January 27th, The bloodiest day for US forces in Iraq

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Vietnam was the right war conducted in the wrong manner. If America had to of succeeded do you think Vietnam would be in a better or worse position at the moment? The current conditions in Vietnam while not widely reported are really atrocious, poverty and desperation abounds. To answer your question;

Like West Germany after the Second World War, I believe the reconstruction of Iraq will substantially boost the economy and hopefully usher in a new period of prosperity. The US have nothing to gain in the long term by exploiting Iraq then leaving it. If they do it negates their whole mission, to kill the conditions for the growth of terrorism. As to how much America is paying for the oil they're ostensibly stealing, that is an economist question of which I cannot honestly claim I know. Do you? Again if they were to just steal Iraqi oil for their own ends it would obviously help to negate their whole reason for toppling Saddam.

Although I ain't Mystic Meg, I do think if America had succeeded there would be very few able & fit North Vietnamese left, for to win, America would probably have had to resort to more chemical warfare. So no, I don't think they'd be in a better position, unless they'd be better off dead or physically and/or mentally retarded.

Boost who's economy? Iraq's? American businesses had been alerted to the availability of reconstruction contracts from the minute American troops started bombing Iraq &, if you believe some, they had already had verbal agreements before this even happened. Anyway, simply put, American big business rebuilds Iraq, it gets the profits not the Iraqi economy so how does this benefit anybody but American big business?

When you say the 'US have nothing to gain' it implies that you may be talking of teh American people &, if this is the case, then I agree. The average American will receive nothing good as a result of this war. I was speaking of America in terms of government (ie. the Bush family with their oil interests) & big business (the real powerbrokers in America) - these will have gained even more wealth through exploiting Iraq & leaving it. (which they will do once they've taken everything they want)

Oh the answer to the price of oil? Take the Cool off your name & there's your answer.

Their 'whole reason' for getting rid of Saddam was two fold. Getting rid of him allowed America to get their hands on Iraq's oil (Saddam wouldn't have given them it) & it allows America to have 'evidence' that they are in Iraq for democracy.

 

[Zero Cool]

Although I ain't Mystic Meg, I do think if America had succeeded there would be very few able & fit North Vietnamese left, for to win, America would probably have had to resort to more chemical warfare. So no, I don't think they'd be in a better position, unless they'd be better off dead or physically and/or mentally retarded.

From all available evidence there is not even a hint that the U.S. army would have taken that kind of action. The US was trying to contain communism in SE Asia not commit a holocaust.

Boost who's economy? Iraq's? American businesses had been alerted to the availability of reconstruction contracts from the minute American troops started bombing Iraq &, if you believe some, they had already had verbal agreements before this even happened. Anyway, simply put, American big business rebuilds Iraq, it gets the profits not the Iraqi economy so how does this benefit anybody but American big business?

Who rebuilds Iraq? The people. Of course U.S. business will make a profit but with outside investment and their own will to rebuild their economy the Iraqi's much like the Japanese and Germans before them will emerge stronger than ever.

When you say the 'US have nothing to gain' it implies that you may be talking of teh American people &, if this is the case, then I agree. The average American will receive nothing good as a result of this war. I was speaking of America in terms of government (ie. the Bush family with their oil interests) & big business (the real powerbrokers in America) - these will have gained even more wealth through exploiting Iraq & leaving it. (which they will do once they've taken everything they want)

I was talking about US interests in Iraq as whole. Despite what you think oil hungry barons do not run America, the people do.

Their 'whole reason' for getting rid of Saddam was two fold. Getting rid of him allowed America to get their hands on Iraq's oil (Saddam wouldn't have given them it) & it allows America to have 'evidence' that they are in Iraq for democracy.

Setting the left-wing propaganda aside, can you come up with any actual evidence to back up these assertions?

 

[The.Menace]

I was talking about US interests in Iraq as whole. Despite what you think oil hungry barons do not run America, the people do.

the elite does not the people.

Setting the left-wing propaganda aside, can you come up with any actual evidence to back up these assertions?

What else are they there for? Wait, I thought it was the WMD....then it was because Saddam is as bad and a danger to the US...then it was to free the people. Come on. this ain't nothing but right wing propaganda and everyone knows that. I don't say that oil was the only reason to go there, but it was and is a factor, come on.

After the discussions we had in the other thread a lil silly thought poped up in my mind. If Germany has to pay money to jews people for what was takin away 60 years ago, I wonder if the US ever gonna pay money to arab countries for what they took. If Germany has to pay for the property that was taken from the jews, wouldn't it be fair if the US pay for the oil the take away from the Iraqis now? Cause they oil they take now and will take, noone is asked for that cause the US are in control. it's not a decision by the Iraqi people to give this property away.....

Anyway, I don't agree with devil and the other cats. So our goal is to have Iraqi freedom right? So what is the quickest way to accomplish that? To have a government and some security so the US troops leave. How do we get that? By supportin elections, police, schools etc etc etc..... as long as there are terrorists attack, the US will not leave exept it's too bloody..... we don't have to go this way. Ya all want to but what do we all get out of this exept dead bodies, pain, drama and anyway, this "herotic way" to free Iraq will take much more time, I'm sure about that. The USA are in there now so it will take a lot to force them to leave. It will take years and again, I think freedom could be achieved quicker and peaceful. I don't know why ya all are ignorin this way.....


edit: I want to add that to leave right now is no solution for the USA as well as for the Iraqis. I'm pretty sure we would have a civil war right away, so I don't know why you guys keep demanding that. You should put your hate towards the US aside and care about the people and if you do, you'll realize that leavin Iraq now wouldn#t do them no good.

 

[TecK NeeX]

why did the United States attack?

On September 28, 2002, Bush said: "The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons,

On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation

So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?

the crucial factor in president Bush’s decision to attack iraq was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush who was already fervently committed to Israel resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s #1 regional enemy

This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer,

enough with the freedom, democracy, WMD, ties to 9-11 bullshit already

 

[devils_advok8]

Indeed but Democracy will win through in the end.

is that what the US is trying to do?ok then, why not "help" out the other Arab countries and bring democracy there?Or do they just have this thing for Iraqis?Perhaps Bush thought Iraqi women were hot and "liberating" Iraq would make him a hero in their eyes?
Last time I checked,
it was The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
it was The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
it was The Kingdom of Bahrain
it was The United Arab Emirates
it was The Syrian Arab REPUBLIC, not Kingdom, where the son takes the throne, same thing with Arab Republic of Egypt
Libya. Kadaffi ruled the country fore decades and still does
it was Kingdom of Kuwait
Etc
The only Arab countries, or even countries in the region with a lil bit of democracy that come to mind are Lebanon, Palestine and Tunisia.
We're waiting for Bush to bring democracy to the middle east, people!I'll make sure I get the guest house ready, just in case Bush and Rice felt like fucking after a long day of negotations about democracy with our "King"!Come on Gav, I credited you with more intelligence.

 

[Zero Cool]

Last time I checked,
it was The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
it was The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
it was The Kingdom of Bahrain
it was The United Arab Emirates
it was The Syrian Arab REPUBLIC, not Kingdom, where the son takes the throne, same thing with Arab Republic of Egypt
Libya. Kadaffi ruled the country fore decades and still does
it was Kingdom of Kuwait
Etc
The only Arab countries, or even countries in the region with a lil bit of democracy that come to mind are Lebanon, Palestine and Tunisia.
We're waiting for Bush to bring democracy to the middle east, people!I'll make sure I get the guest house ready, just in case Bush and Rice felt like fucking after a long day of negotations about democracy with our "King"!Come on Gav, I credited you with more intelligence.

Both you and I know what you say simply isn't feasible. While it sounds incredibley cliche it remains a fact. Plant the seed of Democracy and it will spread.

 

[devils_advok8]

^it already is planted, there's Lebanon and Israel.It's been decades and no other country has followed their footsteps.

 

[The.Menace]

You got a point. The middle east isn't used to democracy....but again, be a realist. Saddam is gone he will not come back. So what now? Who should be the king now if the US leave today? Like I said multiple times, I don't think there is one leader, there'd be civil war I guess and so......the best solution seems to be elections. Don't you think so too?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

From all available evidence there is not even a hint that the U.S. army would have taken that kind of action. The US was trying to contain communism in SE Asia not commit a holocaust.

No evidence? Read this for me,

One of the major problems of the US forces was the detection of the National Liberation Front hiding in the forests of Vietnam. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy approved Operation Ranch Hand. This involved the spraying of chemicals from the air in an attempt to destroy the National Liberation Front hiding places. In 1969 alone, Operation Ranch Hand destroyed 1,034,300 hectares of forest. Agent Orange, the chemical used in this defoliation programme not only destroyed trees but caused chromosomal damage in people.

Chemicals were also sprayed on crops. Between 1962 and 1969, 688,000 agricultural acres were sprayed with a chemical called Agent Blue. The aim of this exercise was to deny food to the NLF. However, research suggests that it was the civilian population who suffered most from the poor rice harvests that followed the spraying.

I was talking about US interests in Iraq as whole. Despite what you think oil hungry barons do not run America, the people do.

I know you ain't Kurt Cobain, but you sure you ain't done this before?

Shot yourself in the face that is.....

 

[XxXxDanXxXx]

Acually americans only run this country to a certain extent. It is very easy for a canidate to lie about something while on campaign.

 

[Zero Cool]

No evidence? Read this for me,

One of the major problems of the US forces was the detection of the National Liberation Front hiding in the forests of Vietnam. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy approved Operation Ranch Hand. This involved the spraying of chemicals from the air in an attempt to destroy the National Liberation Front hiding places. In 1969 alone, Operation Ranch Hand destroyed 1,034,300 hectares of forest. Agent Orange, the chemical used in this defoliation programme not only destroyed trees but caused chromosomal damage in people.

Chemicals were also sprayed on crops. Between 1962 and 1969, 688,000 agricultural acres were sprayed with a chemical called Agent Blue. The aim of this exercise was to deny food to the NLF. However, research suggests that it was the civilian population who suffered most from the poor rice harvests that followed the spraying.

That "evidence" is debateable at best. The U.S. were attempting to destroy Viet Minh cover in order to capture or kill their soldiers. That in no way points to a concentrated effort to commit a chemical holocaust.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Zero, you made out that 'there is not even a hint' that the US would've taken 'that kind of action'.

So when Agent Orange was getting sprayed on Viet Minh hiding places, the Americans didn't expect any people to be there?
The US knew the chemicals would get to the people, & if they were willing to do this how many more 'hints' do you need that they would've used it more extensively if they had stayed?


Here's another hint for you,

Millions of litres of defoliants such as Agent Orange were dropped on Vietnam, but US government scientists claimed that these chemicals were harmless to humans and short-lived in the environment. US strategists argue that Agent Orange was a prototype smart weapon, a benign tactical herbicide that saved many hundreds of thousands of American lives by denying the North Vietnamese army the jungle cover that allowed it ruthlessly to strike and feint. New scientific research, however, confirms what the Vietnamese have been claiming for years. It also portrays the US government as one that has illicitly used weapons of mass destruction, stymied all independent efforts to assess the impact of their deployment, failed to acknowledge cold, hard evidence of maiming and slaughter, and pursued a policy of evasion and deception.

Teams of international scientists working in Vietnam have now discovered that Agent Orange contains one of the most virulent poisons known to man, a strain of dioxin called TCCD which, 28 years after the fighting ended, remains in the soil, continuing to destroy the lives of those exposed to it. Evidence has also emerged that the US government not only knew that Agent Orange was contaminated, but was rally aware of the killing power of its contaminant dioxin, and yet still continued to use the herbicide in Vietnam for 10 years of the war and in concentrations that exceeded its own guidelines by 25 times.

 

[Zero Cool]

Zero, you made out that 'there is not even a hint' that the US would've taken 'that kind of action'.

So when Agent Orange was getting sprayed on Viet Minh hiding places, the Americans didn't expect any people to be there?
The US knew the chemicals would get to the people, & if they were willing to do this how many more 'hints' do you need that they would've used it more extensively if they had stayed?

Judging from your post this programme began in 1962, the U.S. were in Vietnam until 1975. Therefore if they had wanted to take the kind of action your alleging they had 12 years in which to do it, they never did.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Judging from your post this programme began in 1962, the U.S. were in Vietnam until 1975. Therefore if they had wanted to take the kind of action your alleging they had 12 years in which to do it, they never did.

I never claimed using chemical warfare was America's first choice & I stand by this. What I am saying is, with a death toll that was higher than anything America ever expected, they resorted to chemical warfare. If the war had continued, I believe that America would've continued, & maybe even increased, their use of chemical warfare.

That said, I have to ask (maybe I'm just being blind), but are you still trying to deny America used chemical warfare in Vietnam?

 

[Zero Cool]

I never claimed using chemical warfare was America's first choice & I stand by this. What I am saying is, with a death toll that was higher than anything America ever expected, they resorted to chemical warfare. If the war had continued, I believe that America would've continued, & maybe even increased, their use of chemical warfare.

That said, I have to ask (maybe I'm just being blind), but are you still trying to deny America used chemical warfare in Vietnam?

Not at all. I have no evidence that says they did but it remains up for debate, I accept that. However your argument is beginning to falter, you say "If the war had continued, I believe that America would've continued, & maybe even increased, their use of chemical warfare" but by 1968 the monthly death toll had risen to over 1200 (it's peak) yet America still did not use it's chemical weapons against the Viet Cong at large. If they didn't do it at the time when casualty levels were highest, I highly doubt they would have implemented such a policy when causlty levels were falling post-1968. From a strictly military viewpoint it would have been inhumane and impractical and the uproar such a policy would have caused in the West would have been impossible to ignore. Therefore the chances of America implementing a full scale chemical warfare policy in Vietnam is minute indeed.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Not at all. I have no evidence that says they did but it remains up for debate, I accept that. However your argument is beginning to falter, you say "If the war had continued, I believe that America would've continued, & maybe even increased, their use of chemical warfare" but by 1968 the monthly death toll had risen to over 1200 (it's peak) yet America still did not use it's chemical weapons against the Viet Cong at large. If they didn't do it at the time when casualty levels were highest, I highly doubt they would have implemented such a policy when causlty levels were falling post-1968. From a strictly military viewpoint it would have been inhumane and impractical and the uproar such a policy would have caused in the West would have been impossible to ignore. Therefore the chances of America implementing a full scale chemical warfare policy in Vietnam is minute indeed.

During the war about 10% of Vietnam was intensively sprayed with 72 million litres of chemicals, of which 66% was Agent Orange. Some of this landed on their own troops and soon after the war ended veterans began complaining about serious health problems. There was also a high incidence of their children being born limbless or with Down's syndrome and spina bifida. The veterans sued the defoliant manufacturers and this was settled out of court in 1984 by the payment of $180 million.

Are the Vets lying?



I never said America used chemical warfare against all Viet Cong. They still used it though, which you seem to find hard to come to terms with.
Anyway, death toll isn't everything. Casualties (especially when the enemy is using guerilla warfare) can seriously deplete your numbers, morale & finances. If America had stayed in Vietnam, I doubt their numbers would've increased that much (there weren't many more soldiers that could be spared), morale would've increased or that the US Army would recieve a sudden cash windfall. When things are bleak, & only looking likely to get bleaker, drastic measures & (not so) last resorts are implemented.



'From a strictly military viewpoint it would have been inhumane'? A strictly military viewpoint, when your soldiers are getting murdered at an alarming rate, has fuck all to do with humanity.

'Impratical'? The object is to kill the enemy - chemical warfare would do this.

'The uproar'? One of the main reasons the war in Vietnam stopped was because of pressure from the American people. This pressure was increased when people around the world saw what was actually happening in Vietnam. 'The uproar' was already there. Sure, it would've gotten a lot louder had America used chemical warfare on a larger scale, but when have America ever cared (& I don't mean diplomatic acknowledgement) about foreign concern? Also, America's use of chemical took quite a while to become public (hell, you're still denying it in 2005), so 'the uproar' would not have been heard until long after Vietnam was annihilated. (If America had chosen for all out chemical warfare that is)

 

[Zero Cool]

During the war about 10% of Vietnam was intensively sprayed with 72 million litres of chemicals, of which 66% was Agent Orange. Some of this landed on their own troops and soon after the war ended veterans began complaining about serious health problems. There was also a high incidence of their children being born limbless or with Down's syndrome and spina bifida. The veterans sued the defoliant manufacturers and this was settled out of court in 1984 by the payment of $180 million.

Are the Vets lying?



I never said America used chemical warfare against all Viet Cong. It still used it though, which you seem to find hard to come to terms with.
Anyway, death toll isn't everything. Casualties (especially when the enemy is using guerilla warfare) can seriously deplete your numbers, morale & finances. If America had stayed in Vietnam, I doubt their numbers would've uncreased that much (there weren't many more soldiers that could be spared), morale would've increased or that the US Army would recieve a sudden cash windfall. When things are bleak, & only looking likely to get bleaker, drastic measures & (not so) last resorts are implemented.

Your simply taking your own view of what might have happened (as doubtful as it is) and treating it as fact. I'm not denying chemical warfare was used but you haven't provided me with any proof that the US Army instituted chemical warfare against the Viet Cong at large. There is a huge difference between spraying paddy fields and setting off gas bombs. Innuendo and assertions does not equal evidence.

'From a strictly military viewpoint it would have been inhumane'? A strictly military viewpoint, when your soldiers are getting murdered at an alarming rate, has fuck all to do with humanity.

'Impratical'? The object is to kill the enemy - chemical warfare would do this.

'The uproar'? One of the main reasons the war in Vietnam stopped was because of pressure from the American people. This pressure was increased when people around the world saw what was actually happening in Vietnam. 'The uproar' was already there. Sure, it would've gotten a lot louder had America used of chemical warfare on a larger scale, but when have America ever cared (& I don't mean diplomatic acknowledgement) about foreign concern? Also, America's use of chemical took quite a while to become public (hell, you're still denying it in 2005), so 'the uproar' would not have been heard until long after Vietnam was annihilated. (If America had chosen for all out chemical warfare that is)

America has always cared about foreign concern, it couldn't function if it didn't. American military policy is not the Nazi idea of "total war" rather it is designed to be as humane and practical as possible. The idea is not to annihilate every person who stands in your way, as you seem to think it is. Modern warfare is governed and conducted under the rules of the Geneva Convention. The U.S. is a signatory of this convention and subscribes to its tenants. Therefore it is legally forbidden to commit the acts you seem to believe it may commit. The U.S. Army is not the SS. You would do well to remember these facts before laying out your accusations.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Your simply taking your own view of what might have happened (as doubtful as it is) and treating it as fact. I'm not denying chemical warfare was used but you haven't provided me with any proof that the US Army instituted chemical warfare against the Viet Cong at large. There is a huge difference between spraying paddy fields and setting off gas bombs. Innuendo and assertions does not equal evidence.

Once again, I never said America used chemical warfare at large, but they DID use chemical warfare & people - not just 'paddy fields' - PEOPLE were affected by this just as the American Governemnt knew they would be. As for 'innuendo' - when talking of a hypothetical situation (ie. America staying in Vietnam longer than it did), we can only make assumptions & speculate on the basis of past policies & actions. Well, before they left, America had used chemical warfare, so you cannot deny that it wouldn't be out of character for them to do it again.

America has always cared about foreign concern, it couldn't function if it didn't. American military policy is not the Nazi idea of "total war" rather it is designed to be as humane and practical as possible. The idea is not to annihilate every person who stands in your way, as you seem to think it is. Modern warfare is governed and conducted under the rules of the Geneva Convention. The U.S. is a signatory of this convention and subscribes to its tenants. Therefore it is legally forbidden to commit the acts you seem to believe it may commit. The U.S. Army is not the SS. You would do well to remember these facts before laying out your accusations.

'American military policy.... is designed to be as humane and pratical as possible'. Yes it may be designed this way, but things don't always go to plan & it is at this time that plans are disregarded.

Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Convention states that the following is forbidden

'Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. '

'Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment'

With regards to the former, many civilians were killed in Vietnam. Sure, they were 'suspected' of aiding the Viet Cong, but is suspicion enough to warrant death? Even if you believe so, what about the babies that were killed? Murdering babies violates the Geneva convention.

And the latter is even more potent considering what has happened in Iraq no? (Video evidence pal, don't deny it)

So don't try to make out that America go by any laws other than their own. They're a permanent member of the UN & yet they didn't care that Iraq was not a Un sanctioned war.

Like I said, America were, & still are, a law unto themselves. Isolation has always been their thing, even when involved in World Wars (which they soon regretted), & America likes to dictate it's own affairs on it's own terms, regardless of dissenting voices. You know that America proclaims itself to be the most free country in the world - a view which exudes supremacy.

Just to sum that up, America doesn't answer to a piece of paper, the UN, or Europe.
America has, & always will unless something drastic happens, answered to no-one but it's powerbrokers.

 

[Zero Cool]

Once again, I never said America used chemical warfare at large, but they DID use chemical warfare & people - not just 'paddy fields' - PEOPLE were affected by this just as the American Governemnt knew they would be. As for 'innuendo' - when talking of a hypothetical situation (ie. America staying in Vietnam longer than it did), we can only make assumptions & speculate on the basis of past policies & actions. Well, before they left, America had used chemical warfare, so you cannot deny that it wouldn't be out of character for them to do it again.

Of course it would. No-one in the American government ever sanctioned or promoted the use of widespread chemical warfare as a means of winning the Vietnam war. In all its forms the U.S. opposes chemical and biological war. I can only reiterate the U.S. is not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Maybe that's too hard for you to comprehend as your views are so warped against American foreign policy that unbiased reasoning has flown out your bedroom window.

 

[Zero Cool]

'American military policy.... is designed to be as humane and pratical as possible'. Yes it may be designed this way, but things don't always go to plan & it is at this time that plans are disregarded.

Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Convention states that the following is forbidden

'Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. '

'Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment'

With regards to the former, many civilians were killed in Vietnam. Sure, they were 'suspected' of aiding the Viet Cong, but is suspicion enough to warrant death? Even if you believe so, what about the babies that were killed? Murdering babies violates the Geneva convention.

And the latter is even more potent considering what has happened in Iraq no? (Video evidence pal, don't deny it)

There is a huge difference between atrocities committed by soldiers alone and atrocities committed with higher apporval. If you're attempting to insinuate that the U.S. were in the business of willfully violating the Geneva Conventions in both Vietnam and Iraq to further their own ends then I'm sorry but you are spouting utter rubbish.