| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2004 12:26:17 PM · #51 |
| why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 12:41:01 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jamesdak:
after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. |
With all due respect to military service, I don't see how 20 yrs of it qualifies someone to know more about what is going on in the world.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
I am honestly amazed and the things so many of you think are true. ....
The difference is, my reasons are actualy factual. And I'm not saying that all of "yours" are not. BUT I am saying that most of the things I read hear are completly false and have zero facts to back anything up. |
Actually, most everything posted here is someone's opinion; and other people's are just as valid as yours is, even if you consider them to be uninformed or misinformed.
I am dismayed to see people who were not even alive in the 70's deny so vehemently that the current situation in Iraq is not similar to Vietnam. To those who lived through that conflict the similarities are startling, and seem to increase almost daily. History is a great teacher to those who are willing to learn from it.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 12:48:14 PM · #53 |
| What qualifies me is actually seeing, hearing, and living it. It not something I heard about from a friend or saw on CNN. I was there, feet on the ground, talking to locals, privy to info, etc. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 12:51:27 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am dismayed to see people who were not even alive in the 70's deny so vehemently that the current situation in Iraq is not similar to Vietnam. |
Maybe thats what allows me to look at it in black and white and with reason instead of with hate and emotion. I'm a huge history buff, and for anyone, especially a Senetor and a presidential nominee to claim that Iraq and Vietnam are the same is just simply sad.
And while were talking about Vietnam I Personally think that Kerry should make up his mind... Are his fellow soldiers that served in Vietnam baby killers like he stated up untill he ran for the Democratic ticket or are they really his Band Of Brothers? I'm guessing he would call them all little nazis tomorrow if he thought he could win the election with it.
edit: I can't spell
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 12:52:36. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:10:54 PM · #55 |
| So why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:25:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jamesdak:
OrionS -
Tell us what would honestly happen if all the US troops pulled out of your region right now. Can you honestly say there would be peace? "Everything was fine when Clinton was there" - Wow, do you really believe this? |
Honestly I dont know what would happen, but war would not happen again. Being here, or at the other part of the world, for some period ,day or month, doesnt make someone an expert. There were lot of things going on here in Bosnia, but you cant explain that to someone in 5 minutes, it is not so simple. US Troops here are not in the streats or bildings, they are in theirs military objects mostly avay from cities. War is in the past.
For the other thing(speaking globaly not for Bosnia) I dont remeber this much wars, killings and terorist attacks while Clinton was president. They sudenly seem to apear for some reson. If that is the true you have to ask your self, WHY?
You say Bush is solving world problem and that problem are terorist. OK thats true, but, he is solving just consequences not the real problem. US is a world leading contry and everyone turns to you for help, but that help sometimes is selectiv...need to mention Palestine? |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:28:00 PM · #57 |
This thread is being moved to the Rant page because some people cannot control their tempers. Do not resort to personal attacks, or your account will be suspended.
Drew |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:58:25 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
While I'm all for the political discussions, let's have some respect for Alan and others and take the left/right bashing to another thread. Just seems kinda disrespectful to me. Flame away. :-) |
Exactly! There is another thread with the same title for the political discussion. Pushing your political agenda on top of someone's loss is discusting. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:59:32 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
99% of the Sunni's and Shia's are NOT uniting to fight the American and coalition forces. As for those who are, in my opinion they're doing it for one reason, and one reason only - and that reason can be explained in one word - POWER. They want it. They want to turn Iraq back into a Dictatorship with THEM running the show. So THEY can tell everyone in the country what they can and cannot do, when they can or cannot do it, where they can or cannot do it. What religion they must observe, what clothes they must wear. etc. Namely, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan used to do.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:01:12 PM · #60 |
** deleted, was almost an exact duplicate of RonB's post **
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 14:02:51. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:24:42 PM · #61 |
But why the anti-American violence now? Didn't we help the Iraqis to write a new democratic constitution a few weeks ago and promise to hand over power to the Iraqis by July 1? Why is the violence targeted against us and other coalition force members in Iraq at this time when we are set to leave in a few weeks? Wouldn't violence such as this delay our leaving?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
99% of the Sunni's and Shia's are NOT uniting to fight the American and coalition forces. As for those who are, in my opinion they're doing it for one reason, and one reason only - and that reason can be explained in one word - POWER. They want it. They want to turn Iraq back into a Dictatorship with THEM running the show. So THEY can tell everyone in the country what they can and cannot do, when they can or cannot do it, where they can or cannot do it. What religion they must observe, what clothes they must wear. etc. Namely, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan used to do.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:48:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But why the anti-American violence now? Didn't we help the Iraqis to write a new democratic constitution a few weeks ago and promise to hand over power to the Iraqis by July 1? Why is the violence targeted against us and other coalition force members in Iraq at this time when we are set to leave in a few weeks? Wouldn't violence such as this delay our leaving? |
In a word - Opportunity.
They would not be a part of the new government, so they can't wait until after it is installed without overturning it in a coup ( in the same way that the Ba'ath Party came to power in 1963 ). So they've been looking for an excuse to wrest control of the country earlier than July 1. They see this as that opportunity. They don't really understand the ( new ) mentality of the U.S. to see this through. They were taught by the history of former administrations ( Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton ) that when we are attacked, we either do nothing ( as in embassay bombings ) or cut and run ( as in Somalia ).
The Iraqi people's worst fear was that we were going to repeat the '91 Gulf war - run in, declare victory, then leave - only to leave THEM in the same dire straights as before. They STILL think that that is a possibility. So, 10% of the population hates us for being there, and the other 90% fears that we will leave too soon.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:59:41 PM · #63 |
So you're saying that the both the Shi'a and Sunni would be denied to be part of the new gov't of Iraq? Together they are more than 2/3rds of the population.
I would think that it would be to their benefit to wait until the occupying forces leave and then fight the new gov't since the new gov't would most likely have weak military and police forces and could easily be overcome. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 03:25:00 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So you're saying that the both the Shi'a and Sunni would be denied to be part of the new gov't of Iraq? Together they are more than 2/3rds of the population.
I would think that it would be to their benefit to wait until the occupying forces leave and then fight the new gov't since the new gov't would most likely have weak military and police forces and could easily be overcome. |
No. Not at all. Both the Shia's AND the Sunni's will have members in the new government. It's those who are causing the trouble right now that are not represented on the council. That's one of the ( many ) reasons that they are fighting. And if they waited to take over the government AFTER the turnover - though it would be much easier, just as you say - would NOT be supported by the Iraqi people. It would be considered a coup, just like what happened in '63 - and the people know darned well where that would lead, and would not support it in the least. Before the turnover is the only opportunity the rebels have to establish themselves without turning the people against them.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:15:03 PM · #65 |
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 23:14:05. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:47:32 PM · #66 |
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:49:42 PM · #67 |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:54:39 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:08:09 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
|
The BBC article does provide an overview of Saddam's rise to power.
The article you link to doesn't disagree with the BBC article. By the time the U.S. supported SADDAM ( not the Ba'ath Party, MUCH earlier ) he has already risen to power.
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:15:21 PM · #70 |
interesting
Message edited by author 2004-04-10 17:23:58. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:18:37 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
It's interesting to note that even though Mr. Oliveira claims to have given the embedded reporters carte blanche access to talk to anyone they wanted to while onboard, and only edited their reports for accuracy, none of their articles mention the complaints and doubts that he claims were so rampant. FWIW, the embedded reporters were:
George Jahn, Associated Press
Gary Strieker, CNN
Janine Zacharia, Jerusalem Post
I won't bore you with a list of all the links to their articles. And before you take off on me, I will admit that no, i did not read every word of every article. The margin of error is +-5%.
Also, for what it's worth - I don't have much trust in the word of a man who acknowledges that he lies ( he was either lying then, or is lying now, since he now says he was lying then ).
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:37:43 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
interesting |
Yes, very.
Michelle Mairesse is the owner/operator of Hermes Press, whose Web Site is called "The New Enlightenment, A Journal of Social and Metaphysical Inquiry" The Home Page can be viewed HERE
Her "Keys to 9/11, Deja Vu All Over Again" is but one of her more "interesting" articles.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 06:20:56 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
You think the CIA should be held to the same organizational and ethical standards as a camera club? Now I'm starting to get scared. "Individual support" by a CIA agent is probably not a modest check to a re-election campaign .... |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 07:30:46 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
You think the CIA should be held to the same organizational and ethical standards as a camera club? Now I'm starting to get scared. "Individual support" by a CIA agent is probably not a modest check to a re-election campaign .... |
Organizational, no; ethical, definitely. To me "ethical" is not a term that varies in meaning from one person, or organization, to another. Something or someone is either ethical or it isn't. Perhaps you have a differing viewpoint. I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:12:24 PM · #75 |
Ron, not sure who you are referring to when you say below that you don't trust a man who admits to lying. Who is lying and what is the lie?
Are you referring to John Oliveira in the article I posted?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
It's interesting to note that even though Mr. Oliveira claims to have given the embedded reporters carte blanche access to talk to anyone they wanted to while onboard, and only edited their reports for accuracy, none of their articles mention the complaints and doubts that he claims were so rampant. FWIW, the embedded reporters were:
George Jahn, Associated Press
Gary Strieker, CNN
Janine Zacharia, Jerusalem Post
I won't bore you with a list of all the links to their articles. And before you take off on me, I will admit that no, i did not read every word of every article. The margin of error is +-5%.
Also, for what it's worth - I don't have much trust in the word of a man who acknowledges that he lies ( he was either lying then, or is lying now, since he now says he was lying then ).
Ron |
|
|
