So what is really going on in Iraq?

[Neomega]

It is not irrelevant. It proofs you wrong.

It proves nothing, I had already read the story. It is about some alquaeda members recruiting in Spain.

I hate repeating myself, but for you, I'll make this one exception:

The vast majority of captured insurgents have been Iraqi.

geddit?

What I said in my first post. Calling guerrilla war or insurgency to terrorists that kill their own compatriots is distorting the reality. Propaganda.

wait, I already repeated myself once. I am not going to do it again.

I haven't said anything in favour of those neocons you mentioned And what does those lies you mentioned have to do with saying that what happen in iraq is not a guerrilla war or insurgency?

What are you talking about, all you are doing is spouting ther old half-truths.
They gave up on trying to call the insurgency terrorism long ago, but their FOX compatriots think they can still try to chaneg some words to make people trying to oust an occupying army terrorists. Bullox.

Intentionally or not, you are mixing up things.

No I am not. You are tryign to confuse the issue. It is an insurgency. They are majority Iraqis, and the large majority of attacks are on americans, iraqi police or army, or reccruiting station... look a couple of posts up... I already said this.

Man, what happened to you? Did you have a bad day? The only thing I said was that what happens in Iraq cannot be qualified as guerrilla war or insurgency since they kill mainly iraqi citizens. I haven't said anything else. I am not arguing about WMD or UN resolutions.

What happened.. a bunch of ignorant retards cheered a war that killed thousands of innocent people to line the coffers of bechtel and halliburton with my tax dollars... and boy am I pissed.

MY point is that what is happeing in Iraq cannot be qualified as guerrilla war or insurgency since the terrorists are killing mainly iraqi people.

Look at post #106

So why are you trying to refute the facts I just laid out there with a bunch of lies?

Look at numbers 4, 5 and 9. You come to me with a bunch of unbased fox news drivel, that is from an old campaign to try to paint the insurgency as a terrorist campagin of dead enders and alquaeda. Everyone else, including the pentagon, calls it an insurgency. Are you even up to date with current events? You are saying stuff that has already been long refuted, by experts from all over the world, including the pentagon.

It's not propaganda, it's the truth. I am not going to do your research for you, but I assure you, I obviously know a lot more about this issue than you, you need to study the issue a little more closely before saying that the world calling it an insurgency is just "propaganda".

 

[SomethingWitty]

Please note that I said chemical weapons. I am fairly sure we no longer produce such and have in fact been eliminating our stockpile.

Note the person you responded to was talking about weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and considerably worse than chemical weapons.



White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, it is used as a smoke screen agent and is not banned by the international law of war.

White phosphorous is not a nerve agent, but it is a weapon of mass destruction, was admittedly used by the US as an anti-personnel weapon not a "smoke screen," and is banned by the Geneva Conventions.

...........

 

[Neomega]

Neomega please make your point without the acerbic comments towards people's character. It's ok to be passionate about your views but I don't understand why you need to be so vicious towards someone who disagrees with you. Stress will kill you if you keep it up, son.

I am sorry, did I ever show you any disrespect?

I get vicious when peopel call me "brainwashed".

I get vicious when people infer I do not support our troops.

Ah yes, your old report, you tried to bring up as evidence... why? If you are going to try to stand toe to toe with me, you better bring good stuff. You are holed up with all your right wing buddies circulating old stories that never panned out, hoping against hope that everything will be proved right, and America was right, and the world was wrong, but it ain't going to happen, because America was WRONG.

 

[nonconformist]

The assumption that he was killed is ludicrous. There's simply no reason to believe that he died. If he had died, first off, the administration would be trumpeting it as a success, instead of just ignoring him completely. Secondly, had he been killed he'd now be a major martyr among sympathetic communities. Thirdly, the rumor about kidney failure was part of a 9-11 conspiracy theory that included the tid-bit that he was being treated at an American air base. Fourthly, bin Laden rarely releases video and he spent a number of years underground (figuratively) after American air strikes following the Cole bombing. Using your logic, we would have killed him then. Obviously, we didn't.

I find it terribly unlikely that he did survive (And the allegation that "Al Quaeda" exists is one I dismiss), even back in 2002 I thought he was dead.
I just don't think the sums add up.

 

[Neomega]

regarding chemical weapons:

remember where the anthrax that killed postal workers came from?

 

[Whomp]

I am sorry, did I ever show you any disrespect?

I get vicious when peopel call me "brainwashed".

I get vicious when people infer I do not support our troops.

My point to you was you can disagree with someone without being so caustic.

all your right wing buddies

This is a mighty broad statement since you don't know a thing about my political beliefs. In fact, it was not too long ago that MobBoss and I disagreed on a very different topic. As I stated earlier, I believe this will cause civil war as history is our guide, I believe it's time to reduce our presence but I also believe there is more to the story that you and I know. You take from your sources and I take from mine.

Ah yes, your old report, you tried to bring up as evidence... why? If you are going to try to stand toe to toe with me, you better bring good stuff. You are holed up with all your right wing buddies circulating old stories that never panned out, hoping against hope that everything will be proved right, and America was right, and the world was wrong, but it ain't going to happen, because America was WRONG.

Your view not mine. Old or not it was stated how and where it was. I've seen no emphatic evidence that proves it wasn't moved. All I've heard is it's not in Iraq and I believe that to be the case.
How about we say "we'll agree to disagree".

 

[Gelion]

regarding chemical weapons:

remember where the anthrax that killed postal workers came from?

Mon ami if the WMDs were the real reason for war they would have been found.
If they were a reason for war then the only building guarded in just occupied Baghdad would have been the Ministry of Defence NOT the Ministry of Oil.

 

[Neomega]

Your view not mine. Old or not it was stated how and where it was. I've seen no emphatic evidence that proves it wasn't moved. All I've heard is it's not in Iraq and I believe that to be the case.
How about we say "we'll agree to disagree".

I looke dhtis up on the internet, and all I found was it circulating amongst a bunch of far right wing forums.

It is one journalist, making a claim, 1.5 years ago. It certainly proves nothing.

When Rumsfeld and co were showing pictures and saying they knew where tehse weapons were,s urely they coudl have tracked their movements.

Or maybe, maybe rumsfeld actually didn't know where they were. Maybe he was trumping up a war based on the belief that they would be found, and all would be well.

I was reminded at the time of the "police" metality of the Unted States. The "if they act like they got something to hide, they must have it". It is not true, never has been true, and certainly not enough to start a war over.

A dictator, or any other ruler of a nation, not wanting froeigners inspecting his secret bases, is nothing new, and certainly not suspicious to me. Saddam Hussein, spent the 12 years after his defeat focused on one thing, building a defense against the United States. Who know, maybe he is the evil genius you all think he seems to be, but maybe he just wanted to appear to have weapons, to embarass the United States, and destroy her alliances.

 

[Neomega]

I also believe there is more to the story that you and I know.

When you have watched this war unfold as closely as I have, from well before the invasion, every move, every step, when you have the names of all the major and minor players tied together and memorized like I have, there is plenty on public record that shows exaclty what there is to know.

This Iraq war was started by profittering warmongers, hoping to reap a profit from Iraqi oil, much like the first war. The drums began beating in 1998 by the Project for the New American Century, with Dick Cheney being a central and very powerful member.


There is no more to this story. America was duped. Hope and pray it was duped Cheney and company, because if it was duped by Chalabi, then we are playing a game with Iran we still have not quite figured out, but we are certainly dong their dirty work, and the political arm has crippled our military beyond the ability to do anything about a true Islam bomb.

The rest of the world saw through the lies, and much of America saw it immediately, unfortunately fox news made sure too many Americans saw nothing but stars and stripes. And most of their commentators on the war all belonged to that infamous think tank... project for a new America century.

 

[MobBoss]

White phosphorous is not a nerve agent, but it is a weapon of mass destruction, was admittedly used by the US as an anti-personnel weapon not a "smoke screen," and is banned by the Geneva Conventions.

Uhm, you are incorrect. It is not a WMD and is not classified as such anywhere. Here chew on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Pete

Smoke-screening agent
Weight-for-weight, phosphorus is the most effective smoke-screening agent known, for two reasons:

It absorbs most of the screening mass from the surrounding atmosphere; and
The smoke particles are actually an aerosol, a mist of liquid droplets which are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light. This effect has been likened to three dimensional textured privacy glass—the smoke cloud does not obstruct an image, but thoroughly scrambles it. It also absorbs infrared radiation

and:

Use of white phosphorus against military targets (outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The Convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification.[11]

However, in 2005, interviewed by the RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees the CWC, publicly questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions: "No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus... are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." [12]

Some opponents have argued that because of its incendiary effects, WP is potentially restricted by the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III), which prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [13] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. In any case, the third protocol has not been signed by the United States.

Ok, once and for all. WP is allowed..it is not classified as a chemical weapon.

 

[Archbob]

Despite the argument above by both parties, I still fail to see how this whole war has benefited the United States in any way and why we should keep on persueing it.

 

[SomethingWitty]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

You do realize that wikipedia isn't a terribly good source, right?

 

[Urederra]

It is an insurgency. They are majority Iraqis, and the large majority of attacks are on americans, iraqi police or army, or reccruiting station... look a couple of posts up... I already said this.

Quote:
But, even if the majority of the terrorists are iraqis, it is still true that the majority of the victims are iraqis. The targets of the terrorists in iraq are not the typical targets in a guerrilla war or insurgency.

And the majority of the victims of our bombs and bullets are iraqis too... what's your point?

Ummm... you are contradicting yourself.

The majority of people killed in Iraq by terrorists are iraqis. That is not a guerrilla warfare of insurgency.

So why are you trying to refute the facts I just laid out there with a bunch of lies?

I could say just the same.

Look at numbers 4, 5 and 9. You come to me with a bunch of unbased fox news drivel, that is from an old campaign to try to paint the insurgency as a terrorist campagin of dead enders and alquaeda. Everyone else, including the pentagon, calls it an insurgency. Are you even up to date with current events? You are saying stuff that has already been long refuted, by experts from all over the world, including the pentagon.

I don't watch fox news, nor cow news or any USA news channel. I just read the newspapers on line and count the number of iraqis killed by the terrorists and most of them are iraqies. That is not guerrilla warfare or insurgency in my books. I don't care how the pentagon, zebra news, pig news, horse news or even neomega news call them. Killing your own citizens is not guerrilla warfare or insurgency.

You are getting personal. People use "ad hominem" when they run out of arguments.

It's not propaganda, it's the truth.

That is what all propaganda media says
Of course, noone is gonna admit that they are releasing propaganda. They say that it is the truth, if they say otherwise, it won't be effective

 

[Neomega]

Ummm... you are contradicting yourself.

No

number of attacks =/= number of casualties

allthough the attacks on civilians are spectacular in the rate of civilians killed, the huge bulk of attacks are on military targets.

AND

you are trying to group a large series of resstance groups in with al Zarqawis alquaeda in the land of two rivers. They ar e the ones mostly responsible for the attacks on civilians... the insurgency, however, tends to focus on atttacking American or American propped police and military.


and nothing I said was ad hominem.


EDIT: and now you jhave no reason to call it anything but an insurgency, like the rest of the world.

...and if you wish to distinguish the maybe 2 attacks a day carried out by zarqawi, call them as attacks by Zarqawi, his campaign could certainly be referred ot as "terrorist"

But the many dozens of attacks against soldiers and humvees every day, those are certainly "insurgency" or "geurilla" fighters.

 

[SomethingWitty]

The majority of people killed in Iraq by terrorists are iraqis. That is not a guerrilla warfare of insurgency.

That's because the Americans all have armor. The Insurgents are targetting Americans and Iraqis they consider to be enemy sympathizers- like the Iraqi "police." Thus they'd be guerilla fighters and to call them terrorists is textbook propaganda.


I don't watch fox news, nor cow news or any USA news channel. I just read the newspapers on line and count the number of iraqis killed by the terrorists and most of them are iraqies. That is not guerrilla warfare or insurgency in my books. I don't care how the pentagon, zebra news, pig news, horse news or even neomega news call them. Killing your own citizens is not guerrilla warfare or insurgency.

That's odd. Because you're parroting Fox News propaganda. The Vietcong and NVA targetted South Vietnamese troops along with Americans. What would you call them? How about the Confederacy? Terrorists?

............

 

[MobBoss]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

You do realize that wikipedia isn't a terribly good source, right?

In this case it is right on the money. Even your link says:

(

b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

As the best smoke round in the world the incendiary effects of WP are indicental, thus the protocol you linked to does not appy.

Nice effort, but not good enough.

 

[SomethingWitty]

In this case it is right on the money. Even your link says:

(

As the best smoke round in the world the incendiary effects of WP are indicental, thus the protocol you linked to does not appy.

Nice effort, but not good enough.

The incendiary effects of WP are certainly not incidental. WP was dropped on Fallujah with the express purpose of burning people to death.

That's like saying Saddam gassed the Kurds on accident, he was only fumigating for roachs.

 

[MobBoss]

The incendiary effects of WP are certainly not incidental. WP was dropped on Fallujah with the express purpose of burning people to death.

Sorry, it was not. Stop being a liberal lemming. The use of smoke in military operations is a standard practice and is used to screen troop movement against obljectives and/or enemy fire. Got a building full of people shooting at you? Drop WP over it and then they cant see you anymore as you move up to it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

SomethingWitty:

But the resistance in Iraq does not have a stated purpose other than getting the Americans out of Iraq. Then what?

Whereas the Northern Vietnamese and Viet Cong had some legitimacy in attempting to set up an independent Communist-Party-led government, and the CSA's forces had legitimacy in attempting to set up an independent democratic republic, the Iraqi resistance is trying to cause chaos rather than order. In this sense, it is more of a terrorist movement and less of an armed effort to bring about positive change.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Mon ami if the WMDs were the real reason for war they would have been found.
If they were a reason for war then the only building guarded in just occupied Baghdad would have been the Ministry of Defence NOT the Ministry of Oil.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html
Since US forces rolled into central Baghdad a week ago, one of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops.

Oil minisrey was secured by US forces. As for ministry of defence iam uncertain
Thou the ministry of argiculture was looted and set on fire