I think a lot of things would be clear once the dust is off. I am more interested to know how the people are thinking in arab coutries. Has anyone got the coverage from aljazeera...
PS- malik come to MSN, if you are online
Just heard Mr Hussain, and his long winded speech, full of nothing.
So, all you military gurus, help me understand:
Why is Iraq behaving like Afghanistan? Don't they have any kind of Air force? Why can't their Airforce atleast offer some kinda challenge to the American forces? Instead of merely sounding Air Raid sirens and AAA fire, why don't they actually fly our and attack the US basis? What I am hearing is that Iraqis are busy hiding their MiG's to different locations. What the heck!
This is like giving up, without a fight. Its true that US has much more resources to carry out this war, but this pathetic display by Iraq is something I just don't understand. Why be such cowards? Why they don't take the attack to American bases? Do they think they will "destroy the invaders" by firing the Anti Aircraft Artillery? What chumps!
Iraq still have migs? Even if they do, they will be uselss against American planes. America is already jamming radars of Iraq. Not much one can do.
[QUOTE]
Why is Iraq behaving like Afghanistan?
[/QUOTE]
They are trying to pull a Ghandi or MLK.. resist through peace and make the agressor look bad. I doubt this tactic will last long, gonna haveta start defending themselves sometime.
Funny how this attack on Baghdad went off... "unplanned attack" "Saddam killed"... sounds like planned PSYOPS to me. The thinking is that even if it failed to kill Saddam or his leaders it would be a pschological blow against Iraq.. Problem is, it most likely will backfire in that respect. Saddam has given his speech, the Americans have failed to kill him and are thus weak, if the reports come out later in the day that UK wasn't aware of this it could backfire globally. At least that's the most likely way it'll be perceived... who knows.
While no sane person actually believes Iraqis will destroy US, the least they can do is to put up some kinda fight, some kinda offensive... instead of just trying to hit the Tomahawk missiles. But they are merely running like scared chicken, hiding. They did the same thing in the first Gulf War. Promised the "Mother of All Wars", and caved in like "Mother of All Cowards", with their behinds severely beaten by allied forces.
Is it a repeat story of Talibaan? Please tell me its gonna be some kinda 'fight' this time around.
Apparently US has abandoned the No-fly zone missions. It had become redundant now that a proper war has started. Where are Iraqi jets now?
Intel. came in and the U.S. acted on it. Who was killed and who wasn't remains to be seen...any reason to believe that video of Saddam wasn't taped before the attacks? Show me, your probably right, time will tell.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Intel. came in and the U.S. acted on it. Who was killed and who wasn't remains to be seen...any reason to believe that video of Saddam wasn't taped before the attacks? Show me, your probably right, time will tell.
[/QUOTE]
I think you people have to show he is dead. American propoganda has gone on about how if Saddam was killed, that would be the end of his regime and the job done. By all accounts his regime is still functioning, there is no mass revolt of people so far - that could ony mean he has survived, and the American's have failed to kill him?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
I think you people have to show he is dead. American propoganda has gone on about how if Saddam was killed, that would be the end of his regime and the job done. By all accounts his regime is still functioning, there is no mass revolt of people so far - that could ony mean he has survived, and the American's have failed to kill him?
[/QUOTE]
I agree Malik, that does seem to be the case, time will give us an answer for sure.
Kuwait was hit with two missiles by Iraq, chemical-free.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
I agree Malik, that does seem to be the case, time will give us an answer for sure.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if he is still alive and in time we will find out how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by this American bombing instead.
French TV was showing satellite pictures of the area hit this morning. I caught the tail end of the broadcast but I don’t think they really said much about it.. don’t really know much… so, if I find the pics online sometime I’ll post them, until then I guess this post is kinda pointless… 
hmm…just got this email…now i’m hecka confused :konfused:
Subject: A Must Read - what the protestors are missing …
This is an e-mail written to the MIT MSA.
This what the protestors are missing …
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:42 AM
Asalaamu alaikum:
In analyzing the text of the MITMSA president’s email, I believe that the
following excerpt really delves into the crux of the matter:
" Putting aside geo-political justifications and consideration of Iraqi
leadership, we believe that any benefit that is obtained through war does not
outweigh the losses of innocent human lives and societal infrastructure. Like millions of Americans and governments of many nations around the world, we
believe war at this juncture is unnecessary and counter-productive."
It is my strong belief that such a position ignores the state of the people of
Iraq today as well as the recent history of Iraq. This war will undoubtedly
lead to the loss of innocent life. The fact of the matter is that warfare and
technology has progressed to the point where it is impossible to avoid killing
civilians, unless you avoid war completely. We should also realize that
civilians in Iraq are already dying at the hands of the regime in Iraq. Saddam
and his criminal associates have used the most barbaric and inhumane methods
known to mankind to systematically rape, torture, and murder hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians during Saddam’s reign of terror. At this moment,
there are prisons in Iraq full of innocent people being tortured and killed. I
affirm that it is our primary duty to come to their aid. To avoid war is to
leave the people of Iraq to the mercy of Saddam.
The question then arises as to what mode of liberation is plausible and
realistic. Saddam’s regime is violent, and as such, will not be removed using
peaceful methods. The last time the people of Iraq tried to revolt against Saddam at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, they were slaughtered by Saddam’s
forces. For the last 10 years, sanctions have been put in place that have
starved the Iraqi people and destroyed Iraq’s economy and social fabric. In a
country like South Africa, sanctions were quite effective in bringing about
regime change. As brutal as the apartheid regime of South Africa was, they were
unwilling to endure the agony of sanctions. The UN sanctions on Iraq are far
more robust than what South Africa was exposed to, yet Saddam has been unmoved
by the suffering of his people. The unjust sanctions on Iraq must be removed so
ordinary Iraqis can live with adequate nutrition and medicine. However, a
consequence of their removal will be that Saddam will continue to ste!
al the wealth of the Iraqi people for his own treasure chests. His brutal
nature will not be changed and he will use his wealth to acquire means to
oppress his people even more brutally than before. Innocent Iraqis will
continue to die as long as Saddam and his sons stay in power. For those who
argue that removing sanctions will lead to his demise, I point out to you that
Iraqis enjoyed 20 years or relative economic prosperity and had a vibrant
middle-class, but faced the most inhumane oppression from their government
during those same 20 years. Saddam was butchering his people in the 70s and 80s
when there were no sanctions, and there was very little opposition to his rule.
I am forced to the unfortunate, yet realistic conclusion, that there is no
peaceful alternative to war at this stage. Many would argue that regime change
should come from within Iraq and the Iraqi people should be the agents of
change. In 1991, the Iraqi people revolted en mass after the end of the Gulf
War. Please read the following report about those uprisings from Human Rights
Watch (HRW):
http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
A small excerpt from this report should be sufficient to convey the massive
scales of atrocities perpetrated by Saddam and his forces on the Iraqi people
when they revolted in 1991.
Excerpt:
“One year ago, towns and cities across northern and southern Iraq rose up in
revolt against the government of President Saddam Hussein. In the weeks that
followed, tens of thousands of civilians were killed as security forces crushed
the most serious internal threat of Saddam’s 12-year rule, and thousands more
subsequently perished during one of the largest and most precipitous flights of
refugees in modern times. This report details human rights abuses committed during the uprising and the human rights repercussions that continue until
today.”
Whether Iraq is liberated by its own people or by outside forces, we can expect
that innocent people are going to die. President Bush has stated that American
forces will do their utmost to minimize the loss of innocent Iraqi lives and
avoid the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure. Aside from the
immorality of deliberately targeting civilians, I know that it is not in
America’s political interests to be perceived throughout the world as
slaughtering defenseless civilians. As such, for their own political interests,
America would not want to attack civilians. The nature of war is that there
will be costly mistakes in targeting and field intelligence that will lead to
civilian casualties. However, this can be expected even if it were a Muslim
army coming to liberate the people of Iraq. I would argue that an overwhelming
American force would actually motivate Saddam’s forces to capitulate faster
than they would if it were the Iraqi people themselves revolting. As such,!
I believe that an American-led attack on Saddam would lead to less civilian
lives being lost in comparison to a popular revolt as bloody as the revolt of
1991. Once America removes Saddam from power, we should hold them responsible for delivering on their promises of establishing liberty in Iraq and rebuilding
its destroyed infrastructure. That is where our efforts should be aimed at
right now.
The status quo in Iraq is simply unacceptable—and has been for the last 30
years. The Iraqi people share some of the blame for their complacency to
tyranny. However, Saddam has not been without allies. The United States,
France, and Russia backed him for 20 years as he brutalized his people. They
gave him the weaponry he needed to suppress his people, and he still retains a
significant portion of that arsenal of oppression. I would argue that those
same powers that aided Saddam are morally responsible for helping to remove
him. France and Russia have shirked their responsibilities. What is perhaps
most saddening is that the Muslim world ignored the people of Iraq when they
were under the boots of the tyrant. Where were the Muslim crowds chanting in
the streets as they are today? Where were the Muslims when Saddam obliterated
several tens of thousands of Kurdish Muslims with chemical weapons in the late
80s? Where were the Muslims when Saddam put down the revolt of 1991? Wh!
y was Saddam hailed as the modern Sallahuddin by so much of the vaunted “Arab
street”? Where were the Muslims when Saddam committed genocide and environmental terrorism against the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq in the 1990s?
Where are the Muslims now when Saddam’s intelligence compounds are full with
innocent people undergoing the most painful forms of torture?
We only mobilize when we see the American flag on tanks rumbling towards
Baghdad to liberate an oppressed people. The moral imperative of this war is
not about the preservation of the authority of the United Nations nor should it
be about the “disarmament of Iraq.” The motivation that should supercede all
these concerns is saving the lives of innocent Iraqis from the brutal
government of Saddam Hussein. When history looks back at these times, a war of
liberation may very well be seen as saving lives in Iraq. Several thousands may
die in this conflict, but several TENS of THOUSANDS are SURE to die over the
next five years if Saddam and his sons are permitted to stay in power. Millions
of Iraqis will finally be able to breathe the air of freedom that God has
granted to all of us.
To those of you who oppose this war, I would caution you to wait at least until
you see the first scenes of Iraqis dancing with joy in the streets of Basra,
Baghdad, and Mosul. If the US fails to deliver on its promises, and installs another oppressive Saddam-like tyrant or commits atrocities on Iraqi civilians,
then I will join you in the streets as you demonstrate.
Your efforts right now are better spent on mobilizing your talents to help
serve a liberated Iraq than protest a war that will happen regardless of your
demonstrations on the streets of Boston and Paris. I personally think that the
MITMSA will be better served to focus its efforts on what our role should be in
a post-war Iraq. MIT is a very influential university, and it is very realistic
to believe that we can influence the MIT administration to develop innovative
programs to help the people of Iraq after the war is over. We should be
brainstorming ideas right this minute, instead of trying to stop the tanks as
they head for Iraq. What we do now cannot make a difference in stopping this
war, but we can make a difference in the lives or Iraqis after the war—IF we
put our minds and hearts to it and pursue this with the same passion that so
many anti-war demonstrators used to oppose the war. Will those anti-war crowds
care about the well-being of the Iraq people once the bom!
bs have stopped falling on Baghdad, or will they revert back to the same
indifference they had when Saddam was committing genocide against the people of
Iraq?
salaams,
Mohammed Saeed
MIT Doctoral Candidate
Iraqi Immigrant, with many family members and loved ones still in Iraq.
The above e-mail is missing the main point which is of course that if Iraqi people were being tortured and repressed under Saddam Hussain why was it only muslim voices that pointed this out during his 'darling of America' period when he was at war with Iran?
Saddam gassed 10,000 in Halabja and it was kept quiet then so we have to assume it was ok with the world community. My view is that if the world thought it was ok then, then why make a fuss now? it's been a while since he gassed 10,000 so what's the problem?
thats a good point
hey, u have exactly 786 posts, kewl :k:
[thumb=B]bush-oil.JPG[/thumb]
Bush addressing nation on Operation Iraqi Oil.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
Saddam gassed 10,000 in Halabja and it was kept quiet then so we have to assume it was ok with the world community. My view is that if the world thought it was ok then, then why make a fuss now? it's been a while since he gassed 10,000 so what's the problem?
[/QUOTE]
The reason everyone kept 'quiet' back then was because it couldn't be ascertained if he actually did gas those people. It was based on claims by the Kurds who escaped into Turkey but no traces of gas were found on them. No evidence was provided. Iraq summarily rejected these accusations and Pentagon reports in 1991 showed that there was every reason to doubt it was Iraqi gas which did this.
I discussed this some time ago thought I’d add a link;
A Kurd in the Hand is worth two to Bush
“Naturally we should at this point discuss the Iraqi Kurds, US/UK claims of Kurdish massacres by the Baath party had been heavily circulated in the world press at the lead up of the first Gulf war. However, independent investigation yield only retaliatory strikes against Kurdish militia that were supported by Iran and US in the Iran Iraq war in the 80’s.”-Thap
You’ll find more links highlighting Kurdish masscres in the post…most carried out by the British in conjunction with the Turks.
http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94416
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
The reason everyone kept 'quiet' back then was because it couldn't be ascertained if he actually did gas those people. It was based on claims by the Kurds who escaped into Turkey but no traces of gas were found on them. No evidence was provided. Iraq summarily rejected these accusations and Pentagon reports in 1991 showed that there was every reason to doubt it was Iraqi gas which did this.
[/QUOTE]
It was pretty common knowledge in the UK but it was only widely publicised in the build up to the Gulf War. There again the 'babies chucked out of incubators' by Iraqi soldiers was also widely publicised before the gulf war so what to believe isn't always straightforward I agree.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
While no sane person actually believes Iraqis will destroy US, the least they can do is to put up some kinda fight, some kinda offensive... instead of just trying to hit the Tomahawk missiles. But they are merely running like scared chicken, hiding. They did the same thing in the first Gulf War. Promised the "Mother of All Wars", and caved in like "Mother of All Cowards", with their behinds severely beaten by allied forces.
Is it a repeat story of Talibaan? Please tell me its gonna be some kinda 'fight' this time around.
[/QUOTE]
Is it a larger scale war that you want? Clarify if you would your position.
A. a fight where Saddaam is victorious and stays in power.
B. Precision strikes to eliminate Iraqi leaders, thus ending the conflict as quickly as possible.
C. Don't care about the outcome, number of casualties so long as U.S. gets its nose sufficiently bloodied.
Originally posted by Malik: "Yes, if he is still alive and in time we will find out how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by this American bombing instead."
Quick question: What is better for Iraqis: Strikes last night killed Saddam and his leadership or dozens of civilians?
Your statement suggests you strangely wish for the latter.
more targets hit.
in the first strikes The Red Cross reported that one person was killed and 14 people were injured in the strikes.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dewana tera: *
in the first strikes The Red Cross reported that one person was killed and 14 people were injured in the strikes.
[/QUOTE]
:( DT, sorry just wondering where did you hear this ?