Soldier's mother Cindy Sheehan in Bush protest

[pbman]

I didn't say the US were the only country to arm Saddam, but arms and military equipment aplenty came his way from the US from 1983 onwards. Britain did the same - a formal ban on arms but arms sales via third parties and disguised as non-military equipment.

No-one supported Saddam on the security council dickbrain. It's that 'you are either with us or with the terrorists' crap again isn't it. By your logic the USA supports everyone they are not raining bombs down on.

Originally Posted by Groucho
I know the truth about Sadam. A vicious dictator armed by the US. When he gassed the Kurds in 1988 the US blamed Iran!

Your right, you only strongly implied it to fool idiots i presume.

Meanwile back in reality i found it funny that we only armed him 1%, you choose to ignore the other 99%.

So tell me why was that?

 

[pbman]

No-one supported Saddam on the security council dickbrain. It's that 'you are either with us or with the terrorists' crap again isn't it. By your logic the USA supports everyone they are not raining bombs down on.

LOL

Your memory is no better on this than it is, on who armed him.

Come back with some credibility next time.

 

[Groucho]

And ask them who they are fighting.

They do know that.

Its bathist thugs and terroists from out of the county.

US Republican politicians have repeated that lie ad nausium but the US military have now accepted that there is a mixture of foreign supporters and home grown resistance fighters and that they have wide support amongst the Iraqi population.

Do you think the Shia resisters in Falluja were Ba-athists?!

Who do you think has taken to the streets in their 100,000s only yesterday?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And check the reinlistment rates for those same kids who say they didn't want to go their.

They re-inlist in much higher numbers than others in the military.

Thats a fact. Sure they don't like it, its a hot as hell and people are trying to kill them.

But they go back, time and again.

Prove it.

 

[pbman]

Prove it.

Its extreamly well known.

Or doesn't your press tell you this?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Go on then, should be easy.

 

[phildwyer]

Talk to those kids about what going on in the country, ask them what civil works are being done and so forth. You will see a vastly different picture than the press gives you.

And ask them who they are fighting.

They do know that.

Its bathist thugs and terroists from out of the county.

And check the reinlistment rates for those same kids who say they didn't want to go their.

They re-inlist in much higher numbers than others in the military.

Thats a fact. Sure they don't like it, its a hot as hell and people are trying to kill them.

But they go back, time and again.

They've got no choice. They can't get decent jobs, and there's no welfare.

 

[pbman]

Go on then, should be easy.

TEn seconds with google.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm

 

[pbman]

They've got no choice. They can't get decent jobs, and there's no welfare.

Unemployment is at record lows.

And most of them could go to school with the gov't paying for it...........

So they do have options other than starvation.

Hell they could go do the same job, for a priviate contractor, at 4 times the pay.

 

[phildwyer]

Talk to those kids about what going on in the country, ask them what civil works are being done and so forth. You will see a vastly different picture than the press gives.

All of them, without exception, said that the situation was completely fucked up, and that the lives of the Iraqis and occupiers alike were utterly miserable and extremely dangerous. Not one of them thought the occupation had done any good at all.

 

[Groucho]

Meanwile back in reality i found it funny that we only armed him 1%, you choose to ignore the other 99%.

So tell me why was that?

I am sorry you did not understand the links I posted up. They show that the US armed Saddam's regime by selling arms via third countries. This means that US made weaponry. US brokered a sale with Iraq. US 'sold' arms to a third country who already had a buyer - Iraq - organised by the US. These arms sales are then not recorded within the figures of sales from US to Iraq.

US also sold military hardware such as helecopters and trucks directly to Iraq but listed these as non military sales. Therefore most sales of US equipment to Iraq do not feature in the stats.

I hope you understand now, I realise it is all a bit complicated for you. I wish I could show you with toy trucks and a map of the World...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That makes no statement about re-enlistment of troops who have been in Iraq.

It certainly makes no statement about their motivations. The fat cash bonus might be significant (or else why would it be offered?)

 

[pbman]

US Republican politicians have repeated that lie ad nausium but the US military have now accepted that there is a mixture of foreign supporters and home grown resistance fighters and that they have wide support amongst the Iraqi population.

Do you think the Shia resisters in Falluja were Ba-athists?!

Who do you think has taken to the streets in their 100,000s only yesterday?

I'll belive the many many people i know who have been their myself.

Hell your european press, just hides in the proteced zones, wtf would they know?

 

[Groucho]

Hell your european press, just hides in the proteced zones, wtf would they know?

And so increasingly does the US military

 

[rocketman]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

And here's a good one:

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

There's a complete chronology of US involvement in Iraq which explains the truth behind the chart you offered.

You can find the facts here

I would also dispute the reenlistment statements you make regarding returning soldiers in the US, as many reports exist which categorically state that the US military has been unable to meet its enlistment targets.

Also consider the plight of a soldier, after four years of active duty, having been indoctrinated to fight and having known the 'thrill' of live combat, on returning to their poor, unemployment-ridden home town, where they can't find anything equal to that excitement, what are they going to do?

Like any kind of addict, some go back for another fix.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Re-enlistment doesn't make up the shortfalls at all; from pbman's link:

The high re-enlistment rates would make up about one-third of the Army's projected 12,000-troop shortfall in recruiting, although the re-enlistments won't address some key personnel vacancies, such as military police and bomb-disposal experts.

 

[pbman]

That makes no statement about re-enlistment of troops who have been in Iraq.

It certainly makes no statement about their motivations. The fat cash bonus might be significant (or else why would it be offered?)

Then google around,its very well known.

 

[pbman]

Re-enlistment doesn't make up the shortfalls at all; from pbman's link:

WEre talking about the us army,not yours.

12,000 isn't off by much.

 

[pbman]

And so increasingly does the US military

Right thats how they get killed.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Then google around,its very well known.

No, you do it, you're the one making the claim. I've not heard it anywhere and I read all sorts of US shit.

 

[rocketman]

Right thats how they get killed.

No. They get killed by the elites - on both sides - who are manipualting the situation as they carve themselves a power base.
I was one of a million people who marched in London to protest against the war.
I saw Michael Franti's movie last weekend at a festival. He went to Iraq. There was an image of a four-year old boy with his legs blown off. That is not right.
War creates problems. It does not solve them.
I pity the poor boys and girls who have been sent to fight there, as much as I pity the thirsty, poor grieving Iraqis who are stuck in the middle. And I am very very angry that the US gov is not counting civilian casualties. That shows an ultimate disregard for the feelings of the population there. If the dead do not count, then on what basis is the war for Iraqi freedom fought? If Iraqis do not matter, then what is the moral high ground for the war based on?
One drop of blood is too much.
I cried when I saw the picture of that poor little boy.
That is the true cost of war.
Just stop it.

 

[Groucho]

pbman - what are you going to do about the reported 5,000 US soldiers who have gone AWOL? The US military family campaign against the Iraq war has over 2000 members and is growing fast. A majority oppose the war. More and more US soldiers are being killed and many are badly injured. US military advisers have lost their initial misplaced optimism but Bush soldiers on from the comfort of his desk with an ever dwindling aray of fanatical supporters.

 

[pbman]

No, you do it, you're the one making the claim. I've not heard it anywhere and I read all sorts of US shit.

Us shit?

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-954557.php

And this is interesting, we missing our goals cause we are expanding the military.

Through the end of July, the Army was on pace to miss its annual goal by more than 10 percent. It raised the target in fiscal 2005 as part of a long-term effort to expand the force by 30,000 troops, to a total of 512,000.

And this.

Schoomaker said recruiting problems are offset by high retention among active divisions, especially in units that have served or are serving in Iraq. He said the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501697.html

 

[pbman]

pbman - what are you going to do about the reported 5,000 US soldiers who have gone AWOL? .

Compare it to the prewar, AWOL rates for one thing.

Being listed AWOL doesn't mean that 5,000 people are hiding or refusing to go to iraq.

Come back with some real numbers, in context.

 

[rocketman]

Here are some recent reports that variously illustrate the moral redundancy of the proposed constitution, Bush's slow move toward some kind of megalomania, the strong-arm tactics of the US military, images showing the consequences of such tactics, and proof that US military recruitment is not up to scratch.

Top Sunnis in Iraq govt lash out at charter

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

US forces, fighters clash

The Photos Washington Doesn't Want You To See

US Army recruitment lagging

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And who sets the goals? That's meaningless. Hard figures plz.

Recruitment is still failing to meet targets, as the title shows: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal". Perhaps everybody who would have joined has already done so.

 

[pbman]

No. They get killed by the elites - on both sides - who are manipualting the situation as they carve themselves a power base.
I was one of a million people who marched in London to protest against the war.
.

Well we don't like bathist thugs who are the modern eqivilant of hitler and his thugs.

If you guys would supprt what is best for the people in iraq, you might have some criedibility. But giving up to bathist thugs who will imiedietly start killing in much higher humbers than they did last time, isn't an option for anyone.

Thats why the people in iraq, can't ever give up, so they will ultimetly win,and defet the bathist thugs and the terroists.

They have no other choice.

Its win or die.

 

[pbman]

And who sets the goals? That's meaningless. Hard figures plz.

Recruitment is still failing to meet targets, as the title shows: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal". Perhaps everybody who would have joined has already done so.

But they moved the goal post by 30,000.

The ecomony is still doing quite well.

But goal, are just that goals, at the end of the year, we will have hard numbers, and weather they met those goals and have the numbers they need.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There's not enough soldiers by the admission of the military, who would have no cause to lie, and there's no indication that Iraq veterans are reinlisting disproportionately, which would be rather odd if it were the case.

 

[pbman]

and there's no indication that Iraq veterans are reinlisting disproportionately, which would be rather odd if it were the case.

Yes their is, they have one number for their re-ilistment goal, and it applies to all units, its the same number.

Schoomaker said recruiting problems are offset by high retention among active divisions, especially in units that have served or are serving in Iraq. He said the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates.

If the other units who hadn't been in iraq also met the same percentage thier would be a surpluse of people in the militay, as they have new people coming in.