Andy Mcnab
Forum
Pages: 1 ... 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 ... 297
Yes the USA is a soveriegn nation and by invading another soveriegn nation which has, as far as I remember, not threatened the USA directly, apart from the dogma which madman hussein use to spout, protects your citizenry how exactly?
if anything American citizens...well in fact any westerner is now far far more at threat than before Iraq was invaded.... Afghanistan different scenario... the taliban refused to give up Bin Laden offered him refuge... then fine go after him and if the taliban get in your way go after them too....however I suspect that there was more to it than that.... Taliban dont like america = taliban must go.
Rwanda, totally different plot mate...accuse me of being xenophobic if you like... but whatever the mad bastards in most african tribes do has been done for years and will be done.for years to come.. that was two tribes doing their best to slaughter one another... only one tribe was bigger and had more machettes.....and I agree the UN did f**k all... but then again there aint no oil in Rwanda is there?
Hitler invaded Poland, protecting the german citizenry? Russia invaded Poland too... same reason.... I don't think so.... and Look throuought history... the aggressor in nearly every single war has come out second best.... We should have got hussien in 91 when we had the moral obligation and right..... now's too late look at the can of worms that's been opened!
And yes Mickalos the world is definelty a better place without madmen like hussein.... but Is georgie bush that much more different... okay undoubtedly there isn't mass executions widespread oppression etc etc under the American flag.... but expanding your influences on the world by warfare aint exactly a peaceloving thing to do...I was in a bar in Florida when bush was elected (ever so fairly) and the guy next to me said 'F**ck that means we are going to war with somebody'... and this was well before 911. And you're too right, getting slotted for someone elses cause isn't my idea of fun
>>By geo (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 20:41)
PS. DTO
I seem to remember that before GW part 2 kicke off, the US government threatened the North Koreans with economic sanctions if they didn't desist with their Nuclear weapons programme.... the koreans responded by cxonsidering economic sanctions as an act of war, and threatened military retaliation if snctions were imposed..... old Bushy baby backed down big style......
And forgive me for seeming skeptical but North Korea is far far worse a proposition than Bin Laden and Hussein.... is this a case of America being the 'school bully'... as in 'we whipped maddas last time. we can do it again whenever we want'... but North Korea weren't whipped last time were they?
>>By geo (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 20:54)
PPS sorry for the shite spelling... computer is breathing its last methinks...either that or I'm crap at typing!!
>>By geo (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 20:56)
Of course Geo,
I was wrong! Another Saturday afternoon wasted.
Well have fun with your European Union Socialist friends, your fun is coming too, buddy. I am sure will stay on our side of the pond then. As we exit our bases at this very moment
>>By DTO (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 21:53)
Haha... You think that just cos I disagree with this war/debacle i'm a socialist... heheh typical..
'your fun is coming too, buddy'.....I did 17 years in the Army including two years in Ireland, in fact my dad my two brothers and my sister served in ireland too, working against some nasty little bastards funded on the whole by....ummm... Americans....is your country selective or what...are your terrorists of the month selected by dress code or the fact that they cant speak english..... oh I get it the Irish are poor oppressed people downtrodden by the yoke of british tyranny... and the arab terrorists are just ragheads eh!....
We have had our fun since 1969.... as a percentage the proportion of the ulster population murdered by your kind of acceptable terrorist makes 911 look like a minor traffic accident.... and you expect everybody to be sympathetic to your cause for expanding the 'american way of life' across the whole world.. lets face it matey, bush is as dangerous now as kruschev was in the 60's and cos we dont agree with your ways we're socialists hahah okay i give up your right haha
>>By geo (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 22:05)
well, bloody hell, what a scuffle, I have to agree with geo on the selective terrorism bit, but i wouldn't generalise and say america, certain citys and states maybe, mainly irish background of course, that brings me on to my next point.
oil, war on terrorism whatever, did anyone think that now ireland is semi safe and peacefull, the brit army has lost the best training ground in the world, solution? hmmm iraq,afghanistan.
both ideal grounds to train and harden soldiers, lets face it, bosnia, kosovo wasn't really a test, for the first few years in bosnia we had our hands tied and we basically kicked kosovo back in to line, same with sierra leon, apart from the rescue mission of course.
so what do the brit public want?, pull our soldiers out and stay out of the little scraps, and get even more caught up in health and safety, political correctness and the rest of the shit we have to deal with, and become a defence force?, or do we want a army that follows in the footsteps of our ancestors? and have a tough army that has kicked more ass than any other, or do we want to go down the road of ignoring whatever is happening in the world and becoming weak?.
I don't know about the rest of you but being proud to british is becoming more of a racist remark these days, where a union flag can not be placed on a car in case they hurt some ethnic minoritys feelings.
personnaly i've got 14 years left in the army and i want the oportunity that i have been afforded so far, to get as much operational experience as possible.
excuse the rant towards the end but i think i lost track, and vented a few more things that are pissing me off.
>>By Nemesis2842004 (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 22:52)
If I may.....
One of the things I love about this board is the opportunity it has afforded me to meet and make friends with people from all over the world. I think it has helped me gain an international perspective on current events and I know I am wiser for it.
However, I don't like the way some of us are reduced to mudslinging, name calling, and vast generalizations when controversial topics are broached. Nothing is black and white and things are never as simple as they appear. I'm trying to remember that as I read these last few pages. I ask that everybody else do that as well.
Just my .02
>>By Majorette (Saturday, 21 Aug 2004 23:59)
Maj
I apologise if I upset you.... and yes I have made massive generalisations... which is perhaps unfair...
however I dont recall either DTO or myself name calling or slinging mud, except with my references to your esteemed president... whom i think is a..... well i guess you know what I think...and it was unfair to label all of America as being IRA supporters.... but lets face it they did get the biggest wedge of their funding from America didn't they... millions of dollars.
In 1979 my brother had to dive in carlingford lough and retrieve bits of bodies of 18 paratroopers who'd been blown into the water, in 1983 my other brother was hit by shrapnel when a helicopter he was in was fired upon by 7 gunmen...and in 1987 I recieved a piece of metal in my back courtesy of the IRA's finest bombmakers..well he weren't that fine... i'm still breathing..... so believe me I have experienced terrorism and for years the general conception across this side of the pond was that the USA considered the IRA to be romantic freedom fighters, struggling against oppression...well in 2001 you got a taste of 'freedom fighters' in new york.... cos thats what all these terrorists call themselves....and it isn't nice is it...
Patriotism is good, believeing in your country is good.... jingoism is dangerous and to take the moral high ground when you aren't always right is also dangerous.....
Nem i'm glad you feel that the british army should take part in these wars..... toughen them up a bit.... how would your mum feel if you got slotted in basra.... would she feel that you died for a worthy cause..... and what is that cause... Saddam has been deposed... is it for democracy? but what if the ragheads don't want democracy......
Is it any different from the Russians swarming into Prague in 68, they too invaded a country because they wanted to stamp their Ideals on that country... their ideals were good and just, or so they believed.....ask any czech what they thinkof the russians... or Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill for that matter.... they hate them with a passion for the decades of misery......
if the iraqis dont want democracy... leave them to it get out and let them destroy each other... is that piece of rocky desert worth anyone other than an iraqi dying for it?....mmm it seems that it is.....
whats the difference between Iraq and Rwanda anyway? the Americans or the brits have f**k all in common with either country so if we didn't fight to save the Rwandans from themselves why are soldiers dying now to prevent the Iraqis slaughtering each other?
I dont agree with american foriegn policy because it gets people killed, thousands of people, I think the american gevrnment are oxygen thieves... but that doesn't mean I have a downer on Americans.... the british government aint exaclty honest clear upright citizens striving for the rights of their countrymen either... I mean Blair is so far up bushes back passage he probably cleans his teeth from the inside..
I aploogise once again for upsetting you Maj... perhaps geo aint such a nice guy after all eh!!... I mean how can anyone not agree with the democratic slaughter in Iraq.... and if you missed my earlier post... I personnally think that the coalition forces should hit najaf with everything they have... not just a few arty strikes or a couple of helicopter gunships..... get in there with a couple of armoured regiments and stop the militia once and for all... otherwise this will be one messy protracted affair
>>By geo (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 04:31)
Hmmm.... say again?
"... And why? Because it was good business to keep the Troubles alive.
There were plenty on our side who profited from conflicts like Northern Ireland and didn't want them to end. .... there are mini-empires that have evolved purely because of the Troubles, each of them getting whatever material and manpower they asked for to further their fight against terrorism. ...
The British army doesn't want it to stop, either. The province is a fantastic testing ground for equipment and training ground for troops -- and, as with the RUC, it means the army gets a bigger slice of the cake. Every year the Army has to justify its budget, and it's up against the Navy, who are asking for more funds for Trident submarines, and the Air Force, who are banging on about needing to buy the Eurofighter 2000 or at least replace the flying coffin, the Tornado. With Northen Ireland on the agenda, the Army can talk about a 'now' commitment, and operational imperative -- and nobody's going to argue against the need for funds to fight terrorism. As for the squaddies, they don't want to lose the chance of six months a year in Northern Ireland on extra money with free food and accommodation. After all, they joined the Army to go on operations; that was what I had done and I thought it was great. ...
Come to that, Northern Ireland was probably only one item among many in their company accounts. For all I knew, these guys also provoked killings and riots in Hebron, stirred up Croats against Serbs, and even got Kennedy killed because he wanted to stop the Vietnam War. As Simmonds had said, it was business."
Remote Control
UK 1st ed, pgs 405-406
>>By am-i-binned (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 08:12)
I only look in on this site now and again,and with good reason.
The majority of people here have never served in the military,yet wish to give their expert opinion.
I came here because a book by someone using the name AM wrote some books,and I enjoyed reading them.
The topic has now drifted to some America vs Britain debate.
I would say that as an Englishman,I feel no animosity toward Americans,
but feel that the corrupt government,or more to the point Enron and Halliburton members are guilty of war crimes,ie GWB,etc.
There is a news site named 'What really happened".Type it in find the site,
find the truth.
If you are against the loss of life,please have a look.
All servicemen/ex servicemen speak up now.(No trolls please).
AMd's
>>By andy mcnads (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 14:21)
Andy mcNads,
I am ex-military, I dont hate or dislike Americans.... , my views on the politicians are the same as yours, it just happens to be American politicians whom are the worst.... And I don't mean all of them so please dont say i'm making generalisations.... and I too dislike the needless waste of life......seen too f**king much of it thank you very much....
My opening this 'debate' has seemed to open a big can of worms.... so If anyone wishes to discuss this further I think it would be only fair to everyone if we do it offboard... that way the people here whom wish to discuss literature and not be offended by my or anyone elses views will have a happier board to visit.... anyone else who wishes to sling mud, and get passionate about their beliefs... offboard.... then I'm game
>>By geo (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 14:31)
well said cc.
>>By becks (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 15:46)
'Morning, All....
As an long-timer here, I'd like to pull a bit of rank -- cuz I think this is a good point to step back for a moment and regroup. Please? Or should I say: Rally, rally, rally...
This really is an exceptional board. In 197 pages, we have proven that we are capable of handling a diversity of topics (from the deadly serious to the outrageously silly) -- but always, if you look closely, you can find the thread leading back to AM.
The thing to remember is that in this "typed" environment, the hardest part about establishing good comms not the sending, it's the receiving. I'd like to suggest focusing on the ideas we have in common, that we recognize and understand, rather than getting into skirmishes over poorly received signals which are always open to misinterpretation. Any unclear comms signals can and should be discussed offboard, as Geo has just suggested, either via Flork or in the AM Chatter chatroom.
Now... Everyone have their antenna on straight? Dipoles in place? Ready to transmit and to receive? Hope so! :o)
PS: If you need the url for AM Chatter, flork me....
>>By am-i-binned (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 16:23)
Pablo Casals said:
"The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Special Air Service sergeant whose military career ended after he was crushed by an American helicopter in Afghanistan has received £1.3 million in compensation from the United States government.
(..)
The former SAS man was severely injured by a Black Hawk helicopter in November 2001, when British and US special forces were hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.
(...)
A six-man SAS team, operating as part of an Anglo-US task force, was waiting to be resupplied by the helicopter during a sandstorm. The sergeant was sitting in a US Humvee military vehicle, radioing their position to the pilot. He sent a grid reference, with the message: "Do not land on the signal. This is my location."
In the confusion, the pilot landed on top of the Humvee, crushing it and the soldier inside. His knees, back and chest were badly damaged.
He almost died, and remained in hospital for months while his legs and chest were reconstructed. Although he can now walk again, he was medically discharged from the Army last month.
A former colleague said: "He is a remarkable individual who had a glittering career ahead of him in the SAS. He was one of those rare breeds - a true adventurer. His sole purpose in life was to be an SAS soldier."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo-US task force - good one to remember since our F Troop is also a Anglo-US-Other something force ;o)
>>By Lynn (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 00:24)
One can agree or disagree with the US invasion of Iraq.
The fact of the matter is that if a republican candidate had won the election in 1993 instead of Bill Clinton, the US would most likely have invaded Iraq shortly after.
Paul Wolfovitz was the chief-engineer behind the US "pre-emtive strike" doctrines, but since William J. was behind the steering-wheel, these doctrines were to be left in a deskdrawer for 10 years.
As Georgie-boy got elected though, the "hawks" that are doing the actual pulling of strings in the background (Wolfovitz, Rumsfeld etc.) finally got their yes-man.
Perhaps 9/11 was the necessary fuel-to-the-fire that the hawks desperatly needed to blow the dust off of ol' Paulie's doctrines?
Why was old Saddam-boy all of a sudden a high-risk threat to the US? He had been allowed to twiddle his thumbs for 10 years after George Sr. didn't finish the job properly.
Saddam's a bad guy - no doubt about it. But if you look at all the piece-of-shit bad guys who are heads of states in Africa for instance, you realize that there are plenty of people out there who are even meaner and nastier than Saddam.
But that's one thing that's interesting about the US: they seem to be willing to take action when everyone else stands idly with their thumbs up their a**es, "observing" (because that's what they do, good ol' UN) genecide and all kinds of brutal, unimaginable shit (the Balkans).
Oh well.... enough ramblings on my part.....
May the schwartz be with you.....
>>By ortlieb (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 00:50)
Christ you B*ggers really do your research....
makes me feel like i've just come out of the trees..
where do you get the time...
PS. Ortlieb does Schwartz mean old 'Stormin Norman' ? cos I remember Kevin Schwantz... a GP rider for yamaha I think... after desert storm he painted his helmet DPM and called himself Schwantzkopf in tribute to General Schwartzkopf...... sort of backfired if you know what 'Schwantzkopf' means in German.....
>>By geo (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 02:24)
Something very unpleasant I would imagine
>>By Mickalos (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 02:55)
Hey Geo old mate, been reading Michael Moore by any chance? I did, made me mad too. If you haven't, you will really enjoy 'Dude, Where's my Country'. The perfect way of preaching to the converted, but read the book, don't watch the movie.
There is a book, 'Unscathed' by Major Phil Ashby, endorsed by AM, which is another escape from Sierra Leone story. Another really good read read.
>>By camban (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 12:38)
Errr...
All things considered, maybe a bit more Mel Brooks and a lot less Michael Moore would actually be very pleasant... :o)
"May the schwartz be with you."
Spaceballs, 1987
www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/
>>By am-i-binned (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 13:18)
hehehe @ Aib
The latest on Simon Mann:
"Seventy suspected mercenaries standing trial in Harare escaped a possible death sentence yesterday when Zimbabwe announced that they will not be extradited to Equatorial Guinea.
The defendants, who include Simon Mann, a former SAS officer and Old Etonian, still face 10 years in jail."
>>By Lynn (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 14:57)
If I could have permission to just squeeze in here to express some views if I may.
I think we all agree that this board is for the young Mr AM but as the majority who are in attendance share an interest in the military in general, I feel it is OK if now and again some military-orientated words are spoken instead of for AM - providing it is done in good taste, good intent and with respectability.
Concerning the USA and UK today, we both have made faults concerning our governments but there is always two sides to the coin. Actions in which the UK has made of which has created ill-feelings in a number of it's citizens is not always black and white. Many people who are against the current intervention of UK in Iraq are well within their rights to express these views. However, the majority, though not all (ie geo etc) are members of the public who actually do not have any expeience with Iraq and have never been there or lived/spoken to Iraqi families there. Whether one disagrees with a government or not, one fact remains. Being a head of state is a difficult and extremely demanding role. There is enormous responsibility and decisions to be made, that have to be made, which will not please everyone. One important aspect that many members of the public do not realise is the fact that there is much information/intelligence that they are simply not privy to. As a currently serving professional soldier of many years, I clearly understand the need to keep such intelligence in confidence but because some people do not understand this (through lack of genuine knowledge and experience in this theatre) it is quite easy to see how they can portray the situation in a different way and in error. In the real world, there is no government conspiracy (bad judgements maybe) but not conspiracies - these are for arm-chair critics. We have to accept that the government often acts on intelligence that we do not know about and then try to make sure that such information remains undisclosed.
War for oil ? Another conspiracy theory created by people who have no real experience or knowledge in the subject. The worse culprits are the media. If you take the time to think about it. With the exception of military personnel who have service in Iraq, virtually everything that US/UK citizens know about Iraq and their views on Iraq have in some way been entirely retrieved from a source of the media (newspaper, TV etc). If the media get things wrong, which they often do, then...............
Over 40% of the oil in which the US uses actually is produced by the US. (See OPEC, Mobil, Shell, BP, they will tell you). These are not conspiracies, just plain simple facts. The oil in which Iraq produces, the UK/US do not really use anyway, they do not because it is of low grade compared to the grade they require for their relevent industries. Iraqi oil is of no real value to both nations. Again, just see OPEC, Mobil, Shell etc. or any other party that deals with oil on a professional basis. It is just plain simple facts. Both nations did not start the war for oil and any person who says so simply has no respect for their country's armed forces, fallen servicemen or indeed for the Iraqi people. One must remember that though a wrong decision was made to enter conflict on the grounds that WMD were present, the biggest WMD was found - Mr Hussein himself. Any person who has experience with weopons inspectors and has read some of their reports, of which I have done, will realise that articles of WMD were indeed found. Chemicals WERE found, storage containers and chemical handling equipment WERE found, propelling devices for chemical weopons WERE found and Iraqi scientists working on the chemical weopons programme of which actually admitted it's existence WERE found. The only problem was that no fully complete, end-product was actually found so technically UN regulations stipulated that no WMD were found. It's like finding a terrorist who has threatened to bomb a target, searching his/her residence and finding explosives, detailed plans, detonators, timers etc but because the end-product was not finished - he/she had no bomb !
Instead of jumping to conclusions, people should enquire and if possible, access all the facts before following the views of other inexperienced people.
Myself, like most honest soldiers, don't want to go to war, especially for an extended period. But speaking to the Iraqi people - not the western media or inexperienced people - the Iraqi people, I and all that I know are glad that we can help them. The majority want us there and my colleages and I are doing it for them and not the western public. When a typical Iraqi citizen is asked - who do you despise the most ? A typical answer is - western anti-war protestors ! It is an answer that many of you will not agree with or accept but it is the reality of things. Many Iraqi citizens factually view western anti-war protestors as anti-Iraqi's. Don't take my word for it. Take the opportunity to go to Iraq yourself and ask instead of listening to inexperienced arm-chair critics going on about conspiracy theories and other non-reality agendas.
I too have friends who were recently killed during our services in Iraq. We were fighting for the Iraqi people, we know that, the Iraqi citizens know that but somehow many of the western public just don't seem to grasp the fact. It makes me rather cross sometimes.
A last note concerning the US. Again there is good and bad. In my view and experience, many US servicemen (though not all) , though totally professional in their role, somehow lack the methodical trait characterised by British servicemen. One just has to look at friendly-fire incidences. In almost every conflict that US/UK have allied, the US have somehow managed to kill UK servicemen in action. Whatever one says, there is no excuse for it. A professional US pilot for example, if they cannot recognised a British (western) ACV, MBT or servicemen in some degree of rapidness during action then they are not competent enough to operate live in-theatre. With today's technology there is no excuse. No one else in-theatre makes these mistakes, only the US.
Anyway, that my lot. I hope we can discuss further issues with respect and err towards keeping the focus mainly on AM.
I thank you one and all.
PS : geo. Call me old-fashioned or more to the point stark-raving mad but I'm staying in. It's WO2 for me, I 'll probably regret it but I feel my time is not up yet. Take it easy,
Reg
>>By Reginald (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 20:12)
Reg - you've excelled yourself.
Just one piece of info from me, before this subject disappears.
“The existence of missile engines originating in Iraq among scrap in Europe may affect the accounting of proscribed engines known to be in Iraq’s possession in March 2003….. By comparing the serial production number on the engine with information in the UNIMOVIC database, the experts were able to confirm that the engine was one from an SA-2 missile that had been tagged by UN inspectors in the past but had not been declared as being fired.”
It's all on the net if you know where to look. The whole point wasn't finding weapons but finding evidence of their destruction.... A totally different ball game.
>>By Bethan (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 10:08)
Reg,
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.
I, too, hate to hear of the blue-on-blue F#ck-ups. But something you said caught my eye.... I wonder how many of these accidents occur BECAUSE of the technology, not in spite of it. People tend to become more reliant on technology when it is present than their own common sense. They "trust" it more than their own capabilities. And if it tells them that a target is an enemy, they are more likely to believe the automation than their own gut instinct.
Technology is often introduced for the purpose of reducing human error. But oftentimes, it has the opposite effect. I wonder if friendly fire incidents/accidents are a perfect example of this?
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 14:26)
I'd have to agree with you there maj. I don't know much about fighter jets but from what I've seen on tv most have infa-red screens that zoom in on the target. So if one computer is telling the pilot that his taget is an enemy all he has to do is have a quick look at the infa red screen, he or she should be trained to tell the difference between a t72 and a challanger, and there you go, problem solved. But like I said I haven't a clue of fighter jets so that might be completely wrong.
>>By Mickalos (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 18:03)
Majorette - "technology" - very good point........and apologies. I should rather have made that thought as it may well account for a number of blue-on-blue incidences. Someone once remarked that the most technically advanced piece of equipment still will never rival the human mind and instinct in judgement. There is obviously some truth there. Technology produced to reduce human error but working in an opposite effect - I totally agree and thanks for the enlightenment.
Bethan - very good read and many thanks for the SA-2 information. Any more snippets like that would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Reg.
>>By Reginald (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 18:55)
good point maj! nice to see you thinking, lol. yes i think you are correct with the tech vs human instinct post, but due to the nature of blue on blues in recent conflicts as much as possible has been done to minimise that, for instance all vehichles had an infra red panel and a marking on the sides, so that it was covered from air attack as well as ground attack. now this seemed like a brilliant idea and worked to a certain degree, but due to the nature of warfare and the fact that there were a lot of gosps(oil pipes) set alight, it didn't seem as effective. the targeting panels on fighter planes,apache and cobra, are heat sensitive, so when theres burning vehichles, the gosps and so on, they look very much like the marker panels placed on vehicles( well i guess they would to a pilot flying at speed and in a combat role). So i personnaly think it was a mix of both human and technological error, at the end of the day the pilots are human and technology can only enhance the ability so much, it's the nature of war that mistakes will be made, ok usually it's the US blowing brits up, but the US forces are about, well god knows how much bigger they are, but they are a hell of a lot bigger than british forces.
>>By Nemesis2842004 (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 19:30)
Some interesting debates going on, although not entirely AM-related but what the heck.
Agree with you both Reg and Maj. I've worked in the past alongside the US-military and I've always thought they relied far too much on technology than on their basic capabilities and experience. Pity cause they are damn good soldiers.
The GW2 I agree and disagree with Geo it's about oil and not , but mostly about power. US-power, wanting to control as much as possible. No offence to our US-friends here on the board. But there are so much things the public just doesn't get to know, as the media only sticks to the Najaf-Baghdad bombing . Getting rid of SH opens the world markets towards Iraq especially for those countries who took part in the GW2 . And they can't wait to start business over there. One has allready started .....
The US weapons industry supplies weapons to totalitarian and democratic regimes of all flavors, all over the world. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a customer as is King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Head of State of Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair of the United Kingdom is an eager customer as is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. China, Cambodia, Kazakstan and Laos receive military assistance. Need weapons to quell that pesky domestic rebellion? The US weapons industry is there for you. For years it supplied weapons and gear to Indonesia to assist it in the killing of at least 100,000 East Timorese. Protestors all over the US have been subjected to weaponry and tactics developed by the US weapons industry and the US military. Need landmines? Human Rights Watch estimates that the US has stockpiled 11.2 million landmines for use in conflict.
Most did not know that during the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Soldiers often know the score, even if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush and of course the Pentagon’s talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their war.
But often their actions demonstrate that yes indeed this is about oil; not just Iraqi oil but US oil, read: corporate oil: in fact U.S. corporate ownership of that oil from Iraq. How does one make such a claim? One looks to the law. Under U.S. law, whose oil and oil products belong to whom are decided by law. The Development Fund for Iraq established by the United Nations does not spell out ownership as it was assumed it would be the Iraqi people who would own the oil from Iraq.
Instead of bailing-out the Iraqi people, new debt for Iraq’s people will formally accrue through the program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and direct financing for U.S. corporate operations in Iraq. Some of the funds are to go towards restructuring facilities and oil systems, pipelines, etc., and all are aware of Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root receiving contracts under the Pentagon’s non-competitive bidding; some of the funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm Bank). The mission directive of the ExIm Bank is the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American business abroad, not humanitarian assistance.
Pfiew, that of my chest, guess what B20 arrived !
>>By spiketheprovo (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 19:59)
Hey, Nem, you keep bringing AM to mind. Note the last sentence... :o)
Re: Fort Bragg
"...'Deltex' was designed to further an atmosphere of co-operation between the two units [Regiment and Delta Force], but all it did for me was induce huge amounts of envy. I could still remember being bowled over by the sheer size of the place; you could have fitted the entire town of Hereford twice over into what they called a 'fort'. The quantity and quality of equipment on show was beyond belief. Delta had indoor 7.62 and 5.56 shooting ranges; at Stirling Lines we only had the 9mm equivalent. We also had only one gym, while they had dozens of them, including jacuzzis, saunas and a massive climbing wall for their Mountain Troop. No wonder we renamed the place Fort Brass. They had more helicopters in one unit than we had in the whole of the British army; come to that, there were more personnel in just that one base than in all of the British armed services put together. ..."
Crisis Four
UK 1st ed, pg 133
>>By am-i-binned (Tuesday, 24 Aug 2004 20:04)
Reg:
As requested,
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new
/pages/document_list.asp
This site gives the public access to the UN weapons inspection quarterly reports, some of which are a tad dull, but others give you an interesting insight to the amount of weapon-capable equipment Iraq had or the parts they still have. The politics behind the whole weapons inspection process is fascinating. You won’t find much of interest before late 2001 and early 2002. If you only want to read the good bit (i.e. what they found) head for Sept 2002 onwards (can’t remember the report numbers).
>>By Bethan (Wednesday, 25 Aug 2004 14:04)
it's true that good ol' saddam from iraq had been idling for ten years, but after trying to find wmd's for that long, they couldn't just back out. the us crossed the line of no return and had to proceed. why?
1) the first rule of politics is that when things go bad at home, start a war.
1.1) to divert attention
1.2) to stimulate the economy (which in this case had been going from bad to worse for some time in the states (consumer spending was low, unemployement was high)
1.3) the us AND the uk wrong about saddam after all these years? that would have been like removing tea from the british. couldn't be admitted.
2) ...or it could be that in the heat of excitement, our skull and bones member dubya, who's not known to be the sharpest tool in the shed mistook two countries with a nearly similar name. after all, it seems that iran is the real culprit in the 9/11 case, and the spawning place for these terrorists. w, just picked the wrong country for his crusa(OOPS. delete delete delete delete delete) mission...
just my 2 <insert currency here>
ooh, and prepare for the first electronic jihadd, set for tomorrow, 26.08.04.
--snip--
Kaspersky Labs leader Eugene Kaspersky is warning about a global virus attack tomorrow, intended to strike at the US and Europe.
(..)
These crackers have the experience and resources to neutralize the whole internet for several hours.
(..)
ISC (Internet Storm Center) predicts that the internet will not vaporize on thursday. If however this should happen, it's been our pleasure to help you so far.
--snap--
>>By trident (Wednesday, 25 Aug 2004 14:18)
Pages: 1 ... 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 ... 297
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS