12 Italians Dead in Iraq!

[laurentius]

you do understand that i use the word americain because it sounds french....

[DinoDoc]

I thought it was because you couldn't spell.

[Datajack Franit]

I thought it was because you missed a chromosome but I liked DinoDoc's explaination too

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by axi
Why do you all have the EU flag below your name? Does it make you proud or something?

I've lived my adolesence in Belgium. I've travelled all over western Europe as a kid. I love the 7 years I spend in Belgium (as a kid and later for post graduat studies) and I feel it's my second country. Greece and Belgium. So this is my way of saying where I belong. So primarily it's sentimentality. After that I do believe in a united Europe (something that I know you disagree with, if not done appropriately to your ideas ) and that's the second reason.

[Datajack Franit]

Boooo! I expected Paiktis to post some acid comment, tsk tsk how disappointing

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't need to. Italy has the largest left wing population in Europe (wether you like it or not) so I'm sure they can continue the matter

[Sandman]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not at all. The left tends more to gloat than to ask why.

Let me put it this way: I was opposed to the war up until when it started. I was opposed to it when it started, but mostly because of the lack of preparation.

The war is a done deal, so there's really not much point in "opposing" it - any more than "opposing" Hitler - he's dead, that issue is disposed of.

What isn't disposed of in Iraq is what happens now and in the future. Do all the "get out" lefties want us to give it back to Saddam? Or just let the armed and organized factions (Baathists and various Shiite factions plus Kurds) just fight it out and may the most ruthless win? Or just ***** about anything the US and the US' allies do?

What exactly is it you want to accomplish at this point? In realistic terms of the situation on the ground and the domestic factions in Iraq and their agendas? And how would you go about accomplishing this?

I simply find the right's tendancy to use patriotism as a way to limit free-speech repugnant. Especially the idea that once a war is started, 'we must get behind the troops', or 'the time for talk is over'.

Things I'd have done/would do differently, once the war ended.

I would not have started on Syria the moment the war ended. Stupid, seeing as how the security situation has not improved, and Syria's help would have been handy. I doubt they're being quite as zealous as they might be in apprehending terrorists, thanks to the Bush admin practically saying 'you're next'.

Involve the various exile groups less. Especially that convicted fraudster Chalabi.

Involve the mosques more. They did more to quell the looting than the occupying forces did. Try to use Islam to your advantage, pointing out Saddam's secular past. Prevent any fundamentalist Christians from preaching.

Don't take over Iraqi municipal buildings. Had the US left the school alone in Fallujah, it wouldn't be the problem it is today. Don't use Saddam's palaces as bases. Taking Saddam's place, both symbolically and literally, will only increase Iraqi ill-will. Build less luxurious, but less intrusive bases out of town.

Use the palaces as makeshift orphanages, hospitals, whatever. Just let the Iraqis see them.

Don't treat the Iraq like a corporate jamboree. Don't privatise everything in sight. Give Iraqi contractors favoured status. Do whatever it takes to end mass unemployment.

And, for the record, I disagree with your plan of dumping more troops onto Iraq and using them to 'purge' troublespots, starting with Fallujah. The results would be street to street fighting, more logistics trouble, and more inflated military costs. And martyred cities.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Sandman
I would not have started on Syria the moment the war ended. Stupid, seeing as how the security situation has not improved, and Syria's help would have been handy. I doubt they're being quite as zealous as they might be in apprehending terrorists, thanks to the Bush admin practically saying 'you're next'.

Quite the opposite is likely the case. I doubt the Syrians would do anything about terrorists (other than aiding and supporting them) without the fear force being applied to them if they didn't..

[Sandman]

Quite the opposite is likely the case. I doubt the Syrians would do anything about terrorists (other than aiding and supporting them) without the fear force being applied to them if they didn't..

I expect the gain in that area (if any) is outweighed by the outrage in the Arab world at threatening another Arab country after just invading one. And a neighbour of Israel, who would be certain to grab more land if Syria was attacked.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought it was because you couldn't spell.

No, I use it just to piss of americans


Datajack chill out...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by laurentius
No, I use it just to piss of americans

So you're just stupid and it wasn't a typo then.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

In the first place Berlusconi isn't a convicted criminal as in 10 years of fake processes he was never found guilty

please feel free to take your head out of your ass.

By the way, my little, precious and probably challenged friend, there are italian carabinieri in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and there used to be carabinieri in Somalia as well- why don't you just pick up something like, er, a newspaper or a book? Maybe you would find out.. something?

Your "english" looks terrible, from what I understood you go straight to the personal insults department because thats all you got.
The italian carabinieri in kosovo and afghanistan dont really have anything to do with this, do they. War on terror and UN/NATO peacekeeping is completely separate from this Bushs and Berlusconis war for oil and national intrests. Surely you arent stupid enough to think that Berlusconi really wants the good of the Iraqi people. The carabinieri are of course not responsible for their moronic PMs actions but, these things happen in a war, especially to the occupying forces and italians are part of that occupation whether you admit it or not.

So why dont I just pick up a news paper- howbout Panorama- and find out something Like more propaganda from Berlusconi? Monica Belluccis boobs? What?

So what if Berlusconi sent troops in Iraq? Previous italian PMs (lefty of course) sent soldiers war-ravaged countries for several missions aside the humanitarian purpose, and also gave permission of using italian airbases in order to perform bombings and air-strikes. So, a lefty PM can bomb countries and send people to die, while the others cannot send troops for humanitairna efforts.. my my, you really have got a point now, how blind I am

I'm glad to see youre agreeing with me
So what you are saying is left just bombs people and sends italian troops to die while Berlusconis reasons to sent troops were just humanitarian and peacekeeping? What do you think he is, saint or something? You remind me of Fez...alot

I see, some people recall only those actions that are useful to their rants.. very funny indeed

How many times do I have to tell you this. I dont care what american democrats have done and I dont want to hear any of it. A) Because it's completely irrelevant and B) Who the hell told you american democrats were a leftist party anyway. They are moderate right wing or centre party in my standards. So get this: I dont give a sh!t about Clinton, Dems, Kosovo bombings or Monica. It was you who brought them up.

It's capito, as it's present, not past ptcle. From now on, try not to speak foreign languages, as the results are really awful- I should suggest you some good english and/or italian courses, which you should take BEFORE making fun out of two languages in one single post.. you poor thing

Yes my mistake. Sorry about that. I assume you got the point anyway, if not read above. Capito?



Dinodonc: In MtG's words Bite me

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


Actually they are supposed to be sad for the families of the palestinians suicide bombers, but I am pretty sure that some israeli blood here and there will cheer them up in a second

I find this very insulting
I think you should apologize.

And to be sure: the vultures that are trying to profit from this are in the right-wing. They hope to regain the consensus from this tragedy. The're scrambling to say that is "Our 11/9" and Nassyria is "like ground zero", hoping that the tragedy has the same effect on the PM approval that 11/9 had on Bush's.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Sandman


I simply find the right's tendancy to use patriotism as a way to limit free-speech repugnant. Especially the idea that once a war is started, 'we must get behind the troops', or 'the time for talk is over'.

Things I'd have done/would do differently, once the war ended.

I would not have started on Syria the moment the war ended. Stupid, seeing as how the security situation has not improved, and Syria's help would have been handy. I doubt they're being quite as zealous as they might be in apprehending terrorists, thanks to the Bush admin practically saying 'you're next'.

Involve the various exile groups less. Especially that convicted fraudster Chalabi.

Involve the mosques more. They did more to quell the looting than the occupying forces did. Try to use Islam to your advantage, pointing out Saddam's secular past. Prevent any fundamentalist Christians from preaching.

Don't take over Iraqi municipal buildings. Had the US left the school alone in Fallujah, it wouldn't be the problem it is today. Don't use Saddam's palaces as bases. Taking Saddam's place, both symbolically and literally, will only increase Iraqi ill-will. Build less luxurious, but less intrusive bases out of town.

Use the palaces as makeshift orphanages, hospitals, whatever. Just let the Iraqis see them.

Don't treat the Iraq like a corporate jamboree. Don't privatise everything in sight. Give Iraqi contractors favoured status. Do whatever it takes to end mass unemployment.

And, for the record, I disagree with your plan of dumping more troops onto Iraq and using them to 'purge' troublespots, starting with Fallujah. The results would be street to street fighting, more logistics trouble, and more inflated military costs. And martyred cities.

I couldnt agree more. Also I think going after the workers unions is not a good policy. USA shouldnt take sides against PKK or get involved in anyway into anything that is between the kurds.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sandman

Things I'd have done/would do differently, once the war ended.

I would not have started on Syria the moment the war ended. Stupid, seeing as how the security situation has not improved, and Syria's help would have been handy. I doubt they're being quite as zealous as they might be in apprehending terrorists, thanks to the Bush admin practically saying 'you're next'.

You aren't in possession of enough facts to make a valid criticism. The U.S. threatened the Syrians for a reason. Namely they were allowing Baathist elements up to and possibly including Saddam Hussein to move across the border at will. Also, most of the funds being used to bribe poor Iraqis into making attacks on coalition troops came from accounts in Syria. Additionally they were the source of most of the early jihadists to infiltrate Iraq. They not only came into Iraq from Syria, they were Syrians. We had enough experience with this sort of "neutrality" during the Vietnam war. If someone is making war upon the U.S. we are going to point it out and do something about it. Btw, a lot of these activities have either stopped or have been seriously toned down. I think the results of our reaction have been well worth whatever effect threatening Syria would have. I don't see any demonstrations where people are chanting "hands off Syria", even in Syria.

Originally posted by Sandman
Involve the various exile groups less. Especially that convicted fraudster Chalabi.

Agree about Chalabi, though some of the exile groups can be very useful in that they speak the language and have some experience with western political and economic institutions. But we can't (and haven't tried to) simply place them in charge of Iraq.

Originally posted by Sandman

Involve the mosques more. They did more to quell the looting than the occupying forces did. Try to use Islam to your advantage, pointing out Saddam's secular past. Prevent any fundamentalist Christians from preaching.

I think we are using the religious institutions of Iraq to our advantage. It is a two-edged sword as there are a number of mosques that are virulently and violently opposed to us, so I'm not sure what sort of utilization percentage we can hope for as compared to what we have going already. Its a lot easier to talk to the mullahs in the Shiite zone than anywhere else, especially in the Sunni triangle where we might as well simply level every mosque for all the good talking will do us. As for the fundies preaching in Iraq, I'm torn. On the one hand the Muslim tendency toward histrionics does favor your approach. On the other hand if we could get people to simply listen to a fundy preach they'd probably see that there really isn't anything to worry about.

Originally posted by Sandman
Don't take over Iraqi municipal buildings. Had the US left the school alone in Fallujah, it wouldn't be the problem it is today. Don't use Saddam's palaces as bases. Taking Saddam's place, both symbolically and literally, will only increase Iraqi ill-will. Build less luxurious, but less intrusive bases out of town.

Use the palaces as makeshift orphanages, hospitals, whatever. Just let the Iraqis see them.

Sounds good in theory, but far too time consuming and expensive in practice. As for Fallujah, I doubt that the reason it is a hotbed of enemy activity has anything to do with a specific U.S. action, though they'd like you to believe differently. They want you to think that they are just average people who are rising against tyranny. Well we don't have enough troops to be a tyrannny, and where were they during the past couple of decades if they can't bear tyranny? Oh yea, they were perpetrating it on the rest of the country.

Originally posted by Sandman

Don't treat the Iraq like a corporate jamboree. Don't privatise everything in sight. Give Iraqi contractors favoured status. Do whatever it takes to end mass unemployment.

I have seen no evidence of a "jamboree" or of privatization. Obviously a lot has to be privatized eventually but I agree that that step for the most part should be further down the road. I also agree about unemployment, but that's a tough nut to crack even here in the U.S. where we haven't had our economy destroyed by decades of mismanagement, war, sanctions, abuse and theft.

Originally posted by Sandman

And, for the record, I disagree with your plan of dumping more troops onto Iraq and using them to 'purge' troublespots, starting with Fallujah. The results would be street to street fighting, more logistics trouble, and more inflated military costs. And martyred cities.

We can save lives in the long run by being as tough as possible on those resist. All we are trying to do is put a democracy into place and get out. They want Saddam back. Tough luck for Fallujah.

[Sloth]

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Sikander


The U.S. threatened the Syrians for a reason. Namely they were allowing Baathist elements up to and possibly including Saddam Hussein to move across the border at will.

So the Syrians would somehow magically have the ability to patrol their border with Iraq, better than, say, the U.S. is controlling their border with Mexico?

Have there been any proof that the Syrians have actively helped with any crossborder operations I would be interested to see them. I think we are long past the stage where anyone will take the simple word as proof of anything that is coming out of Washington these days.
The monopolization of truth has been severely shaken, and that might in fact be a sad thing, but it is hardly the listerners who can be blamed for this tragic turn of events.

[Giovanni Wine]

I'm sorry... but personally I feel disgusted by all this.

All this talkings about what the left would have done or not.

The problem is that now we ARE in this situation, and we need to solve as soon as possible.

Is the right-wing party trying to to use the death of these people in order to play on the patriotism of the people and gain more support? Probably yes.

Is the left-wing party trying to use the death of these people in order to critisize the right and gain more support? Probably yes.

I'm disgusted by politics and politicians, the people who died there have my same age, and some of them were from my same city.

I'm sorry for this vent, (which anyway since It's done in English it's hard for me to really express my feelings)

Saluti

[Datajack Franit]

please feel free to take your head out of your ass

I am pretty sure my ass has more active braincells than your whole useless organism

War on terror and UN/NATO peacekeeping is completely separate from this Bushs and Berlusconis war for oil and national intrests

Yes, of course, Italy sent soldiers because they wanted oil! Of course the UN will not send troops because there's no more oil left to them... how sad

So why dont I just pick up a news paper- howbout Panorama- and find out something Like more propaganda from Berlusconi? Monica Belluccis boobs? What?

For a foreigner you seem to be pretty informed about italian stuff.. of course there's plenty of that in "Finland"

Because it's completely irrelevant and B) Who the hell told you american democrats were a leftist party anyway. They are moderate right wing or centre party in my standards

Yes, it is completely irrelevant that it was the mess created during the Clinton administration to alienate the arab world against the west

I find this very insulting

Of course, lefty newspapers posting every day pictures of palestinian deaths, ignoring the israeli victims is not insulting. Claiming that Israel shouldn't exist as a nation is not insulting. Everybody knows what's the feeling of leftist extremists and arab extremists when there's a suicide attack against the israeli citizens: that too, is not insulting

And to be sure: the vultures that are trying to profit from this are in the right-wing. They hope to regain the consensus from this tragedy. The're scrambling to say that is "Our 11/9" and Nassyria is "like ground zero", hoping that the tragedy has the same effect on the PM approval that 11/9 had on Bush's

Maybe the right-wing countries should be happy of their own people's death and should celebrate, burning american flags and singing Allahu Akhbaru like the extremist arabs all over the world.. yes, you have my complete attention- as long as they're americans, they're Bush's evil army, so it is ok if they die, because the arabs are oppressed

This is a stupid thread, people only care about blaming each other and no one really gives a damn about the dead ones

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
This is a stupid thread, people only care about blaming each other and no one really gives a damn about the dead ones

Sad isn't it?

[Bereta_Eder]

Well something good must come out of it and it might as well be Berlusconi.

[Sandman]

You aren't in possession of enough facts to make a valid criticism. The U.S. threatened the Syrians for a reason. Namely they were allowing Baathist elements up to and possibly including Saddam Hussein to move across the border at will. Also, most of the funds being used to bribe poor Iraqis into making attacks on coalition troops came from accounts in Syria. Additionally they were the source of most of the early jihadists to infiltrate Iraq. They not only came into Iraq from Syria, they were Syrians.

Btw, a lot of these activities have either stopped or have been seriously toned down. I think the results of our reaction have been well worth whatever effect threatening Syria would have.

Regardless of whatever transgressions they've commited, which are probably no more than any of Iraq's other neighbours - undesirably porous borders, failing to catch jihadists, being part of the Islamic militant funding paper trail, I still consider threatening them before the dust over Iraq had even settled a mistake. Considering that Iraqi resistance is strengthening, I can't see how it had any positive effect.

Sounds good in theory, but far too time consuming and expensive in practice. As for Fallujah, I doubt that the reason it is a hotbed of enemy activity has anything to do with a specific U.S. action, though they'd like you to believe differently. They want you to think that they are just average people who are rising against tyranny. Well we don't have enough troops to be a tyrannny, and where were they during the past couple of decades if they can't bear tyranny? Oh yea, they were perpetrating it on the rest of the country.

There were tent cities and prefab command centres before the war began. Use them. I doubt they're any more expensive than the upgrades and repairs needed to get Saddam's palaces fit to use as US bases.

When Saddam fell, the Fallujans elected a new mayor. Hardly the acts of a people dedicated to tyranny. And then the Americans arrived, and claimed the local primary school as a base. When the people protested, the troops opened fire, probably without provocation. Until the Americans acknowledge their failure, it will continue to get worse.

We can save lives in the long run by being as tough as possible on those resist. All we are trying to do is put a democracy into place and get out. They want Saddam back. Tough luck for Fallujah.

Fallujah would probably be the most pro-American town in the Sunni region if US had never entered it. Getting tougher will end up as a complete bloodbath, dozens of Americans killed, hundreds of Iraqi dead, and even more costs for the US taxpayer.

If you feel the urge to punish the population for the actions of a few insurgents, you might as well leave now and save yourselves some money.

[Kirnwaffen]

Does anyone find any irony in the fact that the only part of the US Army actually trained in counter-insurgency is the only part of the Army that isn't in Iraq in force right now?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
You aren't in possession of enough facts to make a valid criticism. The U.S. threatened the Syrians for a reason. Namely they were allowing Baathist elements up to and possibly including Saddam Hussein to move across the border at will.

According to a government that has a severe credibility problem. Until I see indpendent confirmation of anything the Bush Administration says, it must be considered suspect.

[Drake Tungsten]

I feel bad for the Italians, but isn't comparing this attack to 9/11 a little ridiculous?

[Datajack Franit]

Why? I don't think that 11 deaths are less important than over 2000

[Drake Tungsten]

I do. I would also never compare 9/11 to the Holocaust, as 6 million deaths are more important than 2000.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I guess 12 deaths is a trolling opportunity...

sig material

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sloth
I find this very insulting
I think you should apologize.

Let me guess - you don't come to these forums often

[Datajack Franit]

Let me guess - you don't come to these forums often

No, he just comes to troll his lefty propaganda- and he wanted me to apologize, he really MEANT that!