Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Civil War in Iraq? Where is it?

Recommended Posts

Guest

No link, because this is an E-mail from a friend in Iraq.

This is what he has to say about this nonsense about a Civil War.

quote:

Hi All,

We keep hearing the news talk of civil war this and civil war that. Please do not despair as it is not here in Southern Iraq nor when I was in Northern Iraq. People here go about their normal lives and the occassional problems we run into are from a small group of people not some large insurgency.

I have found myself thinking that its a civil war but it is not. Baghdad and the surrounding areas seem to be having this major problem but no where else. The governors of the provinces and the elected officials go to work and do their jobs all over Iraq. It is only in Baghdad. The best analogy is riots in Washington DC and news around the world claiming that the entire United States is in a civil war. Its ludicrous.

Changes are needed in some parts of Iraq to get things moving back in the right direction and I dont have those answers nor the expertise. I am a soldier, not a politician and I am a Sargeant not a General. Those issues are in their hands and thats where they should be.

Just remember that the news loves to build on the hype and stir up the masses. Just wait and give this the proper time it needs. Do not despair.

As for us here in Tallil, it has been quiet since mid October in the sense of no rocket attacks. Thats a blessing right there.

Looking forward to going home for leave. Only 9 more days for me!

Be Blessed,

Mitch

What about the "I support the troops, but not the war."?

Here is his take on that.

quote:

This was written to my son as he has a teacher who has made the infamous statement. Read on and I hope the message is taken the right way.

----------------------------

Dear Son,

Since our discussion about your teacher, I started thinking about those that support the troops but claim they do not support the war. Please tell him thank you for me for his support. I wrote my thoughts below for you so that you can see why I and other soldiers have a a problem with that statement. I love you son and hope this helps you to get an even better idea of what we think. It is written for anyone to read.

------------------------------

I Support the Troops but not the War! I am so tired of hearing that statement. I must first say that there are some people out there who truly believe that this statement is a way of showing thier displeasure with how things are going yet also tells the troops that you are behind us. I feel they have been tricked in one of the best examples of Orwellian Doublespeak. What you may not understand is the message it sends to us over here.

When you say "I support the troops but not the war", what is it that you are saying to me? Are you telling me that its OK that I enlisted in an all volunteer Army and that you feel sorry for my ignorant decision to join? I signed the papers and I raised my hand and gave my oath to defend and protect. I knew when I went back in that my chances of being over in Iraq or Afghanistan was high. Is it ignorant of me to believe that I am protecting my family and my country?

When you say "I support the troops but not the war", do you mean that Im OK but that the War on Terrorism is wrong? Or do you mean a particular portion of the war? If only Iraq, why Iraq and not Afghanistan? What about the Phillipines where we helped the government get rid of Al Queada in their country? Or maybe you mean Kuwait or Israel or Indonesia or Pakistan or Bosnia? Or maybe the entire world?

When you say, "I support the troops but not the war", are you telling me that its better to have Iraq torn to pieces in a civil war and its ok to let Afghanistan to be ruled again by the Taliban? Are you telling me that the lives of children in this part of the world means less to you than the children playing in the park down the street? Is that what you really mean? I find that hard to believe.

I have been in uniform and passed by protestors in my state as they hold the signs telling us they want us home and spit on my car. They have torn off the magnets attached to my wifes car that said "Pray for my soldier", I have heard the cursing and swearing. Since I lived through the VietNam war I know how they operate. They have given you a new slogan that makes you feel better, "I support the troops but not the war"! The reality is they don't support the troops. They have tricked you into believing that it is a sign of support when it fact it feeds those that oppose anything and everything we are doing. It is wrong and it is insulting. The only war we are actively engaged in is the War on Terrorism. So is that the war you are against? I dont believe that you have forgotten 9/11. I dont believe that you want the terror to spread. I can not believe that!

Please trust me that we know that you Mr. and Mrs. America do support us and we do appreciate it. It is OK to believe that our leaders are not taking us in the right direction; that's what being free is all about. You can vote those out of office who you do not agree with. The only thing I ask is to please be very careful. If you vote for those who say "I Support the Troops but not the War", you may be supporting candidates who do not believe that we need to keep our country safe by destroying the terrorist before they hurt our families. You might be supporting candidates who will pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the men, women and children of these countries open to genocide or at the very least revert to living under a brutal dictatorship.

If you really support the troops then drop the rest of the statement. Just tell us, "We support you" and leave the rest out. And if you truly believe that we should not be in this war at all, then dont lie to me and tell me you support me. What I hear does not make sense. It's like saying, "I support the poor but not the war on poverty!"

Wake up America and dont let these people use your good intentions for their benefit. Say what you believe and vote the way you believe.


I think that's enough for right now for you to digest.

He will be coming home on leave for Christmas and I look forward to seeing him and his family.

He was the Manager of an electronic retail outlet, but decided that he would better serve his family and his country if he went back into the Army.

He KNEW, not just thought maybe, but KNEW that he would be going to Iraq if he rejoined, and he did it anyway.

This man has my fullest respect and admiration, and it is a joy to recieve E-mail and pictures from him.

If you would keep Mitch in your thoughts and prayers, I would appreciate it, even if you disagree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

If you would keep Mitch in your thoughts and prayers, I would appreciate it, even if you disagree with him.

I shall do that. All the best to him and the rest. Especially during the big holiday coming up.

As for the rest, I was thinking the same thing. You only hear about bagdad having the major issues not much from anywhere else. Well, just as stated, you go to where the center of power is to cause trouble. I really really really really really hate our media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

thats awesome Jag. ill definitely throw in his prayers along with my lil bros who ships out to ramadi in feb... at least he gets to spend xmas with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that letter would've even been passed on to Jag if it instead said that there is a civil war. Don't you think that Sunnis and Shias are not in war with each other?

Remember that Iraq is an artificial soveirgnity with artificial borders. European imperialists divided those areas as the saw fitting, regardless how the nation's were spread before. So they created a land with many nationalities in it, and it is not going to solve without a civil war, a dictator or by extended presence of foreign force.

Saddam was that dictator, he kept nationalities in bay with his iron grip. Now Allied forces are the foreign force that keeps relative peace by its presence. Leaving now or in coming few years would undoubtely cause a real outbreak of civil war, so you'll have to extend the presence in iraq if you want the mission to be accomplished.

Unfortunately, senator McCain is right when he wants to add the quantity of forces in iraq to solve the problems with peace in there. Unfortunately, really.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Volio, your naivete is rather amusing, your claims that McCain is right, is not amusing, because he is not, claims that there is a civil war is complete and utter nonsense. This iron grip crap is just that, crap.

Your just another one of those elitists that believe that Muslims can't have Democracy, are incapable of it, well, You're wrong, as usual.

I shall give you what needs to be done.

A: war rules apply, no more PC war.

B: We shut down the border to Syria and Iran, nothing goes out, and nothing goes in from those countries.

C: we speed up the training process, and get the Iraqi military doing a bit more then it is already doing.

D: We tell Iran and Syria to stay out of it, or they will feel our wrath, because we have lots of wrath to use, and I mean LOTS!!

E: We come down on the terrorists and insurgents like a ton of bricks, you are caught planting an IED, out to the back 40, tied to a pole and your brains splattered across the fields. You are caught sniping at a US Soldier, you will be shot on sight, no trial, no nonsense, you will be dead.

And Last but not least.

F: We fix the oil pipelines and get the oil flowing, to get the cash flowing back into Iraq, so that it is not our money propping it up and rebuilding it, but their own.

With the borders closed, pretty soon the insurgency will run out of bodies, and equipment, with the oil flowing, the economy will take off on it's own, and with the federal government in place, the Iraqi military will take over and we slowly get out.

The Iraqi people are capable of Democracy, we just need to give the opportunity to prove it. After 30 years of Saddam, it takes time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We close3 down the borders between Iraq and Iran, and Iraq and Syria, nothing from either of those countries comes in or out of Iraq.

Why do I have to spell such things out for you guys?

And the Insurgency and terrorists are coming from Iran and Syria, NOT from within Iraq itself.

Please, please, get a grip on reality.

There is no need to go to war with Iran, but we tell them that if they continue to attempt to interfere in Iraq, we can and will give them a little party.

If Europe doesn't like it, or whines and cries, so Fricking what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BTW, do you know what brought the world out of the great depression, and into the prosperity of the 50's and 60's?

WORLD WAR II, that's what.

The world couldn't afford World War 2 either, but after the war was won, we had one of the largest economic growths in history.

So to say that the world cannot afford another war, is silly on it's face, history tells us otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag, again I must disagree with you. First of all, I'm not saying that muslims cannot have democracy, what I said was that democracy in Iraq won't work before its nationalities has settled down their differences, either by agreeing on common rules or by becoming independent. Most likely a civil war of some extent will be needed. If not civil war, then the other two methods I listed in my 1st post.

You blame Syria and Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, which is only half truth if its true at all; there is growing evidence that the support for insurgents comes from other muslim countries as well, like Egypt and Iraq's neighbour Saudi-Arabia. I don't know how much press reports there, but at least here we have multiple articles where Iraqi Officials blame Saudi's for supporting insurgency there.

Besides, not long ago, Egyptian police arrested group of students which were suspected of planning terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere in middle-east. Group consisted 1 US citizen, 11 europeans plus many arabs.

So, you gotta lotsa to do if you gonna block all three borders and freeze the money and support coming from other than those countries.

When you say there's no civil war, we must assume that Kofi Annan is mixed up in his mind, because he claims indeed that there is a civil war? Oh dear, I'm not sure whether I should believe you and one suspicous letter from your pal in Iraq, or my own interpretation which is based on quite a extensive research which I'm able to do from my armchair

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

quote:

The world couldn't afford World War 2 either, but after the war was won, we had one of the largest economic growths in history.


You cant possibly believe you can compare those wars on the level of economic impact.


I fail to see why they can't be compared. WWII, in my estimation, nearly destroyed the economies of Europe while leaving the US mostly untouched. I realize that the dollar, pound sterling, or whatever unit of monetary value you swear by has changed in the sixty years or so since the war ended but it is possible to take into account inflation and get a pretty good comparison of the cost of the war in todays currency. I'm sure that back then there were naysayers too that said the cost was too great. Thats just the way government works. Someone will always say its too expensive unless it deals with where he lives and suddenly it becomes necessary for the survival of the species. I digress. Can you explain your reasoning behind why the two wars can't be compared in terms of finantial cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

quote:

The world couldn't afford World War 2 either, but after the war was won, we had one of the largest economic growths in history.


You cant possibly believe you can compare those wars on the level of economic impact.


I fail to see why they can't be compared. WWII, in my estimation, nearly destroyed the economies of Europe while leaving the US mostly untouched. I realize that the dollar, pound sterling, or whatever unit of monetary value you swear by has changed in the sixty years or so since the war ended but it is possible to take into account inflation and get a pretty good comparison of the cost of the war in todays currency. I'm sure that back then there were naysayers too that said the cost was too great. Thats just the way government works. Someone will always say its too expensive unless it deals with where he lives and suddenly it becomes necessary for the survival of the species. I digress. Can you explain your reasoning behind why the two wars can't be compared in terms of finantial cost?
1) Because we don't live in middle of 20th century anymore, the costs are going to be higher.

2) Because those who are affected by the possible conflict are going to be different one from those of WW2.

3) Because the full scale world war with modern warfare are going to have quite different affect to the post war world.

Those are the few reasons I could think of from this seat.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

1) Because we don't live in middle of 20th century anymore, the costs are going to be higher.

2) Because those who are affected by the possible conflict are going to be different one from those of WW2.

3) Because the full scale world war with modern warfare are going to have quite different affect to the post war world.

Those are the few reasons I could think of from this seat.

-v

It's obviously time for you to change seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Voli0:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

[qb]

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

[qb]

1) Because we don't live in middle of 20th century anymore, the costs are going to be higher.

2) Because those who are affected by the possible conflict are going to be different one from those of WW2.

3) Because the full scale world war with modern warfare are going to have quite different affect to the post war world.

Those are the few reasons I could think of from this seat.

-v


Ok.

1.One may or may not be true, again you have to compare apples to apples. A quick check tells me that WWII cost nearly 3.6 trillion dollars in todays money and we were still ~50 billion (not telling me if it's adjusted or not, I'm assuming it is) in the hole in 1941 so I think that this is a non-issue. We won't know for sure if the costs will be higher or not until after the whole thing is over so again this can't be used as a basis for deciding to fight. In a crude way it's like saying I'm not going to upgrade my computer because it will cost more than the last one I bought. But I digress far from the intended point of your response Back to your point, adjusting the cost from WWII into todays dollars would provide an accurate comparison despite the different time periods. So, in a thin attempt to give relevancy to the previous, if WWII cost 3.6 trillion dollars and we, at most, have spent 600 billion dollars on Iraq, I would say that the cost is not nearly as great as WWII in roughly the same duration.

2. How does this have any bearing on the comparison of the costs of the war? WWII was fought in Iraq and Iran as well. The difference here being that the epicenter of the conflict is not in Europe allowing Europe to take a role similar to America's in WWII. The complexity and instruments may be different but war will always cost treasure, among other things, and that doesn't change based on where its being fought or who is affected by it. By tallying the costs of both conflicts based on a standard an accurate comparison can be made of cost. To attempt to put it in the vernacular, you are saying that because a piano is listed in yen you can't compare a piano with a price in US dollars and then insist on not converting the yen to dollars to compare the pianos.

3. Define modern war. WWII introduced many elements that have since been refined in todays conflicts. WWII was the first war of movement, a trait that is a key element of all "modern" wars since. When it's boiled down, all that has changed in 60 years is the accuracy of our weapons, the destructive potential of conventional weapons and the survivability of soldiers and equipment. Basically we accomplish more with less thanks to a great force multiplier called technology. Where the great bomber formations of WWII were needed to ensure a target was hit, a single aircraft and a smart bomb can accomplish the same thing. The basics of modern conventional warfare haven't changed since WWII. But for all of our technology, once we hit urban combat the effect will be the same as WWII's bombers had. case in point, Fallujah was nearly flattened in the urban combat. It doesn't matter when a war is fought, by who, or with what weapons; the effect is always the same: destruction of an enemy military and civilian infrastructure in an attempt to break his will to resist. Failure to accomplish both in combat will lead to an insurgency where your objective remains the same though your methods must change to undermine source of the insurgency's strength. Unfortunately we are too politically correct and overly sensitive to our enemy's needs that we refuse to take the distasteful steps needed to ensure victory. Respect and know your enemy but leave him no quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that puzzles me and the one thing thing that's kind of contrary to media reports is the condition of the currency exchange rate.

Since the end of the war and the introduction of the bremer iraqi dinar, it has actually increased in value. It started out at 1695 dinar for every dollar. It's fluctuated all over the place. Dipped a bit to 1491 in september but now has maintained a value of 1424. The lowest I've ever seen it. Seems the banks aren't all that worried about what's going on over there.

CBI: Current rate

PDF file: Currency exchange history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Back to your point, adjusting the cost from WWII into todays dollars would provide an accurate comparison despite the different time periods. So, in a thin attempt to give relevancy to the previous, if WWII cost 3.6 trillion dollars and we, at most, have spent 600 billion dollars on Iraq, I would say that the cost is not nearly as great as WWII in roughly the same duration.


So they are not comparable least in this aspect. War in Iraq is lot less expensive so far. But I think our little depate is on wrong tracks because of a slight misunderstanding. War in Iraq is not yet on the WW scale, but of course it could expand.

What comes to the modern warfare, which is more devastating in many sense than WW2 weaponry was, there are many weapon developments that outrun older weaponry easily in capability to cause long term destruction. Like depleted uranium and many kind of biological and also other type of nuclear weaponry. You are right that many of are expansions or developments of WW2 warfare, but there are also some new addons in arsenal that WW2 armies didn't have, like helis.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Depleted Uranium causes absolutely NO long term impact, and whoever told you that it did is full of it and lied to you.

Depleted Uranium has less radioactivity then the background radiation of the earth itself, and if breathed in, in heavy doses, can and will cause heavy metal poisining, just as Lead does.

Just because it has the word Uranium in it, does not make it dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't claim that in such certainty. What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, it is a real threat.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volio, in a sense he can, don't forget; United States troops use Depleted Uranium Shells in our M1 tanks and none of them have been infected with any lethal poisoning.

And we've been using Depleted Uranium Shells for quite a while none and no one's died from handling them.

Here's a breif description for you:

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.

DEPLETED URANIUM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

You can't claim that in such certainty. What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, it is a real threat.

-v

YES, I can claim that with ABSOLUTE certainty.

I used to work with the stuff, I have been fully trained in it's dangers, "heavy metal" poisoning, and it's "radioactivity".

Yes, on the first, there is a danger, because heavy metals are toxic, and it will not leach into the water supplies, it is as heavy as lead, and does not wash away from the area of impact, nor through the soil easily at all. and the 2nd, is a bunch of nonsense. Radioactivity? Get a grip on reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you so sure that it doesen't leach?

What about the children living in the areas where DU has been used? They are greatly in danger to get it in their system if they play in the area.

And what about your own soldiers that were exposed to it during the desert storm? Yes, they had to get exposed to DU from the fragments of friendly fire and they're still having higher uranium amounts in their urea, and they've been reporting strange symptoms. Even it may not be deadly, but it certainly doesen't positively contribute on one's health.

If you're claiming that it is safe, then give a DU bullet to your kids to play.. what the hell, its not even dangerous.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a DU Projectile.

The dust is what is dangerous, nothing else.

The radioactivity is WAY below any danger level.

You are in more danger from your snoke detector, or even your own house, Radon, then from a thousand pounds of DU.

Yes, I am also trained in Radon.

To freak out about a little bit of radioactivity is stupid, ignorant, and outright ridiculous.

As I said, DU is dangerous if ingested for it's heavy metal properties, NOT radioactivity.

There is more radioactivity in your own house, coming from your own monitor, then there is from DU.

To claim that DU is dangerous radioactivel is ignorance at it's best.

It's radioactive, so it must be dangerous, get a grip on reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had kids I'd probably not let them play with it because something that small would probably pose some kind of choking hazard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well look on the bright side, at least Jaguar would find his kids at night *runs away*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

To freak out about a little bit of radioactivity is stupid, ignorant, and outright ridiculous.

As I said, DU is dangerous if ingested for it's heavy metal properties, NOT radioactivity.

There is more radioactivity in your own house, coming from your own monitor, then there is from DU.

To claim that DU is dangerous radioactivel is ignorance at it's best.

It's radioactive, so it must be dangerous, get a grip on reality. [/QB]

Shut up man. Look who took it as an issue. I barely mentioned it when referring to modern warfare and you started to freak out about it! You should get a grip of reality, as you like to say. I never even mentioned it radioactivity, did I??

No matter what, I still doubt that you would give your awesome DU bullet to your kids for them to play with it.

Read other people post dude, or I begin to wonder whether you are able to read at all. I NEVER MENTIONED RADIOACTIVITY BEFORE THIS POST.

-v

PS. I hope you can read this thread carefully through again.. Skimming through obviously is not working for you, as you cannot regonize the points out of the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe I gotta learn to write, for this is possible the reason why you freaked out Jag:

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

You can't claim that in such certainty. What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, it is a real threat.

-v

But it is supposed to be an answer for this:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Depleted Uranium causes absolutely NO long term impact, and whoever told you that it did is full of it and lied to you.


Let me clarify the 1st quote, it should read something like these instead:

You can't claim that in such certainty(that DU doesent cause long term health effects). What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, (leaching in water supplies) is a real threat.

I hope that would clarify things up for a bit.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×