1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

"Winning hearts and minds.."

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Spier, Nov 23, 2003.

  1. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not doubting the voracity of the photo, and if real, it's ignorant.

    But, just my opinion, that looks to me like a photoshop job.
     
  2. Ice

    Ice New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think its a good joke. I personally wouldnt attack france for anything (Cut off my cheese supply? NEVER!) but thats just me.
     
  3. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pikeman, you said that the US sanctions only hurt the average Iraqi, and felt that there were better options other than sanctions. Can you name one?

    The international community did not support military action during this period, but did support sanctions. As I said, unfortunately, because of Hussein, the sanctions DID hurt the ordinary Iraqi. And even during sanctions, we allowed him an out, by allowing him to export some oil, while giving them food and medical supplies. But he didn't even deliver those goods to those who needed it.

    So what is a better answer? Just curious, because I've yet to hear one. Again, as I say in virtually every conversation of this type, everyone seems so quick to criticize, but I have not heard ONE SUGGESTION on how to fix the problems NOW, or what should have been done to do it right.
     
  4. Crazy_Ivan

    Crazy_Ivan KAR whore

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    What should have been done???

    the US should have saddams ass kicked in 1991, not in 2003
     
  5. kungpaosamuraiii

    kungpaosamuraiii HOVER TANKS

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Bush I was forced to stand down.


    I'm sure that part of Bush II's motivation to attack Iraq was because Saddam in a way defeated Bush I by losing and doing nothing. Bush II got pissed and looked for anything at all that could incriminate Saddam, took it, and here we are today.
     
  6. Crazy_Ivan

    Crazy_Ivan KAR whore

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    bush 1 wasnt forced to stand down... saddam had a lucky day as someone opened his mouth about the CIA plan to overthrow him.
    Result: in some 24 hours all persons involved (probably with their families) were killed.
    Bush decided not to go ahead with the rest of the battle plan, they stopped halfway between the kuwait border and basra
     
  7. Big_Duke_06

    Big_Duke_06 Charlie Don't Surf!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    My remark about the use of wood for fires and heating not being necessary because of the temperatures that time of year was directly aimed at the person that said the looter needed the wood for fire to keep his family warm. I'm not the one dancing here - trying to come up with all manner of reasons to make it okay to loot.

    Tell me this - was it okay to loot/steal under the previous leadership? Isn't the punishment for stealing in many Islamic countries having your hand cut off? The ban on looting isn't some arbitrary new thing the US Army came up with. Clearly the dude had to know stealing/looting is wrong. Knowing this, he made the decision to loot. And now he has to live with the consequences of getting caught. I just don't see why this is so hard to understand.

    If you break the law and get caught, you should expect to suffer the consequences.

    Well, if it's "50/50" Saddam, what's the other 50%? And clearly by your intonations in other posts, you feel that it was at least partially the US's fault. If not, please correct me.

    Matthew
     
  8. Big_Duke_06

    Big_Duke_06 Charlie Don't Surf!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are moving forward and cleaning the mess. But the rest of the world wants to sit around and bitch and moan about if the mess should have been made in the first place rather than moving forward like the US.

    What's done is done. The question of if the Saddam regime should have been forcably removed is over. Get over it. Let's move forward and worry about providing a bright future for the Iraqi people.

    Matthew
     
  9. Spier

    Spier 1

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Many" as in Nigeria and Sudan, and then only under special circumstances? Iraq never was very Islamic under Saddam, so Islam hasn't anything to do with this.

    Anyway, you can't justify what those soldiers did by pointing out what the old regime could have done. Well, you can try, but you'll only end up looking like an idiot.
     
  10. The_Pikeman

    The_Pikeman Also known as Howski

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0

    The international community .... I suppose as part of the internation community the blame is partly the US's ....

    To be honest I cant be ****ed to explain it again....



    I think you should re-read the thread I mean the clue is in the title .... the hearts and minds bit was a "buzz word" for trying to get the Iraqis on the collitions side after the war..... the only mention of why the US decided to go to war in this thread that I could find (admitidly it's late and I didn't read every word) was me saying ...

    Nearly every post (exept for the fluff) concerns recent actions and how the occupation is going. For ****s sake man your the one thats having problems letting go here.


    To be honest it's hard to comment on something like that, however yes I do belive that sanctions were wrong as saddam and his regime suffered nothing infact I'd say that it helped them as, from what I understand, it was portried {SP?} as a unprovoked thing to do to the Iraqi people. You could have supported the south when it tried to rise up ... but that would have been bloody and messy for the US, although probably a better option than the sanctions in the long run. There is proof that the international pressure was working and if the talk of war was a bluff it was a good route to go down, I've already posted links in another thread on saddam offering internationaly monitored free elections and compleate access for the UN, and if this had been the objective and they let this happen it was a very wise move but like I said the Us and allies decided to go to war anyway. So that might be my decision but who really knows....
    -How.
     
  11. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, then explain to me why it was okay in '91, and wrong in '03, by just using that logic alone.

    Yes and no. Although I agree it has nothing to do specifically with Islam, you must admit that Saddam ruled with that kind of brutality and barbarism.

    I don't think that's altogether correct. As I recall, as Gulf War I was winding down, George Bush called upon the Iraqi people to rise up and remove Hussein from power. However, after pressure from the coalition, specifically Egypt, Bush agreed to stop the war without advancing into Iraq. You have to remember the coalition was built in order to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait, which Hussein announced that he had "annexed" and that the UN refused to acknowledge. The UN resolution at the time and the reason for the broad Arabic coalition was because it was assembled to only remove Hussein from Kuwait. However, after Bush's speech, he left the Iraqi people, who thought we would invade, hanging. The contradiction from the call to power and the inability to march to Baghdad, resulted in the massacre of a lot of Iraqis.

    Unless you are referring to Halabja in '88, but I don't think that had anything to do with the CIA, I think that was to kill and drive remaining Iranians back into Iran and simply to kill thousands of Kurds.

    Or unless you are referring to something that I just never heard of.

    KPS, normally for the most part we agree. But as I've stated before, I find that tough to believe, and a bit oversimplistic. For all I know, it might be true, but I just don't see it that way.
     
  12. The_Pikeman

    The_Pikeman Also known as Howski

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0

    The main reason was because he had invaded an other country and was threatening the US's allies. As for why he wasn't over thrown then the reasons were political if the US had tried to over throw him they would have come into alot of stick from their allies in that reigion and bush's administration was afraid of creating exactly the situation we are in now ....


    I agree it might have been a small part of the push but no more, you gotta remember normally war = good polls esp if the war is going good. Also the war provides jobs and money adding to the votes and the US has always hated a dictator they created not doing what they want. Oh I almost forgot oil ;)
    -How.
     
  13. Spier

    Spier 1

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree fully with the initial statement, however, the fact that Iraq had just invaded a nation, still had WMD's and an active missile program in 91 would have somewhat justified an invasion.
    Ehm, I might have misinterpreted that, but to me it sounds like you are trying to connect specifically Islam with barbarism.


    Found this quote a few weeks ago:
    "Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
    -- George Bush Sr., 1998
     
  14. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pikeman, I understand that you think the sanctions were wrong. I got that. What I'm asking is, between the end of Gulf War I in 1991, and let's say the start of Gulf War II in 2002, what do you feel or think would have been a better option other than sanctions? I'm not trying to trap you into an answer, or try to rip on you, it's a serious question.

    I know you said that we should have supported the uprising in the south. I agree, but as I just posted, it is my recollection that Bush called for the uprising, the Iraqis left Kuwait, and we were pressured by the International coalition to NOT invade Iraq, as removal from Kuwait was the ONLY goal of the international community. I happen to agree with you, and I also happen to believe that particular screw-up, regardless of the reason, is a HUMONGOUS reason why we can't seem to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. (BTW, can't we get rid of and reformulate such dreadful Viet Nam War terminology?)

    You know, if you get time and can find them, I would like to see those links. Everything that I have been reading or have read, was that Hussein agreed to limited UN inspections, and there was even talk that there was either a leak, or planted listening devices or surveillance of some sort that gave the Iraqis advance notice on potential inspection sites.

    I also think that people underestimate or don't quite comprehend the absolute power and control that the Ba'ath party yielded in Iraq. It almost seemed like organized crime. I think that that type of control was clearly evident in the last "Iraqi Elections" where Saddam won 100% of the vote. 100% of the vote? "Monitored elections" only prevent the election from being rigged after the ballots are cast. I really don't feel that monitored elections give people terrorized by a political party that rules by death and torture for those that don't join, any special confidence in the system, or feel secure that they won't be killed for casting a ballot against the dictator.

    Another thing that has bothered me, and I can't seem to find a link on it, was a report that Tariq Aziz, during questioning, stated that Hussein had no WMD's and that he disposed of them years ago. Hussein continued to fight the UN, the US and other bodies requesting inspections etc., only to save face. That he didn't WANT the rest of the Arab world to know that he really didn't have them, that he would somehow be less intimidating. And his thoughts that the US would never wage war against his regime because of his belief that the United Nations, and specifically France and Russia, would be able to block such a move by the US diplomatically. Of course, Aziz is about as believable as Baghdad Bob was when he was announcing that the US were being repelled by the superior Iraqi military as American armor was seen in the background of his press conference shot.

    I respect what you are saying Pike, I'm just curious, once again, what do you think an alternative to things like sanctions would be? You said that you felt there were better options. I just don't know what else, short of waging war, that the international community could have honestly done that would have worked in removing him from power.
     
  15. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spier, you did misinterpret what I was saying.

    I was not equating Islam as being barbaric.

    What I meant was, commenting that "Islamic law" calls for the removal of a hand for a thief, whether or not this is the punishment under Islamic law, is a relatively barbaric punishment in any civilized society. I honestly don't know for a fact that that is the punishment under Islamic law. I'm not a muslim. And it doesn't matter. I was simply using the example provided in the original statement, and comparing the act of cutting one's hand off to an act undertaken perhaps for entirely different reasons by a dictator, as a tool to control the masses.

    Likewise, although not professed to be meted out under "Islamic law", Saddam Hussein and his henchmen carried out barbaric acts such as acid baths, crude amputations and other horrific acts of torture, to punish those deemed disloyal to Saddam or the Ba'ath party.

    I'm also having a little trouble with something here: You said that Saddam had invaded a nation. He was repelled. You said that he still had WMD's. Everyone has been demanding evidence that he has them now, show me the EVIDENCE that he had them then, and where were they. I can't comment on the active missile program from '91, I honestly don't know. But when inspectors were there again in 2000 and 2001, they located the Al-Samoud missiles which were in violation, and ordered to be destroyed. Isn't that an active missile program?

    And Pike, (I've tremendously enjoyed this debate and discussion) I think I understand what you are saying about the Bush II because of Bush I comment. But I guess for those that think that GWB invaded because of what happened to GHWB, they have to take the whole nine yards. Gulf War I was a successful, quick, perfect little war. Ticker tape parades, and high opinion polls. And Bush was defeated in the next election. This war definitely has the appearance of a long hard road, something the American people are not used to, and not apt to support. And low polls and opinions are DEFINITELY not gonna get his ass re-elected.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2003
  16. The_Pikeman

    The_Pikeman Also known as Howski

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0

    I think you miss understood those would be the options I would consider, I would have liked the US/Collition to of helped the south and then applied the pressure to bring about the changes that were needed all the sanctions did was further the hatred of the UN and hurt the average Iraqi


    Because like it or not it's still a HUGE peice of the Us (As a whole) mind set, the fear a vietnam is still in the collective memory of your people and what ever anyone says there are huge simularitys with the Iraq war and it scares people. They teach it over here and I imagine in the US .... and think how many movies have you seen, like it or not anything the US dose involving the military will at some point invoke the memory of vietnam (as a side I thought it was Vietnam as a whole word .... was I mistaken?)


    Just before the Us declaired the UN inspections ussless because they couldn't find any WMD they were granted full access and IIRC before they left for the first time this was granted, and it probably would have been granted sooner if the US had not of used the UN as cover for it's spies before the inspectors left. As for bugs well you would expect it but then again they can make a building safe and they were suprising them just before the US decided they should leave.


    Rigged elections can be strange things just look a georgia, however your right that they probably wouldn't have actually allowed the vote to go against him ... however small things can start a reveloution and surely trying all alternatives to war is better than just jumping in.

    Yea I saw that too.... and I acually think there might be a grain of truth in it panarama did a Iraq special (on the Us WMD team) this week (You might be able to watch it via the BBC web site .. I'll see if I can have a look) and it touched on that. They interveiwed 2 Iraqi missile engineers that were working on the illigal rockets and they supported that one of them said the equivilant of "there wasn't much happening until Iran announced that it had missiles that could reach 750KM so we had the order that we needed to get missiles upto 500km by x months and then extend it upto 1000km in y months" but even then the plans stank of desperation and no real threat the plan was to add more engines to the curent missiles ....

    The UN/US found most of it and had it disposed of. They also did a decent job of getting rid of the means of producing the WMD


    Right I may be mistaken and its late so dont take the following as godspell.....

    The Al-Samoud missiles were not in violation as Saddam was allowed missiles upto 500km .... I think. This was for defence and him there was nothing wrong with him developing these new missiles. The problem came when he tried to upgrade the missiles so they could reach upto and beyond 750km and succided with a few 9 IIRC it was something like 660km) and then Bush and his team claimed they were modding them for WMD (Never proven in fact that BBC program had the plans and they only had normal warheads). As for them being destroyed they did start to destroy then in compliance with the UN mandate and they were disclosed.


    Me too.


    Yea I did say normally ;) IIRC wasn;t the whole US economy in a mess though ..... hence, most probably, the US-only policy on the contracts. However I dont think he'd thought we'd still be discussing Iraq at this point, he probably thought it was gonna be a quick war and quick.... uh ... opression.
    As for sources I'll try and find some in the morning it's 3 AM and I'm going to bed
    -How.
     
  17. The_Pikeman

    The_Pikeman Also known as Howski

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Panorama linkage:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3261705.stm
    -How.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2003
  18. Spier

    Spier 1

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Saddam was slightly unorthodox when it came to dealing with traitors. But hey, when you can't afford to send minority groups to 'civilized' places such as deathrow and prison then I guess torture and amputations is the only way to go if you want to stay in power.

    As you probably know, when Saddam invaded he wasn't counting on US interference. Especially since the US had practically endorsed his plans in the first place.. Saddam knew he couldn't beat the Coalition(not to be confused with the 'Coalition' of OIF), so he began retreating. By the time the war started most of his elite troops were back in Baghdad, ready to swiftly strike down the Sunni insurgency. At this time Iraq still possesed an offensive capability(mainly the Rep. Guard.) which could pose a threat to neighbouring countries. In 2003 however this unit proved to be a mere shadow of its former self.

    Next, the WMD's. First of all, Coalition forces in '91 did find WMD's, which were destroyed. In '93 Saddam tried to get the sanctions lifted and under UN supervision destroyed hundred tons of chemical and biological weapons and munitions. Saddam claimed this was all they had. Well, we all know how embarrassingly true that proved to be.

    Now, the al Samoud missile could go 150km according to the Iraqi's, meaning it was permitted under UN Security Council Resolution 687. However, the UN calculated that the missiles could be modified to go up to 190km. It didn't, but in theory it could and it wouldn't take much modding either. So to be on the safe side the UN ordered them to be destroyed.

    All in all, the sanctions had worn down Saddam's conventional forces, restricted development of his missile programs and pretty much wiped out his arsenal of WMD's. He was insignificant compared to what he was in 91.

    The_Pikeman, the al Hussein could go over 500km, not the al Samoud. No al Husseins have been found in Iraq.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2003
  19. 5eleven

    5eleven I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fair enough, both of you. Thanks for the info. I think I see your points, and I hope you see mine.

    ACTUALLY, Viet Nam is two words. It was "Americanized" during the war, but the proper way to say it is "Viet Nam" or "Viet Namese". I have always held a great interest in that war, my father served in the 8th RRFS (Radio Research Field Station) in Phu Bai, Northern I Corps, Viet Nam from December of '67 to December of '68. So yes, he was there during the massive Tet Offensive, and very close to a major battleground, Hue.

    Now, I have some pretty strong opinions regarding Viet Nam and the comparison of that war to this. I won't bore you with my thoughts. If you want to hear some interesting and factual feedback from someone, listen to Kungpaosamuraii. He's Viet Namese, and he has a lot of good cultural background, a great viewpoint, and quite a fair amount of knowledge on the subject.

    In retrospect, as probably many Americans, I differ strongly with the way and reasons that we entered that war, and especially the way it was planned and fought. It is a part of history, and part of a very painful past. However, if there is one positive, for my country, that came from that war is that many of the young enlisted men and officers that were thrown into that war, saw firsthand how that war was planned, how it was fought, how it was presented, and how the public reacted. Those men are now in senior non-com and officer positions, and they learned a great deal from their combat and socio-political experiences. And if you listen carefully to these men, they have applied the lessons learned, and have vowed to not make the same mistakes again. I have great respect for many of these veterans who have overcome insurmountable adversity, and now find themselves in the position of those who had commanded them before. In that vein, I think that this war should NOT be compared to the Viet Nam war. I think that anti-war groups WANT to use that comparison because of the attached negativity. What better way to try to change the opinions of the American public, (many of whom are either Viet Nam veterans or lost a friend or relative in that war, and have also vowed to not treat our troops the way that they were treated) than to bring up the negative, recent images of tens of thousands of American lives being lost overseas for apparently no good reason.

    I just have a great difficulty making the comparison. Sure, I don't want us to get bogged down there. I want us to make great strides in that region. I want to establish a workable relationship with all governments in that region. I want to see us do good things and make a difference, despite the criticism and naysayers, who bash America and Americans for being where they feel we don't belong. We are there now, we have to give a 100% effort to make things work. There is no time for half-assing. And although I myself am critical of our government and mistakes in planning and execution, I really feel that I am obligated as an American to support our efforts there. I just sincerely hope that they are for all of the reasons that I am optimistic of.

    As far as rebuilding and government contracts, I can't sit here and tell you that something doesn't stink somewhere, because generally, where there's smoke, there's fire. Personally, I like Bush/Cheney, but I am appalled at the fact that the Defense Secretary during Gulf War I, and who supported sanctions against Iraq postwar, made millions working for Halliburton by conducting commerce with this same, villified, dictator and his corrupted, evil government. And THEN again is in a position as Vice President to support another war against this country. Then AGAIN pushes for cushy government contracts for his old cronies. That just friggin' stinks to high heaven. And I'm not gonna sit here and defend it. It is indefensible.

    I know much has been hyped here, and probably overseas regarding the "failing" US economy. Much of that, in my opinion, is perpetrated by the opposition to the sitting President. If you'll notice, every President has something that the other side attacks. Politics as usual in the good old USofA. The economy is recovering, and several financial indicators show some of the highest economic growth rates in years. Of course, that doesn't mean that the economy is back to what it was during Clinton's tenure, but it appears to be back on the right track. Like everything else it's cyclical in nature. As I've stated before, watch an hour or two of NBC, CBS, ABC or PBS, then watch an hour or two of FOX News and put the truth somewhere in between.

    Spier, I really hoped you intended on putting a smiley at the end of your first paragraph. At least, that's the way I took it. Opposing a political party to which you do not belong, being repeatedly raped, and beaten simply for vocally opposing a party, does not constitute one as a traitor. I hope I took your comment the right way.

    Again, thanks for the info, and I'll check out the links. Information IS power. Of course, so is a loaded MP-5. :D
     
  20. Nightmare

    Nightmare Only human

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    The water purification plants aren't working. You cook water so it's safe to drink. If not, you'll get sick and possibly die.

    That's another issue that's less than funny. The Security Council actually went against the UN charter there. Depriving civilians of the essentials is a form of political coercion that is expressly forbidden. As for responsibility, let's do the child molester put in prison again, shall we? He's put in prison quite rightly, but the judge also dumped his entire family and all the neighbours in prison. They're not getting out until the criminal confesses and coughs up ALL the missing bodies.

    Perhaps because the US hadn't destroyed all of them first? Perhaps because people actually thought you did the good thing? Not being occupied by the Soviets was also a good reason to be grateful, mind you.

    Oh yeah... not a Marshall Plan country.:p
     

Share This Page