Why do the Iraqi insurgents pick on Fellow Asians ?

last SG · 2004-09-03T13:40:44+00:00

Watch this video of US soldiers being attacked in Iraq while in a convoy caught live http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo

2004Lancer SG

could it be because nobody wanna get involved in Iraq war and nobody wanna help USA? As such, the US decided to fund the insurgents to kill those whose countries did not help USA?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by 2004Lancer:
could it be because nobody wanna get involved in Iraq war and nobody wanna help USA? As such, the US decided to fund the insurgents to kill those whose countries did not help USA?

"USA fund the insurgents to kill those whose countries did not help USA ? "

How do you explain the kidnapping of two Japanese hostages, when Japan had sent troops to particpate in the fight against terrorism, with the US MILITARY ?

Atobe SG

News just released - two FRENCH Journalists have been released.

So the lives of TWELVE Nepalese are cheaper than TWO French journalists ?

stupidissmart SG

The ends justifying the means ?

Clashes ?

Or just pin pricks in hit, run and hide ?

The one prolonged clash had ended in Najaf City, where the RELIGIOUS insurgents from the Shiite Community - (not the terrorists-kidnappers) - had used the cover of the famous Mosque simply to RESIST the US led forces.

Wat will u do if u r them ? R u going to dumbly attack their armoured vehicle with your pistol with 3 bullets ? They r desperate and they have a great disadvantage militarily over them.

The Vietcongs during the Vietnam War had similar limited resources, and yet was able to conduct impressive military raids and attacks that overwhelmed and surprised American forces during the Vietnam War.

In a separate CNN report, these 12 Nepalese were working for a Jordanian Company, trucking goods to service the Iraqi Economy.

The US Military DO NOT need private Arab Logistic Contractors when the US Military have their own military logistics support arm.

Too bad if you cannot see the significance in killing TWELVE Nepalese at one go, as when the Terrorists took their time to kill one European at a time, when they had three or four, and subsequently releasing the remaining survivors.

The war has already started, with or without the Americans - the Iraqis would have been slowly murdered by Saddam Hussein or his two Sons, and their henchmen; as have been documents made of their reign of terror over the last thirty years.

The point remain is that Fellow Asians are in Iraq, as they are in almost every country in the world - danger zones as well as dangerous jobs included - to earn and support their families; and at the same time contribute to the betterment of lives for the Iraqis.

Why target these helpless Asian compatriots in the manner that they have treated the Nepalese ?

Are the Nepalese lives less valuable than the single Filippino, when the Terrorists did not even bother to have a channel of communication ?

News just released - two FRENCH Journalists have been released.

So the lives of TWELVE Nepalese are cheaper than TWO French journalists ?

Unsung_Hero SG

The fact that the terrorists can seize french media hostages and demand that france rescind its policy on scarves for female muslims in France tells us one very simple thing -- the policy and objectives of the terrorists is not simply the withdrawal of foreign troops from the middle-east, but the Islamization of the world as is required and dictated by the Koran. Until this goal is achieved they will not quit, they will not respect citizens of any country within their grasp, and they will conduct themselves with barbarity, with contmept, and without compassion or remorse.

The muslim world has declared war on the the rest of the world -- we just haven't recognized and accepted it yet -- this is why they will attack Americans, Europeans, Asians -- anyone not deemed muslim enough in their eyes. If moderate muslims want to avoid an all-out conflict with the West and the westernized world they had better speak up quickly and get the radicals under control or they will all perish under an ultimate western retaliation and onslaught that the muslims cannot win.

Look at Chechnyian terrorists now attacking Russian kindergartens. The Russians should resort to bloody brute force in Chechnya to eradicate the problem -- no other way out than to annilate the Chechnyian population -- and who is going to stop them? Putin should wipe Chechnya from the map, period.

Lets stop pretending that this is anything other that what it is -- a war by muslims against non-muslims. The non-muslim world has tip-toed around the basic case in order not to appear racist and judgemental -- now is the time to set aside that poltically correct behaviour which is clouding the real issue and leading to more danger globally than we should accept. For the good of all non-muslims we need to show we have the guts and determination to wipe out the aggressive stance of muslims wherever they may be and whatever the cost. The case against the nazis was no less significant and time sensitive.

Early decisive action will stand better than late uncertain commitments.

The only way to prevent an all out confrontation is for the silent majority muslims in the world to finally speak up, organize and reject the terrorist muslims. Saudi Arabia has much to answer for. Sooner or later muslims will pay the price dearly for allowing this radical terrorist element to wage war agains the rest of us.

paperchicken SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

News just released - two [b] FRENCH Journalists have been released.

So the lives of TWELVE Nepalese are cheaper than TWO French journalists ?

[/b]

I think its because of France anti-War stance. Rolling Eyes

stupidissmart SG

double

stupidissmart SG

The fact that the terrorists can seize french media hostages and demand that france rescind its policy on scarves for female muslims in France tells us one very simple thing -- the policy and objectives of the terrorists is not simply the withdrawal of foreign troops from the middle-east, but the Islamization of the world as is required and dictated by the Koran. Until this goal is achieved they will not quit, they will not respect citizens of any country within their grasp, and they will conduct themselves with barbarity, with contmept, and without compassion or remorse.

The muslim world has declared war on the the rest of the world -- we just haven't recognized and accepted it yet -- this is why they will attack Americans, Europeans, Asians -- anyone not deemed muslim enough in their eyes. If moderate muslims want to avoid an all-out conflict with the West and the westernized world they had better speak up quickly and get the radicals under control or they will all perish under an ultimate western retaliation and onslaught that the muslims cannot win.

Look at Chechnyian terrorists now attacking Russian kindergartens. The Russians should resort to bloody brute force in Chechnya to eradicate the problem -- no other way out than to annilate the Chechnyian population -- and who is going to stop them? Putin should wipe Chechnya from the map, period.

Lets stop pretending that this is anything other that what it is -- a war by muslims against non-muslims. The non-muslim world has tip-toed around the basic case in order not to appear racist and judgemental -- now is the time to set aside that poltically correct behaviour which is clouding the real issue and leading to more danger globally than we should accept. For the good of all non-muslims we need to show we have the guts and determination to wipe out the aggressive stance of muslims wherever they may be and whatever the cost. The case against the nazis was no less significant and time sensitive.

Early decisive action will stand better than late uncertain commitments.

The only way to prevent an all out confrontation is for the silent majority muslims in the world to finally speak up, organize and reject the terrorist muslims. Saudi Arabia has much to answer for. Sooner or later muslims will pay the price dearly for allowing this radical terrorist element to wage war agains the rest of us.

So u r suggesting tat we killed off all iraqis and citizens of Chechnya ? Please note tat most of their residents r just innocent civilians. Wat difference is there between u and hitler ?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

The ends justifying the means ?

So wat do u propose for them to achieve the end ? Sad to say, this seems to be one of the most effective way for them to achieve the effect of making US lives harder. U don't expect them to just blindly attack fortified american troops and dying in the process

Are you certain that this is "one of the most effective way for them to achieve the effect of making US lives harder" ?

Sadly for you, this is NOTHING near to being harder, but more to HARDLY making any difference to the US military, who simply has readjusted strategies and tactics in response to the changing situation.

Are the Insurgents anywhere nearer to getting the US Military to leave Iraq ?

HARDLY, as the USA simply arranged for an early handover to an Iraqi Interim Governing Council, while the US Military remain entrenched - AND this time with a certain degree of LEGITIMACY.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Clashes ?

Or just pin pricks in hit, run and hide ?

As said before, they r insurgents. Outnumbered, poorly equipped, lack of technology, poorer in organising and training. U really think they should just attack dumbly and die in the process isn't it ? There r several large scale attacks on american troops isn't it ? The losses tend to be on the iraqis side since they r really much weaker than the americans.

What "large scale attacks on american troops" ?

Only in the fantasy dreams of water pipes smoked by the Iraqis, which seem to have influenced your vision of events.

Are there any large scale uprising similar to that of the Tet Offensive conducted by the Vietcongs during the Vietnam War, in which the Vietcong conducted a well co-ordinated and synchronised attacks across South Vietnam, that had the Vietcong to make deep and penetrating attacks into several major cities in South Vietnam.

The Tet Offensive caused the US Government and Military to concede that the Vietnam War need a complete rethink of policies, strategies and tactics. It became a watershed event that marked the beginning of the slow decline in the US resolve to continue their singular involvement in defending South Vietnam.

Has the Iraqis even the capacity to mount any major offensive that you seem to have seen, when no news agencies reported such an event ?

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Wat will u do if u r them ? R u going to dumbly attack their armoured vehicle with your pistol with 3 bullets ? They r desperate and they have a great disadvantage militarily over them.

The Palestinians had less than the Iraqis, and yet they did not resort to kidnapping of foreign workers, who are working in the midst of the Palestinian Community. Yet, the Palestinians are braver to confront Israeli bulldozers, tanks, and plastic bullets (that leave no metallic trace for easy removal).

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Vietnam is many years ago, with lots of forest and the american r not prepared for such warfare. Now, american weopons have increase in sophistication, have a greater number in iraq than in vietnam, carry the past experience of vietnam and other related warfare and there r little terrain advantage such as forest etc. It is already a different story.

Vietnam War ended in 1974, only about thirty years ago, not such a long time in history.

Although the terrain and vegetation is totally different, the national resolve remains the same between the Iraqis and the Vietnamese Freedom Fighters, and with both up against US Occupation Force.

Sure, while weapons platforms and systems may have changed, you will note that ground warfare remains brutal, with street to street fighting - by the way, you will be surprised to learn that not all the wars in Vietnam were fought in the jungle, but much were fought in built-up areas, in the cities.

The Vietcongs will charge up hills, knolls, and plateaus, that accomodate the outposts, firebase, and fortified bastions of various US forces stationed across South Vietnam. The Vietcongs will also pop up and occupy large sections of a main city, or lay an ambush to trap an entire US military brigade.

The US Military were as thinly spread out in Vietnam as they are now in Iraq.

During the Vietnam War - the US Military had committed more then 600,000 men to combat in Vietnam, while in the current war in Iraq, the US has less than 300,000 men in Iraq.

The disbanded Iraqi Military numbered more then ONE MILLION Men, and if everyone carry a gun - grenades and explosives being so easily available - surely, the Insurgents need not resort to kidnapping, and killing of innocent Nepalese - only IF these Insurgents had the courage similar to the Palestinians or the Vietcongs.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

So ? The companies r american allies companies isn't it ? Wat is the end effect ? The nepal gov curbing the peopel from going over to iraq for work, news report showing more instability of iraq thus making things harder to the american eventually. Although I sympathise their plight, but I cannot really blame these people but only on why they were occupied.

Where do you wish to lead us with your confused reply ?

The Jordanian Companies "r american allies companies isn't it" ?

Are you now asking me to confirm what you are purely speculating - while sitting in front of a PC Monitor, and in the comfort of your home in Singapore ?

How did you come to this conclusiong that the Jordanian Companies "r american allies" ?

"Wat is the end effect ? " - to what ?

Atobe SG

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Wat is the significance ? Do u see the significance when american drop a bomb into a couple wedding and many lives r lost ? R u racist yourself, to react on the death of 12 people while ignoring the lives of thousands of iraqis ?

As was mentioned, and which you cleverly deleted by quoting half of my paragraph posted, it was mentioned that whether the US dropped a bomb that resulted in the quick death of the IRAQI wedding couple and guests at a wedding reception, there would have been as many IRAQI deaths either by US bombs, or from the bullets and iron tortures conducted by Saddam Hussein and his two sons.

The issue raised is not about the US action that led to the deaths of the wedding couple and their guests as a result of a US bombing.

The point is that 12 NEPALESE were in Iraq, working for a Jordanian Company that was delivery goods to the Iraqi people - which is helping in the reconstruction of Iraq. The 12 Nepalese were contributing to the revival of the Iraqi economy.

To humour you further, are you suggesting that the US bombing of the wedding is comparable to the deliberate killing of 12 Nepalese, when investigation had revealed that the US bombing was legitimate - in that the INFORMATION RECEIVED was that it was a gathering of Al Qaeda members.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Documents ? u mean documents from the failed intelligence from US and British ? Sorry man, the document r the reports from these so called intelligence which also stated tat there r WMD in Iraq. They r so confident in their agency tat they totally ignored the UN weopon inspectors pleas to prolonged their investigations. Now they have "kicked" open the doors and "killed" everyone in sight.. and embarrassingly found nothing.. wat can they say now ?

Are you confusing the intelligence report on WMD, with the actual reports of Saddam Hussein gassing of the Iraqis from the Kurdish ethnic group, and also ethnic cleansing of the Shiites from the marshland of the lower Tibris region ?

Try not to mix two separate events into one embarrassing clutch of feathers flying in the wind.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:
Slowly murdered ? Isn't more Iraqis murdered now ? More people have been dead and killed than all the years under Saddam control combined. U prefer slowly murder on all killed in one strike ? American r not any better when dealing with control Iraq too isn't it ? There r almost killing everyday, abuse and killing of prisoners and innocent r victims as well. The only difference is, Ameican kill more people than Saddam. BTW there r many other countries tat have citizens being slowly murderd as well. Why not "liberate" them too ? Isn't the war already "waged" since they r traumatised ? Why the double standard ?

Are you attributing and holding the Americans responsible for executing the daily occurance of car bombs that are killing and maiming Iraqis by the hundreds ?

The abuse of the Iraqi prisoners is the work of a handful of US Military Police personnel guarding the prison facility - and not the work of the 300,000 US Military Personnel.

At least be more objective if you wish to pick feathers from thin air to reinforce your argument.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Too bad, they r in iraq and they should know long ago tat some iraqis kidnapped and killed these people. Why they so not hold any talk baffled me too. But pushing all the blame on iraqis without mentioning the US is unfair. They r the one tat start the killings, abuse and ruining people lives first.

Are you being rational now ?

Before the US entered Iraq, are the Iraqis - (the Kurdish and the Shiites) - not already being murdered by Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and the Iraqi military ?

Are you now suggesting that the US Coalition Forces should be responsble for the murder of the 12 Nepalese ?

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

News just released - two FRENCH Journalists have been released.

So the lives of TWELVE Nepalese are cheaper than TWO French journalists ?

tat should be cause for celebration since they r not as murderous as someone want to make them sound. Thousands of innocent iraqis r killed because of a war without valid reasons. So their lives r cheaper than napalese ?

TWO French Journalist released, lets celebrate and forget that the TWELVE Nepalese lives are lost and can be forgotten ?

Some sense of value you certainly have.

Thousands of Iraqis were killed even BEFORE this American led war had started.

Saddam Hussein led Iraq into a 7 year war with Iran that resulted in the loss of more then 80,000 Iraqi lives alone.

Saddam Hussein led Iraq into an invasion of Kuwait that led to a UN sanctioned war to liberate Kuwait, and resulted in nearly 100,000 Iraqi soldiers losing their lives in the battlefield.

In addition to the internal large scale ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish ethnic group in northern Iraq, and the suppression of the Shiites in the South, Saddam Hussein, his two sons and the dreaded Iraqi Security Service had also tortured and killed Iraqis - with more then 100,000 missing husbands, sons, mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters.

It is unfortunate if you allow the WMD issues to block out the follow-on benefits of the US led attack on Iraq.

There are many angles to consider as to why the US Military remain unable to secure Iraq, and ensure calm and security to sweep across Iraq.

Your attempt to put all the present ills of Iraq onto the USA alone, is too simplistic and parochial to the anti-US views.

LazerLordz SG

You make a good point which very few dare to voice out.They believe in the abode of war and the abode of peace.If you are an infidel to these radical elements, you are fair game, not even your women and children are spared.To migrate to a country and demand that it follows your customs is utter arrogance.They believe in a holy calling to Islamize the world and these radicals will do anything to achieve their aim.We cannot reform Islam from outside, only their own kind can do the same.The moderates have t owake up and smell the roses.Today, its Koreans and Nepalese, tommorrow it might be moderate Muslims sent to the slaughter by their own "brethen".When that time comes, perhaps they might see the need for a similar "reformation" of the outlaws of their faith.Pity that a faith that built Grenada, Avicenne and the Spanish Moorish cities , furthered the advances in astronomy and medicine, flourished trade between Europe and China, can also have deviants who seek to reshape the world into their twisted form of paradise.

paperchicken SG

As usual Atobe is blind to the facts before him and oppose for the sake of opposing and opposing everyone who oppose him and wanting to be right and win every arguement every time.

stupidissmart SG

Are you certain that this is "one of the most effective way for them to achieve the effect of making US lives harder" ?

Why not ? the lives do get harder isn't it ?

Sadly for you, this is NOTHING near to being harder, but more to HARDLY making any difference to the US military, who simply has readjusted strategies and tactics in response to the changing situation.

Are the Insurgents anywhere nearer to getting the US Military to leave Iraq ?

HARDLY, as the USA simply arranged for an early handover to an Iraqi Interim Governing Council, while the US Military remain entrenched - AND this time with a certain degree of LEGITIMACY.

What "large scale attacks on american troops" ?

Only in the fantasy dreams of water pipes smoked by the Iraqis, which seem to have influenced your vision of events.

Are there any large scale uprising similar to that of the Tet Offensive conducted by the Vietcongs during the Vietnam War, in which the Vietcong conducted a well co-ordinated and synchronised attacks across South Vietnam, that had the Vietcong to make deep and penetrating attacks into several major cities in South Vietnam.

The Tet Offensive caused the US Government and Military to concede that the Vietnam War need a complete rethink of policies, strategies and tactics. It became a watershed event that marked the beginning of the slow decline in the US resolve to continue their singular involvement in defending South Vietnam.

Has the Iraqis even the capacity to mount any major offensive that you seem to have seen, when no news agencies reported such an event ?

stupidissmart SG

The Palestinians had less than the Iraqis, and yet they did not resort to kidnapping of foreign workers, who are working in the midst of the Palestinian Community. Yet, the Palestinians are braver to confront Israeli bulldozers, tanks, and plastic bullets (that leave no metallic trace for easy removal).

Vietnam War ended in 1974, only about thirty years ago, not such a long time in history.

Although the terrain and vegetation is totally different, the national resolve remains the same between the Iraqis and the Vietnamese Freedom Fighters, and with both up against US Occupation Force.

Sure, while weapons platforms and systems may have changed, you will note that ground warfare remains brutal, with street to street fighting - by the way, you will be surprised to learn that not all the wars in Vietnam were fought in the jungle, but much were fought in built-up areas, in the cities

The Vietcongs will charge up hills, knolls, and plateaus, that accomodate the outposts, firebase, and fortified bastions of various US forces stationed across South Vietnam. The Vietcongs will also pop up and occupy large sections of a main city, or lay an ambush to trap an entire US military brigade

Wow... how exciting... u sure these events take place ? Sounds more like scenes from saving private ryan.

During the Vietnam War - the US Military had committed more then 600,000 men to combat in Vietnam, while in the current war in Iraq, the US has less than 300,000 men in Iraq.

because in tat time, they can only use infantry for attacks. Now they do not need to. The number of people is not necessary a good guage of anything.

The disbanded Iraqi Military numbered more then ONE MILLION Men, and if everyone carry a gun - grenades and explosives being so easily available - surely, the Insurgents need not resort to kidnapping, and killing of innocent Nepalese - only IF these Insurgents had the courage similar to the Palestinians or the Vietcongs.

Where do you wish to lead us with your confused reply ?

The Jordanian Companies "r american allies companies isn't it" ?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Are you certain that this is "one of the most effective way for them to achieve the effect of making US lives harder" ?

Why not ? the lives do get harder isn't it ?

How did you come to this conclusion that the lives of the American Military is getting harder - while sitting comfortably in Singapore ?

Did you not see them having a wild time in posing with the Iraqis in the famous Prison photos ?

These guys are having fun, and trying to make the best of their stay there.

Since when does the US Military ever neglect giving the best to their soldiers ?

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

I believe tat seems to be a lie. Nothing to make their lives harder ? Who r u trying to bluff ? Surely america can see his old allies leaving one and one ? Surely america can see lesser and lesser countries supporting his occupation ? Surely the price of reconstruction work has increase and it will put a pressure on the budget ? Surely bush is facing the fact tat he may not continue his term ? Surely the whole america is becoming more and more isolated due to his blunder in attacking iraq ? Hardly made a difference ? I believe america had made MAJOR adjustments and TACTICS to due with tis new response. I believe the price tag of the war has increase tremendously due to tis new responce. The cost of rebuilding increase, decreasing support from allies, increasing number of death of americans, its own citizen getting increasingly frustrated and dis illusioned, own agencies like inelligence losing all repuatation, increasing shame from issues such as wedding bombing and prison treatment, unified the terrorists more, losing friends who had earlier support for the war etc. Not harder ? Boy... u really set a high benchmark.

How many countries that declared support for the USA in this 'Coalition Led War in Iraq' had actually pulled out ?

From the published account reported - only Spain and Philippines have pulled out from the coalition of US led force in Iraq.

Two from a coalition of THIRTY COUNTRIES is "lesser and lesser" ?

"One by One" EQUALS only TWO.

By your standards it is not surprising that you consider this as a flight AND that the USA is now isolated and alone fighting in IRAQ.

If your views are shaped only by news reporting from Western Journalists, you should also be discerning enough to know that unlike Singapore Journalists that tow the Government line, the Western Journalists have their own POLITICAL AGENDA to push.

It is sad if your views are shaped so easily, and you can be easily disheartened and wavering to lose sight of the TOTAL PICTURE and ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE of unseating Saddam Hussein - which was to prevent his mad pursuit for an Islamic N-BOMB, and his possible collaboration with the OSAMA BIN LADEN types in endangering the World.

Have you forgetten that prior to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein remained defiant to end, and had refused to allow the return of UN Weapons Inspectors to perform their tasks without interference; and that Saddam Hussein continued with his game of deception that resulted in NO ONE being able to confirm if he had or had not any WMD - when overwhelming evidence from earlier inspections confirmed their existence, and Saddam's use of WMD against his own Kurdish group and against Iran during the 7 Year War.

While the world community dithered and wavered by continuously prolonging the process to give Saddam Hussein another opportunity to co-operate, it was unfortunate that Saddam Hussein took this as a sign of weakness from the World Community, and played a game of poker to split the UN and buy time for himself and his ambition - ignoring the change in mood after 9-11.

It remains DEBATABLE concerning the correctness of the US-UK led war against Iraq, and it nevertheless resulted in everyone having the BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT that there is a CERTAIN POSSIBLITY that WMD do not exist in Iraq.

It is unfortunate that this is part of the fog of war, in which collateral damage will always occur even with the best of effort when A SINGLE WEDDING was accidentally bombed - due to poor intelligence not deliberate murder.

However, the spirit of the larger community of American Citizens and its Military will hardly change - despite the grumblings in the manner that the war is being managed. The fighting spirit to prevent another 9-11 attack remains intact despite your attempt at trying to promote the private agendas of Journalists in promoting the views that the US spirit is dented by one accidental bombing of a wedding, a handful of miscreants abusing prisoners, intelligence failure or failures, and a death toll of 700 US lives lost.

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

R they not getting nearer ? IMO from the begining of the war till now, the attitude of increasing number of people, even the american has shifted to condemn the war. I believe a good sign is the early handover of power to the iraqis. They expect severe attack on the actual day thus they have to embarrassingly postpone the date of the handover earlier. Isn't tat a sign tat iraq has already given the american a tought time ? Remain entrenched ? By hiding in their fortified compound bah... tat is why the iraqis can capture the workers so easily. Since these great powerful troops r so called entrenched in iraq, why can't we see them doing anything to prevent more abduction or rescue of the hostages ?

What is the population size of USA ? What was the numbers that were counted in protest of the war ? Do not shape your views by using the sensationalism of the press.

Was the postponement of the handover date due to a fear of an expected severe attack, or was it due to last minute haggling over power sharing with the Shiite Community and their Religious Council ? Are you bending the already sensational news to suit your views of the situation in Iraq ?

Before emabarking on a discussion on Military Occupation, will you read up on doctrines and different philosophies concerning Military Occupation before we get into an endless exchanges that lead us nowhere ? With some deeper reading and understanding of the Military Doctrines and Concepts of managing an Occupied Land, you will then not be asking "why can't we see them doing anything to prevent more abduction of rescue of the hostages ? ".

Atobe SG

Continuing post by stupidissmart:

Not large scale ? Why does few hundred american die after the war ? Why does the american lose control of some cities during their occupation period ? The iraqis offensive do make US rethink their policies, and probably assist in changing of power from the republican to democrats. As said before, american now is no longer the same as during the vietnam war. Now, the US launch thousands of precision missiles before the fight. Almost all infrastructure was already gone before they send in the first soldier. Troops fighting become minimal, with the use of armoured personal carrier, tanks, planes, missiles and artillery. Moreover there r a lack of cover in the desert. I am pretty sure people can hide in the forest easier than in the cities.

Did the US Military lose 700 odd lives from ANY SINGLE MAJOR OFFENSIVE by the Iraqi Insurgents, or was it due to deaths occuring one or two a day - from road side bombings and sniper gun fire ?

Did the US lose control of some cities, or was it lost by the provisional Iraqi Government, who could not manage the cities that were return to Iraqi rule ?

Would you bet on the Democrat replacing the Republicans in the upcoming US Presidency Election ? Such confidence from your statement must have come from your visionary powers of a clairvoyant.

Your information concerning the destruction of all infrastructure is weird, even when your views are dependent on the Western Journalists with their private agendas.

If you care to return to the news reports covering the bombings of Iraq before the launch of the GROUND OFFENSIVE, it was widely reported that INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES remained intact - unlike in the first Iraq war of 1992.

Where did you pluck your information from - the 1992 Iraq War or the 2003 Iraq War ?

Should I get into further debate with your narrow views concerning military issues ?

Surely, one has to adapt oneself to each terrain so as to reinforce one's position in anticipation of any aggression.

By your insistence that the jungle can afford better cover than cities, are you suggesting that Singapore should not put up any effort to defend ourselves, since we have no jungle to protect ourselves ?

In an urban environment such as in Lebanon, the various factions fought themselves and the Israeli into a deadlock, and so did the Russians when they fought the Nazi Germans into a deadlock at St Petersburg.

There were famous battles fought in the open dessert by using cunning, deception, and superb leadership between the British and Nazi German Armies during WW-2; and also between the Eygptian and Israeli Armies during the Yom Kippur War. Were there jungle cover for these armies ?

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Braver ? u mean bombing themselves in front of discos, bars, bus and subway braver ? Sorry man, they r not braver. they go for soft targets which includes their own people. Wat is the difference between bombing civilians and killing hostages without negotiations ? Please take note tat they r fighting the isrealis, who will receive a greater blow if their own people die. In the end they r the same. They just find the most effective way to achieve their goals.

You seem to prefer to deny yourself the SUBJECT of this thread, and lead us into a useless debate that started from your non-understanding of basic issues.

Did the Palestinians attack foreigners who are working WITHIN the Palestinian Communities - there are foreign citizens from Europe, UK and USA, and Japanese working to help the Palestinian Community ?

There are reports of large numbers of Asians working in the Israel, and areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and also in Lebanon.

Are these foreigners kidnapped and murdered by Palestinian Radicals ?

At least, the Palestinians sacrificed their own lives by committing suicide bombings DIRECTLY against their Israeli enemy, and did not idly take the lives of INNOCENT foreigners working within their Community.

Surely you will be able to see this simple difference in situation ?

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Vietnam War ended in 1974, only about thirty years ago, not such a long time in history.

It started in 1961 and it is a long time ago. Science and weopons had changed drastically then. During 1974 people don't even use computer except for mathematical calculations. The RAM of their computer can't get beyond 1 Mbyte while the processor speed is the ancestors of 486. Even your handphone now is more powerful than their most super computer then. During those short 30 years, wat happened to the development of computers ? Wat is the weopons available then and the weopons available now ?

Is 1961 that long in time in History - it is only 43 years ago ?

During the Vietnam War period, although technology maybe represented by the computer being a predecessor of the Intel 486 - (according to your piece), it still represented the FAR SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY that the US Military had employed during the Vietnam War, and which the Vietcongs had to face.

It is not merely about weapon platforms, but more about the quality of the leadership and the people fighting in defense of their homeland.

Even in this day, the Palestinians are less technologically equipped, and yet has been able to put up a DIRECT fight against Israel and her Military.

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Although the terrain and vegetation is totally different, the national resolve remains the same between the Iraqis and the Vietnamese Freedom Fighters, and with both up against US Occupation Force.

The terrain and vegetation is very important. Forest make troop move slower, supply reach harder, ambush easier, hiding easier, being seened from air harder, use of war vehicles reduced etc. It totally change the mode of war.

Surely you must agree that one must adapt to the terrain.

If the Israelis or the Eygptians or the Syrians were to believe in your concept that it is more advantageous to fight in the jungle, then they will have to hurriedly plant more trees in their environment - enough to create a jungle, so as to fight any battles or wars to their own advantage.

Are you serious in your knowledge of military warfare ?

Atobe SG

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Boy I am really surprise. R u sure MOST fightings occur on the streets and not on anywhere else ? Sorry man, I believe a lot of contact r met in the jungle as well. They used a lot of tunnels for the attack on cities. I thought most part of the country and most fightings take place in villages and the jungle. Most part of vietname r still rurals areas than isn't it ? BTW vietnam r not as isolated as u sound, They have the support of communist russia and china. It is the use of topedo boats built by russia tat sunk USS Maddox 28 in 1964. They r all seen using russia made AK47 Kalashnikov assault rifle and rocket propelled grenades. Supplies were known to have been deliever by rail from china to north vietnam. I am pretty sure the support from these 2 communists countries do count a lot.

During the Vietnam War, as much as there are contacts made in the jungles and rice fields, there were major battles fought in the MAJOR CITIES of South Vietnam too.

The Tet Offensive brought the Vietcongs into the heart of Saigon, resulting in their occupation of the US Embassy and major Government Buildings in Saigon.

The Vietcongs also occupied the old Royal City of Hue, and held the US and South Vietnam Military into a stalemate for many weeks.

Tunnels were also used in the jungle - despite the coverage from the thick foliage - and some of the tunnels allowed the Vietcong to live directly under the US Air Force major airbase at Tan Son Nhat Airport.

All these showed the resolve and ingenuity of the Vietnamese leadership that led the resistance against the US and South Vietnamese Military.

As much as Vietnam had received moral and material support from Russia and China, the Iraqi insurgents are not alone either. They are quietly supported by Syria and Iran - both of whom have been accused by the US and the Iraqi Provisional Government, for opening their borders to allow the passage of insurgents into Iraq, bringing with them weapons, ammunitions, and money.

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Wow... how exciting... u sure these events take place ? Sounds more like scenes from saving private ryan.

Are you sure you watched the right movie about the Vietnam War ?

Saving Private Ryan was from a WW-2 movie, no wonder you got confused with history and even with the Title of this Thread.

Try "Platoon", or "Apocalypse", or "The Green Beret".

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

During the Vietnam War - the US Military had committed more then 600,000 men to combat in Vietnam, while in the current war in Iraq, the US has less than 300,000 men in Iraq.

because in tat time, they can only use infantry for attacks. Now they do not need to. The number of people is not necessary a good guage of anything.

Try harder if you want to be more convincing, or to show at least some depth in your knowledge about the workings of the military.

For your information, during the Vietnam War, the US employed over 500 Huey helicopters, over 200 planes of various types, at least 3000 M-113, and over 200 M-60 Tanks, as well as over 200 artillery guns. It was not an entirely infantry war.

By quoting or misquoting only extracts of my posting, and giving a skewered reply to reflect your own preferred limited response, you have not honestly addressed the issue raised in my post.

If the Vietcong could battle 600,000 US Soldiers into a final withdrawal, without resorting to any kidnappings of foreign or fellow-Asian workers, is it not cowardly of the Iraqi Insurgents - who will outnumber a smaller US Occupation Force that is only 300,000 ? Read my text carefully and give a more honest reply.

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Wat is the use of talking manpower here ? R u sure viet congs have lesser fighters than iraqis fighters now ? As said before, science, terrain etc plays a bigger part than mere numbers. They can't win an armoured personal carrier or tank with pistols.

If you depend entirely on science and terrain, which you believe will "play a bigger part than mere numbers" - then perhaps you can forget about the psychological aspects of resolve and commitment, preparation and training too.

Conitnuing post by stupidissmart:

Where do you wish to lead us with your confused reply ?

The Jordanian Companies "r american allies companies isn't it" ?

Who is the one trying to lead the reades into confusion ? As usual, u start to launch personal attack on the person instead of on his points after some time. The US r snug enough to declare only companies from country tat supported the attack on iraq be given the contract for rebuilding it isn't it ? The questioning is not really questioning, it is forcing u to accept the facts and figures written by it. Wat is the end effect ? Making lives harder for the US. U can't read ?

I certainly can read the views of someone, who depend entirely foreign news reports without any filter of careful thinking, and willingly form set opinions that are skewered and without much substance.

Attacking you personally and forcing you to accept my view points ?

If your views are being challenged, does it amount to attacking you personally ?

As much as you are entitled to a printed statement of my effort, am I not entitled to a right of reply in the same manner ?

To point out one of your skewered views formed by your reading of the press reports can be seen by your posed question - "The US r snug enough to declare only companies from country tat supported the attack on iraq be given the contract for rebuilding it isn't it ? "

By using your method of inference, are you claiming now that Jordan had supported the US Government in attacking Iraq, since it is now clear that the 12 murdered Nepalese were employed by Jordanian Companies to be involved in the logistics work ?

Did the Jordanian Government support the US Government ?

Now who is confusing the events by making unsubstantiated statements ?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by paperchicken:
As usual Atobe is blind to the facts before him and oppose for the sake of opposing and opposing everyone who oppose him and wanting to be right and win every arguement every time.

Should facts be allowed to be skewered ?

Should misrepresented or wrong interpretation of facts go unchallenge ?

Does challenging someone's position amount to personal attack ?

Does relentless effort in pursuing an issue equal to being personal ?

Is it wrong in trying to be right - all the time and every time ?

Is it more correct to be wrong and remain wrong ?

Should we just turn a blind eye, "give chance" and let the wrong information go unchallenge ?

Why be so "chicken" in voicing your opinion on "paper" ?

Will you allow a "stupid statement to look smart " ?

stupidissmart SG

How did you come to this conclusion that the lives of the American Military is getting harder - while sitting comfortably in Singapore ?

i have said making lives harder for american, NOT american troops. Similarly, how do u know the lives of the military is not getting harder - while sitting comfortably in singapore ? I have stated the may reasons ranging from increase in budget for reconstruction to losing allies in this war. R they wrong ?

Did you not see them having a wild time in posing with the Iraqis in the famous Prison photos ?

These guys are having fun, and trying to make the best of their stay there.

Shocked Wat r u trying to say ? u think tat America troops r having fun in iraq because they humilate and torturing iraqis ? So they r trying to make the best of their stay so it is okie for them to do tat ? In your past reply, u said there many people r killed in the prisons under saddam control. Now america r doig exactly the same thing.

Since when does the US Military ever neglect giving the best to their soldiers ?

Hmm.. maybe by letting them return to america soon rather than keep extending their stay in iraq ? Will their homes and loves ones be less comfortable than iraq ?

How many countries that declared support for the USA in this 'Coalition Led War in Iraq' had actually pulled out ?

From the published account reported - only Spain and Philippines have pulled out from the coalition of US led force in Iraq.

Two from a coalition of THIRTY COUNTRIES is "lesser and lesser" ?

However how many countries joined in this cause after the hostages taking ? It appeared tat before the hostage taking incidents, several more nations pledge to put troop, or increase the troops in iraq to relieve the american troops. Now wat happened ? All the nations r either pulling out the troops or not going to send in troops after the original stipulated time. Some r even more drastic like the case of Spain and Philipines. And of course, u probably forgot about the red cross society and UN who also either left or reduce the number of people residing in iraq. Wat is the rest of the nations tat "remains" ? Probably only left Britain, and he is not having a good time with tis war either.

The rest of the countries tat supported do it probably due to pressure from the US, and from studies, they do not make up of more than 3% of the world total population.

The most visible and vocal members of the coalition are from the region that U.S. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has dubbed the new Europe. Most are lured by their desire to enter
NATO and to maintain a strategic relationship with the United States after joining the EU. On
February 5, 10 European nations issued a statement expressing support for U.S. policy on Iraq,
stating we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its [UN Resolution
1441s] provisions and the disarmament of Iraq."23 The signatories included Albania, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. All except
Croatia are in line for NATO membership. However, as with Bulgaria, they must gain approval
from all current NATO members, which means that President Bush could block or delay approval

MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirates): The absolute monarchies of these countries are all dependent on the United
States for help to keep them in power. All these countries mostly tiny and all oil-rich are
militarily dependent on the United States through arms purchases, training, and the presence of
U.S. bases. They are the closest to Iraq and govern populations strongly opposed to U.S. war
plans. Reflecting that public anger, all of them voted in the mid-February unanimous decision of
the Arab League to oppose any Arab country providing military assistance to any war on Iraq.
But their reliance on the United States was strong enough that they cast that vote while already
providing bases, overflight rights, and direct staging areas for the Pentagons Gulf build-up. For
example, according to a forthcoming article in The Nation, Jordan is hosting U.S. special forces
and collaborating with U.S. intelligence agents. In exchange, they hope to seal a deal for an
additional $1 billion in U.S. aid.26

TURKEY: With some 95 percent of the country opposed to war, the Turkish government has
played hardball with U.S. officials determined to use the countrys bases in the assault on Iraq.27
As of February 24, the U.S. government had reportedly offered Turkey a package of $5 billion in
grants and $10 billion in loans to soften the arrangement. Although the deal must be approved by
the Turkish parliament, it is likely to pass, as the ruling party holds a significant majority.
COSTA RICA: After Costa Ricas UN ambassador gave a statement in favor of continued
inspections, the countrys foreign minister ordered him to resign, stating that he had not received
authorization for the speech and that his remarks conflicted with Costa Ricas official position.
Within a day, the foreign minister abruptly reversed his position and reinstated the ambassador
after receiving what he described as an appropriate apology and the assurance that future
statements would be authorized. The Costa Rican government is no doubt jittery about straining
relations with the United States, since it is in the middle of negotiating a free trade agreement
between Central America and the United States. Costa Rican President Abel Pacheco is one of
the most fervent supporters of the negotiations, which began in January 2003.

the other issues at a later time

stupidissmart SG

Frankly 911 is not wrong about nations involved. These nations r not only dependent on US one way or another, they cannot contribute much to the war either.

http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf

If your views are shaped only by news reporting from Western Journalists, you should also be discerning enough to know that unlike Singapore Journalists that tow the Government line, the Western Journalists have their own POLITICAL AGENDA to push.

Really, but amazingly no matter where I get information from anywhere, there is a clear signal tat the attitude of the people have shifted towards condemning the war. Where do u get your news from ?

It is sad if your views are shaped so easily, and you can be easily disheartened and wavering to lose sight of the TOTAL PICTURE and ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE of unseating Saddam Hussein - which was to prevent his mad pursuit for an Islamic N-BOMB, and his possible collaboration with the OSAMA BIN LADEN types in endangering the World.

It is sad to see your view remains so stubbornly the same, even after detailed investigation shows tat saddam has no capability and means to produce any N-bomb and any collaborations with Osama. He has never done such things before, and u r already proclaiming him guilty. R u saddam ? How do u know he will act as such in future ?

Surprising talking about N-bombs, North korea HAVE it, PUBLICLY announce it and THREATHENED to use it them and america do nothing towards them.

Have you forgetten that prior to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein remained defiant to end, and had refused to allow the return of UN Weapons Inspectors to perform their tasks without interference; and that Saddam Hussein continued with his game of deception that resulted in NO ONE being able to confirm if he had or had not any WMD - when overwhelming evidence from earlier inspections confirmed their existence, and Saddam's use of WMD against his own Kurdish group and against Iran during the 7 Year War.

HUH !! Do u get your facts right ? Saddam has given total cooperations toward the UN weopons incestigators and the investigators have proclaimed COOPERATIONS have met and NO SUCH weopons were found. They even asked american specialists to do the inspectors but america refuse ! Wat else can they do ? It is like someone accuse u of theft, refuse to do any investigations or show any proof and beat u up.

Wat do the US do then ? He REFUSE to give the weopon investigators MORE TIME, refuse to provide detail information on the supposed WMD and he launch the war IRREGARDLESS of the fact tat it is ILLEGAl in the UN assembly. He insisted they have WMD and attack nonetheless ! And after attacking, they really found nothing ! Why r they so stubborn and refuse to heed the advice of the weopon investigators ? They attack based on intelligence which is all wrong !

Own kurdish people ? iran ? As said by u before, they r about 10 years ago ! America had attack iraq then too base on these reasons and they had received their punishment. Why attack iraq again based on the same reasons 10 years ago ? U might as well attack iraq again in 2014 based on reasons 20 years ago.

It remains DEBATABLE concerning the correctness of the US-UK led war against Iraq, and it nevertheless resulted in everyone having the BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT that there is a CERTAIN POSSIBLITY that WMD do not exist in Iraq.

huh !? benefit of hindsight ?!?! Please, before u strike out any blow, one must provide ample reasons tat justified such actions. iraq do not need a war, they just need more weopon investigations which the US refuse to do it. Certain possibility ? For korea is a 100% COMFIRMED ! No one deny the fact tat north korea has weopon of mass destruction, why don't they do anything ? Com'on the double standard is because iraq has oil !

However, the spirit of the larger community of American Citizens and its Military will hardly change - despite the grumblings in the manner that the war is being managed. The fighting spirit to prevent another 9-11 attack remains intact despite your attempt at trying to promote the private agendas of Journalists in promoting the views that the US spirit is dented by one accidental bombing of a wedding, a handful of miscreants abusing prisoners, intelligence failure or failures, and a death toll of 700 US lives lost.

u r blaming everything on journalists ? They had done nothing but report on the truth, and they have done much in righting the wrongs of the prison abuses and making the america curb its senseless bombings. Where r u when the "journalists" claim tat saddam has WMD and the weopon investigators are useless, which turn out to be all wrong ? Isn't reporting on false lies to support the political agenda a worse form of "journalism" ?

What is the population size of USA ? What was the numbers that were counted in protest of the war ? Do not shape your views by using the sensationalism of the press.

Funny, according to survery, it report the PERCENTAGE of people claiming the war is unjust is higher than the people who claims it is just. Does the population have any effect on it ? Instead of comparing the number of people in protest to the population of america, why not compare it with the population of tat city alone ? Do u think america is so small and people r so free to fly from one end to another to protest ? Sensationalism of press ? u kno wwat is sensational ? Claiming tat iraq has WMD and claiming it can attack europe in 10 minutes Laughing Claiming a ordinary truck to contain and build WMD when it is just an ordinary dumpster ! Tat is sensational !

« Previous Page Next Page »