posted 03-24-2003 11:18 PM            

Yes I was!
I never got over it either!

posted 03-24-2003 11:31 PM            

I thank you for supporting and defending the Constitution.

I definately understand why a lot of people went to nam...some who volunteered joined because America just got out of the "cuban missle crisis" and were scared to death of "Communist agression"

Unfortunately...now we know the truth.

Some of us younger Veterans...know about the First Gulf war and the REAL reasons behind THAT war.

Kind of like the HILL and KNOWLTON "Baby Incubator" story.

You certainly have my respect.

Thanks again.

posted 03-25-2003 01:34 AM            

and were scared to death of "Communist agression"

Unfortunately...now we know the truth.

yeah that mcarthy was right and the commies were all over the place trying to subvert...just as they are now in the peace movement...follow the money...follow the money...follow the money...

Some of us younger Veterans...know about the First Gulf war and the REAL reasons behind THAT war.

uuhhh...yeah...the real reasons...ok in 1981 iraq invaded iran...bloody war saddam killed more muslims than anyone in history pol pot would love this man...in 88' with his back against the wall he used the gas...

before he (saddam) went and invaded kuwait, he went to the U.S ambassador or vice versa actually and said "I'll give you oil at a good price, if you leave me alone in kuwait" (paraphrasing)

and then there was the gulf war...

that's the real reason "we" were in the gulf mech....

iraq is and has been the aggressor...out front or behind the scenes...

posted 03-25-2003 11:37 AM            

It's Operation Northwoods over and over again.

posted 03-25-2003 11:45 AM            

By Patrick Martin of wsws.org
March 25, 2003

http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=526&zoneid=2

The battles which erupted Sunday and Monday in southern and central Iraq have exploded Bush administration claims that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a speedy collapse of the Iraqi government. Instead of US and British troops being hailed as liberators, they have encountered fierce resistance in towns such as Umm Qasr, Nasiriya and Karbala.

The first encounter between US forces and the Republican Guard, the best-trained and best-equipped Iraqi military units, took place Monday morning near the city of Karbala in central Iraq, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. The 32 Apache helicopters of the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment, US Army V Corps, attacked an armored brigade of 90 tanks.

The helicopters received what CNN correspondent Karl Penhaul called a “heavy, heavy barrage” of anti-aircraft fire, which shot down two of the helicopters and forced the others to withdraw. Penhaul described the pilots as “somewhat dazed, somewhat stunned” by the level of Iraqi resistance. One pilot called the attack zone “a hornet’s nest” in which Iraqi fire came from “all sides.”

The attack force was compelled to abandon its mission and every single helicopter received some damage, mainly from small arms fire, with as many as 15 or 20 bullet holes in each machine. Iraqi state television later broadcast film of one of the helicopters on the ground, with armed Iraqi soldiers dancing around it in jubilation.

Sunday saw the bloodiest battle of the five-day war, with hundreds of Iraqi soldiers and militiamen attacking Marines in Nasiriya, a city 230 miles southeast of Baghdad and 100 miles from the Iraq-Kuwait border. As many as two dozen US soldiers were killed and over 50 wounded, the largest US combat losses in a single day since the Vietnam War. Press reports cited claims by US soldiers that some civilians had taken up arms to join in the fighting, ambushing the Marines as they sought to enter the city.

US and British forces faced a counterattack by Iraqi soldiers in Umm Qasr, the southernmost town in Iraq and its only Persian Gulf port. The port itself was seized in the first two days’ fighting, but Iraqi forces hid in the town and reemerged Sunday. Despite huge superiority in firepower—the US and British forces have unrestricted control of the air, as well as artillery, tanks and naval gunfire—they were unable to dislodge Iraqi soldiers armed only with rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

The first days of the war have also seen a series of misfires and malfunctions in the high-tech US arsenal. US bombs and missiles have landed on the territory of Iran and Turkey, destroyed at least one British warplane, and came close to hitting an American naval vessel in the Persian Gulf. While there is no question that the US military has a huge technological advantage over the Iraqi forces, these incidents undermine the claims of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the unprecedented precision of American bomb and missile attacks.

The aerial bombardment of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities continues unabated since it began Friday night. Iraqi officials have provided few details of the resulting casualties, releasing figures for the death toll which appear to be deliberately minimized, perhaps to avoid panicking the population. The sheer tonnage of bombs being dropped is staggering—roughly the equivalent of a Hiroshima atomic bomb in the first four days.

There is a growing danger that having failed to subdue Iraq with the first wave of attacks, the Bush administration will escalate to saturation bombing, with the potential of leveling Iraqi cities and killing tens if not hundreds of thousands. The dispatch of B-52 bombers from their bases in Great Britain—the deadliest weapon of the Vietnam War—suggests that attacks of even greater brutality will soon be under way.

The first week of the war has refuted many of the complacent predictions of the Bush administration and its US media apologists. There has been no collapse of the Iraqi regime. There has been no mass surrender of Iraqi troops, even among the regular army soldiers who were thought to be less reliable than the Republican Guard troops. There have been no scenes of mass rejoicing at the prospect of US-British military rule replacing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. There have been no reports of chemical and biological weapons, either used in battle or discovered by US and British troops. There have been no Scud missiles fired, either at the invading forces or at Israel. And there has been no systematic attempt to sabotage or destroy the oilfields, either in southern or northern Iraq.

The heroism and determination of the outgunned Iraqi soldiers has surprised not only the US military command, but the regime of Saddam Hussein as well. The Iraqi high command appeared to have written off the southern half of the country in the initial days of the fighting, pulling back forces to concentrate on the defense of Baghdad. The resistance of the Iraqis in the south is a manifestation of spontaneous popular opposition to the US-British invasion.

The unexpected ferocity of the Iraqi resistance has already produced some second-guessing of the Bush administration’s military strategy in the US press. The Washington Post, in a front-page analysis Monday, wrote: “Pentagon officials had expected U.S. troops to be greeted almost universally as liberators, at least in the Shiite south. That view influenced a war strategy based in part on the goal of achieving victory by persuading the Iraqi population and military that Hussein’s government is doomed.”

American forces have pressed on rapidly towards Baghdad, bypassing most other cities and their garrisons. The Post continued: “U.S. commanders knew going into Iraq that they were executing a plan that contained a good deal of risk. It flings the U.S. invasion force deep into Iraq at the end of a long, largely unprotected supply line.” The events in Nasiriya suggest that, if the war does not end rapidly, the US forces approaching Baghdad could be exposed to counterattacks or supply problems.

There are also indications of mounting concern on the part of the Bush administration that the prospect of a protracted war which causes significant American casualties could undermine both military morale and public support at home.

One disturbing incident, from the standpoint of the Pentagon, was the first case of Vietnam-style “fragging,” as an American soldier apparently rolled grenades into three headquarters tents for the 101st Airborne Brigade, killing one officer and wounding at least a dozen others. Press reports indicated that political opposition to the war may have played a role in the attack: Sergeant Asan Akbar, who was arrested near the scene, is a black American who converted to Islam. He reportedly denounced the war as MPs led him away, shouting, “You guys are coming into our countries and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

Even more significant was the reaction of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Sunday to the capture near Nasiriya of the first American POWs, five soldiers in a support unit. After Iraqi television showed film of the five being questioned by their captors, Rumsfeld denounced the broadcast as a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Rumsfeld’s outrage is highly selective, since at his direction the Pentagon shredded the Geneva Convention when it comes to Taliban soldiers captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Taliban POWs were murdered by the US-backed Northern Alliance, with the approval of their American CIA and Special Forces “advisers.” Hundreds more have been denied POW status and shipped to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp—itself a violation of the Geneva Convention, which bars removing POWs from the country where they are captured.

Moreover, the US media has freely filmed and photographed Iraqi prisoners captured since the ground war began March 21, as part of the propaganda campaign to convince American public opinion that the war will be over within a matter of days. The front page of the Washington Post on Sunday—the day of Rumsfeld’s complaint—featured a color photograph of an Iraqi prisoner being led away blindfolded.

posted 03-25-2003 11:53 AM            

THE GLOBALISTS STAND TO GAIN.......

AH YES...THE CARLYLE GROUP

SOMETHING AMERICANS SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT: Bush Sr's Carlyle Group Gets Fat On War And Conflict
http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=528&zoneid=2

By Jamie Doward, The Observer - UK
March 25, 2003

posted 03-25-2003 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
yeah that mcarthy was right and the commies were all over the place trying to subvert...just as they are now in the peace movement...follow the money...follow the money...follow the money...

---

As McCarthy, Nixon, and the U.S. was sympathizing with Nazis, and in 1947, started bringing in the same Fifth Columners to, of all things, The CIA, amongst others. Complete with fabrications of the buildup of Russians near Eastern Poland at that time. If I were the Russians, I'd be nervous if Hitler's minions were alive and well, and functioning in the good old USA.

BTW, McCarthy was a genuine psychotic, alcoholic, tried to kill himself, and was naming homosexuals as commies, while he was puportedly carrying on an affair with Roy Cohen.

posted 03-25-2003 12:02 PM            

By Eugene Marner
Online Journal Contributing Writer

March 24, 2003—We are living in confusing times. Americans—citizens of the richest and most powerful nation on earth—are terrified of the tin pot dictator of a fifth-rate military power that, for 12 years, has been bombed into impotence, sanctioned into penury, and inspected into military irrelevance. At the same time, those same citizens and the corporate media that claim to inform them seem to be completely unaware of the truly alarming news.

On Thursday, March 6, the Dow-Jones news wire reported what may be a world-historical event. Few noticed. What happened is that Saudi Arabia announced that it would not be able to increase oil flow beyond the present 9.2 million barrels per day to the 10.3 million that they had promised in order to avoid shortages in the event of war. Why is this so important?

First some background: U.S. oil production peaked in 1970; North Sea production peaked in 2000; every major oil province in the world is in irreversible decline, except for the Middle East. The Middle East countries have been the "swing producers." That is, whenever more oil has been needed to meet world demand, the Saudis could be relied upon to pump a little more because they were assumed to have the great infinite reservoir of oil. Now, if we stop to think clearly about that rather amusing notion for a moment, we will realize that, on a finite planet, there are only limited amounts of everything. So there must be an end to the oil sometime.

The Saudi announcement tells us that "sometime" is now; that they will no longer be able to be our trusty "swing producer." Saudi Arabia has 37 percent unemployment, millions of angry, idle young men and is desperately in need of money. So there is no chance that they would not pump as much as they could, especially at today's high prices. What we learn from this is that Saudi Arabia has now reached the peak of its oil production. It's not going to run out immediately. But extraction will decline inexorably from now on until it's all gone in 30 or 40 years. Of course, there is still Iraqi oil, but Iraqi reserves—once we've got our hands on them—will postpone the world peak by only months or a very few years. We have all grown up on the exuberant up slope of the world's oil production curve. We shall live the remainder of our lives on the down slope.

There is more bad news. North American gas production, too, is peaking. Matt Simmons, a Texas oil and gas investment banker and an energy advisor to the White House, has been writing and lecturing for several years on the galloping crisis in gas production.

Gas is not like oil. It cannot be conveniently loaded onto tankers and imported from across the ocean as oil can. First it must be liquified and then transported at minus-275 degrees F. and handled (very carefully) at special port facilities. All that infrastructure is expensive and we have only three such ports in the United States. Gas industry publications report that, as a result of the cold winter, gas storage in the United States is now so low that it may be necessary to start rolling blackouts in the Northeast. If gas storage falls too low, pressure in the pipelines drops and then pilot lights in homes and businesses may go out, endangering lives and property. So, electric utilities using gas in the Northeast may be obliged to take gas generators off-line within the next few weeks. We shall see. Normally, there are 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in storage at the beginning of the heating season. Industry analysts report that both the present gas storage level and the replenishment rate are now so low that storage will not be above 2 trillion cubic feet by the beginning of next winter's heating season. So another cold winter will definitely get everyone's attention.

Some will say, "Get those tree-huggers out of the way and the gas industry will be able to drill for more." But that's not true. Gas rigs are drilling as fast as they can but are unable to find enough new gas to make up for the declining production. Many rigs are standing idle because the returns on investment in exploration are simply too meager. That's true of the oil rigs, too. The truth is that oil and gas geologists have surveyed the entire world using very sophisticated equipment and they know where the big oil and gas fields are. They are extremely unlikely to find any massive new fields the way they used to do in the 1960s.

What does all this mean? First of all, it means that we must wake up from our loony dream of endless growth on a finite planet and start to learn to live in a world of declining energy resources. That may sound to some like a nostalgic walk down memory lane to a sepia-toned 19th century Masterpiece Theater way of life, but the reality is likely to be much grimmer.

In 1900, the human population of the earth was 1.6 billion. Today, it is 6.3 billion—four times as much. The growth in human population has been made possible by a great increase in food production. That increase was enabled by the use of fossil fuels—for mechanizing production and for the manufacture of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. At the same time, industrial agricultural practices have degraded the natural environment causing loss of topsoil, pollution and depletion of the fresh water supply, and loss of bio-diversity, all of which have reduced the carrying capacity of the earth once fossil fuels begin their inevitable decline.

The convergence of overpopulation, declining energy supplies, and degraded environment marks the greatest threat to the survival of humanity that we have ever faced. Our government officials seem to be either willfully ignorant or sociopathically unperturbed. What is needed most urgently is cooperation with the rest of the world. But our government has chosen the dead end of bullying and war.

posted 03-25-2003 12:09 PM            

http://www.dieooff.com

posted 03-25-2003 12:32 PM            

Pentagon Faces Stalled Front in N. Iraq
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&sl ug=War%20Stalled%20North

By BRIAN MURPHY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

KALAK, Iraq -- Squinting through binoculars, Iraqi Kurdish fighters watch Saddam Hussein's troops apparently laying mines and preparing for a possible assault from the north.

But the attack may never come - or at least not with the level of U.S. firepower originally anticipated.

The relative calm in northern Iraq, where the Western-protected Kurdish zone is situated, shows how the war planning has become hostage to sticky regional politics.

With coalition forces pressing toward Iraq's capital from the south, there are growing doubts about whether the Pentagon will also mobilize a major push from the north into the important oil districts of Kirkuk and Mosul.

Instead, the current speculation includes the possibility of pinpoint ground attacks by U.S. forces or the bolstering of Kurdish defenses in the hopes that Iraqi northern divisions will collapse without a fight once Saddam is removed.

U.S. Marine Maj. Gen. Henry P. Osman, apparently the highest-ranking U.S. officer in the north, did not arrive until Sunday. In a brief statement to reporters, he gave no indication that a sizable attack force was assembling. Instead, he spoke of coordination with aid agencies and Kurdish officials to help humanitarian efforts and try to keep the fighting from spreading north.

Kurdish political sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, say they are under direct U.S. orders to hold back on any offensive.

The Pentagon originally wanted to move up to 60,000 troops into the Kurdish area for a push toward Baghdad from the north. But the Turkish parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to use Turkey as a staging ground.

For the moment, American troops can reach northern Iraq by air only. And, in fact, some U.S. forces have been ferried into northern Iraq. But they have arrived in relatively small numbers that suggest commando-style activities rather than an infantry campaign.

"The best they can hope for is potentially offering some small resistance around Mosul and Kirkuk, but we have no ability to really take either of those two cities unless the Iraqis just surrender," said Charles Pena, director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. "If they really put up a fight the best we can do is probably to just hold them there."

Pena said the lack of a powerful northern front could prolong the war.

"Not having the northern front makes it more difficult, and this is going to color the public's perception of how the war is going," he said.

Instead of mounting a ground campaign, the United States has repeatedly sent warplanes to strike Baghdad-controlled areas near the Kurdish line, including the Mosul and Kirkuk districts.

The most obvious other option is to allow Kurdish fighters to lead an attack against Iraqi forces.

Kurds are anxious to stake their claims to Kirkuk and Mosul. But a Kurdish-led ground campaign could become a bloodbath, Kurdish commanders say.

The Kurdish force is armed mostly with automatic weapons, mortars and other guerrilla-style equipment. They have very little heavy firepower and no tanks or other armored vehicles. Many fighters lack even combat boots and wear ordinary shoes.

posted 03-25-2003 02:35 PM            

March 24, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-622543,00.html

British troops withdraw from Basra
By afp and Martin Bentham in BASRA

Fierce resistance has forced British troops to withdraw from Basra to regroup, British military officials said this afternoon, as the Red Cross warned of a potential humanitarian crisis in the city.

Elements of Britain's Seventh Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, withdrew from the southern Iraqi city - the nation's second largest. They had come under attack, as they blocked the main routes into the city from the north and south, from mortar fire and from guerrillas disguised in civilian clothes.

Military officials also said that irregular forces pretended to surrender and used women and children as decoys.

British commanders said this evening that they were considering calling in Royal Marine Commandos and the 16th Air Assault Brigade, the parachute regiment.

Both forces specialise in urban warfare and peacekeeping and are considered far better suited to street combat than the Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior armoured personnel carriers of the Desert Rats.

"It looks like being a lot tougher than we thought. We are now looking at using the Queens and the paras. Basra is a divisional operation now, not just 7th Armoured Brigade," said one officer.

Some of the strongest resistance today came from the Fedayin militia and security services armed with rocket propelled grenades and machine guns.

Members of the Fedayin, a militia controlled by Saddam's son Uday, have taken to disguising themselves in civilian clothes, mixing with families and then emerging from crowds to fire on the coalition forces, military officials said.

They said they were also concerned that the Iraqis might use a captured British vehicle as a car bomb.

The Desert Rats had at one point surrounded the city and Tony Blair told the House of Commons today that Basra had been "made secure". But military officials later admitted that they had vastly underestimated the strength of Iraqi resistance and the loyalty of Basra's population to Saddam.

"We're currently taking stock of the situation. We were expecting a lot of hands up from Iraqi soldiers and for the humanitarian operation in Basra to begin fairly quickly behind us, with aid organisations providing food and water to the locals," Captain Patrick Trueman said. "But it hasn't quite worked out that way.

"There are significant elements in Basra who are hugely loyal to the regime. Their loyalty is rewarded with a better standard of living than most, so they don't want to give it up easily."

British artillery shells were later fired into the city, where 1,000 Iraqi fighters are believed to be sheltering, some using civilian buildings as bases.

Serious pockets of resistance were also uncovered in al Zubayr, a town about 15 miles west of Basra.

Meanwhile the International Committee of the Red Cross said that Basra's population of around 2 million was facing a potential humanitarian crisis.

The main water treatment plant on the northern edge of Basra, scene of fierce fighting, has been out of action since Friday due to a power cut.

"If we do not manage to re-establish the water system in Basra very rapidly to a sufficient level, we will have a major humanitarian crisis," Balthasar Staehelin, ICRC Director General of the Middle East and North Africa told a news conference.

Although other plants were able to supply 40 per cent of usual needs, the quality of the water was poor, the ICRC said.

Daytime temperatures in Basra can reach 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit).

Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General called for urgent measures to help restore water and electricity.

"A city of that size cannot afford to go without electricity or water for long. Apart from the water aspect, you can imagine what it does for sanitation," he said.

posted 03-25-2003 04:10 PM            

Outrage in Baghdad

WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES
http://electroniciraq.net/news/394.shtml

April Hurley, MD, Iraq Peace Team

24 March 2003

Nine year old, Rana Adnan needs oxygen for a chest laceration and lung contusion with a concussion, head laceration, and shrapnel in her left arm.
In America, the saying goes goes: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

In Bagdhad, at Al Kindi Hospital Emergency, Fatima Abdullah is screaming in outrage: "Why do you do this to us??!"

Her 8-year-old, Fatehah is dead, two other daughters are on stretchers wounded by a missle that crushed her uncle's home where they were staying outside Baghdad, near the Diala Bridge. An extended farming family, they have suffered with sanctions and ecomonic devastation shrinking their stock of animals to one cow, a donkey and chickens; they are barely able to feed themselves.

Muhammed, the four-year-old crying in her arms has cuts from shrapnel and debris criss-crossing the right side of his face and head, eyelids swollen shut.

Nada Adnan, 13 years old and a student at high school for girls, states "I wish that God would take Bush. Why did he do this to us? to me?". She has an open gash on her right cranium with underlying fracture and a large, deep shrapnel gauged cut into her upper left thigh. She has no narcotic relief and cries out as aides press guaze into her leg wound. 9 year old, Rana Adnan needs oxygen for a chest laceration and lung contusion with a concussion, head laceration, and shrapnel in her left arm.

And then there is Nahla Harbi who was a passenger driving away from Bagdad with her two year old in her arms when a military school for boys was hit and the explosion rolled the car fracturing both of her legs. Her child sustained head injuries.

Less than 100 meters from Alyermouk Hospital and a school, bombing crushed the foot of 28 year old man who was walking outside his home.

Nada Adman, 13, has an open gash on her right cranium with underlying fracture and a large, deep shrapnel gauged cut into her upper left thigh.
And the list keeps going on. A 70 year old man shopping for food for his family now has a compound fracture of his left upper arm, chest wound through his lung requiring a chest tube and making answers and complaints more dificult.

He has rage and opinions, just as the multitude of families do these several days. How can I explain reasons to them? They know that Bush's Administration is interested in oil control and that they have no interest in democracy for these people. Why don't
Americans know this? Why did we elect this man without human feelings, they ask.

It's not easy being an American in a Baghdad Emergency room seeing victims and their families. I wish that George Bush was here with his answers to their outrage.

posted 03-25-2003 04:16 PM            

Once Vietnam fell, the rest of SE Asia followed.

We let Egypt cozy up to communists and they got sick of them and became our friends and allies.
We prevented Vietnam from choosing their own government and a generation later they want to be our friends.

Ho chi Min wrote letters to Truman begging the USA to send advisors to help Vietnam set up a government based on our constitution.
Truman supported giving them back to the French. Thus the vietnam War.

This ain't politics. It's right and wrong!

What happened to the principle of self-determination?

US belligerance propped the Soviet Union up for two generations by giving them an outside enemy to unite against.

Now we make Saddam a cult hero.
Even if killed, his resistance to the naked agression will make him a legend in the minds of the next generations of freedom fighters.

Enough already.

Support our troops! Bring them home.

Make America a beacon of freedom again, not just the bully on the block.

----other post will be gone within minutes--

posted 03-25-2003 04:56 PM            

you mean the iraqi troops...

In what appears to be a critical moment for coalition forces, thousands of Shiites in Basra have started a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein's forces, a British pool journalist embedded with coalition troops reported Tuesday.

Iraqi Fedayeen are reportedly firing at the Shiite protesters, who have the support of British troops in the area. Coalition forces, in turn, are reportedly firing missiles at the pro-Saddam forces.

Meanwhile, senior Defense officials told Fox News that intelligence reports indicate that Iraqi forces - either special Republican Guard forces or Fedayeen Saddam terrorists - in and around Basra are dressing up as U.S. soldiers, then accepting the surrender of other Iraqi forces and executing them.

Britain's ITN news network is reporting that thousands of people are rampaging through the Basra streets. Dozens of buildings are reportedly on fire as the predominantly Shiite population is in revolt against Saddam's minority Sunni rulers.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,82098,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OGCLITRNILCA0CRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=2447340

you guys are too damn hungry for the U.S and coalition forces to fail...that's why your traitors...

posted 03-25-2003 05:42 PM            

I still believe it is being fought for globalists reasons and China, N. Korea, are still worse examples of human rights violators if that was the end motive here, but wishing to bring our troops home defeated is not supporting them.

Put the politics aside. Our men are dying over there. Whether you were for it or against it...if you asked any one of our troops that are there now which side they would want you to pray for a swift victory for don't you think it would be for our brave men and women?

posted 03-25-2003 06:45 PM            

Mech, you agree Saddam's a bad guy, right? Regardless of who created him. ( a bunch of other bad guys, globalists)The average GI doesn't know from that, he knows he is far from home, family and country that he loves. He desires the well wishes and prayers of the country he's defending to end the battle swiftly and return home safely. He has also been trained to accept nothing less than to complete his mission, it's embedded. You were trained, you know what I'm saying. If you take the right and wrong of politics out of it, it comes down to how those GI's are going to feel in the end.

Maybe I've got your point of view wrong. Maybe you think most Iraqis are looking forward to fighting to the death for Saddam, that's not the impression that I get. Those Iraqis have a miserable existance no matter how you slice it, it will be better post Saddam.

posted 03-25-2003 07:15 PM            

This could be the start of WWIII. You just don't see it yet. I am 100% opposed in every sense of this word. These criminals need to be removed from office IMMEDIATELY! THE WAR STOPPED...and the troops returned home to their families..PERIOD! Bush should be put on trial for treason...along with many members of Congress and his cabinet.

posted 03-25-2003 07:28 PM            

Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes on Baghdad Fuel Rising Anger

posted 03-25-2003 07:32 PM            

After reading the below link, I'm trying to figure out if, as some of you say this is a "globalist agenda war"...why it is a bad one...all governments like saddams should be eliminated....if they would do stuff like the below to people they would surely not blink twice in harming the U.S

http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/iraq_faq#9

Political detainees in Iraq are subjected to the most brutal forms of torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, when returned to their families. The most common methods of physical torture include electric shocks to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, long periods of suspension by the limbs, beating with cables, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), cigarette burns on various parts of the body, and piercing of hands with an electric drill. Psychological torture includes threats of bringing in a female relative of the detainee, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee, threats of arresting and harming other members of the family, mock executions and being kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time. A Kurdish businessman from Baghdad, married with children, was arrested in December 1996 outside his house by plainclothes security men.The family was not allowed to visit him. Eleven months later in November 1997 the family were told by the authorities that he had been executed and that they should go and collect his body. His body reportedly bore evident signs of torture. His eyes were gauged out and were filled with paper, and his right wrist and left leg were broken. The family was not given any reason for his arrest and subsequent execution.

posted 03-25-2003 07:53 PM            

to turn a blind eye to this hiddeous behavior is to be no better than them...

putting and end to it in iraq will help put an end to it in other places...

your political view is blinding you to the reality of this just war mech...

as it does everything else...

posted 03-25-2003 08:04 PM            

The U.S. turns it's back everyday on the people of countries with horrible human rights records, but is happy to take its profits.

You are FULL OF IT Seeker.

This is a war about CONTROL and $$$$$$$$$$$$$

The US Supported Saddam for YEARS...gave him his gas and weapons..It's a total hypocricy.

Iraq didn't attack us. This war is unjust.

posted 03-25-2003 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

The U.S. turns it's back everyday on the people of countries with horrible human rights records, but is happy to take its profits.

---