Tell me again why we are in Iraq?

[SiliconAddict]

Because I'm really interested in if this is the "freedom" that we promised.....

Not for the faint of heart (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm)


They must feel so lucky that we are there to save the day.

[screener]

Because I'm really interested in if this is the "freedom" that we promised.....

Not for the faint of heart (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm)


They must feel so lucky that we are there to save the day.

To hear the Bushy's tell it they are.
A stronger warning of the nature of the pics would be nice.

[Voltron]

Reminds me of someone who was lecturing my use of anecdotal evidence :confused:


GOOD IRAQ NEWS BURIED AGAIN

So right now the G-8 economic summit is proceeding apace on Sea Island, Georgia. World leaders are gathered to discuss whatever it is they discuss, drive around in those nifty little golf carts and walk on the beach in business suits. Sounds more like a party, doesn't it?

Anyway, at this meeting is also the interim president of Iraq, Ghazi al-Yawar. Right now, all of the headlines out of the G-8 summit talk about how France, Germany, Canada and Russia still won't send any troops to Iraq. Bad news, huh? The whole summit must be a bust! Hardly.

Just listen to these comments from the interim Iraqi president, which are either being buried or not reported: "Thanks to the American people for the leadership of George Bush, without which we couldn't have been here. I would like to express to you the commitment of the Iraqi people to move toward democracy. We are moving in steady steps toward it." Al-Yawar also spoke about the coalition soldiers whose lives had been lost, saying that the people of Iraq would not let "the sacrifices that the brave men and women of the United States endured" be in vain. But wait...according to the media, the Iraqis don't even want us there! Yeah right.

Once again, the gratitude of the Iraqi people for their liberation by the United States is being silenced by the Bush-hating media. Just thought you should have the facts.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[Voltron]

Somethign to do with WMD's

MORE SADDAM WMD EVIDENCE

UN weapons experts have found 20 engines used in banned Iraqi missiles in a scrap yard in Jordan, along with other equipment that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. The UN team was following up on an earlier discovery of another Al Samoud 2 missile engine in the Dutch port of Rotterdam. Imagine that! Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he got rid of them. Wait..we already knew that.

It really might be just a matter of time before somebody finds the whole enchilada. Saddam was hiding something, or he wouldn't have kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998. Where did it go? What did he do with it? Is it in Syria? Jordan? Buried in the desert? Of course, the left and the media are fully on Saddam's side...he couldn't have possibly been lying when he said he had no banned weapons. Given his trustworthy record of compliance, we should have no reason to doubt his story. Uh-huh.

So what is it going to take? Sarin was discovered in Iraq, so was mustard gas. Now these missile engines and WMD-making materials...when will the doubters believe? The answer is that they already believe. They're not doubters. They know the truth. They're detractors. Their goal is to defeat George Bush and to weaken America. If tomorrow, the United States announced that they had discovered Iraqi nuclear warheads buried in the desert, Democrats and the media would accuse the Bush administration of planting them there. Defeating Bush comes first. Protecting us from terrorism comes second ... if at all.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[miloblithe]

So, this proves that one man who we appointed president of a country is in favor of the US occupation.

[katchow]

yeah, why don't we ever hear this kind of 'good' news...i mean, even though the iraqi people did not actually elect Ghazi al-Yawar...i'm sure if he says the people of iraq love us, it must be true.

katchow

[katchow]

actually that little article is almost to silly to comment on...though the sad thing is must have made good sense to somebody or it wouldn't have been posted...

[Voltron]

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

[screener]

" Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags."

Am I missing something, is Perricos saying the U.N. was helping move these components out of Iraq or were they deemed unusable.

[Voltron]

" Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags."

Am I missing something, is Perricos saying the U.N. was helping move these components out of Iraq or were they deemed unusable.
Perhaps the UN stamped them during the first time period of inspections, never got around to removing the stuff prior to them being kicked out and the stuff still had those old stamps on them? I hope the UN wasn't helping Saddam hide his WMD's, but then maybe the same people who were involved in the Food for Oil fiasco were?

[Dont Hurt Me]

All i can say is we are getting closer to 200 billion dollars of our American Tax Payer money- 200 billion! Osama is still roaming the desert, There were no WMDs, and our boys are getting killed everyday for a country of religeous fanatics. If that doesnt = Kick George out of Office i dont know what does.

[screener]

Perhaps the UN stamped them during the first time period of inspections, never got around to removing the stuff prior to them being kicked out and the stuff still had those old stamps on them? I hope the UN wasn't helping Saddam hide his WMD's, but then maybe the same people who were involved in the Food for Oil fiasco were?

You would think the inspectors would have mentioned it?
Helping to hide the stuff? That's a pretty big stretch don't you think?
Lets wait, lot's of "developing" stories fizzle out.

[mda01aqt]

Do you know what i find funny, how before the war, the american public was saying that the UN had no backbone, therefore couldnt deal with Iraq. This was cos the UN was waiting for evidence. Now the US public are wondering why they didnt wait for evidence before risking the lives of the future generation of the country as well as $Bn's of dollars which could have redistributed for health and education reforms.

Hope the stern followers of bush have learnt their lesson.

[skunk]

Hope the stern followers of bush have learnt their lesson.
Dream on! :rolleyes:

[screener]

Do you know what i find funny, how before the war, the american public was saying that the UN had no backbone, therefore couldnt deal with Iraq. This was cos the UN was waiting for evidence. Now the US public are wondering why they didnt wait for evidence before risking the lives of the future generation of the country as well as $Bn's of dollars which could have redistributed for health and education reforms.

Hope the stern followers of bush have learnt their lesson.

Don't be to hard on the public, they have to believe the people they elected know more than they do about matters of security, etc. and have to have faith that they will do the right thing.
It's the ones that can never admit a mistake that get me mad.

[Voltron]

You would think the inspectors would have mentioned it?
Helping to hide the stuff? That's a pretty big stretch don't you think?
Lets wait, lot's of "developing" stories fizzle out.
yeah like the head of the UN requiring all investigations into the UN food scandal keep silent about any evidence without first passing it by him for approval the very dude being investigated.

OK I know someone is going to ask me what dude etc.
I pulled my own quote from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70515&highlight=investigation

I havn't read about it yet on the internet but I heard on tv that Kofi Anan has issued letters to folks saying not to turn in any information about the oil for food fiasco without first passing it by him. Seems like they are trying to cover up their illegal dealings.

And I still havn't read about it on the internet. In fact I havn't heard anything new about this and in my mind this should be numero uno in priority. One way or the other this should be a major news item. How come more hasn't been reported about his letters and his attempted cover up?

[screener]

yeah like the head of the UN requiring all investigations into the UN food scandal keep silent about any evidence without first passing it by him for approval the very dude being investigated.

OK I know someone is going to ask me what dude etc.
I pulled my own quote from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70515&highlight=investigation

And I still havn't read about it on the internet. In fact I havn't heard anything new about this and in my mind this should be numero uno in priority. One way or the other this should be a major news item. How come more hasn't been reported about his letters and his attempted cover up?

This?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/opinion/14SAFI.html

[Voltron]

yeah like the head of the UN requiring all investigations into the UN food scandal keep silent about any evidence without first passing it by him for approval the very dude being investigated.

OK I know someone is going to ask me what dude etc.
I pulled my own quote from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70515&highlight=investigation

And I still havn't read about it on the internet. In fact I havn't heard anything new about this and in my mind this should be numero uno in priority. One way or the other this should be a major news item. How come more hasn't been reported about his letters and his attempted cover up?
ok now I'm confused

Its decision during World War II not to speak out publicly on the crimes being committed in German concentration camps for fear of compromising that neutrality continues to prompt passionate debate.

So it is difficult for the agency - so proud of its utter impartiality - to stomach the first suicide attack ever carried out against it, launched by those who apparently do not see it as a neutral and benevolent force.

"It's totally un-understandable," says the ICRC's Baghdad spokeswoman, Nada Doumani.

"We've been working in Iraq since 1980. People know us. They know exactly what we're doing and what we're doing it for and we are not associated with anybody in this country, with no political government, with no military. I'm shocked."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3217839.stm

course we are talking different cells here maybe some are friendly to the red cross and get their help in Palestine while others hate the red cross in Iraq?

[screener]

Yeah it's a complicated place, which begs the question, why did the Bushys think it would be easy. Forget all the changing rational, what the hell were they thinking and why do some people still think it was a good move.

[Voltron]

Yeah it's a complicated place, which begs the question, why did the Bushys think it would be easy. Forget all the changing rational, what the hell were they thinking and why do some people still think it was a good move.
Because either 1. Saddam was hidding WMD's and would most likely use it against our ally, Israel in the near future, or potentially use it to blackmail us to not interfere with his conquest of the middle east. Or 2. Saddam had no WMD's but wanted his neighbors to think he had them and used us to that end while making us look like fools. Trying to make it look like he was getting away with something.

Either case we had no choice but to go in. The first is self explanatory, the second is we couldn't risk other countries thinking it might be wise to do the same.

[wwworry]

Either case we had no choice but to go in.

Ha!

[screener]

Because either 1. Saddam was hidding WMD's and would most likely use it against our ally, Israel in the near future, or potentially use it to blackmail us to not interfere with his conquest of the middle east. Or 2. Saddam had no WMD's but wanted his neighbors to think he had them and used us to that end while making us look like fools. Trying to make it look like he was getting away with something.

Either case we had no choice but to go in. The first is self explanatory, the second is we couldn't risk other countries thinking it might be wise to do the same.

1. WHAT?
2. WHAT?

WHAT.?

[blackfox]

Because either 1. Saddam was hidding WMD's and would most likely use it against our ally, Israel in the near future, or potentially use it to blackmail us to not interfere with his conquest of the middle east. Or 2. Saddam had no WMD's but wanted his neighbors to think he had them and used us to that end while making us look like fools. Trying to make it look like he was getting away with something.

Either case we had no choice but to go in. The first is self explanatory, the second is we couldn't risk other countries thinking it might be wise to do the same.
There is some truth to what you are saying, Sly...I do not beleive that Iraq would have attacked Isreal, mind you, but the rest of your argument is valid.
If Saddam had waited until he had Nuclear Weapons to invade Kuwait, he would most likely be in possession of it, and most likely Saudi Oil fields also. He may have also bluffed for strategic reasons, stringing along the West...there is some evidence for that.

The validity of your argument ends with your last paragraph. We did not have to go in, even if what was said above proved true. Even if Iraq had succeeded in becoming a Regional Power by possession of WMD, that poses little direct threat to the US, providing we didn't intervene in the Region...we had dealt with and supported Saddam previously, and would most likely have continued for oil supplies, as we have done with both Iraq previously, and with Saudi Arabia currently. Iraq would probably not have attacked Isreal, as it was a secular ME State, like Syria...Even if we had decided that "we needed to go in", it could have been done in a more efficient way...with better planning and support of other neighboring countries, who would have a vested interest in a potentially dangerous regional hegemony. For whatever reason, probably stubborn ideology, we have indeed solved one problem - a potentially dangerous regional power, but have substituted a even more dangerous situation, in its' place...by our incompetent, arrogant and inflexible handling of post-Saddam Iraq.

[Voltron]

we have indeed solved one problem - a potentially dangerous regional power, but have substituted a even more dangerous situation, in its' place...by our incompetent, arrogant and inflexible handling of post-Saddam Iraq.
It took 6 years after we won WWII before Nazi Terrorist stopped being a major problem for us in Germany. What is going on in Iraq is typical not extraordinary. The only difference is we have the press over there reporting every little bitty detail of it.

[miloblithe]

It took 6 years after we won WWII before Nazi Terrorist stopped being a major problem for us in Germany. What is going on in Iraq is typical not extraordinary. The only difference is we have the press over there reporting every little bitty detail of it.

Ah Voltron/Slyhunter. I'm sorry. Only Rumsfeld and Bush (and Reagan before them) get to repeat lies so often that they come to believe that they are true. Where are you getting this nonsense that you spew? Try reading legitimate studies from real researchers, not blogs by right-wing ranters, and a whole new world--one based in reality--will open up before you.


"U.S. officials anticipated and planned to deal with significant residual German resistance following the surrender of its armed forces. Yet no resistance of consequence emerged then or at any time thereafter, much as in Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy (see Chapter Five). The large number of U.S. and allied military forces in West Germany and the establishment of a strong constabulary force preempted most resistance. Indeed, the constabulary force was specifically created to respond to incidents of civil unrest, conduct mounted and dismounted police patrols, interdict smuggling operations, and aid in intelligence gathering."

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

"The army-type occupation was comprehensive and showed the Germans that they were defeated and their country occupied. This type of occupation was presumably capable of squelching incipient resistance since none was evident."

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch18.htm

[diamond geezer]

The only difference is we have the press over there reporting every little bitty detail of it.

You're forgetting that Germany was a Christian country

[Agathon]

Because either 1. Saddam was hidding WMD's and would most likely use it against our ally, Israel in the near future, or potentially use it to blackmail us to not interfere with his conquest of the middle east.

You're kidding, right?

In no way would Saddam post GW1 have done anything other than make defiant gestures towards Israel. Any Arab country foolish to attack Israel would be swiftly beaten. Even if an Arab coalition managed to force Israel onto the back foot, the Israelis have nuclear weapons and would probably use them if facing defeat.

As for Saddam's conquest of the Middle East: when he actually had an army and air force with reasonable equipment he failed to beat Iran and had his hide tanned over Kuwait. As the US invasion showed, he wasn't a threat to any neighbouring country, and they weren't afraid of him and made a point of saying so. As it stood before the war, Saddam was under constant surveillance and would have stayed so for life, and he knew it.

The WMD thing is a complete smokescreen. He didn't have nuclear weapons and was under such heavy surveillance that he couldn't acquire them. No serious person believed that Saddam was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon. Even if he did manage to develop one in the future it would be completely useless. Nuclear weapons are useless offensively since any state using nuclear weapons on another would quickly become an international pariah and would be blasted out of existence by other nuclear powers. Nuclear weapons are defensive weapons designed to deter opponents from attacking. That's why the Israelis have them.

If he didn't have nukes he might have had chemical or biological weapons. The problem is that these are next to useless. Chemical weapons are battlefield weapons, which only really work against massed infantry (which is what Saddam faced in the Iran-Iraq war, and is why he used them). The kill rate for a chemical shell is about 2 enemies per shell - nasty, but hardly mass destruction. Similarly, bioweapons don't really work either. If they did, countries would pour vast sums of money into acquiring them. But they don't - most of the money goes to nukes, because nukes work.

As for giving chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, why would Saddam do this? If it was traced back to him, he would be annihilated. Why would he give them to Islamist terrorists whose stated goal is to overthrow governments like his anyway?

In any case, the problem is the same - they don't work. The Aum cult released Sarin in a closed and crowded subway system and only managed to kill about ten people - a nail bomb would have killed more. They also experimented with bioweapons, but that didn't work either. The anthrax attacks in the US killed less than half a dozen - hardly mass destruction.

But the killer is that it would be easier for terrorists to make their own chemical and bioweapons. It's not that hard, the Aum cult managed to do it. It's certainly easier than buying them of Saddam who would have been wary of revealing their existence to anyone had he in fact possessed any.

The whole thing was a smokescreen. There was no threat at all. The fact that Bush managed to hoodwink everyone we can put down to 9/11 and the immense fear it created in the US.

None of it adds up, as millions of anti-war protesters who bothered to think about it realized as soon as the drums started beating.

Or 2. Saddam had no WMD's but wanted his neighbors to think he had them and used us to that end while making us look like fools. Trying to make it look like he was getting away with something.

This is more likely to be true. But since such weapons would have functioned solely to deter, since his army wasn't capable of mounting significant operations against any of his neighbours it doesn't matter. In any case another attempted invasion would have been the end of him anyway.

Either case we had no choice but to go in. The first is self explanatory, the second is we couldn't risk other countries thinking it might be wise to do the same.

The first is a complete fabrication; the second is based on no credible evidence. The Iranians probably like the idea of invading Iraq, but even they realize that invading the world's second largest oil reservoir would lead to defeat at the hands of an international coalition in a similar manner to GW1. In fact invading Iraq and attempting to set up some form of democracy will probably allow Iraq to fall into Iranian hands given the ethnic ties between the Iranians and the Shia majority in Iraq.

If you ask me what the US is doing in Iraq, I really don't know. It doesn't make any real sense at all from the point of view of US interests.

[Voltron]

Ah Voltron/Slyhunter. I'm sorry. Only Rumsfeld and Bush (and Reagan before them) get to repeat lies so often that they come to believe that they are true. Where are you getting this nonsense that you spew? Try reading legitimate studies from real researchers, not blogs by right-wing ranters, and a whole new world--one based in reality--will open up before you.


"U.S. officials anticipated and planned to deal with significant residual German resistance following the surrender of its armed forces. Yet no resistance of consequence emerged then or at any time thereafter, much as in Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy (see Chapter Five). The large number of U.S. and allied military forces in West Germany and the establishment of a strong constabulary force preempted most resistance. Indeed, the constabulary force was specifically created to respond to incidents of civil unrest, conduct mounted and dismounted police patrols, interdict smuggling operations, and aid in intelligence gathering."

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

"The army-type occupation was comprehensive and showed the Germans that they were defeated and their country occupied. This type of occupation was presumably capable of squelching incipient resistance since none was evident."

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch18.htm
What they called no resistance of consequence then is now called dissatrous damaging with casualties now.

Example, I heard report "a huge battle is currently taking place in [wherever] at least 3 dead" excuse me but we use to call that a minor skirmich back during WWII or even as recent as the Korean or Vietnam wars. Of course that was back before the press had to magnify things beyond porportion in order to get ratings.

Thousands of Americans died after the war was won in Germany, not a measly couple of hundred as in Iraq.

[wwworry]

not a measly couple of hundred as in Iraq.

measly...

[Voltron]

measly...
Compared to hundreds of thousand in total during WWII yes measly.

So when you compare stories from then and now you have to take into account that what they called minor skirmishes back then we would call modern horrors with huge magnitudes etc.

I repeat it took 6 years to clean up all the "minor skirmishes" after we won WWII and compared to what went on then, what is going on now is nothing. If you discount the fact that the press magnify's everything greatly nowadays when they didn't back then.

[numediaman]

Ah Voltron/Slyhunter. I'm sorry. Only Rumsfeld and Bush (and Reagan before them) get to repeat lies so often that they come to believe that they are true.

Actually, you forgot to add Cheney:

Cheney says al-Qaida, Hussein linked, despite widespread doubts

By Mike Schneider
The Associated Press

June 15, 2004

ORLANDO · Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida, an assertion that repeatedly has been challenged by some policy experts and member of Congress.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al-Qaida."

Cheney offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Hussein and al-Qaida.


Too late, Dickey, the press has finally stopped believing your crap. Slyhunter, Rush and the boys at Fox are the only ones left listening to your propaganda.

Speaking of Dick:

[miloblithe]

What they called no resistance of consequence then is now called dissatrous damaging with casualties now.

...

Thousands of Americans died after the war was won in Germany, not a measly couple of hundred as in Iraq.

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

[IJ Reilly]

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

http://www.revisionism.com/

[Voltron]

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.
Its tough finding things that old on the internet.
One of the left over Terrorist groups were known as the Werewolf group which operated in both Germany and outside of its borders.

That there were many serious attacks by Werewolf all over Germany cannot be denied, but it must also be stated that, despite the enthusiasm and ability of the 5,000 members who passed through the training camps, the partisan force achieved little. Here and there the diligent researcher will find clues leading to happenings which occurred in the last days of the Reich and which, it can be deduced, were due to the actions of the National Socialist partisans. Conversely, there were ambushes, deaths and woundings which, in the hysteria of the time, were blamed by the Americans upon Werewolf but which can be seen, judged by today's objective view, to have been tragic, unfortunate accidents totally without sinister involvement.

The activities of Werewolf in the areas of the British Army in Germany were limited to isolated incidents, but one of these killed Major John Poston, who had been with Field Marshal Montgomery in the desert, in Sicily and in northwest Europe. As one of the Field Marshal's Liaison Officers, it was Poston's practice to drive about collecting for the British Commander those small items of military Intelligence upon which the leader planned his battles.

In the last weeks of the war, Poston, driving along a quiet country road back to Montgomery's headquarters from a liaison mission, was attacked by a group of Hitler Youth Werewolves. Their bursts of bullets struck his jeep, which then skidded off the road. Although wounded in the first volleys, the British Officer returned fire with his pistol until he was hit again by a long burst of machine pistol bullets and was killed.

There were many clashes between the young partisans and men of British armoured divisions.

The other western ally, the United States, met more opposition from the Werewolf bands. On 24th March, 1945, the Lord Mayor of Aachen was assassinated by Werewolf agents. He was not the only US appointed official to die at the hands of the partisans, but he was the most important, and the broadcast announcing his death on 1st April gave Reich Minister Göbbels the opportunity to gloat that the arm of the National Socialist Party was long and that its agents, the Werewolf, were vigilant, ruthless killers.

Werewolf was a secret no longer. Göbbels had officially announced that a German partisan movement existed, and he then went on to proclaim a general uprising of the whole German Folk against the invading Allied troops. This he also called Werewolf. The Deutschland Transmitter Radio Station broadcast a call to arms claiming itself to be the organisation of National Socialist Freedom Fighters. The call to action was taken up by another radio station, and very soon a whole program of propaganda for Werewolf was being transmitted. Once again, as in the days before the National Socialists seized power, the old, emotional slogans were heard. Slogans which had helped to defeat the Reds were heard once again on German radio, and each station broadcast the same proclamation -- the Charter of the Werewolf organisation, which was:

http://www.portal-ns.com/thecensure/werwolf2.htm

[skunk]

Its tough finding things that old on the internet.
One of the left over Terrorist groups were known as the Werewolf group which operated in both Germany and outside of its borders.
I still see no "thousands dead" here. :confused:

[Voltron]

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

AS WORRIES INCREASE about neo-Nazi and skinhead violence in Germany, it is worth remembering that this type of terrorism is a nasty constant in the history of the German radical-right. A case in point is the Nazi Werewolf guerrilla movement founded by Heinrich Himmler in 1044, which fought the occupying forces of Britain, America and Russia until at least 1047.

The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.



Despite its failure, however, the Werewolf project had a huge impact, widening the psychological and spiritual gap between Germans and their occupiers. Werewolf killings and intimidation of `collaborators' scared almost everybody, giving German civilians a clear glimpse into the nihilistic heart of Nazism. It was difficult for people working under threat of such violence to devote themselves unreservedly to the initial tasks of reconstruction. Worse still, the Allies and Soviets reacted to the movement with extremely tough controls, curtailing the right of assembly of German civilians. Challenges of any sort were met by collective reprisals -- especially on the part of the Soviets and the French. In a few cases the occupiers even shot hostages and cleared out towns where instances of sabotage occurred. It was standard practice for the Soviets to destroy whole communities if they faced a single act of resistance. In the eastern fringes of the `Greater Reich', now annexed by the Poles and the Czechoslovaks, Werewolf harassment handed the new authorities an excuse to rush the deportations of millions of ethnic Germans to occupied Germany.

Such policies were understandable, but they created an unbridgeable gulf between the German people and the occupation forces who had pledged to impose essential reforms. It was hard, in such conditions, for the occupiers to encourage reform, and even harder to persuade the Germans that it was necessary.

By the time that this rough opposition to the occupation had started to soften, the Cold War was under way and reform became equally difficult to implement. As a result, both German states created in 1949 were not so dissimilar to their predecessor as might have been hoped, and changes in attitudes and institutions developed only slowly. Thanks partly to the Werewolves there was no German revolution in 1945, either imposed from above or generated from below.

The Last Nazis by Perry Biddiscombe, is published this month by Tempus. The book explores the background to the movement, its operations and its wholly negative legacy to the history of reconstruction in postwar Germany.

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_10_50/ai_66157021

[Voltron]

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

Those who fight the global war on terror may be using weapons that are more lethal and more precise than any that were available to you but their success is made possible by the same thing that made your success possible, the courage in their hearts and the conviction in their souls. There is another thing that’s not changed: we still face determined adversaries, as we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the dead-enders are still with us, those remnants of the defeated regimes who’ll go on fighting long after their cause is lost. There are some today who are surprised that there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, and they suggest that this represents some sort of failure on the part of the Coalition. But this is not the case. Indeed I suspect that some of you in this hall today, especially those who served in Germany during World War II or in the period immediately after the war were not surprised that some Ba’athists have kept on fighting. You will recall that some dead-enders fought on during and after the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany.

Here’s how war correspondent Martha Gellhorn described conditions in Germany after the arrival of allied forces. She said, “At night the Germans take pot shots at Americans or string wires across the roads or they burn the houses of Germans who accept posts in the military government or they booby trap ammunition dumps or motorcycles or anything that is likely to be touched.”

One group of those dead-enders was known as “werewolves.” They and other Nazi regime remnants targeted allied soldiers and they targeted Germans who cooperated with the allied forces. Mayors were assassinated including the American appointed Mayor of Achen, the first major German city to be liberated. Children as young as ten were used as snipers, radio broadcast and leaflets warned Germans not to collaborate with the Allies. They plotted sabotage of factories, power plants, rail lines. They blew up police stations and government building, and they destroyed stocks of art and antiques that were stored by the Berlin museum. Does this sound familiar?
Like the death squads in Iraq they failed to stop the liberation of Germany and they failed in rousing the population of Germany to widespread revolt. Indeed as one historian put it, “Werewolf intimidation only increased public hatred of the Nazi regime…German civilians sometimes led allied troops straight to where werewolf supply caches.” The vast majority of the German people like the vast majority of the Iraqi people were glad to be rid of the tyrannical dictatorship.

Today the Nazi dead-enders are largely forgotten, cast to the sidelines of history because they comprised a failed resistance and managed to kill our Allied forces in a war that saw millions fight and die. But in Operation Iraqi Freedom millions did not fight and die.

That country was liberated with fewer casualties and less destruction than probably any war in modern history. And so, in light of that success, the resistance our Coalition faces today may appear more significant than otherwise might have been the case. There are differences to be sure.
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2003/sp20030825-secdef0403.html

And they are still killing in Germany after all this time.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/stories/germanyreport2000.htm

1990
7 October, Lübbenau. Polish worker Andrzej Fratczak was stabbed by three young racists in a discotheque.
21 October, Ludwigsburg. A 23-year-old basketball fan, Eberhard Arnold, was hit by a petrol bomb hurled by nazi skins, then pushed, in flames, onto a railway line.
24 November, Eberswalde. Fifty nazis found Amadeu Antonio Kiowa, from Angola, in the only pub in the city still serving black people and beat him to death.
11 December, Berlin-Lichtenberg. Three skinheads brutally drove Klaus-Dieter Rein, 24, to his death by forcing him to jump from a tenth floor window.
28 December, Hachenburg. Kurdish refugee Nihat Yusufoglu, 17, was stabbed to death by nazi boneheads.
31 December, Rosdorf. Bundeswehr conscript Alexander Selchow, 21, was stabbed to death by members of the nazi FAP.
31 December, Flensburg. A drunken skinhead kicked and beat a 31-year-old homeless man who died six days later in hospital

No records could be found prior to 1990 but many more after this year is listed. People don't waste a lot of time posting statistics for things that happened that far back.

[Voltron]

I defy you to find one legitimate shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

1945

October 31

Jewish terrorist offensive against British rule in Palestine begins, with a wave of bomb attacks on police vehicles, railway sites and Haifa oil refinery. One policeman, one soldier and two railway workers killed.

November 27

Eight British soldiers killed in bomb attack on police station Jerusalem, Palestine, in Jewish Irgun terrorist attack.

1946

January 7

Three American civilian officials killed when Nazi "Werewolf" terrorists burn down their house in Passau, Germany.

March 11

Iranian scholar Amhed Kashravi stabbed to death by Fedayyan-e eslam guerillas in Iran.

July 22

Ninety people killed and forty five wounded after Jewish terrorists blow up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Palestine, which was home to British government and military offices. The terrorists held workers at pistol point while they planted the explosives in the basement of the hotel.

September 30

One US soldier killed when ambushed by terrorists at Fort McKinley, Philippines.

October 31

British embassy in Rome, Italy, wrecked by two bombs in suit cases left by Jewish Irgun terrorists. No casualties.

and the list continues on http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm

The manual American occupiers were required to read during the occupation of Germany.
http://www.3ad.us/history/wwll/article.pages/occupation.booklet.htm
a sample

DON'T BELIEVE IT

Don't believe there are any "good" Germans in Germany. Of course you know good Germans back home. They had guts enough and sense enough to break away from Germany long ago because they couldn't go along with German militarism and intolerance. Don't believe that it was only the Nazi government that brought on this war. Any people have the kind of government they want and deserve. Only a few people bucked the Nazis. You won't meet them; the Nazis purged them long ago.

Most prisoners and conquered German civilians deny being Nazis. They are all "good" Germans. After the war you won't find any German -- man, woman or child -- who will admit to ever having been a Nazi. One Belgian major, wounded twice in two wars with Germany, knows Germans better than most of us ever will. He was stationed in Germany in the Belgian Army of Occupation from 1918 to 1929. He says: "A German is, by nature, a liar."

it was standard issue to US soldiers back then.

[skunk]

and the list continues on http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm
Still looking for those "thousands dead", I see...

[Voltron]

Still looking for those "thousands dead", I see...
What part of its hard or virtually impossible to get statistics like that from back then. Millions died during the war. Thousands died after.

[skunk]

And they are still killing in Germany after all this time.

"They" are still killing in the USA, the UK, France, Italy, South America, etc, etc. Come on, VT, there are fascist/racist bastards everywhere, not just in "occupied countries".

[Voltron]

From Jim MacClay, Staff Articles Index NEXT

Germany Occupation Booklet 1945
"Don't Be a Sucker in Germany"
(largely still relevant for U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003-2004)

Distributed to 3AD troops in May, 1945, shortly after the German surrender, this 15-page booklet was the 12th Army Group's basic primer for GI's as occupiers. It was then "Restricted" (Classified) info that makes very interesting reading now. As one short example, a section on "Women" included: "German women have been trained to seduce you. Is it worth a knife in the back?"


CLICK here for full booklet text.



Actual booklet size: 5.5 x 4.5 inches x 15 pages


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


FULL BOOKLET TEXT:

FOREWORD

During the occupation of Germany, combat units will police large areas of that country. It is possible that these occupation forces will meet organized resistance and sabotage by individuals or groups of die-hard Nazis. The facts in this booklet were compiled by the Provost Marshal of the Ninth U. S. Army as a guide for troops in Germany. Nothing here was "dreamed up" by someone behind a desk.

This booklet is a summary of the experiences of French, Dutch and Belgian underground workers now serving with the American armies. These men resisted German occupation in their countries. They know the tricks ... and the answers. That's why they are alive to pass this information on to you. Their advice will keep you healthy during the occupation of Germany. Listen to them and remember what they say.

12TH ARMY GROUP
[Commanded by Lt. Gen. Omar Bradley with operational
control over the U.S. First & Third Armies & other elements]

HEROES

The German people may appear to be friendly and docile as you move into Germany. Are they? We've occupied Aachen for several months. Twice, at night, Germans have strung wires across the main road through Aachen to tear the head off some jeep driver. Two months after we moved into one little German village and posted proclamations directing Germans to turn in all arms, we made a house to house search and found more than 20 assorted firearms.

Would you be friendly to a foreign army that occupied your home town and gave you orders ? If some friend of yours back home shot one of those men, wouldn't he be a hero to you and the whole community?

WOMEN

Your attitude toward women is wrong -- in Germany. You'll see a lot of good-looking babes on the make there. German women have been trained to seduce you. Is it worth a knife in the back ? In Holland, girls belonging to the resistance made dates with German soldiers. Just after dark they walked their dates along a canal or river. At certain places, Dutchmen waited. Then, a wallop with a sock full of sand from behind, and another unconscious German soldier was shoved into a canal to drown.

One Dutchman now serving with the Ninth Army teamed with his sister to drown 15 Germans in canals during the German occupation of Holland. Altogether hundreds of German soldiers were "liquidated" this way. A French resistor says: "From my experience during five years of occupation, I know that German women are often used as underground workers, and sometimes they are slyer and more fanatic than men."

DON'T BELIEVE IT

Don't believe there are any "good" Germans in Germany. Of course you know good Germans back home. They had guts enough and sense enough to break away from Germany long ago because they couldn't go along with German militarism and intolerance. Don't believe that it was only the Nazi government that brought on this war. Any people have the kind of government they want and deserve. Only a few people bucked the Nazis. You won't meet them; the Nazis purged them long ago.

Most prisoners and conquered German civilians deny being Nazis. They are all "good" Germans. After the war you won't find any German -- man, woman or child -- who will admit to ever having been a Nazi. One Belgian major, wounded twice in two wars with Germany, knows Germans better than most of us ever will. He was stationed in Germany in the Belgian Army of Occupation from 1918 to 1929. He says: "A German is, by nature, a liar."

CHILDREN

Toward children, you're wrong again. You've generously given them chewing gum and candy all across Europe. Don't do it now. All kids aren't friendly and innocent. Yell "Achtung" (attention) at a bunch of these kids and watch them snap-to. That's how they're trained. For what? You guess. A kid can carry messages. A kid can shoot you just as dead as a grown man. Some German kids have been trained for underground work, espionage and sabotage.

In January 1945, a known group of five boys between the ages of 12 to 16 were behind our lines attempting to cut telephone lines. They had been trained for that job -- and others -- in a school of sabotage for boys. The idea was that soft-hearted Americans who like children so much wouldn't suspect kids of sabotage. You wouldn't suspect these five -- just talking to them.

CARELESSNESS

Military Police spend a large part of their time collecting from civilians the clothing and equipment soldiers leave behind, give away or trade for a night with a woman or a few drinks. Here's what one Belgian said after searching a German town: "It is very easy to provide oneself with American weapons, uniforms and equipment just by taking those articles left behind in billets. It is certain that we (Belgian resisters), in the same situation as the Germans, would soon provide ourselves with large quantities of weapons and ammunition." Such carelessness in occupied Germany may cost many American lives.

Allied resisters offer these additional suggestions for staying healthy in Germany: "Never go out alone at night; take a buddy or two along." "Stay away from dangerous areas -- rivers, canals, etc." "At night, walk in the middle of the street." "Don't forget to black-out billets and offices; your shadow may make you a poor insurance risk."

CONCEALED WEAPONS

A concealed weapon is usually thought of as a gun or a knife, but a rock tied in a handkerchief or a few ounces of sand in the toe of a sock will do the business just as well. There are lots of ways of killing a man. Resistance fighters in France, Belgium and Holland give these hints : "In general, all underground operations were hidden under sentiments of respect, morality, charity and religion." "Old women so crippled they walked with two canes carried weapons."

"Sometimes men with wooden legs carried weapons in the artificial leg." "Hump-backed persons concealed weapons under their humps." "Weapon dumps were established in graves and tombs." "Watch when the dead are placed in their coffins and when the coffins are buried." "Do not hesitate to search the beds of sick people." Our Allies are telling you the inside dope on how resisters work. These are the things they did.

CONCEALED MESSAGES

Here are some of the ways resisters carried messages in France, Belgium and Holland during the German occupation. Children carried messages in their school books, book bags or clothing. Women carried them in their underwear or other clothing, in special belts, in market baskets. Men carried them in their socks, hats, the cuffs or seams of their clothing, in newspapers or magazines, in the bindings of books, in cigarettes, in bicycle pumps or tires or the tube support of a bicycle saddle.

One French resistance group delivered all its messages by hiding them under the blankets that covered a baby in his baby carriage. There are no rules. Every messenger will think of a different hiding place. Where would you hide a message?

SEARCHING INDIVIDUALS

When searching people have them stand out from a wall or tree, legs apart, hands over head supporting them in a backward leaning position against the wall. They can't move from that position without falling. A slight kick will knock them down. Your buddy should stand a few feet away to cover you. Don't open fountain pens, cigarette cases, spectacle cases or other containers found on a suspected person. Such articles may be small grenades. Make the person being searched open them while you stand aside. Many Nazi fanatics wouldn't hesitate to blow themselves up if they thought an Allied soldier would die with them.

The Belgians say Germans did not search women and that it was a mistake. Resistance groups used women to carry messages, guns and explosives. You may find a weapon by making women pull their dresses tight against their bodies here and there, but it's much better if another woman does the searching -- and does it thoroughly in a private room.
http://www.3ad.us/history/wwll/article.pages/occupation.booklet.htm

[Voltron]

The Soviets began an offensive on January 12, 1945, liberating western Poland and forcing Hungary to surrender. In mid-February 1945, the Allies bombed Dresden, killing approximately 35,000 German civilians. American troops crossed the Rhine River on March 7, 1945. A final Soviet offensive on April 16, 1945, enabled Soviet forces to encircle Berlin. As Soviet troops fought their way towards the Reich Chancellery, Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945. On May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies at Reims and on May 9 to the Soviets in Berlin. In August, the war in the Pacific ended soon after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 120,000 civilians. Japan formally surrendered on September 2.

World War II resulted in an estimated 55 million deaths worldwide.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005137


oops

Obfuscation and propaganda at its finest.

Note the switch:

232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004
501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945

The number of combat deaths depend on the number of people who die during combat. Not after. So, how many combat deaths occured after the Nazi surrender? None, because COMBAT WAS OVER. By definition, if there is no combat, there are no combat deaths.

Were there deaths after the nazi surrender? Yes. But trying to make some political point by comparing the number of deaths after the end of combat in Iraq with the number of COMBAT deaths after the Nazi surrender is the height of dishonesty. There is no comparison between the two. Now, if you wanted to be honest, you would compare the number of combat deaths in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad- ZERO- with the number of combat deaths after the Nazi surrender- also zero- but then again, truth makes for fairly toothless rhetoric.

Or you can compare number of post-surrender deaths in Germany to the number of post-carrier-landing deaths. But then, the numbers would not be as drastic. There have been more deaths in Iraq than after WWII however, but the only reason that is so is that, unlike in the case of germany, we did not demolish entire cities and dismantle the entire society. We did not arrest 200,000 people. This is why there was little resistance after WWII. The entire Nazi party had been arrested. The only thing we did in Iraq was bar former Ba'ath party members from participating in the new government.

I find it hard to believe, given your orientation as a hard-core 60's leftist (as it appears by your writings) would advocate carpet-bombing entire Iraqi cities, decimating the entire industrial capacity and infrastructure of that nation, and jailing 200,000 ba'athists in Guantanamo. Those actions, I suspect would have you howling in outrage even more loudly than your feighed outrage over a couple of hundred deaths.


http://www.prometheus6.org/2004/01/and_this_is_just_the_beginning.php
Course that is just a forum and not hard evidence.

[numediaman]

Let me get this straight: Slyhunter, banned but now posting under another name, says that thousands of Americans died in Germany after WWII (one of the most ridiculous claims ever). As proof Slyhunter posts something about Brits dying in Palestine, an old Army booklet, and a post stating the total number of deaths during WWII.

Are we sure that Slyhunter isn't in fact George W. Bush?

[screener]

So, uh, tell me again why we are in Iraq?

[numediaman]

So, uh, tell me again why we are in Iraq?

We're in Iraq?

[Voltron]

So, uh, tell me again why we are in Iraq?
Saddam refused to abide by the surrender agreement he signed in Kuwaitt by proving or helping the UN to destroy all of his WMD's.

Destroying them in secret doesn't count, nor does giving it to his buddies in Syria.

[skunk]

Course that is just a forum and not hard evidence.
Course we still have NO NUMBERS. :rolleyes:

But to get back on topic, I think we are in Iraq to test our weapons systems and tighten up our technique. Some of us have more tightening to do than others.

[mactastic]

Its tough finding things that old on the internet.


Or that false?

[IJ Reilly]

Are we sure that Slyhunter isn't in fact George W. Bush?

:D :D :D

[Voltron]

Or that false?
Dude I can't find statistics for even 1 american death during the German occupation and I know that to be a lie. Since 1945 allot of american soldiers have died over there in Germany. But nobody bothered to keep track of how many. We are still occupying Germany even today, just without the authoritarian controls that probably were in placed say 1946-1950ish.

I admit I assume since we had hundreds of thousands of troops over there in Germany, with clean up detail bringing in allot of defeated German troops that naturally a percentage of them would've died in the process not all necessarily due to combat but with so many troops that percentage could be naturally assumed to be in the thousands which is still in the 1-2% range. It is a natural assumption any human being should have about the time period.

[miloblithe]

Its tough finding things that old on the internet.


Find it in a book or journal article, post the title and author. Generally, this is the way research is done.

If you are unable to do this, admit that you were making claims that you had no idea about.

[Voltron]

Find it in a book or journal article, post the title and author. Generally, this is the way research is done.

If you are unable to do this, admit that you were making claims that you had no idea about.
One statistic I did find, up above on previous page in this thread in bold, one of the quotes I posted with a link "unlike in Iraq we imprisoned over 200,000 Germans immediately upon the conclusion of the war. And unlike Iraq we crushed any resistance or even hint of resistence with an Iron fist. And unlike Iraq we didn't have the problem of nearby countries sending terrorist accross the borders causing problems." I paraphrased of course but all of this was included in that one link. http://www.prometheus6.org/2004/01/and_this_is_just_the_beginning.php
problem is it is just another forum *shrug* That is just one of the links the one with 269,000 dead Americans, 15 million total world wide deaths during the war is in one of those posts but I don't have the time to go thru them all again. I cannot sit here a research every little freaken detail about every little thing, nor am I going to sit here and read all this Bush bashing crap without posting my own opinion.

[mactastic]

Dude I can't find statistics for even 1 american death during the German occupation and I know that to be a lie. Since 1945 allot of american soldiers have died over there in Germany. But nobody bothered to keep track of how many. We are still occupying Germany even today, just without the authoritarian controls that probably were in placed say 1946-1950ish.

I admit I assume since we had hundreds of thousands of troops over there in Germany, with clean up detail bringing in allot of defeated German troops that naturally a percentage of them would've died in the process not all necessarily due to combat but with so many troops that percentage could be naturally assumed to be in the thousands which is still in the 1-2% range. It is a natural assumption any human being should have about the time period.

Dude just because you hear it on Boortz doesn't mean it's true. That why those guys hide under the 'entertainment' label. So they don't have to abide by journalistic norms of checking stories.

[miloblithe]

One statistic I did find, up above on previous page in this thread in bold, one of the quotes I posted with a link "unlike in Iraq we imprisoned over 200,000 Germans immediately upon the conclusion of the war. And unlike Iraq we crushed any resistance or even hint of resistence with an Iron fist. And unlike Iraq we didn't have the problem of nearby countries sending terrorist accross the borders causing problems." I paraphrased of course but all of this was included in that one link. http://www.prometheus6.org/2004/01/and_this_is_just_the_beginning.php
problem is it is just another forum *shrug*

It is a standard tactic when caught in a lie to try to change the subject, which is what you are trying to do. Admit that you have no proof whatsoever that thousands of American soldiers were killed by german resistance during the occupation of Germany and then we can get on to refuting your next point, which seems to be that the reason that the US has had such trouble in Iraq is that we didn't arrest and imprison enough people.

I'm ready to debate that. Just admit you were wrong about your earlier claim and we're ready to go.

[Voltron]

It is a standard tactic when caught in a lie to try to change the subject, which is what you are trying to do. Admit that you have no proof whatsoever that thousands of American soldiers were killed by german resistance during the occupation of Germany and then we can get on to refuting your next point, which seems to be that the reason that the US has had such trouble in Iraq is that we didn't arrest and imprison enough people.

I'm ready to debate that. Just admit you were wrong about your earlier claim and we're ready to go.
Dude I stated that I could not find the statistics of how many Americans have died in Germany since 1945. We are still occupying the country, we lose people every day over there, we are still dieing over there while occupying their country. I made an assumption of a couple of thousand based on the fact that I read that we had over 200,000 troops over there at the time of their surrender. Also there were terrorist groups harrassing us during the time period including the Wolf group. Now I admit I assumed several thousands is an honest estimate of the number of deaths being that would be approximately 1-2% of the total troop strength in Germany. We are still occupying Germany.

[mactastic]

I made an assumption of a couple of thousand based on the fact that I read that we had over 200,000 troops over there at the time of their surrender.

And we all know what happens when you ASS-U-ME things right?

Anyway, this is probably as close to an admission of POA as we're likely to get from Sly.

[zimv20]

what? we're still occupying germany? i learn something new every day...

[miloblithe]

Dude I stated that I could not find the statistics of how many Americans have died in Germany since 1945. We are still occupying the country, we lose people every day over there, we are still dieing over there while occupying their country. I made an assumption of a couple of thousand based on the fact that I read that we had over 200,000 troops over there at the time of their surrender. Also there were terrorist groups harrassing us during the time period including the Wolf group. Now I admit I assumed several thousands is an honest estimate of the number of deaths being that would be approximately 1-2% of the total troop strength in Germany. We are still occupying Germany.

Where do you get your information about history?

"On V-E day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower had 61 U.S. divisions (1,622,000 men) in Germany out of a total of 3,077,000 men in Europe. These soldiers became the occupation force for the U.S. sector."

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

Why would you assume 1-2% fatalities? Do you make the same assumption for Japan? Iraq?

[Voltron]

Where do you get your information about history?

"On V-E day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower had 61 U.S. divisions (1,622,000 men) in Germany out of a total of 3,077,000 men in Europe. These soldiers became the occupation force for the U.S. sector."

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

Why would you assume 1-2% fatalities? Do you make the same assumption for Japan? Iraq?
Out of that high number you think a percentage didn't die while occuping Germany for the 6 years following 1945? I mean damn deaths from vehicle accidents must've hit a thousand right there. I don't see anyone reporting on that.

Iraq compared to Germany is small potatoes and the press keeps making mountains out of mole hills calling small skirmishes - big battles and crap like that which was the original point of my original post before we got thrown off on this red herring about a bad estimate of mine.

[miloblithe]

I repeat it took 6 years to clean up all the "minor skirmishes" after we won WWII and compared to what went on then, what is going on now is nothing. If you discount the fact that the press magnify's everything greatly nowadays when they didn't back then.

And now you're claiming that the number of traffic accidents alone must have been more than 1000? You were not talking about traffic accidents. You were talking about "minor skirmishes." And where did the 6 years come from? Well, you made it up, just like everything else.

This is not about a "bad estimate." This is about a complete fabrication. And I'm calling you on it. You were trying to imlpy that Iraq will turn out like Germany, and in fact is going more smoothly than Germany did. And I'm calling you on the weak basis of that implication.

[mactastic]

1% of 130,000 troops is 1,300. If your 'estimates' are correct Sly, we should have 1,300 to 2,600 dead in Iraq by now, right? And that's just from 'damn deaths by vehicle accidents'?

[numediaman]

Watching you guys argue with Slyhunter is hilarious. Ever consider the possibility that Sly knows he's wrong and he's just making you guys squirm?

It's like Bush saying Saddam poses an immediate threat -- hilarious. He knows better. But a few airheads will believe and repeat anything.

Some things are not debatable: the sky is blue, the sea is green, and Iraq is a massive **** up. Anybody that says otherwise is pulling your leg.

[mactastic]

Some things are not debatable: the sky is blue, the sea is green, and Iraq is a massive **** up. Anybody that says otherwise is pulling your leg.

Oh come on now, it's just because the liberal media won't report the great news that happens in Iraq every day that they hide from you. Really, everything's fine over there. Couldn't be better in fact. Wait until all the liberals have the blinders removed and everyone sees how great things really are. :p

[miloblithe]

Watching you guys argue with Slyhunter is hilarious. Ever consider the possibility that Sly knows he's wrong and he's just making you guys squirm?

I realize I'm being suckered into arguing with him, but I hear this crap out of him and the administration, and I can call him on it. Believe me, if I was in a position to call Bush&Co on their crap instead of Sly, I'd do it.

[miloblithe]

As for the original question of this thread, it seems the jig is just about up.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_poll&cid=540&ncid=716

"A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-governing authority has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment — more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left."

[screener]

As for the original question of this thread, it seems the jig is just about up.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_poll&cid=540&ncid=716

"A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-governing authority has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment — more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left."

Can't be true until Boortz says it is.

[Voltron]

As for the original question of this thread, it seems the jig is just about up.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_poll&cid=540&ncid=716

"A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-governing authority has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment — more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left."
Safer from the US, or safer from the terrorist? Sounds like a form of blackmail to me but then isn't that kind of what terrorism is?

[mactastic]

Safer overall.

[screener]

Don't be dense. Right now they are collateral damage, with the U.S. gone they're thinking is they would be safer. When Saddam was around they knew who the bad guy was, and now? You can't blame them.
They think kinda like me, thanks for your help, see ya.

[miloblithe]

The sad thing is that I bet there is a growing sentiment among Iraqis that things were better in the old days under Saddam. It might turn out that there will be a parallel to Russia, and a new strongman can arrise drawing on the population's desire for 'stability', 'order', and a sense of restored national pride. (Although the ethnic-religious makup and world status of Iraq makes the equations very different.)

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good leader or anything, just that the grass is always greener... and that we're on the outside looking in. None of us, I presume, know what it's like to have been an Iraqi for the last x amount of years.

[numediaman]

EDIT: I decided to delete this because it deserves its own thread.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Safer from the US, or safer from the terrorist? Sounds like a form of blackmail to me but then isn't that kind of what terrorism is?

As much as I dislike answering some of this drivel, for the Iraqi people does it matter? Safer is safer.

I am sure that if your safety were in jeopardy as an Iraqis' safety is threatened daily by the occupation force and insurgents, you would just want the safest devil to dance with.

Unless you could find a neo-con od-ed piece that told you otherwise :rolleyes:

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Neserk]

Seems to me the Iraqi's are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Saddam was obvioulsy no good for them, the US is no good for them and heaven only knows how bad the new government will be! It is just a no win situation at this point. They just jumped from one frying pan into another equally bad one (to re-write a cliche')

[skunk]

Seems to me the Iraqi's are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Saddam was obvioulsy no good for them, the US is no good for them and heaven only knows how bad the new government will be! It is just a no win situation at this point. They just jumped from one frying pan into another equally bad one (to re-write a cliche')
I think, now they've checked his teeth for transmitters (you saw it on TV), they should put SH back in charge. HE knows how to hold Iraq together. I mean, they've reconstituted the army, they've given Falluja to the Baathists, they've given Najaf to the Shiite Loony Faction, why not go the whole hog?

[Neserk]

what? we're still occupying germany? i learn something new every day...


We still have troops there! When ever someone across the Atlantic is rescued the almost always fly them to Germany first before bringing them back here. Jessica Lynch comes to mind.

[zimv20]

We still have troops there!
yeah, i knew we maintained bases. i just didn't know that there was an occupation. all those years, i thought the germans were having proper elections and running their own affairs... who knew?

[skunk]

yeah, i knew we maintained bases. i just didn't know that there was an occupation. all those years, i thought the germans were having proper elections and running their own affairs... who knew?
You live and learn. :D

By this logic, the US is occupying about 80 countries, including the UK. No wonder you're overstretched!

[Voltron]

yeah, i knew we maintained bases. i just didn't know that there was an occupation. all those years, i thought the germans were having proper elections and running their own affairs... who knew?
Oh so when Iraq starts having public elections and running their own affairs come June 30th then you'll stop calling it an occupation?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/band.gif

[Ugg]

Oh so when Iraq starts having public elections and running their own affairs come June 30th then you'll stop calling it an occupation?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/band.gif

It'll stop being an occupation when their leader is no longer a CIA stooge and they can tell the US military to leave without fear of being overrun yet once again by the US. It took Germany a good 10 years to be free of the yoke of the Americans and they were a democracy. I doubt that Iraq will be "un" occupied for quite some time.

[skunk]

Oh so when Iraq starts having public elections and running their own affairs come June 30th then you'll stop calling it an occupation?
They are not having elections on June 30th.