Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
War in, on and over Iraq
- Thread starter knvb
- Start date
Rangerforever
Well-Known Member
I expected worse out of you actually.
Perhaps a nice high pace German metal band theme would work.
Didn't get round to the music bit, only the lyrics.
Stay "tuned".
Nothing personal on the Gerry rant OK?
Perhaps a nice high pace German metal band theme would work.
Didn't get round to the music bit, only the lyrics.
Stay "tuned".
Nothing personal on the Gerry rant OK?
WTF?
Rangerforever:
If there is a rational thought in that ridiculous post I just wasted a minute reading, I sure as hell couldn't find it.
What a piece of absolute shite and garbage.
There is no free nation in the world who wants Saddam in power. The issue for thinking Canadians- not weak-kneed apologists like yourself - is the precedent of a superpower simply removing governments they don't like.
There is hardly a Canadian on TTP who doesn't see the danger in what the USA has done in going into Iraq with the possible exception of Smiles (who really is an American, not a wannabe like you!). Where they heading next? Syria, North Korea, or how about Saudi Arabia or Egypt where the real 911 terrorists came from.
If you want to bring up the World Wars, then so will I. Canada joined both wars at the fcuking start of them when the Americans did nothing until they had to or Germany would have won the first war. And in the Second World War, they waited again.
If we want to do something about a bad leader then why don't we all kick Mugabe out of Zimbabwe - look at what he is doing. And there are many more other examples around the world.
What a load of absolute shite and that nice touch ending, "God bless America" is enough to make the stomach turn! I am not anti-American at all. But I am tired of Canadian apologists for not joining the war mongering USA and Britain in this wrong headed war in Iraq.
Iraq is proving to be a country less able to defend itself than in 1991. The US record of finding "weapons of mass destruction" there is not looking so good at all. If they have chemicals in their war heads they have no way to deliver them. But you seem to be swallowing the US line hook, line and sinker.
Rangerforever:
If there is a rational thought in that ridiculous post I just wasted a minute reading, I sure as hell couldn't find it.
What a piece of absolute shite and garbage.
There is no free nation in the world who wants Saddam in power. The issue for thinking Canadians- not weak-kneed apologists like yourself - is the precedent of a superpower simply removing governments they don't like.
There is hardly a Canadian on TTP who doesn't see the danger in what the USA has done in going into Iraq with the possible exception of Smiles (who really is an American, not a wannabe like you!). Where they heading next? Syria, North Korea, or how about Saudi Arabia or Egypt where the real 911 terrorists came from.
If you want to bring up the World Wars, then so will I. Canada joined both wars at the fcuking start of them when the Americans did nothing until they had to or Germany would have won the first war. And in the Second World War, they waited again.
If we want to do something about a bad leader then why don't we all kick Mugabe out of Zimbabwe - look at what he is doing. And there are many more other examples around the world.
What a load of absolute shite and that nice touch ending, "God bless America" is enough to make the stomach turn! I am not anti-American at all. But I am tired of Canadian apologists for not joining the war mongering USA and Britain in this wrong headed war in Iraq.
Iraq is proving to be a country less able to defend itself than in 1991. The US record of finding "weapons of mass destruction" there is not looking so good at all. If they have chemicals in their war heads they have no way to deliver them. But you seem to be swallowing the US line hook, line and sinker.
Rangerforever
Well-Known Member
Reccos:
Let me guess.
You're Russian, French or German?
My last two lines were a piss-take.
You took my last two piss take sentences and ran with it and ignored everything else.
You're a clown.
But yeah, I'm on their side.
I, like you, am concerned about it - no doubt.
But on their side on this one for sure.
Let me refresh a small but significant part of my post:
My rational point, which you obviously fcuking missed, was that the Russians, the French, and the Germans are spineless pussies.
The whole rant was on those three countries.
Not once in your useless post did you address that did you?
Not that I was looking for anyone's opinion, just expressing mine.
So again, thanks for coming out.
But next time you're drinking your favourite vodka, wine or some of Munich's finest hops, post after you've got out of the blur stage.
Kind regards,
RF
Let me guess.
You're Russian, French or German?
My last two lines were a piss-take.
You took my last two piss take sentences and ran with it and ignored everything else.
You're a clown.
But yeah, I'm on their side.
I, like you, am concerned about it - no doubt.
But on their side on this one for sure.
Let me refresh a small but significant part of my post:
My rational point, which you obviously fcuking missed, was that the Russians, the French, and the Germans are spineless pussies.
The whole rant was on those three countries.
Not once in your useless post did you address that did you?
Not that I was looking for anyone's opinion, just expressing mine.
So again, thanks for coming out.
But next time you're drinking your favourite vodka, wine or some of Munich's finest hops, post after you've got out of the blur stage.
Kind regards,
RF
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
Great idea to make playing cards......I wonder how much this cost the Yanks? Ah, what the fcuk, it's only a war. What's a couple of trillion dollars?
cnuts.........
from the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003
Brit Pilot's Punch-up
A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches with a US Marine.
The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a fcuking Iraqi in a helicopter?"
The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according from US reports from US Central Command in Qatar.
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These lads are not known for tolerating fools gladly."
Experts with newscaster on CNN 24th March.
3 yank experts including a former 2-star general from delta force, 1 ex SAS and the network's anchor:
Footage of Iraqis giving themselves up.
Anchor: We have no verification as of yet if they are British or American troops taking these POW's
Yank1: Only Americans wear boots like that, they're American
yank 2: I agree, and they appear to have American camouflage jackets.
yank 3 (delta force bloke): I'm not so sure, there's not enough up-close detail to tell 100%, we'd need some close images to tell make of boots and jackets and maybe the shape of their Kevlar headgear.
Ex SAS man: Call yourselves experts? Since when did US forces use an SA80 as a standard issue rifle? Their DPM's can be bought as can boots so you're chasing rainbows if you want to identify them from their clothes.
anchor: I think you're right.
Ex SAS man: ! Course I'm bloody right. Any one with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to identify a British soldier by his rifle. Not to mention the fact they're covering all points properly, not shouting "woo yeah" randomly, and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention with orders.
at this point 1 of the yanks walks off stage tearing his mic off, and the anchor says "I think we can safely say the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages".
from the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003
Brit Pilot's Punch-up
A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches with a US Marine.
The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a fcuking Iraqi in a helicopter?"
The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according from US reports from US Central Command in Qatar.
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These lads are not known for tolerating fools gladly."
Experts with newscaster on CNN 24th March.
3 yank experts including a former 2-star general from delta force, 1 ex SAS and the network's anchor:
Footage of Iraqis giving themselves up.
Anchor: We have no verification as of yet if they are British or American troops taking these POW's
Yank1: Only Americans wear boots like that, they're American
yank 2: I agree, and they appear to have American camouflage jackets.
yank 3 (delta force bloke): I'm not so sure, there's not enough up-close detail to tell 100%, we'd need some close images to tell make of boots and jackets and maybe the shape of their Kevlar headgear.
Ex SAS man: Call yourselves experts? Since when did US forces use an SA80 as a standard issue rifle? Their DPM's can be bought as can boots so you're chasing rainbows if you want to identify them from their clothes.
anchor: I think you're right.
Ex SAS man: ! Course I'm bloody right. Any one with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to identify a British soldier by his rifle. Not to mention the fact they're covering all points properly, not shouting "woo yeah" randomly, and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention with orders.
at this point 1 of the yanks walks off stage tearing his mic off, and the anchor says "I think we can safely say the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages".
Funny Reccos, but every-time I read your posts on issues like this, it seems that you are decidedly anti-war, no matter what the issue. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am.
I am against this particular war because of the reasons I outlined above: I find it far too politically and economically motivated, and Bush is using the Humanitarian effort as a convenient excuse to occupy Iraq, and the Americanize it. They want a friendly regime in place so that they can get access to all the oil. This HAS to be obvious to everyone. It is especially dubious considering Bush’s ties to the oil industry. The US has a huge energy shortage to deal with. At the same time, the automobile sector is far too valuable to American industry to ignore the need for more oil. They need the Middle East to be friendly to them in order to preserve the American way of life. It is easier and less damaging to the short-term economy than the alternatives (energy efficient fuel cells for example).
I feel that the results we see today doesn’t justify the methods. I would have preferred a negotiated UN resolution. If the UN could agree- or even partially agree- that conflict was required, I’d be supportive. I agree with RF on the stances taken by Russia, Germany, and France. They’re as economically motivated as the Yanks. The US is bragging about “minimal civilian casualties” is resolving this thing. Bullshit, I say. If I’m not mistaken, the civilian casualties will vastly outnumber the Coalition casualties (if anyone has stats to back this up, post it). Yes, it did make me smile last week to see the Iraqis celebrating in the streets- but at the same time, I think the “shock and awe” strategy was overly excessive, and inhumane in itself. Who gives a shite if they’re using precision bombs…they’re still dropping them in Iraqi neighborhoods on innocent children. Fcuking cnuts. Could they have achieved the same results without so much slaughter of the innocent? Probably…and probably with minimal loss of troops. They English pretty much proved that with securing Basra. The US made a conscious decision that the lives of their troops were more valuable than innocent Iraqi people. This doesn’t speak well of a humanitarian effort.
Hopefully, a democratic Iraqi regime will be put in place that will ensure true freedom…but, I smell a rat.
God bless the innocent of Iraq.
I am against this particular war because of the reasons I outlined above: I find it far too politically and economically motivated, and Bush is using the Humanitarian effort as a convenient excuse to occupy Iraq, and the Americanize it. They want a friendly regime in place so that they can get access to all the oil. This HAS to be obvious to everyone. It is especially dubious considering Bush’s ties to the oil industry. The US has a huge energy shortage to deal with. At the same time, the automobile sector is far too valuable to American industry to ignore the need for more oil. They need the Middle East to be friendly to them in order to preserve the American way of life. It is easier and less damaging to the short-term economy than the alternatives (energy efficient fuel cells for example).
I feel that the results we see today doesn’t justify the methods. I would have preferred a negotiated UN resolution. If the UN could agree- or even partially agree- that conflict was required, I’d be supportive. I agree with RF on the stances taken by Russia, Germany, and France. They’re as economically motivated as the Yanks. The US is bragging about “minimal civilian casualties” is resolving this thing. Bullshit, I say. If I’m not mistaken, the civilian casualties will vastly outnumber the Coalition casualties (if anyone has stats to back this up, post it). Yes, it did make me smile last week to see the Iraqis celebrating in the streets- but at the same time, I think the “shock and awe” strategy was overly excessive, and inhumane in itself. Who gives a shite if they’re using precision bombs…they’re still dropping them in Iraqi neighborhoods on innocent children. Fcuking cnuts. Could they have achieved the same results without so much slaughter of the innocent? Probably…and probably with minimal loss of troops. They English pretty much proved that with securing Basra. The US made a conscious decision that the lives of their troops were more valuable than innocent Iraqi people. This doesn’t speak well of a humanitarian effort.
Hopefully, a democratic Iraqi regime will be put in place that will ensure true freedom…but, I smell a rat.
God bless the innocent of Iraq.
War and Its necessity
Dude: I am not against all wars, only dumb ones that do not pass the clear tests of legality that all free nations have agreed to as part of the UN Charter and statement of principles. The US rogues don't like trying to make the UN work properly and that is what they should be insisting on but they like to do their own thing. The number of countries going democratic is proceeding at a faster pace than in the last thousand years. There are still problem spots all over but it is better to get the UN working effectively to fight those battles.
It is the Bush doctrine of going after any dictator of their choosing is what I oppose. Who will be next? Syria - well no problem there as the Arabs hate the US anyway and they can't defend themselves either. North Korea- hmmm, now that poses a different threat becaused they really do have weapons and that this is about the only thing they do is to build very good weapons for their own use or for sale to others. North Korea would be a worse fight than Vietnam in terms of deaths of civilians and quite possibly US troops.
Let's face it. The Iraqis are less able to defend themselves now than they were in 1991 so there goes the weapons of mass destruction argument. There are a number of American commentators and ex-CIA people saying that they will not be surprised if the US plants the evidence their themselves to vindicate this bullshite.
The so-called chemical dripping war heads is also crap and not proving to be true. Experts have said even if they had spiked the warheads with chemicals, this is not a means of delivering chemicals as the only people who would be victimized would be those getting direct hits and they'd be dead anyway. The chemicals would simply be in the hole in the ground affecting a radius of a few feet.
The number of American and British troops killed is dramatically higher than in the 1991 war because they don't want to kill more innocent civilians than they have to. This decision means more body bags going home to Britain and to the US than if they just bombed the shite out of them and didn't care about the civilian body count.
Dude: I am not against all wars, only dumb ones that do not pass the clear tests of legality that all free nations have agreed to as part of the UN Charter and statement of principles. The US rogues don't like trying to make the UN work properly and that is what they should be insisting on but they like to do their own thing. The number of countries going democratic is proceeding at a faster pace than in the last thousand years. There are still problem spots all over but it is better to get the UN working effectively to fight those battles.
It is the Bush doctrine of going after any dictator of their choosing is what I oppose. Who will be next? Syria - well no problem there as the Arabs hate the US anyway and they can't defend themselves either. North Korea- hmmm, now that poses a different threat becaused they really do have weapons and that this is about the only thing they do is to build very good weapons for their own use or for sale to others. North Korea would be a worse fight than Vietnam in terms of deaths of civilians and quite possibly US troops.
Let's face it. The Iraqis are less able to defend themselves now than they were in 1991 so there goes the weapons of mass destruction argument. There are a number of American commentators and ex-CIA people saying that they will not be surprised if the US plants the evidence their themselves to vindicate this bullshite.
The so-called chemical dripping war heads is also crap and not proving to be true. Experts have said even if they had spiked the warheads with chemicals, this is not a means of delivering chemicals as the only people who would be victimized would be those getting direct hits and they'd be dead anyway. The chemicals would simply be in the hole in the ground affecting a radius of a few feet.
The number of American and British troops killed is dramatically higher than in the 1991 war because they don't want to kill more innocent civilians than they have to. This decision means more body bags going home to Britain and to the US than if they just bombed the shite out of them and didn't care about the civilian body count.
Who's Next
The "invasion" on Iraq is not even over yet, and the Americans are now threatening Syria. The funny thing is that Syria helped the Americans post 9-11, and that Colin Powell even mentioned the help at a Congressional meeting. When is it going to stop?
As for Canada not entering the war....
Without UN backing, Canada did the right thing. Any war not sanctioned by the UN is illegal. Simple as that.For those that think we should have entered the war....get your head out of your ass and look at the facts. Americans don't care about human rights, democracy, etc. They are looking after Corporate political sponsors.
No one has yet, on this site, or elsewhere, explained to me why the Americans never helped the blacks in South Africa. Not once. What happened there was 10 times worst then what occured under Saddam's regime. So for all those out there who think that the Americans care about human rights and protecting the helpless, take a short look back in history. And don't believe everything you see on CNN.
The "invasion" on Iraq is not even over yet, and the Americans are now threatening Syria. The funny thing is that Syria helped the Americans post 9-11, and that Colin Powell even mentioned the help at a Congressional meeting. When is it going to stop?
As for Canada not entering the war....
Without UN backing, Canada did the right thing. Any war not sanctioned by the UN is illegal. Simple as that.For those that think we should have entered the war....get your head out of your ass and look at the facts. Americans don't care about human rights, democracy, etc. They are looking after Corporate political sponsors.
No one has yet, on this site, or elsewhere, explained to me why the Americans never helped the blacks in South Africa. Not once. What happened there was 10 times worst then what occured under Saddam's regime. So for all those out there who think that the Americans care about human rights and protecting the helpless, take a short look back in history. And don't believe everything you see on CNN.
The fact was that we were prepared to, through a democratic process (if you will).
Canada had proposed a drop-dead date for Iraq to document its entire weapons inventory, through working with the inspectors. In that proposal, Canada had stated that if Iraq still did not comply by the date (late March, I think), Canada was prepared to move in by force, if necessary, and disarm. This was a UN proposal, and who’s to say Canada would not have been able to get the majority of UN Nations to agree to this? The US discounted it immediately. “Now or never.” “You’re either with us or against us.”
We were there in both WWs. Beginning to end, unlike the Yanks, who only contributed when convenient to their interests.
We were with them in Korea.
We were there in Desert Storm.
We were in the Balkans.
We are in Afghanistan now, and have ships in the Gulf now.
We probably have more invested in the “fight against terrorism” than Australia has in the illegal war against Iraq! I don’t think they have any ships patrolling the Gulf.
So yeah, it’s all bullshit. Credit Canada for attempting to do it properly, and democratically. The US, on the other hand, recognizes it is the only real superpower, so feel justified in calling an illegal occupation of a Nation a “liberation”.
Canada had proposed a drop-dead date for Iraq to document its entire weapons inventory, through working with the inspectors. In that proposal, Canada had stated that if Iraq still did not comply by the date (late March, I think), Canada was prepared to move in by force, if necessary, and disarm. This was a UN proposal, and who’s to say Canada would not have been able to get the majority of UN Nations to agree to this? The US discounted it immediately. “Now or never.” “You’re either with us or against us.”
We were there in both WWs. Beginning to end, unlike the Yanks, who only contributed when convenient to their interests.
We were with them in Korea.
We were there in Desert Storm.
We were in the Balkans.
We are in Afghanistan now, and have ships in the Gulf now.
We probably have more invested in the “fight against terrorism” than Australia has in the illegal war against Iraq! I don’t think they have any ships patrolling the Gulf.
So yeah, it’s all bullshit. Credit Canada for attempting to do it properly, and democratically. The US, on the other hand, recognizes it is the only real superpower, so feel justified in calling an illegal occupation of a Nation a “liberation”.
Weapons of mass destruction?
Where are they? Will the the Yanks ever find them or will they blame a country like Syria for inheriting Saddam's WMD. What happens when Syria is "liberated" and no WMD found there? Oh, maybe the Egyptians or Lebanese are in possession of Saddam's WMD. So the Yanks and Limeys proceed to liberate those countries. In due course they find no WMD, so they blame Iran for having WMD. Meanwhile the USofA are no longer in a energy crisis as the US companies which have a vested interest in rebuilding these war torn countries are once again filled with deep pockets of greenbacks. Many of the NYSE energy sector stocks split 100 to 1 as stock prices are driven to record highs. A few years later, with more deregulation in the US energy sector, again they the Yanks stumble upon an energy crisis. What do we do know, asks the Yank. Hey, that Bin Laden guy, wasn't he from Saudi Arabia?
One more question, why are the Oil fields in Iraq heavily guarded and the hospitals in Baghdad aren't?
Where are they? Will the the Yanks ever find them or will they blame a country like Syria for inheriting Saddam's WMD. What happens when Syria is "liberated" and no WMD found there? Oh, maybe the Egyptians or Lebanese are in possession of Saddam's WMD. So the Yanks and Limeys proceed to liberate those countries. In due course they find no WMD, so they blame Iran for having WMD. Meanwhile the USofA are no longer in a energy crisis as the US companies which have a vested interest in rebuilding these war torn countries are once again filled with deep pockets of greenbacks. Many of the NYSE energy sector stocks split 100 to 1 as stock prices are driven to record highs. A few years later, with more deregulation in the US energy sector, again they the Yanks stumble upon an energy crisis. What do we do know, asks the Yank. Hey, that Bin Laden guy, wasn't he from Saudi Arabia?
One more question, why are the Oil fields in Iraq heavily guarded and the hospitals in Baghdad aren't?
Opposition to War
The interview and pictures of the young Iraqi boy with both arms off is reminescent of the picture of the young Vietnamese girl running down the road past US troops with her clothes burnt off and her body burnt by napalm in the Vietnam War.
Vratar: You want to know the answer to your question? I heard an ex-CIA guy say the other day that if the Americans don't find weapons of mass destruction they will plant them. He also said that is why they won't let UN weapons inspectors back in until after they plant the evidence.
The interview and pictures of the young Iraqi boy with both arms off is reminescent of the picture of the young Vietnamese girl running down the road past US troops with her clothes burnt off and her body burnt by napalm in the Vietnam War.
Vratar: You want to know the answer to your question? I heard an ex-CIA guy say the other day that if the Americans don't find weapons of mass destruction they will plant them. He also said that is why they won't let UN weapons inspectors back in until after they plant the evidence.
That's a bit of a catch-22.
Everyone knows that if they can't find any WMD they will plant some.
At the same time if they honestly do find WMD everyone will still believe they were planted.
By the way, that Iraqi boy has no arms.
That Vietnamese girl had no clothes.
Everyone knows that if they can't find any WMD they will plant some.
At the same time if they honestly do find WMD everyone will still believe they were planted.
By the way, that Iraqi boy has no arms.
That Vietnamese girl had no clothes.
Captain Shamrock
Well-Known Member
Many Iraqis Turn Anger Toward the U.S.
2 hours, 13 minutes ago
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Just days ago, U.S. troops were cheered and kissed as they destroyed the symbols of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. Today, after a week of chaos, it's a whole different story.
AP Photo
Latest news:
· Rescued POWs Arrive at Base in Germany
AP - 3 minutes ago
· Some Bush Aides Wary of Autonomy for Iraq Regions
Reuters - 6 minutes ago
· Australia to Bring Troops in Iraq Home
AP - 17 minutes ago
Special Coverage
After looters ran wild, American forces shot civilians and the lack of basic services spread misery across the land, many Iraqis turned their anger away from Saddam Hussein and toward what they saw as their new oppressor: the United States of America.
"They are aggressors," wheezed Ali Ahmed, 17, lying in a hospital bed as a tube drained fluid from his lungs. "They destroyed us. They put us in war and didn't let us sleep. They just raided Baghdad."
Ahmed said he was shot in the back by an American bullet Friday as he left his home to purchase bread for his family's breakfast. A suicide bomber attacked U.S. troops up the street, and Ahmed accused the Americans of responding with indiscriminate fire.
U.S. troops rolled across the deserts of Iraq (news - web sites) expecting to find people dancing in the streets and cheering their arrival. There was some of that. But there was also anger.
Many Iraqis say that could subside quickly if the Americans — now de facto rulers of their nation — can quickly restore basic services, bring law and order (news - Y! TV) to their cities, and stop shooting their people.
Others say they need to do one more thing: leave.
"If Americans and British are here to destroy the regime and liberate Iraq, we welcome them," said Emad Fadil, a 26-year-old worker in the southern city of Basra. "But if they come to occupy Iraq, we will fight them to the end — like the Palestinians."
On Tuesday, a crowd in the northern city of Mosul allegedly attacked a group of Marines trying to take over a government building. Iraqis threw rocks, hit the Marines with fists and elbows and spat at them, according to Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar.
After reporting incoming fire, the Marines opened fire on the crowd, killing seven people, he said.
On Wednesday, another shooting in Mosul killed three people and wounded at least 11, including several who said American troops fired at them from rooftops. A Marine sergeant near the scene said the Americans were responding to fire from another rooftop.
"They are killing us and no one's talking about it. We want Saddam back," said Zahra Yassin, whose 17-year-old son was shot in the stomach and wounded. "Let the embargo return. At least there was security."
In the city of Kut, southeast of Baghdad, an anti-American cleric took over City Hall. Hundreds of his followers blocked U.S. Marines from entering Tuesday with a message that "there is more than just one leader in the region." The Marines departed, opting against confrontation.
In the southern city of Ur, Shiite Muslims boycotted a meeting to create a postwar government because of U.S. plans to install a retired American general as Iraq's temporary administrator. Thousands protested near the meeting, chanting: "No to America and no to Saddam!"
There have been daily demonstrations in Baghdad as well, many outside the Palestine Hotel, temporary home to hundreds of international journalists and U.S. Marines. Hundreds of people hold up banners demanding the restoration of electricity, water and phone service. Many also urge the Americans to leave town.
Even as people topple statues of Saddam, they criticize the U.S.-led invasion for the death and destruction it wrought, and warn that Americans will become targets unless they fix what they destroyed and leave.
"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."
Many Iraqis believe the Americans launched the war to seize their oil. In what many in Baghdad consider confirmation of that, one of the first Baghdad buildings seized by U.S. forces was the oil ministry. They are still there.
"Let them take the oil and leave," Mohammed Ramadan said in the northern city of Tikrit, trembling at the sight of American tanks rolling through his city.
Actor Fadel Abbas watched his theater get torched by looters.
"They didn't want to protect these places — only the oil ministry," he said. "Why the oil ministry?"
The U.S. military now says it will work to stop looters. Americans armed newly recruited Iraqi police officers with handguns to help keep order.
Marines and Iraqi police caught about a dozen men trying to loot money from a burned out bank in central Baghdad on Wednesday. Marines wrestled some of the men to the ground — including one who had a prosthetic leg — and found large stacks of Iraqi dinars on them.
Looting that has plagued Iraq's cities has been the cause of much of the people's anger, and many blame the Americans for encouraging it. Donny George, director for research at the Ministry of Antiquities, complained that the Americans let Iraq's museums be sacked.
"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."
___
2 hours, 13 minutes ago
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Just days ago, U.S. troops were cheered and kissed as they destroyed the symbols of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. Today, after a week of chaos, it's a whole different story.
AP Photo
Latest news:
· Rescued POWs Arrive at Base in Germany
AP - 3 minutes ago
· Some Bush Aides Wary of Autonomy for Iraq Regions
Reuters - 6 minutes ago
· Australia to Bring Troops in Iraq Home
AP - 17 minutes ago
Special Coverage
After looters ran wild, American forces shot civilians and the lack of basic services spread misery across the land, many Iraqis turned their anger away from Saddam Hussein and toward what they saw as their new oppressor: the United States of America.
"They are aggressors," wheezed Ali Ahmed, 17, lying in a hospital bed as a tube drained fluid from his lungs. "They destroyed us. They put us in war and didn't let us sleep. They just raided Baghdad."
Ahmed said he was shot in the back by an American bullet Friday as he left his home to purchase bread for his family's breakfast. A suicide bomber attacked U.S. troops up the street, and Ahmed accused the Americans of responding with indiscriminate fire.
U.S. troops rolled across the deserts of Iraq (news - web sites) expecting to find people dancing in the streets and cheering their arrival. There was some of that. But there was also anger.
Many Iraqis say that could subside quickly if the Americans — now de facto rulers of their nation — can quickly restore basic services, bring law and order (news - Y! TV) to their cities, and stop shooting their people.
Others say they need to do one more thing: leave.
"If Americans and British are here to destroy the regime and liberate Iraq, we welcome them," said Emad Fadil, a 26-year-old worker in the southern city of Basra. "But if they come to occupy Iraq, we will fight them to the end — like the Palestinians."
On Tuesday, a crowd in the northern city of Mosul allegedly attacked a group of Marines trying to take over a government building. Iraqis threw rocks, hit the Marines with fists and elbows and spat at them, according to Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar.
After reporting incoming fire, the Marines opened fire on the crowd, killing seven people, he said.
On Wednesday, another shooting in Mosul killed three people and wounded at least 11, including several who said American troops fired at them from rooftops. A Marine sergeant near the scene said the Americans were responding to fire from another rooftop.
"They are killing us and no one's talking about it. We want Saddam back," said Zahra Yassin, whose 17-year-old son was shot in the stomach and wounded. "Let the embargo return. At least there was security."
In the city of Kut, southeast of Baghdad, an anti-American cleric took over City Hall. Hundreds of his followers blocked U.S. Marines from entering Tuesday with a message that "there is more than just one leader in the region." The Marines departed, opting against confrontation.
In the southern city of Ur, Shiite Muslims boycotted a meeting to create a postwar government because of U.S. plans to install a retired American general as Iraq's temporary administrator. Thousands protested near the meeting, chanting: "No to America and no to Saddam!"
There have been daily demonstrations in Baghdad as well, many outside the Palestine Hotel, temporary home to hundreds of international journalists and U.S. Marines. Hundreds of people hold up banners demanding the restoration of electricity, water and phone service. Many also urge the Americans to leave town.
Even as people topple statues of Saddam, they criticize the U.S.-led invasion for the death and destruction it wrought, and warn that Americans will become targets unless they fix what they destroyed and leave.
"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."
Many Iraqis believe the Americans launched the war to seize their oil. In what many in Baghdad consider confirmation of that, one of the first Baghdad buildings seized by U.S. forces was the oil ministry. They are still there.
"Let them take the oil and leave," Mohammed Ramadan said in the northern city of Tikrit, trembling at the sight of American tanks rolling through his city.
Actor Fadel Abbas watched his theater get torched by looters.
"They didn't want to protect these places — only the oil ministry," he said. "Why the oil ministry?"
The U.S. military now says it will work to stop looters. Americans armed newly recruited Iraqi police officers with handguns to help keep order.
Marines and Iraqi police caught about a dozen men trying to loot money from a burned out bank in central Baghdad on Wednesday. Marines wrestled some of the men to the ground — including one who had a prosthetic leg — and found large stacks of Iraqi dinars on them.
Looting that has plagued Iraq's cities has been the cause of much of the people's anger, and many blame the Americans for encouraging it. Donny George, director for research at the Ministry of Antiquities, complained that the Americans let Iraq's museums be sacked.
"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."
___
~
NOTIFICATION OF COMPULSORY ENLISTMENT
Under the Emergency Powers Act (1939) as amended by the Defence Act (1978), you are hereby notified that you are required to place yourself on standby for possible compulsory military service in the Iraq Conflict.
You may shortly be ordered to depart for the Middle East where you will either join the Third Battalion, The Queens Own Suicidal Conscripts or the Second Foot and Mouth.
Due to the recent rundown of the Navy and the refusal of P&O to lend us any of its liners, because of the deplorable state in which they were returned after the Falklands adventure, it will be necessary for you to make your own way to the combat zone. HM Government has been able to negotiate a 20% discount on one-way trips with Virgin Airlines and you are strongly urged to take advantage of this offer.
Because of cutbacks in Government expenditure in recent years it will be necessary for you to provide yourself with the following equipment as soon as possible:
* Combat Jacket
* Trousers (preferably khaki - but please no denim)
* Tin helmet
* Boots (or a pair of sturdy trainers)
* Gas mask
* Map of the combat zone (the ordnance survey 1:2800 Outdoor Leisure Map of Iraq will do)
* Rifle
* Ammunition (preferably to suit previous item)
* Suntan oil
If you are in a position to afford it, we would like you to buy a tank. (Vickers Defence of Banbury is currently offering all new conscripts a 0% finance deal on all X Registration Chieftains, but hurry, as offer is only available whilst stocks last).
We would like to reassure you that, in the unlikely event of anything going wrong, you will receive a free burial in the graveyard of your choice and your next of kin will be entitled to the new War Widows Pension of £1.75 per calendar month, index-linked but subject to means testing, and fully repayable should our side eventually lose.
There may be little time for formal military training before your departure and so we advise that you hire videos of the following films and try and pick up a few tips as you watch:
* The Guns of Navarone
* Kelly's Heroes
* A Bridge Too Far
* The Longest Day
* Apocalypse Now
* The Matrix
* Blazing Saddles
* The Desert Song
* Mary Poppins
We do not recommend that you watch Khartoum.
To prepare yourself mentally for your mission try reading the works of Wilfred Owen or Rupert Brooke. This should give you some idea of what may be involved.
Yours faithfully,
Geoffrey Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence.
A Bush - Blair Production
Sponsored by Mars, Pepsi and McDonalds. The Official Snacks of World War III
NOTIFICATION OF COMPULSORY ENLISTMENT
Under the Emergency Powers Act (1939) as amended by the Defence Act (1978), you are hereby notified that you are required to place yourself on standby for possible compulsory military service in the Iraq Conflict.
You may shortly be ordered to depart for the Middle East where you will either join the Third Battalion, The Queens Own Suicidal Conscripts or the Second Foot and Mouth.
Due to the recent rundown of the Navy and the refusal of P&O to lend us any of its liners, because of the deplorable state in which they were returned after the Falklands adventure, it will be necessary for you to make your own way to the combat zone. HM Government has been able to negotiate a 20% discount on one-way trips with Virgin Airlines and you are strongly urged to take advantage of this offer.
Because of cutbacks in Government expenditure in recent years it will be necessary for you to provide yourself with the following equipment as soon as possible:
* Combat Jacket
* Trousers (preferably khaki - but please no denim)
* Tin helmet
* Boots (or a pair of sturdy trainers)
* Gas mask
* Map of the combat zone (the ordnance survey 1:2800 Outdoor Leisure Map of Iraq will do)
* Rifle
* Ammunition (preferably to suit previous item)
* Suntan oil
If you are in a position to afford it, we would like you to buy a tank. (Vickers Defence of Banbury is currently offering all new conscripts a 0% finance deal on all X Registration Chieftains, but hurry, as offer is only available whilst stocks last).
We would like to reassure you that, in the unlikely event of anything going wrong, you will receive a free burial in the graveyard of your choice and your next of kin will be entitled to the new War Widows Pension of £1.75 per calendar month, index-linked but subject to means testing, and fully repayable should our side eventually lose.
There may be little time for formal military training before your departure and so we advise that you hire videos of the following films and try and pick up a few tips as you watch:
* The Guns of Navarone
* Kelly's Heroes
* A Bridge Too Far
* The Longest Day
* Apocalypse Now
* The Matrix
* Blazing Saddles
* The Desert Song
* Mary Poppins
We do not recommend that you watch Khartoum.
To prepare yourself mentally for your mission try reading the works of Wilfred Owen or Rupert Brooke. This should give you some idea of what may be involved.
Yours faithfully,
Geoffrey Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence.
A Bush - Blair Production
Sponsored by Mars, Pepsi and McDonalds. The Official Snacks of World War III
Another big contract awarded
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced today the award of a multi-million dollar Iraq emergency infrastructure repair and rehabilitation, otherwise referred to as capital construction, contract to San Francisco, California-based Bechtel. Restoration of the country's key infrastructure is a priority of the U.S. government's effort to strengthen Iraq's economy and ensure delivery of essential public services to the Iraqi population.
The initial award for this capital construction contract to Bechtel is $34.6 million, though it provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months.
With Halliburtons contract to be worth about 7 billion, and this recent Bechtel contract of 680 mill + 400 mill for cost over runs. 8 billion for US companies so far.
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced today the award of a multi-million dollar Iraq emergency infrastructure repair and rehabilitation, otherwise referred to as capital construction, contract to San Francisco, California-based Bechtel. Restoration of the country's key infrastructure is a priority of the U.S. government's effort to strengthen Iraq's economy and ensure delivery of essential public services to the Iraqi population.
The initial award for this capital construction contract to Bechtel is $34.6 million, though it provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months.
With Halliburtons contract to be worth about 7 billion, and this recent Bechtel contract of 680 mill + 400 mill for cost over runs. 8 billion for US companies so far.
Members online
No members online now.
