The Official Iraq War Thread...

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed a lot!

Originally posted by aaron_mag


We are not supposed to post political comments on this section but I can't let 1stdeadeyes hypocritical comments go without comment. You act as if Saddam was an immortal who would live forever while aging and death will take away all our problems with Iran. Don't get me wrong I don't want us to invade Iran but Saddam had been looking long in the tooth for some time now. Whenever they show actual photos of him now (rather than his idealized portraits of himself) I'm astounded by how pathetic he looks. I can't see how you can reconcile the two views....

I was not trying to be hypocritical. The situations are completely different. Yes, Saddam is getting old, but he was set to be replaced by either of his two sons who are younger and just as cruel, if not more so then their father. Iran has a liberal to moderate president in Rafsanjani (sp). Some of their legislators are so moderate that they were arrested by the theocracy that holds Iran's true power now. With Iran, their is no real succession in place as the old theocracy dies off. This void will allow their democracy to eventually assert itself without outside interference. The bulk of the Iranians want better relations with the west, the Theocrats are holding them at bey, but their grip is slipping. Look at the last elections. Rafsanjani (sp) beat the Theocracy's candidate. He carried over 80% of the vote in a free election. His power is limited, but growing. So I can reconcile my comments as Iran and Iraq are two different animals all together.

[pbzmag]

I was just watching FOX News and read the scroll that a Iraqi lawyer saw PFC Being slapped and beaten while at the hospital. He told coalition forces of what he saw and that he could not bear to see her beaten. Under the U.N. rules of POW, they are not to be mistreated. I will try to find more info on this. Also the first US journalist has been killed. His death was not a result of combat but of an accident when a Humvee went into a canal. More info here. Red Cross workers are visiting Iraqi POW's but still waiting to visit coalition POW's. Baghdad is required to give the ICRC access to POWs under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. More info here.

Edit: Here is the link about the beating seen by the Iraqi lawyer. Marines said that if not for him, they would never have been able to recue her.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Army
I did my best to stay out of this thread, really I did. But I have to respond to CollegeBoy's assertion that the US was only in Vietnam to force democracy on the Vietnamese peoples...WRONG. We were there only to stop the spread of rampant Communism.

Vietnam was a UN sanctioned military action. Nearly every Liberal I know or read, will never mention, or do not know about, the 24 other countries that either supported or served in that combat theater (even good brave Canadians volunteered to serve with US troops, and were subsequently blacklisted and forgotten when they got home, but are still proud of what they did) with the FULL cooperation of the UN Security Council. That being said, most of how we conducted our actions there was already dictated by the UN. We had to work around those guidelines which hamstrung all our efforts, resulting in the less than favorable result. However, our actions stopped Communist plans for a SEA area of communist regimes, proof of this was found in the former KGB headquarters after the recent Russian revolution.

Action against Iraq is supported by at least 49 countries politically, materially, and with combat personel and equipment. We know the UN doesn't support this regardless of the guidelines of UNR1441, which is why the coalition has established their OWN rules to prosecute this war. Because WE are setting the rules, WE have pushed all the way to Baghdad with minimal resistance, and great success in the fastest/farthest military land movement in the history of warfare. No doubt, if the UN was calling the shots, we would still be in Kuwait as the eunich-like UN pleaded for Saddam to play nicey nice.

Don't like Fox News huh? Let me tell you about Fox news: Geraldo, as we all know, was a dyed in the wool life long hardcore Liberal. His assignment to Afghanistan has turned his thinking around 180deg. He used to be 100% anti-gun, but now carries a 1911 or a M92 for his personal protection, and has stated that he now knows that some people will want to kill him regardless of his personal or political beliefs. He used to be anti-military. He has stated before that he always believed they were not needed, and that their training simply made them "baby killers". He doesn't say that any more. He can't praise them enough. Fox news has also brought aboard Linda Van-Sustren a year ago, and in nobody's mind could she be called conservative. Hmm, seems to get a little more balanced as we go along. Hannity and Colmes is an anchor of the evening program, tell me that Alan Colmes is anything but a bleeding heart Liberal. Hmm, seems to be fairly balanced now. Compare all this to CNN/MSNBC who hired Peter Arnett...need I say more about a man who assured the Iraqi people that we are failing in our mission? Does aiding and abetting come to mind? NBC who faked a truck crash with explosives to enhace/create a gas tank rupture and fire just to boost their ratings? Peter Jennings who loves to talk down to Americans...being Canadian, I guess he gets to, in his way of thinking. Dan Rather, who hates everybody/anything conservative? Or do you prefer NPR/public TV? where you can get only the news and information they think you may need.

This war is just, if only to free the Iraqi people to live lives as THEY see fit, not by the decree of a murderous eglomaniac. To compare this action to WWII is fully acceptable, Hitler and Saddam have both gone down identical paths in history. The world removed Hitler and his murderous eglomaniacal regime, and we will do the same in Iraq. It is not a secret that Iraq sponsors state terrorism. Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there, just the most forward in out minds due to 9/11/01. We have stopped them already, and will soon eradicate them entirely. Even Iran has seen the light, and is asking how they can be part of the world again. We used to have an AO member here that is Iranian, he related to us first hand that the Iranian people do NOT like their current religeous regime, and would welcome back the US and the west.

That you say that you do not watch or listen to both sides of the argument, says volumes about your mindset Collegeboy. You must have realized by now, that you cannot argue your position without all the facts, ALL the facts from both sides of the street. Just saying you are right...just because... only brings on the dogs of reason.


OK, that's all I will post on this thread. Dave

I never said that was the US's only reason to go into the Vietnam. All I did was to do a loose quote of a saying by a US congressman at the time. I know the false fear of the spead of communism is what brought the US into Vietnam. Even though the truth was that Ho Chi Minh was never communist, he just had communistic ideas (some of them).

When did I say I never listen or watch both sides of the arguemnt. Please read. I have said I don't trust Fox News for it is propogranda, but I still watch it. I will not use Fox News as a source for me it is the same as going picing up a copy of the Sun.

To the rest, I wish not to get into another debate, but be known I disagree and think you are totally mistkaen.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by WARPED1
A parliment, like used in England and Canada. I don't really know how they work, but historically they seem to work well.

And used elsewhere. And absolutely democratic.

The US uses a republican system with three major components. Executive, House, Senate (and arguably the fourth the Supreme Court).

Canada has a House and Senate (but the senate is appointed).
The UK/Britain (and NOT England) has House of Commons and the House of Lords.

There are also many other variations of representative democracy. Surprisingly, the US system isn't the only one that works and isn't the only one that's 'right'.

Pick up a basic Political Science text book and learn a little...

[1stdeadeye]

Let me translate!

Originally posted by Collegeboy

When did I say I never listen or watch both sides of the arguemnt. Please read. I have said I don't trust Fox News for it is propogranda, but I still watch it. I will not use Fox News as a source for me it is the same as going picing up a copy of the Sun.

If I don't like it, it isn't reliable!

To the rest, I wish not to get into another debate, but be known I disagree and think you are totally mistkaen.

I am right and you all are wrong. I am omnipotent and y'all (Alabama Drawl) are goobers!

[1stdeadeye]

WRONG!

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

The US uses a republican system with three major components. Executive, House, Senate (and arguably the fourth the Supreme Court).

We actually have 3 branches according to the US Constitution. The Executive, Legislative (House and Senate) and Judicial! The House and Senate are part of the same arm of the government.


Pick up a basic Political Science text book and learn a little...

Why yes, yes you should!

[pbzmag]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
The US uses a republican system with three major components. Executive, House, Senate (and arguably the fourth the Supreme Court).

Actually it's a Democracy, not a Republican system. Currently, Republicans are the majority. In the next election, it can change parties or it may not.

Now for news. The soldier who is detained for the grenade attack has now been charged. He is charged for two premeditated murders and 17 attempted murders under military law. Click here for more news.

Edited to be more clear.

[1stdeadeye]

Huh?

Originally posted by pbzmag


Actually it's not a Republican system. The system is a Democracy. Currently, Republicans are the majority. In the next election, it can change parties or it may not.

Technically we have a representative democracy or a republic. SBF did not mean Republican as in a party, but a system (I hope). A true democracy is unworkable in any group of signifigant size. A true democracy is where everyone votes on everything. It is a bit too unweildy for most. A representative democracy has the people electing representatives to govern on their behalf.

[pbzmag]

Re: Huh?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Technically we have a representative democracy or a republic. SBF did not mean Republican as in a party, but a system (I hope). A true democracy is unworkable in any group of signifigant size. A true democracy is where everyone votes on everything. It is a bit too unweildy for most. A representative democracy has the people electing representatives to govern on their behalf.

I think you missed what I trying to say. I edited my previous post to sound more clear.

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Huh?

Originally posted by pbzmag


I think you missed what I trying to say. I edited my previous post to sound more clear.

I got what you were saying, however, I believe SBF meant a republican form of government, not Republican like the party. A republican form is based on a republic. I think you confused his meanings, that's all. It's like saying we have a democratic form of government. but since the deomocratic is lower cased, it refers to style and not the party.

I hope that is a bit clearer!

[pbzmag]

Re: Re: Re: Huh?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


I got what you were saying, however, I believe SBF meant a republican form of government, not Republican like the party. A republican form is based on a republic. I think you confused his meanings, that's all. It's like saying we have a democratic form of government. but since the deomocratic is lower cased, it refers to style and not the party.

I hope that is a bit clearer!

Oh, ok. I see what your saying.

[1stdeadeye]

Back on topic!

CNN is reporting that Republican Guard Units are moving to Re-enforce Iraqi Positions near the Newly renamed Baghdad International Airport.

Also, It was reported that the U.S Military took the airport so fast, that the Iraqi's were unable to put up much of a fight.

[pbzmag]

Coalition forces also found underground tunnels under the airport. They are currently searching all buildings and tunnels. More here.

Added: Just heard on news radio KFI in Los Angeles, three Iraqi's were executed for helping with the initial bombing.

Added: An AH-1W, Super Cobra attack helicopter, crashed in central Iraq, killing both pilots.

[pbzmag]

Coalition forces just entered Baghdad. Also the bodies, 8 of the 11 bodies, that were found during the recue of POW PFC Lynch were from her unit.

[1stdeadeye]

Target: Baghdad

US troops driving through Baghdad. Not occupying, just to spite the Iraqi's. The Marines actually drove through Downtown Baghdad on their way to re-enforce the airport.

Gotta love our moxy!