PDA

View Full Version : Iraq


Defiant
25-09-2003, 14:12
I was thinking about the problems in Iraq while watching a programme on UK history. It was about one of the Korean conflicts the British were involved in during the 50's. It showed a small group of SAS soldiers who went out in small groups hunting communist's. They made lots of friends with the locals and gained their trust. This worked great and the bee all and end all was they shoved them out of the area's and the locals were happy.

I see this working again in Basra were the British are now. British soldiers going out on patrol their in small groups and gaining the trust of the locals.

Lately now however that's going pair shaped. I put that myself down to the stupidity of the yanks and their balls up in Baghdad. Their doing the opposite. Did they learn nothing from Vietnam!.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1105022,00.html

darkangel
25-09-2003, 14:27
Originally posted by Defiant
I was thinking about the problems in Iraq while watching a programme on UK history. It was about one of the Korean conflicts the British were involved in during the 50's. It showed a small group of SAS soldiers who went out in small groups hunting communist's. They made lots of friends with the locals and gained their trust. This worked great and the bee all and end all was they shoved them out of the area's and the locals were happy.

I see this working again in Basra were the British are now. British soldiers going out on patrol their in small groups and gaining the trust of the locals.

Lately now however that's going pair shaped. I put that myself down to the stupidity of the yanks and their balls up in Baghdad. Their doing the opposite. Did they learn nothing from Vietnam!.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1105022,00.html no offence m8 but don't believe everything you hear and see in the media, granted the American army has a lot to learn but remember we have plenty of recent experience with subjugating and repressing local populations as far as Korea goes both the Americans and the British made Friends with local towns and leaders then used them to slaughter their own people, u need to have been in the situations to understand how much you don't see reading articles and watching Anglo American propaganda will not give u the full story!

Chris
25-09-2003, 14:44
Originally posted by darkangel
no offence m8 but don't believe everything you hear and see in the media, granted the American army has a lot to learn but remember we have plenty of recent experience with subjugating and repressing local populations as far as Korea goes both the Americans and the British made Friends with local towns and leaders then used them to slaughter their own people, u need to have been in the situations to understand how much you don't see reading articles and watching Anglo American propaganda will not give u the full story!

That said, the British army's superior experience in running an empire and dealing with populations hiding terrorists has shown through - much was made of apparently simple measures like the way the Brits set up their roadblocks so it's impossible for a car full of women to accidentally drive up to it at speed. Our army also seemed to get out of helmets and into berets a lot quicker.
It could just be selective reporting, but I can't help but get the impression that the British army has got on better with the people of Basra than the Americans have managed in Baghdad.

Xaccers
25-09-2003, 16:02
We also have a better foreign image than the americans.
I know when I was in Saudi we were always treated with respect because we were always polite and courtious (which is what the foreign image of us Brits is).
Americans have a foriegn image of being brash and gung-ho, loud and inconsiderate, and people use that image first before they get to know the individual.

Atomic22
25-09-2003, 20:22
YANKS/BRITS.....hi iraqis we kill saddam and bad guys for you
IRAQIS.......yes please we hate him he tortures and kills us and we want our country back
YANKS/BRITS.....ok hes gone now we will sort the country out and install a democratic government for you, release your oil and make the country wealthy and accepted by the world community again
IRAQIS.......we hate yanks..we hate brits...kill kill kill

if i was in sole charge i would adopt a shoot first ask questions later policy...

Mark W
25-09-2003, 20:31
Originally posted by Atomic22
YANKS/BRITS.....hi iraqis we kill saddam and bad guys for you
IRAQIS.......yes please we hate him he tortures and kills us and we want our country back
YANKS/BRITS.....ok hes gone now we will sort the country out and install a democratic government for you, release your oil and make the country wealthy and accepted by the world community again
IRAQIS.......we hate yanks..we hate brits...kill kill kill

if i was in sole charge i would adopt a shoot first ask questions later policy...

:rolleyes:

ummm....i think they might be a little annoyed that we invaded their country promising to 'save' them for the hard life they were 'suffering' under saddam.
only since we invaded, we have killed loads of their family members, wrecked their entire infrastructure, broken down law and order, destroyed any semblance of govt - basically took their country back 70/100 years..... and they are supposed to be humbly grateful for this?

:dozey:

Atomic22
25-09-2003, 20:46
yes
they wanted democracy and rid of the tyrannical rule...as for law and order they are breaking it not us and any people killed since the war ended have been because of attacks on us and not because of any other reason

darkangel
25-09-2003, 20:52
Originally posted by Atomic22
yes
they wanted democracy and rid of the tyrannical rule...as for law and order they are breaking it not us and any people killed since the war ended have been because of attacks on us and not because of any other reason they didn't ask for our help!

Xaccers
25-09-2003, 20:55
We haven't wrecked their entire infrastructure, it was done long before by the Iraqi's.
There wasn't a gov as you and I know it, it was a dictatorship. The schools didn't get painted, the roads didn't get serviced, the electricity network and oil wells were left to rot.

Now the electricity network is being rebuilt, the oil wells are getting their much needed investment, water and gas pipes are being repaired.
Supply lines are being set up.
And the Iraqi's are finally able to vote for who they want to govern them

And yes we were asked to help, we were asked to help when Bush senior was in charge and because of the UN restrictions thousands of Shiites were murdered when the US wasn't allowed to go in and support them in ousting Saddam
Since then there have been many calls for foreign help, but the media hasn't carried it, and of course, people in Iraq didn't tend to last long if they spoke out.

Defiant
25-09-2003, 21:01
Originally posted by darkangel
they didn't ask for our help!
HAHA they didn't dare

Atomic22
25-09-2003, 21:11
Originally posted by darkangel
they didn't ask for our help!

they asked for it all right...and they got it......
:blah: :blah:

darkangel
25-09-2003, 21:22
Originally posted by Xaccers
We haven't wrecked their entire infrastructure, it was done long before by the Iraqi's.
There wasn't a gov as you and I know it, it was a dictatorship. The schools didn't get painted, the roads didn't get serviced, the electricity network and oil wells were left to rot.
good point 11 years of UN dithering did 99% of the damaged that has been done to Iraq

Xaccers
25-09-2003, 21:39
Originally posted by darkangel
good point 11 years of UN dithering did 99% of the damaged that has been done to Iraq

So Saddam and his followers had nothing to do with it then? :rolleyes:

But you are right, if they had been more decisive and acted sooner so many lives could have been saved.
It would probably have helped with the Israel/Palestine troubles and done a lot to improve the US' image in the area.

darkangel
25-09-2003, 22:09
Originally posted by Xaccers
So Saddam and his followers had nothing to do with it then? :rolleyes:

But you are right, if they had been more decisive and acted sooner so many lives could have been saved.
It would probably have helped with the Israel/Palestine troubles and done a lot to improve the US' image in the area. never said that Saddam had not hand in the problems Iraq has now but for over 11 years Iraq was battered by sanctions while the UN made mandate after mandate which Saddam broke every time if the UN had acted more decisively at the time many more lives would have been saved.
I spent quite a few years in the middle east fighting with and against people there and they will never accept foreign invader Israeli or otherwise even if they come with open arms we did that in India and stayed there for over 300 years they have great reason to be afraid of us being there

Defiant
25-09-2003, 22:23
Originally posted by darkangel

I spent quite a few years in the middle east fighting with and against people there and they will never accept foreign invader Israeli or otherwise even if they come with open arms we did that in India and stayed there for over 300 years they have great reason to be afraid of us being there

Times have changed now and if they carn't see that somethings very wrong.
In someways some of these middle eastern countrys remind me of the way europe used to be 4/5 hundred years ago. Look at the way we used to live and have religion ruling everyone plus religous conflicts and then look at the middle east now

darkangel
25-09-2003, 23:37
Originally posted by Defiant
Times have changed now and if they carn't see that somethings very wrong.
In someways some of these middle eastern countrys remind me of the way europe used to be 4/5 hundred years ago. Look at the way we used to live and have religion ruling everyone plus religous conflicts and then look at the middle east now it's not our right to enforce our ideals on another part of the world and it the highest kind of arrogance if anybody believes we have the right to press our way of life on another people this is one of the main reason the west is hated by a large percentage of the world and one of the main reason we are under threat from Islamic extremists

Defiant
25-09-2003, 23:40
Yep I'll agree with that and vice versa of course

darkangel
25-09-2003, 23:46
Originally posted by Defiant
Yep I'll agree with that and vice versa of course and by that you mean?

homealone
25-09-2003, 23:46
Originally posted by Defiant
Times have changed now and if they carn't see that somethings very wrong.
In someways some of these middle eastern countrys remind me of the way europe used to be 4/5 hundred years ago. Look at the way we used to live and have religion ruling everyone plus religous conflicts and then look at the middle east now

I would bow to darkangel's experience, here, myself, but I know what you mean by the rule of fear imposed by religious doctrine. Not an attempt at a debate on religion, btw, but I accept that the root of a lot of conflict is analogous to what was satirised by Jonathon Swift in the "bigenders" & "littlenders" part of Gullivers Travels.

Chris
25-09-2003, 23:51
Originally posted by homealone
I would bow to darkangel's experience, here, myself, but I know what you mean by the rule of fear imposed by religious doctrine. Not an attempt at a debate on religion, btw, but I accept that the root of a lot of conflict is analogous to what was satirised by Jonathon Swift in the "bigenders" & "littlenders" part of Gullivers Travels.

Religion has often been used as an excuse for conflict but neither Biblical Christianity nor what is often called 'Classical Islam' promote war as a means to achieve anything.

(Frankly, the Crusaders were not Christians, whatever they may have called themselves.)

darkangel
25-09-2003, 23:55
Originally posted by homealone
I would bow to darkangel's experience, here, myself, but I know what you mean by the rule of fear imposed by religious doctrine. Not an attempt at a debate on religion, btw, but I accept that the root of a lot of conflict is analogous to what was satirised by Jonathon Swift in the "bigenders" & "littlenders" part of Gullivers Travels. don't get me wrong I'm by no means endorsing the rule by a large percentage of gulf states who have horrific human rights record I've seen sharia being enforced and it's not imo the rights way to do thing but as I've already said we can make our protests and even foster change in these countries but these changes have to be made by the peoples of the countries not by the iron fist of the west or these change will have no meaning and will have no effect on other countries and may even have the opposite effect and entrench the rule of these states

Defiant
25-09-2003, 23:59
Thats why their going to be able to vote on what "they" wont when they get things in place to do this. I dont see the point is rushing things and then watching it fall through

Or is them being able to vote enforcing our views on them to you ?

darkangel
26-09-2003, 00:01
Originally posted by towny
Religion has often been used as an excuse for conflict but neither Biblical Christianity nor what is often called 'Classical Islam' promote war as a means to achieve anything.

(Frankly, the Crusaders were not Christians, whatever they may have called themselves.) I don't want to start a religious debate here so I'll leave it at this before you believe the Islam is a religion espousing peace ask yourself how they define peace.
As far as the crusader are concerned they believed they where doing what the bible told them to do, but i suppose it depends on what part of the bible you chose to believe or ignore

darkangel
26-09-2003, 00:04
Originally posted by Defiant
Thats why their going to be able to vote on what "they" wont when they get things in place to do this. I dont see the point is rushing things and then watching it fall through

Or is them being able to vote enforcing our views on them to you ? who's TELLING them to vote what is their other choices, I'm concerned now that we may have removed a dictator only to put a government of dictators in his place

Defiant
26-09-2003, 00:07
Originally posted by darkangel
who's TELLING them to vote what is their other choices, I'm concerned now that we may have removed a dictator only to put a government of dictators in his place

oh so democracy and people being allowed to vote are dictators lol


Tell me what are you doing in this dictatorship?

hmm me wonders

darkangel
26-09-2003, 00:14
Originally posted by Defiant
oh so democracy and people being allowed to vote are dictators lol


Tell me what are you doing in this dictatorship?

hmm me wonders I'm not quite sure where you seem to think i inferred the above, my point is an enforced democracy is a dictatorship we have no right to tell people of foreign country how they are governed

Defiant
26-09-2003, 00:17
Originally posted by darkangel
I'm not quite sure where you seem to think i inferred the above, my point is an enforced democracy is a dictatorship we have no right to tell people of foreign country how they are governed


Do you think we should go and leave some other dictator in their or perhaps saddam should go back their. You know the guy who killed thousands of his own people

homealone
26-09-2003, 00:19
Originally posted by towny
Religion has often been used as an excuse for conflict but neither Biblical Christianity nor what is often called 'Classical Islam' promote war as a means to achieve anything.

(Frankly, the Crusaders were not Christians, whatever they may have called themselves.)

agreed - like I said it was doctrine, rather than belief, I was on about.:)

Crusaders, like you say, is a bit off topic, so I'll ask your opinion of the "Holy Grail" being a descendent of Jesus?- another thread?:)

darkangel
26-09-2003, 00:23
Originally posted by Defiant
Do you think we should go and leave some other dictator in their or perhaps saddam should go back their. You know the guy who killed thousands of his own people i've already answered this question in previous posts

Defiant
26-09-2003, 00:23
Originally posted by homealone

Crusaders, like you say, is a bit off topic, so I'll ask your opinion of the "Holy Grail" being a descendent of Jesus?- another thread?:)
Seen a program on that on UK history. They reckon some monks gave it to a family to mind back god knows when and this women still has it today. But then again their could be two. very interested in all that kinda stuff

homealone
26-09-2003, 00:26
Originally posted by Defiant
Seen a program on that on UK history. They reckon some monks gave it to a family to mind back god knows when and this women still has it today. But then again their could be two. very interested in all that kinda stuff

seen it as bad as explaining Elvis & Roswell, too, but I am interested:)

sorry :notopic: - I'll start a new one.

Atomic22
26-09-2003, 20:17
all of the bad guys haven't been caught yet either so there will be more injured civilians in iraq until all the murderers have been caught and punished

Graham
26-09-2003, 20:22
Originally posted by Xaccers
We haven't wrecked their entire infrastructure, it was done long before by the Iraqi's.

Excuse me? Who was it who decided that, for instance, power stations, water and sewerage treatment facilities, highways and bridges amongst others were "valid military targets" back in 1991?

See http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/s91/s91lopez.html for some more details about who!

Defiant
26-09-2003, 20:27
Originally posted by Graham
Excuse me? Who was it who decided that, for instance, power stations, water and sewerage treatment facilities, highways and bridges amongst others were "valid military targets" back in 1991?

See http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/s91/s91lopez.html for some more details about who!

Granted some were targets for a genuine reasons but not all.

The Iraqi Military were using some of these place's to hide tanks soldiers etc.

infact their was a bunker that had civilians inside that got blown up. It was plastered all over our tv's at the time. After this however one of the Iraqi generals admitted their Military inteligence were also inside their

Graham
26-09-2003, 21:04
Originally posted by Defiant
Granted some were targets for a genuine reasons but not all.

Exactly.

*WE* (ie the coalition) are responsible for "bombing them back to the stone age".

*WE* should take responsibilty for cleaning up the mess and *not* by using Iraq's oil wealth to pay for it!

(That would be like sentencing someone to community service for spray painting someone's fence and then making the *victim* pay for the new paint to cover the mess!)

Defiant
26-09-2003, 21:08
Originally posted by Graham
Exactly.

*WE* (ie the coalition) are responsible for "bombing them back to the stone age".

*WE* should take responsibilty for cleaning up the mess and *not* by using Iraq's oil wealth to pay for it!

(That would be like sentencing someone to community service for spray painting someone's fence and then making the *victim* pay for the new paint to cover the mess!)

Er it was them the Iraqi people that let some lunatic take all their wealth. Most were already living in slums because of this. They should have all been wealthy to begin with

Graham
27-09-2003, 23:07
Originally posted by Defiant
[B]Er it was them the Iraqi people that let some lunatic take all their wealth.

And who supported Saddam's rise to power?

Who armed him because he was a useful "force of moderation against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran"?

Who *gave* him the capability and the raw materials to build weapons of mass destruction?!

I'll give you three guesses...

Defiant
27-09-2003, 23:19
Originally posted by Graham
And who supported Saddam's rise to power?


Not us we supported his war with Iran though.

Originally posted by Graham

Who armed him because he was a useful "force of moderation against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran"?


See above

Originally posted by Graham

Who *gave* him the capability and the raw materials to build weapons of mass destruction?!

I'll give you three guesses...

The soviets.

Now come on been watching this crap all week on uk history more