germans are playing this."

[Trigger]

I can't stop laughing. I'm going to print this and frame it.

JJMLE45 - you forgot: For Sale - French assault rifles, never fired, only dropped once. rofl

[Kitsune]

In german television it is said that the U.S. media started a campaign to ridicule especially the french...

There seems to be some truth to it... :roll:

[Kitsune]

Concerning the french:

This time they are committed!

They have their position at the german side. If you americans think you can change their minds you are mistaken!!! THEY WILL NOT LET US DOWN !!!

They keep fighting!!

They will RESIST this time !!!

They stand FIRM !!!!

THEY WILL NOT YIELD !!!!!

















At least for another couple of days... ;)

[JiJoMacLE45]

I do not think you need a military push to show the shortcomings of the French 'military' (I know it borders on being an oxymoron).

And as far as our press goes, you show me a country with a more liberal press than ours and I'll shake your hand. Our law enforcement and military are almost always portrayed in a negative light by our news services. And when they are given their just and well earned respect, they always try to pick the story apart and find some negative slant to put on it.

[Kitsune]

Hmmm JiJO....

Well to be frank... From what I have seen, especially after 9/11 (I get some american channels here and I was in the states for some weeks during the last summer ) I do not think american media as THAT liberal. In fact they are very patriotic and such. The german news (television and newspaper alike) is much more critical and analytical. Do not get me wrong... the U.S. got free media, but i would not want to trade ours for theirs as far as information is concerned. That does not include movies or series of course. (LOL. Really good german movies are few and far between.)

My definite favorite concerning news of any kind is the british BBC though. Their news and documentaries are simply AWESOME. Simply a cut above the rest.

Concerning the French. I really do not know why american media is now ridiculing the french military capabilities.( A lie... I do know it,hehe)
They have a proud military history. Napoleon was a tactical genius that conquered europe. (You americans should thank him... that you got away that easy around 1812 is because the British got trouble with Nappy... They would have eaten those sorry rebellious colonists for lunch otherwise.) In WWI they hold their own. They were beaten in WWII in six weeks. Yeah. (Every time when on our Counterstrike server Brits and Frog are fighting the Brits use that one... the Frogs get furious and all Krauts roll their eyes lol ). But the British got encircled at dunkirk... If their would not have been a channel the Brits would have been beaten in three to four weeks at that time.
The french Foreign Legion are tough as nails. They lost at Dien Bien Phu. Ok. But they fought really hard. And You Americans also lost in Vietnam as far as I recall, didn't You? In the Gulf War their Tanks were not camoed for the desert. Yeah. But the Foreign Legion did well.

So stop mobbing them JiJo. They will be at with you in this one as well. It is only a matter of time until they will change sides, I am sure of that. ;)

[Ratamacue]

The reason we "lost" Vietnam is because the US Military was being completely held back. We were not allowed to cross the border into North Vietnam to attack. We were complete sitting ducks.

Damn hippies.

[a. enders]

Hippies?Mmmmmmmmm....I have no love for the mangy,dirty,tree-hugging buggers,but I'd say it was that eras "hands-tied" way to war that led to that.Politicians fought that war,not the generals.(Yes,I realize foot soldiers actually fight wars,but i think you get my meaning.)
Really,just an observation as most of my time has been spent studying WW2 and some recent ops.


A. Enders

[TheReverend]

And as far as our press goes, you show me a country with a more liberal press than ours and I'll shake your hand. Our law enforcement and military are almost always portrayed in a negative light by our news services. And when they are given their just and well earned respect, they always try to pick the story apart and find some negative slant to put on it.

How true, and how sad :(

[JiJoMacLE45]

*Sure our media turned positive after September 11th, praising the NYPD as heroes. But on September 10th they were still ripping them for the shooting of Amadou Diallo.
*The key word in the French Foreign Legion is 'Foreign'. Sure about a third of its members are French who join as Belgians, Swiss, etc, but the idea behind it was to recruit Foreign soldiers to fight for the French flag.
*As far as Napolean, even though he led the French, he was Corsican, not French.
*And while we might have had a hard time with the NVA and Viet Cong, not once did we surrender during the Vietnam War, as the French did at Dien Bien Phu.
*And those 'Sorry rebelious colonists' were the same ones that routed the mightiest military machine in the world. And their Hessian pals.

[EliteWolf]

well, i agree we need to stop this endless war on terror and put the money to things like more military presense along the borders, just keeping the bastards out, instead of leaving the nest to hunt them down like we have been doing in afganistan...secondly, i support getting rid of saddam, but i think we are going about it all wrong...it would be so much easier and cheaper to get accurate intel, send delta in, and pop a couple in saddams head...problem solved...the iraqis will do exactly what they did in desert storm, throw down there weapons and surrender when they realize what they are up against, hell in 91 there were iraqis surrendering to news crews, although this time they may hesitate..the only reason saddam has an army is because he brainwashes his people with propaganda and such...hes a dictator who must be removed but like i said, we shouldnt send the whole armed forces in to remove one man and a few of his followers...trust me, if anybody can do it, its delta (im gunna be a delta when i get out of high school, hooah!)

[Kitsune]

Oh come on JiJo... that is really not fair.
Napoleon was Corsican and so it does not count? Corsica is a part of France... the people are different from mainland French ok, but...
If you take this one further I could say: Hitler was an Austrian we got nothing to do with the start of WWII! (He WAS Austrian it is true. And it was NOT a part of Germany at the time he was born or became ruler of Germany... neither it is today.) But what is really changed by this?

The Hessian "Pals" ? True... the English used german mercenaries. But they did not bad. And the English and their "pals" seemed to win at first.
And now a "lession" (lol) how one can interpret history. What if I say: "Those 'american' rebells were loosing. And then this Prussian guy with the funny name 'Baron Friedrich Wilhem Augustus von Steuben' came along. And drilled them. During a long cold winter. And that is why they won in the end! You Americans would still be a British colony if not for one German!"

Fact is: No one can prove that one. But the time in which he drilled the american farmers was a turning point.
And Westpoint was founded in the military tradition he started.

Do You like the idea of american achievements during the war of independence taken away like this? Bet not. And neither do the French like it if someone does the same to their achievements during the napoleonic wars.

[Kitsune]

Funny thing:

According to opinion-research polls there are 71% of the population in Germany against this war !

Not surprising? Well in France 77 % are against it.

Also not surprising? Ok, but in Spain (a definitiv pro-war country as far as the spain government is concerned) 74% do not want the war.

And now the BIG ONE. According to those polls in Great Britain 90% of the population (Yeah ninety, I can scarcely believe it) are against a war !!!

LOL :lol:

[JiJoMacLE45]

And those 71%, 77%, 74%, and 90% may not exist if we allow this fool in the desert to continue to produce his WMD, because like it or not, the US is not the only country that Saddam would like to see erased. And when these terrorists spit their rheotoric about the west, that includes all of us, Germans, Brits, Americans, French, ALL OF US.

[a. enders]

I think Kitsune's point was that these "democratic" countries seem to be ingoring the requests of their citizens.If the citizenry of a country doesn't want to go to war it shouldn't.That goes quadruple for a "democracy".Personally,if the Brits want to back out,I say go ahead,least they were behind us to begin with.The French have never given a good reason to be against it,but if the population rejects the idea,so be it.
We are the most powerful nation,we can handle or own **** if necessary.We'll just remember when that particular country wants American support when another rowdy nation has an uprising.

[Kitsune]

In fact... my point was more that, if those polls are true, those pacifist Germans have a lower percentage of people opposed to the war than the "pro U.S." Spanish and the British. In fact those "little Brothers" of yours who are said to "guard your back" without fail, have a whooping 90% - far higher than Germany and France.
Ironic.

[Chops]

Kitsune

I'm somehow not surprised that your figures seem to be misleading. As of Wednesday night when C4 did their poll (often viewed as the most accurate) 11% of the polled population in the UK were happy to act without another UN resolution. Add another UN resolution and the numbers go up to 72%.

Once again, check your facts. I live here.

Regards

Chops

[Kitsune]

Yeah.. I must admit... in that poll they have only asked: Are you pros or cons as far as war on iraq is concerned? (Not many shades in this ok) The 90% cons seem to be those 89 % in your poll that "would not go in without another U.N. resolution" okay? (1% difference...can happen.)

Note also that the U.S. government position is : Husseins time is up. Why waste time? And another Resolution is not needed. So the British do not follow that one okay?

But you are right Chops. This Poll simplifies things somewhat. But it's the only inter-european one I have seen in this week. Do You have a C4 (or other) poll that compares preferably G. Britain, France and Germany (and Spain or Italy if possible) with a more differentiated question ? Would be interesting.

Kindest R. Chops !

[Kitsune]

And, ahem Chops...
check this out this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2751471.stm

Have 27 % of the British changed their opinion during the last 3 days?
Or are you the one who should check his facts?

[Kitsune]

17 % :oops:

but still max. 55 % would go to war without U.N. backing in G.B. (if there are no undetermined). And that is still a far cry from 72 %, sorry.

[Chops]

"But only 17% of the Labour voters asked agreed it would be right without a new UN mandate" Labour voters. See that phrase? C4 are non politically aligned polls. I quoted Wednesday. As in 13 Feb. Your figures were way off either way you look at it or are we looking at different web sites?

Kitsune- innocent question- how old are you? You obviously live in Germany but are you American? It seems so from your posts.

Rgds

Chops

[hood]

:) The people in Britain that are mentioned, the 9 out of 10 that are against Iraq invasion without UN approval, are kind of like the people here in America that think the same way. They weren't in New York at the time when the planes hit. They weren't in Times Square, with hundreds of people filling the streets and sidewalks looking up as the jumbotron screens of the crashes and hurt people. New York, the city that never sleeps, that has thousands of cars going through its streets with tons of noise, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, was TOTALLY SILENT. A group of about a hundred people walked down the 4 lane street through the middle of the city with not a car in site, with no car horns, with no planes in the sky, with no noise whatsoever. It was like a nuke went off. These people just don't seem understand what it's like until it actually happens to them. Even in London, those men were discovered with giant amounts of Ricin, the deadly poison. They had the full intent of killing thousands of British people with it by poisoning the water or food supplies. But because it was stopped ahead of time, it suddenly doesn't feel all that dangerous. You know who's on board with us? Australia. They had a night club full of their tourists blown up and burnt alive in Bali. NOW they understand, and they're on our side. As bad as this sounds, it's going to take a massive terrorist attack on French soil to get their heads out of the sand. Sean Penn, the American idiot actor that went to Iraq and is on their side and is for peace, punched and beat up a camera guy who was taking his picture too much. These people only get angry if you slap THEM around. They don't care if it happens to someone else. Screw 'em.

[JiJoMacLE45]

I happened to be in Manhattan on September 11th. I was driving through the Lincoln tunnel when the first plane hit and parked on 6th Avenue when the second plane hit. You couldn't drive out of the city, you were stuck there. So I stood on a street corner for most of the day, just watching. Watching brave firemen and policemen rush in without a second of hesitation, many of whom did not come back. Watched the horrified looks on the peoples faces who were in shock from the carnage going on down the street. Watched as the first and then second tower collapsed sending huge plooms of dust, smoke, and debris down towards where I was standing over a mile away. Watched as the F-15s flew CAP overhead, missiles on their wings ready to shoot down anymore inbound planes. Watched as everyone looked at the sky with the sound of those fighters, thinking it might be another hijacked jet. Listening on the few radios that still worked to find out where other planes were crashing, what was going on in our country. Watched as people burst into tears all around me. I starred at the cell phone in my hand, useless because the lines were clogged and my family, who knew I wa in NYC, not knowing whether or not I was still alive, because the on September 10th, I had been in WTC-3. I live with the memories of that horrible event everyday. I can still taste the metallic odor of the smoke, see the faces of the people some of them cops and firemen who rode past me into the heart of it all. I wonder how many of them did not go home that I night. I was there, I lived through it. I don't ever want to have to go through that again. But something tells me that unless we do, we are never going to take this situation seriously. People are going to die, that's one of the costs of war. Ask Israel, they live with it everyday. Is that what we are coming to, I'm afraid it might be.

[Ratamacue]

I was in my 1st period Tech class in 8th grade when it happened. During 2nd period, we went into a neighboring classroom and watched both the towers collapse. Details at that time were sketchy, especially in a school. The full magnitude didn't come down on me until I heard about the statistics at home.

3000+ dead. Most of the dead were never found or were completely mutilated. All over some bull**** Jihad against us because we have interests in the Middle East.

The fact is, it's time to fight back. I don't like Bush, and have never claimed that I do. However, Clinton had very little--if any--response at all to terrorist attacks. After the attack on the USS Cole, he decided that firing off a bunch of cruise missiles at Iraq would solve the problem. Well done, champ!

Maybe the war won't ever end. Maybe it will. No matter what though, terrorists worldwide will be afflicted, and most likely have their operations disrupted. Al-Qaeda is in complete disarray after our absolute mauling of them in Afghanistan. Similar things can be done to groups like Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah (spelling?).

Can't hurt to try, eh? It's better than sitting back and letting another 3000 people die in a single terrorist attack.

[morlick]

Ce message est écrit en français et répond à JiJoMacLE45 qui visiblement à quelques lacunes en histoire.

-Tout d’abord la guerre de cent ans n’a JAMAIS été perdue par la France, les français via Charles VII récupère la Normandie en 1450, puis la Guyenne en 1453, après la victoire de Castillon.
http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/texte/tx2_02.htm

-« Italian War : Lost » (ha ha ha ! False, FAUX!!!!) Quelle guerre d’Italie ?
http://www.renaissance-amboise.com/dossier_renaissance/ses_evenements/guerres/guerre_italie.htm

« Le 10 juillet 1499, Louis XII arrive à Lyon. De là, une avant-garde rejoint l'Italie le 18 juillet. En août, les villes détenues par Ludovic Sforza tombent une à une (…) avril 1509, Louis XII attaque la ville lacustre. Les vénitiens sont battus à Agnadel par Bayard et ses soldats. (…)11 avril 1512 à Ravenne l’armée française bat la coalition regroupant Venise, l'Espagne,le Saint-Siège, Henry VIII et les suisses (…)François 1er arrive à Lyon avec une armée de quarante mille hommes. Il franchit les Alpes et prend Turin ainsi que Novare. Il bat les suisses à Marignan le 14 septembre 1515 (…) »


A cette époque la France se bat contre Charle Quint, l’Italie, La suisse, le Vatican, l’Espagne…, Je termine pour dire que la Savoie était Italienne, elle est désormais Française.

-« Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots” Et oui mais ici c’est en partie des huguenots de Nouvelle France (Protestants Français) qui s’allie avec les anglais et certains iront même plus loin ;« Le huguenot le plus connu en l'occurrence, Jean-Louis Ligonier, allait devenir commandant général de l'Armée britannique durant la guerre de Sept ans »

-« * Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded” (ha ha ha False, Faux, Fauxxxx!!!”

Les Français repoussent d’abord les Espagnoles en 1636, Condé mit par ailleurs en déroute l'armée espagnole à Rocroi, le 18 mai 1643, Le 3 août 1645, les généraux français remportèrent la bataille de Nördlingen sur l'armée austro-bavaroise, Puis commencent le siege de Munich.

http://perso.club-internet.fr/dazio/Histoire/Histoire_Guerre-de-Trente-Ans.htm

-« War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.” (ha ha ha !! decidement tu est trop nul JiJoMacLE45)
L’armée de Louis XIV occupe Lille et les Pays-Bas Espagnole, l’armée française annexe Lille, Tournai, Douai, Armentières et quelques dépendances.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/herodote/histoire05022.htm

- * American Revolution : Contrairement à ce que tu croit, ce n’est pas les américains qui ont aidé les français a prendre leur indépendance mais l’inverse !

-*War in Indochina - Lost. Yes ! like Americans few years later in same country.

- * Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Pas tout a fait, l’algerie a été abandonnée par les politique. Durant la bataille d’Alger les Parachutiste Français on fait prisonnier la plupart des cadres rebelles algériens (FLN) Ceci en quelque jours.


- *The key word in the French Foreign Legion is 'Foreign'. Sure about a third of its members are French who join as Belgians, Swiss, etc, but the idea behind it was to recruit Foreign soldiers to fight for the French flag. ; Oui mais ces hommes sont formés par des français.

-*As far as Napolean, even though he led the French, he was Corsican, not French. La Corse est Française. C’est aussi idiot de dire ;It’s like SAM HUSTON, he was TEXAN not American.! (d’ailleurs, si mes souvenirs sont bons Sam s’est fait battre par les mexicains, non ?).

iJoMacLE45 tu regarde trop de films tels que Black Hawk Down, We where soldiers, Rambo 2, Pearl Harbor, Fort Alamo.

(C’est incroyable comme les défaites américaines peuvent être transformées en victoires).

[JiJoMacLE45]

???WTF???

[JiJoMacLE45]

First off, I don't even speak French but I get the gist of your post and here's my reply. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST IN REPLY TO SOMETHING I POSTED, DO IT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT EVERYONE ELSE ON THE SITE USES. I wanted to make that point very clear for the French people in the audience. That way when I shred you for trying to be witty and post something back, everyone will know what I am talking about.

If you read my post you'll realize that I stated what I was putting up came from another article, it was not my ideas or thoughts, just something I saw somewhere else and I thought was appropriate for the forum.

Second, your country is the international equivelant to a prison bitch. You get raped by everyone, but try to act tough, but as soon as someone raises a hand to you, you bend over and give up the goods. You'd be posting in German if it wasn't for the US of A. If you need to reassure yourself of this, go check the graves of the 9,386 Americans buried at the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy. It was my fellow country men who spilled their blood for you. Our boys gave up their lives so you could go about being ungrateful. And you know what, we'd do it again in a heartbeat without a moments hesitation, you know why? Because that is loyalty. That is what one ally does for another. Not try and find ways to avoid a war because oh yeah, that's right, you were the ones selling and supporting Saddam Hussein's program to develop weapons of mass destruction so you could get oil. The same country that sent in military commandos to sink a Green Peace ship. Last time I checked, the Green Peace boats were not armed. And from what I understand, attacks on unarmed civilians are considered acts of terrorism. Yet you chastise us because we want to eliminate one of most ruthless dictators of modern times. France, your a joke.

And you prove why, just like your God awful country, you post in a language that most of us won't understand and turn up your nose and scoff at us. Go ahead, scoff at your saviors. If your going to post again, do it in English not in French so you can hide behind a foreign language.

Figures, a Frenchman hiding.

[hood]

Well, here's the google translation.. obviously it'll make mistakes:


This message is written in French and answers JiJoMacLE45 which obviously with some gaps in history. - All d?abord war the one hundred year old n?a EVER lost by France, French via Charles VII recovers Normandy in 1450, then Guyenne in 1453, after the victory of Castillon.

http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/texte/tx2_02.htm - "Italian War: Lost "(ha ha ha! False, FALSE!!!!) Which war d?Italie? http://www.renaissance-amboise.com/dossier_renaissance/ses_evenements/guerres/guerre_italie.htm "on July 10, 1499, Louis XII arrives to Lyon.

From there, an avant-garde joined Italy on July 18. In August, the cities held by Ludovic Sforza fall to one (?) April 1509, Louis XII attacks the lake city. The Venetian ones are beaten in Agnadel by Bayard and his soldiers. (?)11 April 1512 in Ravenne l?armée French beats the coalition gathering Venice, Spain, the Holy See, Henry VIII and the Swiss ones (?)François 1st arrives to Lyon with an army of forty thousand men. It crosses the Alps and takes Turin like Novare. It beats the Swiss ones in Marignan on September 14, 1515 (?)"at that time France fights against Charle Quint, l?Italie, Switzerland, the Vatican, l?Espagne?,

I finish for saying that Savoy was Italian, it is from now on French. - "Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots? And yes but here c?est partly of the huguenots of New France (French Protestants) which s?allie with English and some will go even further;" The most known huguenot in fact, Jean-Louis Ligonier, was going to become general commander British during the Seven year old war "-" * Thirty Years War - France is technically not has taking part, goal manage to get invaded? (ha ha ha False, Forgery, Fauxxxx!!!? The French push back d?abord the Spanish ones in 1636, Condé in addition put in rout the Spanish army at Rocroi, May 18, 1643, August 3, 1645, the French Generals gained the battle of Nördlingen over the austro-Bavarian army, Then begin the siege of Munich. http://perso.club-internet.fr/dazio/Histoire/Histoire_Guerre-in-Thirty-Ans.htm - "War of Devolution - Tied. Do Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots have hats? (ha ha ha!! definitely you is too no JiJoMacLE45) L?armée of Louis XIV occupies Lille and the Netherlands Spanish, l?armée French annexes Lille, Tournai, Douai, Armentières and some dependences. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/herodote/histoire05022.htm - * American Revolution: As opposed to what you believes, this n?est not American who helped French has to take their independence but l?inverse! -*War in Indochina - Lost. Yes! like Americans few years later in same country. - * Algerian Rebellion? Lost. Not completely, l?algery was given up by the policy. During the battle d?Alger the French Parachutist one makes captive the majority of the executives rebel Algerian (FLN) This in some days. - * The key Word in the French Foreign Legion is ' Foreign '. Sour butt has third of its members are French who join have Belgians, Swiss, etc, goal the idea behind it was to recruit Foreign soldiers to fight for the French flag; Yes but these men are trained by French. -*As far have Napolean, even though He led the French, He was Corsican, not French. Corsica is French. So idiotic C?est of saying;It?s like SAM HUSTON, He was TEXAN not American.! (d?ailleurs, if my memories are good Sam s?est made beat by the Mexicans, not?). iJoMacLE45 you looks at too many films such as Black Hawk Down, We where soldiers, Rambo 2, Pearl Harbor, Fort Alamo. (incredible C?est as the American defeats can be transformed into victories).

[Kitsune]

Chops:

*Sigh* With the 17% I just meant the difference between your statement of 72% (according to C4), who would support the U.S. war in case of an U.N. resolution specifically allowing this, and the BBC poll (a day earlier) that states that at max 55% support it in this case. (It states that 45 % are against the British in ANY case that leaves 100% - 45% = 55% who would support it, assuming there are no undetermined). Now the question "Have 17% of the population changed their opinion overnight?" That is quite improbable since nothing serious has happened during that time. And I also think the BBC poll was "unpolitical". LOL. It only states that polls among labour came to the conclusion that whereas only one of ten Brits (meaning 10 % and also meaning 90% are against this) would support the U.S. without U.N. backing (meaning supports the position of the U.S. government who do NOT think they need U.N. backing when it really comes down to it) whereas in Labour (Blairs party, ok you know that, I think) 17% support the U.S. in ANY case. But this is only important if one is interested in the inner workings of english policies.
As far as "my" poll was concerned... it is not "mine". It are not "my" facts. It was a poll I read, and it just stated: "percent of the population against he war in different european countries". And I just quoted it. Truthfully. Now one can say: "Pro-war? Against a war? And what if there is a U.N. resolution. This over-simplifies it." And that is ok.

Another thing. You not only often seem deliberateley to misunderstand me, you also use these little barbs like :
"I'm somehow not surprised that your figures seem to be misleading" Among others.
STOP that please. Or do you want to declare war on me? Then DO IT. But stop that barbing!

And Last. Why the question concerning my age? And wether I am American? Another barb? Or two??

Now Chops. You are a Brit. And I dared to say that I do not think that Operation Nimrod is not THAT great. With this I may have offended you. I'm sorry. I'll try not to do it again.

Peace be with you, Chops.

[Kitsune]

"Never trust statistics you did not falsify yourself."

Winston Churchill

[morlick]

Hello JiJoMacLE45

In first if i write this text in french it’s not to hide anything but my engligh is bad (you can see it in this text), like you in French.
You don’t like France and Frenchman. The difference between you and me is I like American. You wrote “…check the graves of the 9,386 Americans buried at the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy”, yes it’s true and me and all French people never, never forgot that. I was to this cemetery in omaha Beach last year. But I don’t see the link with that I wrote.

The funny stuff is that I am for the war. In france, like England, germany, USA there are people who are for war and other that are not favourable to this war. In USA, in California many people go down in the street to protest, they don’t want war. I don’t said they are stupid. It’s the difference with our country and Irak. In Irak people can’t have opinion. Dictature are a sign of idiocy. My only question is why Saddam was not arrested in 1991? If someone know the response I m interested.


Pain for Saddam, peace for all other…

I have nothing to hide and (je n'ai rien à cacher)i post a nice picture of me (on center) :D :D :D :D
morlick01@hotmail.com

http://members.fortunecity.fr/morlick/4ra.jpg

[Ratamacue]

Morlick, I understand that your english is bad, but the vast, vast majority of this forum speaks english, while a very small minority speaks French. Your english isn't that bad, either--I had no problems understanding you.

The fact is, it's not the French population's fault that France won't go to war. It's their government. Don't blame the French for holding us back: blame their government.

[Chops]

Hey Kitsune

I'm actually an Australian living in UK. Don't worry I won't take offence at being called a Brit :lol:

Kind rgds

Chops

[Kitsune]

Make out of this what you want:

In Berlin today 500.000 people were on the Streets to protest against the war on Iraq.
According to BBC it were 1 million in Madrid.
And in London between 1 and 2 million. It is even said that it could be the biggest protest demonstration "of its kind" (not me saying that... BBC said that "some" were saying this).
DITO.

[budanski]

Make out of this what you want:

In Berlin today 500.000 people were on the Streets to protest against the war on Iraq.
According to BBC it were 1 million in Madrid.
And in London between 1 and 2 million. It is even said that it could be the biggest protest demonstration "of its kind" (not me saying that... BBC said that "some" were saying this).
DITO.

Thats still a small percentage to base your foreign policy on but a massive amount of commies. ;)

[Ichhabe]

Are you serious when you say that 1.000.000 people is a small amount budanski? I hope so. But the fact is, that here in Europe it is really a HUGE part of the population that is against a war on Iraq. Even if the UN says Go! So is the facts, sorry to say. (Hell! Even my wife wanted to go to the demonstration.)

[Kitsune]

Where you from Ichhabe ?

[Ichhabe]

Norway

[Kitsune]

THX

[David]

i just watched the last half of a mtv news special on the iraq thing and it left me feeling ashamed to be part of my generation (i'm 18). theres so many stupid people that are "anti war" just because everybody else is and they're all using the "bush just wants the oil" and the "why should our soldiers die to support the president". because it's their job, they volunteered, and the pres is the boss. i'm also tired of all the damn women complaining about war, they're not going to get drafted. women just use the humanitarian bs about "don't kill iraqi civilians, blah blah". f**k humanitarians, survival of the fittest is the way it should be if you ask me.

"in this battle we call life, what we need is not goodness but strength, not humility but pride, not altruism but resolute intelligence; that equality and democracy are against the grain of selection and survival; that not masses but geniuses are the goal of evolution; that not ‘justice’ but power is the arbiter of all differences and all destinies." -Nietzsche.

[budanski]

With war in Iraq looming, experts are showing up everywhere telling us how many people are going to be killed. What makes this interesting is that there is still no agreement on how many were killed in the 1991 war. The higher estimates (up to 100,000 Iraqi dead) were pure guesses made at the end of the fighting. When the battlefield, and Iraqi cities, were examined, it was found that the number of Iraqi military dead was probably less than 5,000 (remember all those Iraqis trying to surrender, very few actually fought, and when they did, the majority surrendered after some of their buddies were killed.) Civilian deaths were probably less than 1,000. Even anti-American advocacy groups that visited Iraq after the war were surprised at how precise the US bombing was, and how few civilians casualties resulted. But a lot of experts estimating deaths from the war like to add deaths from the Shia/Kurdish rebellion right after the war, and the food and medicine shortages of the 1990s. In these cases, the deaths were probably in the hundreds of thousands. But what is missed here is these deaths were caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis. The rebellions right after the war were not the first by the Shias or Kurds. Both groups had rebelled against the Sunni minority many times in the previous decades (and centuries, for that matter.) The deaths from starvation and lack of medicine were deliberate moves by Saddam to suppress rebellious attitudes among Iraqis who didn't like him. Noting the pattern of deaths in the 1991 war, Saddam is openly stationing troops and weapons in residential neighborhoods of non-Sunni Iraqis. How that will play out in the next war is hard to say. U.S. psychological warfare messages sent into Iraq over the last few months has made it clear that any officers hiding their troops among civilians will be held personally responsible if there are dead Iraqi civilians as a result. This could cause some strange military maneuvers when the fighting starts. The US is determined to limit civilian casualties in any new Iraq war, and has more precise weapons to achieve that goal. So it's a contest between Saddam trying to use Iraqi civilians as shields for his troops, and the US trying to avoid killing civilians.

With concern to the protesters. Remember back in the early 80's, when you had millions of anti-nuclear/anti-american protesters, protesting President Reagan's plan of installing Pershing II missiles in Germany? Well, what ended happening was that with Germany agreeing to it, made the Soviets realized Washington's "new thinking" which they later admitted to playing a part to their collapse. What does this prove? That millions of protesters like last weekeds protest and like the ones before them can be wrong.

[96B]

People are going to talk like there will be many more casualties in the upcoming war with Iraq. I am almost completely convinced that we will run them over just like in 1991 with very minimal casualties. Think about it.... the Iraqi military has had 12 years to rebuild, however they are still using basically the same technology as before and have even less manpower whereas the US military has advanced much much more in its capabilities and precision. Sure we will be using about 250,000 instead of 500,000 this time but with the exception of the Republican Guard and whatever other units may be very loyal to Sadaam in Baghdad, most of their army will surrendur peacefully. We need to gain control of the entire country while avoiding big city conflicts and surround Baghdad before we even decide to go in to try to get Sadaam.

With regards to the protesting, I fully support the right of it as long as it is not violent or destructive but I believe that as a country, you should do what you believe is right and necessary and not what everybody else thinks you should do. I agree with earlier posts saying that it would take a terrorist attack on a larger scale to make others understand, and although I dont see a huge link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they are still a threat that needs to be dealt with despite the fact Sadaam probably should have been dealt with earlier. I am in no way trying to be an isolationist but the world needs to understand that the US will not allow threats to linger around the globe without acting. I find it amazing that there is all this protest against going to war with Iraq but yet I have not seen any signs calling for Iraq to comply.

I would much much rather have the US go to war with Iraq in the midst of all this protest and take care of the threat then to have another US city get in the crosshairs of these cowards of terror.

[Kitsune]

Hmmm... this makes me think. Now do not get me wrong David !!! I just state some facts.

1) One of the favorite theories of the Nazi regime in Germany was "Survival of the fittest".

2) One of their favorite philosophers was... Nietzsche.

3) After the war was over and millions of people had been murdered an often asked question was: "Why did nearly every German support them? Why had even Germans who did not like Hitler at all (and their were quite a few) still fought for him and thereby made this possible? Fear? Nonsense. Most did it absolute voluntarily. Why?

The Answer: Patriotism. When there is war your country needs you. And when your country needs you, you answer the call. You don't ask questions. You do your duty. Whatever it takes. So did my Grandparents. None of them liked Hitler. None of them were even in the Nazi-party (although for one of my Grandfathers it created problems... he lost his job as a schoolteacher because of his refusal to join. But as war broke out and the army called, he went. He asked him "Why?" and he said to me:"I wasn't forced. It were different times. It was unthinkable for me not to fight for my homeland. I thought it simply as my duty back then." And my other Grandfather said something similar.

If more Germans would have said "No!" instead of marching willingly into war... perhaps much could have been prevented.

The U.S.A. of today are NOT Nazi-Germany. And Bush is NOT Hitler. And Iraq is NOT Poland. No second Holocaust is about to start. And I do not think that David is a Nazi, just because he quoted Nietzsche (who also wasn't one). But this was one instant in History were great Evil was committed just because to many decent men did "their duty".

So... if in todays America people do not simply fall in line and march in step, it is perhaps not so a bad thing after all. It means that the likes of Hitler do not get a chance in the United States.

[Kitsune]

Hmmm... budanski, from what I have heard the Iraqi casualties are estimated to be in the 100.000 to 150.000 range. And that numbers are fom mostly american and english documenatries who seemed to be quite matter of fact. And even if they were wrong (IF) I have never heard anyone (except you) take a guess of 5000! The highway to Basra (dubbed "Highway of Death" and such) was littered with wrecks of vehicles that were destroyed by the U.S. Air Force while fleeing. I remember a U.S. Pilot being interviewed, who said that he and his wing destroyed lots of them...got refitted...destroyed vehicles...got refitted... destroyed vehicles...and so on (He seemed to be quite proud of it. It was his job after all). American artillery pounded whole iraqi divisions. Others were bombed by huge B 52 bombers. Many of the american bombs were precise, alright. They destroyed precisely the vehicles or buildings they were supposed to. Many thousands of times. And in a lot of those buildings and tanks and APCs and trucks were people. Often more than one. Only 5000 killed ? Sorry... but I think THAT is propaganda.

But believe what you want.



But how are Saddams chances this time? What will happen? And does he has a chance? Most who are thought to be experts state: "No, the iraqis do not have the slightest chance. They are weaker whereas the americans got even better weapons. They will be pulverized. There is only the question how long it will take."
But what can Saddam do at worst? I personally think that he may even have a slight chance of winning.
If he tries to defeat the U.S. Forces militarily he stands no chance. He has to target the american WILL to fight, instead.

The U.S. Forces have two weaknesses:
1) They cannot stand high casualties. If the deathtoll rises to some thousand american soldiers... public opinion in the U.S. (and Britain + Australia) will probably change.
2) Even worse: They cannot stand killing. They portrait themselves as the force of goodnes and justice. They have come to free the iraqi people (At least this is what they are saying). If there are huge numbers of iraqis (especially civilians) killed... they get problems, too.


So the best strategy for Hussein is to heighten casualties on BOTH sides as far as possible. (I do not think that he got a moralic problem with this.)
But how? WMDs?
No, that would be a serious mistake (even if Israel is the target). Even if Hussein has usable ones, that would prove the U.S. right and would in fact strengthen their resolve. So there will be probably none used.
Instead he sends his usual concript army against the Americans... if he is lucky they will be massacred (and if he is very lucky even some Americans are killed). Then they are gone. Doesn't matter. That was only the prelude.
Hussein himself makes his stand in Baghdad. With his elite troops, the Republican Guard and/or others. (If they do not want to fight and rebel aginst him this is the end of the story of Saddam Hussein. But if not... read on). If he can rally 30.000 to 50.000 troops who are willing and able to fight he has a chance. And its important that as much civilans as possible stay in Baghdad. Hussein needs them.
What can the Americans do?
Pound Baghdad by bombers and artillery? Well... this would be good as far as Saddam is concerned, because this means lot of civilan casualties. If pictures of iraqi women and children who were torn to pieces by american bombs are shown by the media the world over...well the Muslims will make bombs, the Europeans will demonstrate and the Americans will change their minds.
So the U.S. troops could decide to wait before Baghdad and to besiege the city. It should be fine with Hussein as long as a serious supply problem is created. He will WANT his civilians to starve to death ("Its not my fault... the Americans are doing this!") As long as the Republican Guard is fed and Saddam has his supply of gourmet food (probably french gourmet food! LOL !) everything is as it should be. And when pictures of the suffering populace are shown by the media all over the world...the Muslims will make bombs, the Europeans will... yeah O.K.)
And if the Americans boldly storm Baghdad? Well... perhaps this is the option Hussein would like least but... this is the best opportunity to kill Americans. It will be ugly. House to house. The american troops spearheading this are be better trained. They have body armor. And they have probably mini-cameras mounted on their weapons. But they are fighting far from home whereas Hussein's fanatics may think that they are defending their home... and that they got nothing to loose. And if 5000 american body bags are filled... perhaps Bushs mind is changed.

Well... as I said this will only happen if Hussein has got more than 10.000 troops who are willing to fight and to die for him. Otherwise it will be over in a matter of days. But if... this war could last weeks even month. And the longer it takes, the more people die ON BOTH SIDES... the better for Saddam!

As for now... most Americans seem to expect a fast and smooth victory.


But there's always the unexpected.

[hood]

Better yet, air drop MRE's, Skittles, weaponry, and a propaganda video entitled 'How to overthrow an evil dictator in 5 days or less' with host Ron Popeil. With their need for food from the government gone, they'll rise up and form a domino effect against Mr Unhappy.

[96B]

The U.S. Forces have two weaknesses:
1) They cannot stand high casualties. If the deathtoll rises to some thousand american soldiers... public opinion in the U.S. (and Britain + Australia) will probably change.
2) Even worse: They cannot stand killing. They portrait themselves as the force of goodnes and justice. They have come to free the iraqi people (At least this is what they are saying). If there are huge numbers of iraqis (especially civilians) killed... they get problems, too.

1. With the exception of Vietnam, the US forces have been very successful in its engagements with very few losses over the years and the public has grown accustomed to this, thus meaning if we lose many it appears to the ignorant that we are losing.

2.We ARE the force of goodness and justice. Although many terrible things happen in war, after all, it is war, and we must do what we need to to win.

And by saying "if there are huge numbers of iraqi civilians killed we will get problems" are you implying that if Germany or any other civilized country fought Iraq they wouldnt care if many civilians died?

Not to be judgemental here but you seem to be anti American in alot of your posts and statements... would you like to see America go under?

[hood]

Those 3 points that he described were pretty much the Clinton doctrine of military warfare. Only do a little bit of conflict and then pull out or discontinue if anything goes wrong. Unfortunately Bin Laden picked up on this and referred to us as paper tigers for it... the difference is that Bush has said numerous times that he's not going to act like a certain previous president. He's going to go all the way this time and not stop until the job is done. That goes for Afghanistan, that goes for Iraq, and that was proven again yesterday with the announcement of the combat role of the US SF guys in the Philippines. Various indications of casualties that could have made us flinch were Operation Anaconda and Takur Ghar where we lost men in heavy battles. This didn't in any way make us withdraw or deter us from continuing the mission.

[Kitsune]

I do not think I am Anti-American. I like the U.S.A. (lie: in fact I love it). But I do not like the Bush administration. I have only a low opinion of Bush and Rumsfeld and I don't know what to think of Rice. Sole exception: Colin Powell. I deeply respect him. (I thought it interesting that this old trooper was sad to be a "dove" until some months ago, whereas Rumsfeld, who has allegedly not spent a day in the military in is whole life [as far as i have heard], was said to be a "falcon". Draw your own conclusions.) Now he seems to have fallen in line behind the rest... but as a politician you must do this sometimes or your career ends all of a sudden... So my respect for Mr. Powell hasn't changed so far. (If this decent man becomes a future american president... that would be something. And would be good for America, too. Just my opinion of course). If you think my dislike of the current adminitration makes me anti-american, then I am. (This makes me think... I do not like the german administration either... so I guess I am anti-german as well).

Concerning the war: I do not think that it is a good idea. Terrorism will certainly not stop and probably rise because of it. Hussein may seem like a threat, but if you see him in context and look at other nations around the world, he is clearly not THAT problem as that the american administration depict him. He is in fact quite weak. (Frankly I think he is an american target BECAUSE he is weak.)
The worst case scenario: The whole region is destabilized. Chaos reigns. The U.S.A. try to control the situation but fail. Hundreds of american troopers die. A lot of innocent people die. Bushs popularity drops. He is not re-elected and a humiliated U.S. pulls out of the Middle East and withdraws in a period of isolation. The chaos in the middle east troubles the world economy (and Europe) for the next decade.
Ok... this is worst case. Most probably that won't happen. The war may be over in a few weeks. Only a few thousand iraqis die. Only some hundred civilians. And only around a hundred american military personnel (mainly through accidents and friendly fire). The Iraqis feel liberated and are happy. A stable new government is created and the U.S. can use iraqi bases for future operations. And the sceptics are proven wrong. In fact I hope I am. That would be the best solution for everyone (except Mr. Hussein, who could do us all a favor by dying from a heart-attack during the next days.)
But as for the time being I stay sceptical. (As a German I simply cannot miss this golden opportunity to worry about something.) In any way wether I like it or not, the U.S. will attack anyway. Whatever Europe, Russia or China is saying. The question is only when they do it and wether it is done with or without U.N. support.

[hood]

Err.. where did you "hear" that rumsfeld was never in the military?

"Donald H. Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as the 13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

He's been around the military for a large part of his life including serving in it. But of course he's a falcon so to speak. He's the secretary of defense. It's his job to advise the president on the capabilities of the Army. It's the job of the other members of the cabinet and president to decide whether or not to use the sword.

I think one of the big problems with this whole Iraq mess, is that the situation there needs to be taken care of already. Sanctions have been going on for a very long time, and Sadam is taking the food for oil stuff and using it to build more palaces instead of giving it to his people. It's turning into a major humanitarian crisis.. Not to mention, various countries like France and Russia are most certainly giving them contraband for money. France already sold them a nuclear reactor and other weapons, and same goes for Germany. They have huge monetary interests. What these people don't see, is that when all of this is said and done, the sanctions will be lifted, and Iraq will become a thriving metropolis like it was before Sadam took over. They were some of the best educated people in the world. With all those freedoms, all of these countries will finally be able to trade and make tons of money... the only reason I can think of that Russia/france/germany wouldn't be interested in such things, is if something awful will be exposed by invading Iraq. All the skeletons will come out of the closet and everyone will be looking at them to see what terrible things they've done under the table.

[Kitsune]

Ok... then I was mistaken. The thing with Rumsfeld came to my mind as I wrote it...and since I was not entirely sure I set it in brackets and added an "as far as I know". Still... this was not OK (Lazy me, should have looked it up). I do better next time. :oops:

I sincerly apologize to Mr. Rumsfeld and his fans.

[JiJoMacLE45]

You can say that you don't like the Bush administration and that's fine but you can not be serious if you think President Clinton and his staff could have done any better. It is really irking me to see Clinton and his
she-man wife running around now criticizing the Bush administration and saying they are wrong for not letting the inspections work and that Bush is being overly aggressive and acting like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Hillary recently said that Bush ignored Clinton's warnings about Osama bin Laden. Well if that isn't a case of passing the buck then I don't know what is. The attacks on the Khobar Towers, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole all occured on Clinton's watch and he did jack except launch a couple of Tomahawks into a medical plant and a mountain side and talk tough without really doing anything.

In 1995 when the CIA began training Kurdish rebels in the north for a possible coup attempt, the administration pulled out the Americans and watched as the Kurds were slaughtered for the second time.

People assume that because we had no major war during the Clinton administration's time in office that the world was a peaceful place is a load of crap. All the time that he was fooling around with interns, organizations like Al-Qaeda were gaining momentum and making themselves stronger and he did nothing. He let it happen. You can point the finger all you want but in my honest opinion you put the blame on the man at the top and the man responsible for letting September 11th happen was William Jefferson Clinton.

President Bush and his administration recognize that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and are going to deal with it. Clinton thought you know what, if we leave Al-Qaeda alone, they won't bother us. This as our embassies and ships were being blown up overseas. And he was dead wrong. Ask the people in NYC and DC about that.

I honestly can not see why people have such a problem with us saying, we perceive this person or this country to be a threat and you know what' we are going to kill it before it kills us first. That's why I can't fathom how people in my own government and throughout Europe criticize Israel for defending itself when maniacs walk into night clubs and markets with bombs strapped to their chests and blow themselves up.

And sure terrorism and Hussein might be different threats, but they are threats none the less. We can not just retract ourselves into our little cocoon and expect nothing to happen to us. Clinton tried that, it failed.
We have to be proactive or September 11th will only be the first of many horrible days in our countries history.

And for the UN, they are becoming irrelevant. The UN set a series of mandates for Hussein to comply with and he does not. How can we let inspections work when he will not cooperate. He is supposed to grant inspectors uncontested access to the entire country. He has not even come close. If the UN will not enforce its own rules, why should it exist.

I'm rambling here, but I'm just getting fed up with President Bush getting railed for trying to do the right thing for this great country.

[Kitsune]

Ok as far as Clinton is concerned... I did some reading.
The main reason why his time of rule is thought as a "golden age" (obviously not by you JiJO) is economics. If you remember (most Americans seem to have forgotten it) the american economy looked downright BAD in the eighties and the early nineties. Japan was on his height, and there was a lot of talk about "America is a declining power" or "the U.S. are about to commiting economic suicide" (the Japanese seemed to buy everything) and so on. (See for example "Red Sun" the book by Crighton. Or the Film, with Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes. These are made at the end of this period. Theme: "Japan is the Future.")
But now the miracle: All of a sudden in the early nineties the Japanese fall into a deeeeeep economic crisis (they still have not recovered yet) whereas the U.S. economy is suddenly high as a kite. America the Superpower of yesterday? The Japanese taking their place? LOL! No way !!!
Now this small economic miracle took place mainly between 1995 and 2000 and seems to be over now (there could even be a new crisis coming... if I knew for sure I'd be rich...) and it fell squarely into Clintons reigning period. His predecessor Bush senior had not been re-elected ALTHOUGH he won the Gulf War... but Clinton got, all his embarrasing ******...adventures... forgiven by the american people because of economics.
What was the reason? Well, as I said I did some reading... and still I do not know it. There are different theories what did it, but at least that seems to be certain: Clinton is not the main reason. His economic policy was good enough not to prevent it. But in effect...he simply got luck that he was reigning when it happened... whereas Bush senior was simply unfortunate that the economy was weak at the end of his first term. So I must admit that clinton was probably not all that great.

[JiJoMacLE45]

I don't know if this was mentioned in your research sources, but the economy had already started going down during Clinton's last year or so in office. But people seem to leave that out when looking for little tidbits to rip on Bush. Don't get me wrong, President Bush is far from being perfect and I am not trying to put him up on a pedestal, but I think he is being unfairly criticized. Our economy has always fluctuated and like you said, it just so happened that Clinton was in the right place at the right time. It's also known that the economy tends to dip during war time. It did following the Gulf War as it is doing now.

[morlick]

In his post Hood write "France already sold them a nuclear reactor and other weapons, and same goes for Germany" yes it's right but on same time usa sold weapons to Saddam and support him during the war against Iran.

[Ratamacue]

But did we sell him nuclear weapons/other WMDs? No, I didn't think so.

[Merik]

You guys really want to know why the Germans, French, and Belgians dont want us to invade Iraq???Because they know that they will get thier arses handed to them when it publicly comes out that those three have been selling Iraq WoMD's over the past decade or two.