Propaganda

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

I don't know if its even possible to obtain an accurate breakdown, but the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been inflicted by other Iraqis. This is even more true if you look only at the time period after the initial U.S. capture of Baghdad. One could argue that the U.S. presence lead to destabilization, which in turn enabled the sectarian violence to flare up ...

I think you're right in the context of this war, however, if you take into account the deaths of Iraqis from sanctions etc, than I still think teh US comes out on top.

Cosmo

jsand wrote:

When in doubt, attack the poster. What a clever trick.

...
More like, "Why bother with you". You refuse to even acknowlege that there is an opposition, except for that it is Evil. You cannot see the difference between analogy and reality. There is no point in even trying to make a point with you because anyone that tries to show you the other side, you assume takes the other side and is therefore the enemy and evil.
... if you take that as an attack... that's on you.

Cosmo

jsand wrote:

That is a legitimate argument. Arguing that America's presence there is akin to an Islamic army invading America because of sexual decadence, or that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths indicates that America (or GWB) is a madman, as opposed to Saddam, is just plain silly.

...
Okay... let me dumb this down... for your sake.
Let's say... in an imaginary scenario... for whatever reason... a foriegn Army is occupying your country and trying to instill their system of government, here in America.
You are saying, you would not oppose them?

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

I think you're right in the context of this war, however, if you take into account the deaths of Iraqis from sanctions etc, than I still think teh US comes out on top.

Whoa, nelly. I am a huge opponent of sanctions in general, but the UN can shoulder the blame there. Not just the U.S.

jsand

Cosmo wrote:

...
Okay... let me dumb this down... for your sake.
Let's say... in an imaginary scenario... for whatever reason... a foriegn Army is occupying your country and trying to instill their system of government, here in America.
You are saying, you would not oppose them?

But, but, I thought there were no more personal attacks...

Thanks for "dumbing it down"; as if I couldn't grasp your unavailing "point" in the first place.

The facts just don't support any of your pathetic analogies. You're trying, in vain, to paint a picture wherein the violence being committed in Iraq is some kind of reaction to big bad America's forceful occupation and attempt to instill democracy there. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most, if not all of the violence is Sunni versus Shia.

Sorry, but your "resistance to occupation" argument is pathetic.

jsand

reborncareerist wrote:

Whoa, nelly. I am a huge opponent of sanctions in general, but the UN can shoulder the blame there. Not just the U.S.

Hey...didn't you get the memo? It's always the US' fault. Always.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Whoa, nelly. I am a huge opponent of sanctions in general, but the UN can shoulder the blame there. Not just the U.S.

...
Actually... the U.S. sponsored U.N. Economic Sanctions were an effective means to contain Saddam Hussein. Sure, he diverted money from medicine to buy Michael Jackson-esque gaudy vases for his bullshit palaces... but, that was on his head, not ours. The sanctions kept him from his aspirations to develop, manufacture, maintain and deploy weapons of mass destruction or even a conventional armed force. Did you know the number of T-72 tanks had not increased by one since the 1991 Gulf War... and those that survived were barely running? Tanks were towed into position on bridges and around strongholds because of their inability to move themselves... that's why they were sitting ducks to our armoured divisions... they were not able to retreat. And the forward positions in the desert were held by WWII vintage T-34 relics with no ammunition onboard. It would have been the same as our M-4 Sherman Tanks trying to hold off a Division of M-1A1s. Their front line was basically cannon fodder to slow down our advancing forces.
The Iraqi Army sucked to begin with and sucked even worse with the sanctions. Like the U.N. or not... the sanctions worked. Maybe not perfectly, but what part of any governing body does?

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
Actually... the U.S. sponsored U.N. Economic Sanctions were an effective means to contain Saddam Hussein. Sure, he diverted money from medicine to buy Michael Jackson-esque gaudy vases for his bullshit palaces... but, that was on his head, not ours. The sanctions kept him from his aspirations to develop, manufacture, maintain and deploy weapons of mass destruction or even a conventional armed force. Did you know the number of T-72 tanks had not increased by one since the 1991 Gulf War... and those that survived were barely running? Tanks were towed into position on bridges and around strongholds because of their inability to move themselves... that's why they were sitting ducks to our armoured divisions... they were not able to retreat. And the forward positions in the desert were held by WWII vintage T-34 relics with no ammunition onboard. It would have been the same as our M-4 Sherman Tanks trying to hold off a Division of M-1A1s. Their front line was basically cannon fodder to slow down our advancing forces.
The Iraqi Army sucked to begin with and sucked even worse with the sanctions. Like the U.N. or not... the sanctions worked. Maybe not perfectly, but what part of any governing body does?

Of course they worked, in terms of crippling the Iraqi army. But they also led directly to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. In fact, they did a better job of killing civilians that the current war has done.

Oh, and the Iraqi army actually took on the M1s with T-72s back in 1990 ... The Republican Guard divisions. They got their asses handed to them because the American divisions used better tactics and had better equipment. It wasn't just T-34s, and it wasn't just the sanctions. The best Iraqi units got destroyed in the first Gulf War, in combat.

Cosmo

jsand wrote:

But, but, I thought there were no more personal attacks...

Thanks for "dumbing it down"; as if I couldn't grasp your unavailing "point" in the first place.

The facts just don't support any of your pathetic analogies. You're trying, in vain, to paint a picture wherein the violence being committed in Iraq is some kind of reaction to big bad America's forceful occupation and attempt to instill democracy there. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most, if not all of the violence is Sunni versus Shia.

Sorry, but your "resistance to occupation" argument is pathetic.

...
It is not a comparison... please, at least get that part.
It is an attempt to get you to see what it might be like if you were one of them.
You can't be serious to think that our presense in Iraq has nothing to do with the ongoing violence over there, do you? By removing the iron fist of Hussein on that messed up situation, we let that wildcat out of the bag.
The Shi'ites are more like the Iranians... they even threw their support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's an Arab versus Persian thing that we allowed to escalate into this mess because our simplistic thinking that they will forget about 30 years of oppression and refrain from kicking ass in vengence and all of a sudden get along like nothing happened. And if they are not after us... then WHY are our fucking guys dying and getting their arms blown off over there?
...
And in this imaginary scenario... I would be going around blowing up shit and killing them and treasonous Americans that supported this foriegn power in my country because no matter how fucked up we may be, this is still my country. All the while, you would be sitting around, calling me moronic for doing so. Who is the Patriot in this picture?

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
And in this imaginary scenario... I would be going around blowing up shit and killing them and treasonous Americans that supported this foriegn power in my country because no matter how fucked up we may be, this is still my country. All the while, you would be sitting around, calling me moronic for doing so. Who is the Patriot in this picture?

Well ...

I guess you'd be more of a patriot, but dare I say more of a psychopath as well. You gotta remember that not even close to all Iraqis do what the Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias do.

jsand

Cosmo wrote:

And in this imaginary scenario... I would be going around blowing up shit and killing them and treasonous Americans that supported this foriegn power in my country because no matter how fucked up we may be, this is still my country. All the while, you would be sitting around, calling me
moronic for doing so. Who is the Patriot in this picture?

You are the true patriot. Congrats.

The stupidity on this board never ceases to amaze me.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Of course they worked, in terms of crippling the Iraqi army. But they also led directly to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. In fact, they did a better job of killing civilians that the current war has done.

Oh, and the Iraqi army actually took on the M1s with T-72s back in 1990 ... The Republican Guard divisions. They got their asses handed to them because the American divisions used better tactics and had better equipment. It wasn't just T-34s, and it wasn't just the sanctions. The best Iraqi units got destroyed in the first Gulf War, in combat.

...
I know... my point is that Iraq was not able to re-arm their conventional forces, let alone, any nuclear capabilities, because of the sanctions.
An un-related point... but, do you remember how the Republican Guard deployed their T-72s? They dug them in up to their turrets to set up a defensive line, pretty much eliminating their mobility. They were sitting ducks for swarms of coalition (U.S., British, French, German and Austrailian) fighter/bombers. The Iraqis had no air defense systems along this line and they paid dearly for this mistake.
...
Back to the sanctions... personally... about the Iraqis... fuck 'em. If they weren't doing anything to rebel against Hussein ripping them off, it must not have been so bad... otherwise, they'd started this Civil War on their own. We have our own fucking problems in this country to solve, why should i care about them over there? Yeah, it's a bummer... but, there are other countries (in Africa) that were much worse off then they were... who put them at the top of our "We Have To Save Them" list?

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
I know... my point is that Iraq was not able to re-arm their conventional forces, let alone, any nuclear capabilities, because of the sanctions.
An un-related point... but, do you remember how the Republican Guard deployed their T-72s? They dug them in up to their turrets to set up a defensive line, pretty much eliminating their mobility. They were sitting ducks for swarms of coalition (U.S., British, French, German and Austrailian) fighter/bombers. The Iraqis had no air defense systems along this line and they paid dearly for this mistake.
...
Back to the sanctions... personally... about the Iraqis... fuck 'em. If they weren't doing anything to rebel against Hussein ripping them off, it must not have been so bad... otherwise, they'd started this Civil War on their own. We have our own fucking problems in this country to solve, why should i care about them over there? Yeah, it's a bummer... but, there are other countries (in Africa) that were much worse off then they were... who put them at the top of our "We Have To Save Them" list?

True dat, regarding T-72 deployments. But it is also true that the single biggest enemy tank/APC killer in that war was none other than another tank, the M1 Abrams. As the Isrealis just learned (again), air power is no substitute for tracking down the enemy and going toe-to-toe.

As for the sanctions ... I see your point, but respectfully disagree. Honestly? A war to remove Saddam BACK THEN, back when the rest of the world was still on board, might have been better than these sanctions were, both in terms of military effectiveness AND in terms of minimizing civilian deaths. They should have finished the job then, instead of exposing Iraq to over a decade of economic ruin. The long-run result probably would have been better for that mess of a country.

Cosmo

jsand wrote:

You are the true patriot. Congrats.

The stupidity on this board never ceases to amaze me.

...
There... was that so hard to see? Patriot and Insurgent and Terrorist is relative to your viewpoint. Our Revolutionary War... we used 'terrorist' tactics on the British army and we didn't 'fight fair'. To them, were we terrorists... to us... we were Patriots.
The same thing could be happening over there... the silent support for insurgents in the face of an overwhelming military power... is it because they are being terrorized by the 'terrroists'... or are supporting their 'patriots'?
It is not the black and white you only see.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

True dat, regarding T-72 deployments. But it is also true that the single biggest enemy tank/APC killer in that war was none other than another tank, the M1 Abrams. As the Isrealis just learned (again), air power is no substitute for tracking down the enemy and going toe-to-toe.

As for the sanctions ... I see your point, but respectfully disagree. Honestly? A war to remove Saddam BACK THEN, back when the rest of the world was still on board, might have been better than these sanctions were, both in terms of military effectiveness AND in terms of minimizing civilian deaths. They should have finished the job then, instead of exposing Iraq to over a decade of economic ruin. The long-run result probably would have been better for that mess of a country.

...
I disagree. Remember, it was a different world in 1991. The coalition was primarily made up of Western firepower, but G.H.W.Bush and his administration, primarily Secretary of Defense Cheney, Joint Chief Colin Powell and Command leader Swartzkopf knew they needed full support of Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria) to go into Baghdad for the long term. The Arabs would not support this because to them, Hussein was a lesser of two evils when compared to the Shi'ite fundamentalists in Iran. it was the correct decision, at that time and under those circumstances... to end the Gulf War when we did and contain Hussein and keep him from attacking his neighbors.
The only thing that would be different would have been Iraq being G.H.W.Bush's War instead of his son's War. The French, Germans, Italians and other NATO allies would have withdrawn from this venture, too... since they have huge populations on Muslims at home and their ecomonies are deeply entangled with the Middle East's oil. And Russia, in 1991 (two years after their fall) was a wildcard that was completely unpredictable.
I think G.H.W.Bush had a good plan... get the Kurds and Shi'ites to rebel against Hussein and the rest of the world, lead by the U.S., would help them topple Hussein. But, we left them out in the cold and they got gassed. That wasn't a bad plan... just that it was sort of tossed out there as a whim, without the full and complete planning that it needed, to be successful.

hippiemom

jsand wrote:

So you would shoot at people trying to save you from a madman who uses chemical weapns on your own people? That's pretty moronic.

No. I'd probably be on their side right up until they blew up my house, or arrested and tortured my uncle for no good reason, or splattered my brother's brains all over some checkpoint, or raped my sister and shot grandpa in his wheelchair. After that, I'd be a little testy.

miller8966

I dont think we should have gone into iraq; just because i think the iraqi people deserve Saddam. Their not intelligent enough to have elections..they need a dictator to tell them when to eat and pray. He did a great job killing his people..hell they probaly deserved it.

If i was Bush id put him back in power and give him some more weapons to relase on his own people.

hippiemom

miller8966 wrote:

I dont think we should have gone into iraq; just because i think the iraqi people deserve Saddam. Their not intelligent enough to have elections..they need a dictator to tell them when to eat and pray. He did a great job killing his people..hell they probaly deserved it.

If i was Bush id put him back in power and give him some more weapons to relase on his own people.

You crack me up

Edit: "Their not intelligent enough" ... thanks for that, that always makes me laugh especially hard.

Cosmo

miller8966 wrote:

I dont think we should have gone into iraq; just because i think the iraqi people deserve Saddam. Their not intelligent enough to have elections..they need a dictator to tell them when to eat and pray. He did a great job killing his people..hell they probaly deserved it.

If i was Bush id put him back in power and give him some more weapons to relase on his own people.

...
I gotta give you credit for honesty, here. I get sick of that, 'Saving the poor Iraqis' thing as an excuse for this war. You can't tell me these people gave a damn about Iraqis prior to G.W.Bush. The only Americans that really did care about them were the ones who wanted to drop the sanctions in 1996 to 2000... and they were very few and usually slightly to the left of Michael Moore.