Thanks for fighting for our freedom in Iraq!

twinytwo · 20-03-2009 11:42AM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Brian,I'm at a loss as to where you are coming from.

I suppose a simple question would be the best thing.

Do you expect the US to sit back while an unstable area controls the lifeblood of the world economy,and rattles sabres, and threatens world economic stability.

As the "Bull Goose" in the new World order , do you expect the US to do that??

Firstly the worlds dependence on oil on this day and age is a joke... Also lets not forget America could ahve ended this back in 91 but they didnt and abandoned the Kuirds who got slaughtered.. America has only and will only ever look after their own interests and to **** with everyone else. But yet everyone else ends up paying for their mistakes.

RaverRo808 · 20-03-2009 11:58AM

I have alot of time for Iraq,they are being forcibly occupied by foreign superpowers such as Britain and the US,as are we by Britain,and they are fighting to end this occupation and to eliminate the ills that have plagued their country,as we have in the past and still are to a certain degree,I wish them all the best in their fight against opression,go knows they deserve their freedom

Saint_Mel · 20-03-2009 12:05PM

Its all about Operation Iraqi Liberation

javaboy · 20-03-2009 12:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice. But would've been better if ya tried to convince America to invade itself.

The sign can be read either way. Therein lies the beauty.

Fratton Fred · 20-03-2009 01:40PM

RaverRo808 wrote: »

I have alot of time for Iraq,they are being forcibly occupied by foreign superpowers such as Britain and the US,as are we by Britain,and they are fighting to end this occupation and to eliminate the ills that have plagued their country,as we have in the past and still are to a certain degree,I wish them all the best in their fight against opression,go knows they deserve their freedom

Strange, I have heard quote from Iraqis who say their future is a lot brighter now than it ever was before the US and Britain came. As I said in my earlier post, how many were gassed at Halabja?

Nodin · 20-03-2009 03:46PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Strange, I have heard quote from Iraqis who say their future is a lot brighter now than it ever was before the US and Britain came. As I said in my earlier post, how many were gassed at Halabja?

3,000-5,000, using some of the 200 Millions worth of the famous "Dual use" choppers he bought from America in 1980....Of course he killed far more when Kissinger decided to bring him in from the cold in the mid 1970's and had Turkey close its border to the then US-Funded Kurds....

However, let's say he killed 10,000, and theres pictures of him frolicing through the dead dressed as a ballet dancer. How does that justify

placing the natural resources of Iraq under the control of Foriegn companies
ensuring the lions share of profits are destined to leave the country
forcing an economic model on the Iraqi people on which they were not consulted
killing somewhere in the hundreds of thousands
using Iraq as a base for covert activity in Iran
destroying even the delusion of 'international law'
failing to secure a Kurdish state, thus leaving the region more unstable

Fratton Fred · 20-03-2009 04:04PM

It doesn't, but to say -raqis are fighting to liberate their country from the British and US occupation is rubbish. Saddam had to go. What would have been better would have been the UN security council having the balls to all do it rather than hiding behind the US (again). Without the US, the UN is pathetic.

ejmaztec · 20-03-2009 04:28PM

RaverRo808 wrote: »

I have alot of time for Iraq,they are being forcibly occupied by foreign superpowers such as Britain and the US,as are we by Britain,and they are fighting to end this occupation and to eliminate the ills that have plagued their country,as we have in the past and still are to a certain degree,I wish them all the best in their fight against opression,go knows they deserve their freedom

Don't you like Tesco then?

Manic Moran · 20-03-2009 04:57PM

Also lets not forget America could ahve ended this back in 91 but they didnt and abandoned the Kuirds who got slaughtered

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? At the time there was much outcry from the peace-loving denizens of the world given the apparent ease with which the Coalition was kicking the Iraqi Army's arse, over the big American bully beating up poor defenseless Iraq. For some bizarre reason, the war was fine and supportable when everyone thought that liberating Kuwait was going to be expensive in terms of lives and equipment in a 'fair fight', but became politically hot when it actually turned out to be a bit of a walkover.

There was also very little support for the outright removal of Saddam. Had the Americans tried to do so, the coalition would have fractured immediately.

So, yes, they probably should have done the job in 1991. The problem was that few people knew that it was the correct thing to do.

3,000-5,000, using some of the 200 Millions worth of the famous "Dual use" choppers he bought from America in 1980

Dual-use choppers?

Most accounts indicated the use of fixed-wing aircraft. Exact type seems to be unclear, but any references such as the BBC say "said to be Iraqi MiGs and Mirages", making them Soviet and French. (The Americans apparently never sold the Iraqis any arms at all, actually. I am at a loss to think of a fighter, attack helicopter, tank, rifle or gun of American origin in the Iraqi inventory until 2003. The MD500s are light scout helicopters, and the 214s are transports.)

It's kindof irrelevant where the aircraft came from, though. They're all designed to kill people.

NTM

Fratton Fred · 20-03-2009 05:06PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

For some bizarre reason, the war was fine and supportable when everyone thought that liberating Kuwait was going to be expensive in terms of lives and equipment in a 'fair fight', but became politically hot when it actually turned out to be a bit of a walkover.

IIRC, the coalition got the same abuse in Iraq as Britain did in the Falklands. All the tree huggers were complaining how it was so terribly awful for professional well trained armies to go around killing poor conscripts.

That would be the poor conscripts firing guns and missiles at the professional well trained armies of course.

It always makes me laugh how, for example, the old "Enemy of my Enemny is my friend" analogy is fine when youtalk about the IRA getting support from the Nazis, ot Casement getting a load of guns from Imperial Germany, buy the US do it during the Iran - Iraq war, or with the Mujahadeen and suddenly they are the epitomy of evil.

Oh well, the world has always had double standards when it comes to the US.

Overheal · 20-03-2009 05:45PM

so the peace loving hippies cared more about the war being 'fun and entrenchable' than stopping the human right abuses going on in kuwait? The whole reason we went in there was because of the tapes that made their way out of the media blackout area showing hangings beheadings and firing lines by Iraqi forces.

Surely the whole point of war is to make it a quick walkover to minimize casualties.

Nodin · 20-03-2009 06:04PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

. What would have been better would have been the UN security council having the balls to all do it rather than hiding behind the US (again). Without the US, the UN is pathetic.

Do what? Say 'ok, we don't like him, you can get your claws on his country'?

It has to be said that with the US, it doesn't look much better.

Manic moran wrote:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? At the time there was much outcry from the peace-loving denizens of the world given the apparent ease with which the Coalition was kicking the Iraqi Army's arse, over the big American bully beating up poor defenseless Iraq. .

Some took that view. Others had the idea that the US might run with the ball and secure a client state in the Gulf region, while fondling its oil reserves in an obscene fashion. Mad eh?

Manic moran wrote:

The Americans apparently never sold the Iraqis any arms at all, actually. I am at a loss to think of a fighter, attack helicopter, tank, rifle or gun of American origin in the Iraqi inventory until 2003

It was generally done through third parties, however the choppers were the exception. 60 "Defender" models from Hughes Aircraft, efforts to militarise which being mentioned here.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Manic Moran wrote:

So, yes, they probably should have done the job in 1991. The problem was that few people knew that it was the correct thing to do.

As can be noted in the above link they knew damn rightly what he was doing, and what he had done, but didn't consider it a problem.

Nodin · 20-03-2009 06:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the US do it during the Iran - Iraq war.

The Iranian people overthrow the Dictator the west foisted on them for over two decades so the US support the thug next door in his war against them...Yes, very honourable motivations there.

Manic Moran · 20-03-2009 06:52PM

It was generally done through third parties, however the choppers were the exception. 60 "Defender" models from Hughes Aircraft, efforts to militarise which being mentioned here.

As I said, 'light scout helicopters,' those things are smaller than the Garda helicopters. If any were going to be converted for the spraying of chemicals, it would have been the Bell 214s, which themselves would seem to be rather unsuited given the Iraqi ownership of multiple Russian helicopters which were actually designed with the role in mind. Could they have been converted? Sure. I could strap a belt-fed to the top of my Audi convertible and turn it into an armed recon vehicle. (Hey, it's small, fast and has 4-wheel-drive). However, I have not yet found any evidence saying that they actually were converted for the role. When I get home, I'll pull out the bibles and have a look.

NTM

Nodin · 20-03-2009 07:39PM

Well there is always the chance they really did want them to fly around VIPs and monitor wildlife......

Manic Moran · 20-03-2009 09:09PM

Oh, they certainly used them in a military role, there's no doubt about that. The sale was to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, I doubt they'd have had the local Audobon Society chapter in mind when they made the purchase and I'm fairly sure they hung some machineguns on them at least.

However, I've seen nothing thus far to indicate that they were ever used as a chemical warfare delivery system, or even as an offensive weapon in themselves.

In any case, we've moved a tad off-topic.

NTM

Thanks for fighting for our freedom in Iraq!

Comments