Shock and Awe.

[polm]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA
For those of you who fell dropping 400 bombs or any amount of bombs on Iraq is an atrocity, I do hope you realize it is Saddam that is using his own people as shields. We are not forcing him to hid his soldiers amongst the commoners, he is, because he knows it will make some of you feel for him and his people. It's as much a psychological ploy as a strategic one. And you have been duped.


It would be nice to fight battles like they did in 1600s and prior, but face it, we no longer line up our troops 100 paces a part and take volleys at each other. Didn't you learn that from 9/11?

So CPA, if you wanted to shoot a man, and that man picked up his baby and held it in front of his body, to protect him from the bullet that you're about to shoot through him, would you still shoot?

I'm sorry, but that is one dumbass analogy. We are talking about bombing military institutions that have been purposely placed next to civilian areas, in which case I have no problem bombing. We are not talking hand to hand combat.

The civilians themselves know that they are at risk. In fact, last time, there was a mass exodus of civilians from Bagdad and other major cities before Bush Sr. sent in the bombs. Why would you not think the same would happen this time around?

 

[StageLeft]

An important question is: Does the Iraqi public support an attack on their nation and removal of the regime, knowing full well that innocents will be killed? It would be nice to have that answer, because if they said yes this argument is moot.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

if the man had every intent to kill me, then yes i would. Of course I'd be like robocop and shoot him in the family jewels 😀

then clearly you value your own life over the life of an innocent child.

no not at all. I don't value my life above an innocent child's. I do value my life over a murdering maniac who I feel will threaten others.
the sad thing is that your kind of thinking is what terrorists want. They hijack a plane, you'd give in to every demand to make sure the "innocent people" survive. What if the guy holding the baby said to bring him a nuclear weapon or he'll execute the baby?

The objective i posed to CPA was to his desire to kill the man. If the baby is held up in his face, you would shoot throught the baby to kill him. I wouldn't. I would move the baby aside, give it to its mother, and then shoot the man. Therein lies the difference.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

polm, you still haven't given your solution. Only your disgust.

 

[polm]

We are talking about bombing military institutions that have been purposely placed next to civilian areas, in which case I have no problem bombing. We are not talking hand to hand combat.

The civilians themselves know that they are at risk. In fact, last time, there was a mass exodus of civilians from Bagdad and other major cities before Bush Sr. sent in the bombs. Why would you not think the same would happen this time around?

Good grief man !! How are all of you so eager to dehumanize the situation with the civilians ??? How can you just have NO PROBLEM dropping bombs on them !!

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

polm, you still haven't given your solution. Only your disgust.

and so in absence of a clear alternative we just opt for the easy answer ??

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

if the man had every intent to kill me, then yes i would. Of course I'd be like robocop and shoot him in the family jewels 😀

then clearly you value your own life over the life of an innocent child.

no not at all. I don't value my life above an innocent child's. I do value my life over a murdering maniac who I feel will threaten others.
the sad thing is that your kind of thinking is what terrorists want. They hijack a plane, you'd give in to every demand to make sure the "innocent people" survive. What if the guy holding the baby said to bring him a nuclear weapon or he'll execute the baby?

The objective i posed to CPA was to his desire to kill the man. If the baby is held up in his face, you would shoot throught the baby to kill him. I wouldn't. I would move the baby aside, give it to its mother, and then shoot the man. Therein lies the difference.

How the hell are you going to move the baby aside from a man holding as a shield? You are really starting to lose me in your fantasy "war world".

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA
For those of you who fell dropping 400 bombs or any amount of bombs on Iraq is an atrocity, I do hope you realize it is Saddam that is using his own people as shields. We are not forcing him to hid his soldiers amongst the commoners, he is, because he knows it will make some of you feel for him and his people. It's as much a psychological ploy as a strategic one. And you have been duped.


It would be nice to fight battles like they did in 1600s and prior, but face it, we no longer line up our troops 100 paces a part and take volleys at each other. Didn't you learn that from 9/11?

So CPA, if you wanted to shoot a man, and that man picked up his baby and held it in front of his body, to protect him from the bullet that you're about to shoot through him, would you still shoot?

if the man had every intent to kill me, then yes i would. Of course I'd be like robocop and shoot him in the family jewels 😀

North Korea has more of an intent to kill me. As does Osama Bin Laden. Is there 'intent' any less of a threat? No, it is much more. Our intelligence indicates that Iraq will NOT attack us unless provoked. But according to what N. Korea says and according to what OBL has DONE, we know those are more imminent threats.

One thing to keep in mind is none of us knows what our intelligence really says.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

polm, you still haven't given your solution. Only your disgust.

and so in absence of a clear alternative we just opt for the easy answer ??

noone said that, I have stated all along that there are other alternatives, and this is just one of them. But I will not discount it, just for it's mere disgust. War is not pretty, civilians do get killed, but I tend to believe that from the US perspective they get killed not out of necessity, but out of peripheral damage.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA
For those of you who fell dropping 400 bombs or any amount of bombs on Iraq is an atrocity, I do hope you realize it is Saddam that is using his own people as shields. We are not forcing him to hid his soldiers amongst the commoners, he is, because he knows it will make some of you feel for him and his people. It's as much a psychological ploy as a strategic one. And you have been duped.


It would be nice to fight battles like they did in 1600s and prior, but face it, we no longer line up our troops 100 paces a part and take volleys at each other. Didn't you learn that from 9/11?

So CPA, if you wanted to shoot a man, and that man picked up his baby and held it in front of his body, to protect him from the bullet that you're about to shoot through him, would you still shoot?

I'm sorry, but that is one dumbass analogy. We are talking about bombing military institutions that have been purposely placed next to civilian areas, in which case I have no problem bombing. We are not talking hand to hand combat.

The civilians themselves know that they are at risk. In fact, last time, there was a mass exodus of civilians from Bagdad and other major cities before Bush Sr. sent in the bombs. Why would you not think the same would happen this time around?

Have you ever seen a mass exodus of people actually happen? IT doesn't happen very well. People are running all over the place. misinformation is rampant, crime and looting is rampant, the police and army are probably going to beat the people that are trying to run. Some people will not budge (its my house, fck them), some people are too old, sick, or young to pack up and leave. some don't have the resources. Add all these 'some' up and you have thousands of people. And I question how 'targeted' or controlled an attack can be with 300-400 tomahawk missiles being launched? Keeping in mind that our military bombed the Chinese embassy incorrectly during the war in Kosovo, and that was not even near 300-400 tomahawk missiles, the probability of even more 'accidents' will increase greatly with that magnitude of an attack.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

polm, you still haven't given your solution. Only your disgust.

and so in absence of a clear alternative we just opt for the easy answer ??

No one ever said it was an easy answer besides you. Because everyone knows its not an easy answer. But sadly, it is one of our last answers. You never responded to my Hitler analogy which I feel is very relevant. Pacifism is not the answer. We should have learned from our mistakes the first time. It's blatantly obvious to everyone that Saddam will NOT comply with any treaty or resolution he signs himself. You claim that these innocent civilians are going to be killed. Have you ever asked an Iraqi how they feel about Saddam? I have. I had a good friend who used to tell me all the horror stories about living in Iraq. She fled here from Iraq a few years back and thanks God everyday to be here. She herself told me the people want to be free of Saddam at any cost. Their lives are hell there from the living in fear and poverty.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA
For those of you who fell dropping 400 bombs or any amount of bombs on Iraq is an atrocity, I do hope you realize it is Saddam that is using his own people as shields. We are not forcing him to hid his soldiers amongst the commoners, he is, because he knows it will make some of you feel for him and his people. It's as much a psychological ploy as a strategic one. And you have been duped.


It would be nice to fight battles like they did in 1600s and prior, but face it, we no longer line up our troops 100 paces a part and take volleys at each other. Didn't you learn that from 9/11?

So CPA, if you wanted to shoot a man, and that man picked up his baby and held it in front of his body, to protect him from the bullet that you're about to shoot through him, would you still shoot?

I'm sorry, but that is one dumbass analogy. We are talking about bombing military institutions that have been purposely placed next to civilian areas, in which case I have no problem bombing. We are not talking hand to hand combat.

The civilians themselves know that they are at risk. In fact, last time, there was a mass exodus of civilians from Bagdad and other major cities before Bush Sr. sent in the bombs. Why would you not think the same would happen this time around?

Have you ever seen a mass exodus of people actually happen? IT doesn't happen very well. People are running all over the place. misinformation is rampant, crime and looting is rampant, the police and army are probably going to beat the people that are trying to run. Some people will not budge (its my house, fck them), some people are too old, sick, or young to pack up and leave. some don't have the resources. Add all these 'some' up and you have thousands of people. And I question how 'targeted' or controlled an attack can be with 300-400 tomahawk missiles being launched? Keeping in mind that our military bombed the Chinese embassy incorrectly during the war in Kosovo, and that was not even near 300-400 tomahawk missiles, the probability of even more 'accidents' will increase greatly with that magnitude of an attack.

we claim it was incorrectly 😉 We were just putting them in their place

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

if the man had every intent to kill me, then yes i would. Of course I'd be like robocop and shoot him in the family jewels 😀

then clearly you value your own life over the life of an innocent child.

no not at all. I don't value my life above an innocent child's. I do value my life over a murdering maniac who I feel will threaten others.
the sad thing is that your kind of thinking is what terrorists want. They hijack a plane, you'd give in to every demand to make sure the "innocent people" survive. What if the guy holding the baby said to bring him a nuclear weapon or he'll execute the baby?

The objective i posed to CPA was to his desire to kill the man. If the baby is held up in his face, you would shoot throught the baby to kill him. I wouldn't. I would move the baby aside, give it to its mother, and then shoot the man. Therein lies the difference.

How the hell are you going to move the baby aside from a man holding as a shield? You are really starting to lose me in your fantasy "war world".

The man has no weapons. Hand to hand combat, and then the use of the firearm when the baby is safe. Not following? Ground troops, and it should be made very clear who we are going to attack and overthrow, as to minimize civilian resistance.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

well the bombing isn't completely random. They are targeting military bases only. Keep in mind, if we send in ground troops, that it will most likely result in a blood bath.

Rumsfield said yesterday that the military installations are ALL placed in the immediate or close proximity to installations of purely CIVILIAN use...like Mosques.

So any targetting of military installations will be targetting of civilian installations as well.

That is Saddams doing. We are only targeting military targets. He chose to put them in close proximity to civilian places

If anything you are only STRENGTHENING the INNOCENCE of these civilians. They are BEYOND American innocence...they have had NO opportunity to choose the situation they are in.

So now they will suffer EVEN more for the choices of their horrible dictator. And here comes the US to rub their noses in it. BY KILLING THEM !

polm, you still haven't given your solution. Only your disgust.

and so in absence of a clear alternative we just opt for the easy answer ??

No one ever said it was an easy answer besides you. Because everyone knows its not an easy answer. But sadly, it is one of our last answers. You never responded to my Hitler analogy which I feel is very relevant. Pacifism is not the answer. We should have learned from our mistakes the first time. It's blatantly obvious to everyone that Saddam will NOT comply with any treaty or resolution he signs himself. You claim that these innocent civilians are going to be killed. Have you ever asked an Iraqi how they feel about Saddam? I have. I had a good friend who used to tell me all the horror stories about living in Iraq. She fled here from Iraq a few years back and thanks God everyday to be here. She herself told me the people want to be free of Saddam at any cost. Their lives are hell there from the living in fear and poverty.

Of course, the "easy answer" is to do nothing. right polm?

 

[StageLeft]

One could ask themselves: Do they condone the attack of a fully loaded civilian airliner if it has been taken over by hostages and the plan is to send it into the middle of a fully loaded office building, which will surely result in the death of 1000 people. The answer to the question should be yes. Well this is no different. Those people in the airliner don't want to be there. It sucks that they are, but killing them is the less of two evils.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: polm

if the man had every intent to kill me, then yes i would. Of course I'd be like robocop and shoot him in the family jewels 😀

then clearly you value your own life over the life of an innocent child.

no not at all. I don't value my life above an innocent child's. I do value my life over a murdering maniac who I feel will threaten others.
the sad thing is that your kind of thinking is what terrorists want. They hijack a plane, you'd give in to every demand to make sure the "innocent people" survive. What if the guy holding the baby said to bring him a nuclear weapon or he'll execute the baby?

The objective i posed to CPA was to his desire to kill the man. If the baby is held up in his face, you would shoot throught the baby to kill him. I wouldn't. I would move the baby aside, give it to its mother, and then shoot the man. Therein lies the difference.

How the hell are you going to move the baby aside from a man holding as a shield? You are really starting to lose me in your fantasy "war world".

The man has no weapons. Hand to hand combat, and then the use of the firearm when the baby is safe. Not following? Ground troops, and it should be made very clear who we are going to attack and overthrow, as to minimize civilian resistance.

So where should I or you put our handgun as we go hand to hand combat? On a coffee table? Oh, and make sure the safety lock is on, right? of course, all this assumes that the guy holding the baby doesn't whip your a$$, then take your gun and shoot you with it, or that the baby's mother doesn't get in on the bruhaha and knock you over the head with a bottle or something. Boy, this fantasy fighting is kinda fun

 

[IGBT]

From the "Pleased to Appease" conciliaters of course..isn't it protest time again??

 

[Turkey22]

you know what polm we should stretch those bombs out you are right thats justa waste of money

 

[Turkey22]

instant cremation sounds good to me though

 

[NoSlander]

I absolutely love the Shock and Awe approach!!! Of course, I hope no civilians are injured. But Shock and Awe is a very effective way to win a war. And winning a war quickly is our main objective. Just as I would like to see minimal Iraqi civilian casualities, I also want to minimize US soldier casualties. And if we go to war, Iraq's main objective is to kill as many Americans as possible.

Why would we want to fight a polite war, which gives them half a chance to defeat us? I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair. It would be stupid to give them a fair fight. Let's get in there and show them that the US is not something to be taunted. Saddam can act brave, and make statements like he has been, about how he will crush the United States. Let's see how he feels when 400 missles land at the exact same second.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: NoSlander
I absolutely love the Shock and Awe approach!!! Of course, I hope no civilians are injured. But Shock and Awe is a very effective way to win a war. And winning a war quickly is our main objective. Just as I would like to see minimal Iraqi civilian casualities, I also want to minimize US soldier casualties. And if we go to war, Iraq's main objective is to kill as many Americans as possible.

Why would we want to fight a polite war, which gives them half a chance to defeat us? I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair. It would be stupid to give them a fair fight. Let's get in there and show them that the US is not something to be taunted. Saddam can act brave, and make statements like he has been, about how he will crush the United States. Let's see how he feels when 400 missles land at the exact same second.

He'll be chilling, smoking sheesha, drinking wine, and fondling underage belly dancers in his bomb proof bunker while some poor baker, his wife, and children are getting their intestines ripped out.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: NoSlander
I absolutely love the Shock and Awe approach!!! Of course, I hope no civilians are injured. But Shock and Awe is a very effective way to win a war. And winning a war quickly is our main objective. Just as I would like to see minimal Iraqi civilian casualities, I also want to minimize US soldier casualties. And if we go to war, Iraq's main objective is to kill as many Americans as possible.

Why would we want to fight a polite war, which gives them half a chance to defeat us? I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair. It would be stupid to give them a fair fight. Let's get in there and show them that the US is not something to be taunted. Saddam can act brave, and make statements like he has been, about how he will crush the United States. Let's see how he feels when 400 missles land at the exact same second.

He'll be chilling, smoking sheesha, drinking wine, and fondling underage belly dancers in his bomb proof bunker while some poor baker, his wife, and children are getting their intestines ripped out.

that's one assumption. An equal assumption would be "he'll be dying and crying while his guts are spilling all over his palace while some "poor" baker, his wife, and children are thanking god that someones finally standing up for them"

 

[Corn]

okay i may be naive in my thinking, but why can't we send thousands of allied (everyone, chinese, americans, russians, italians, indians, pakistanis, turks, brits, aussies, etc. etc.) ground troops to go in and totally take out Saddaams regime?

Yes, you are niave. What possibly gives you the impression that a ground invasion would be any less lethal on the civilian population than an air assault on military targets?

The events told in the movie Blackhawk Down left 500 Somalian civilians dead--many were women and children caught in the crossfire--such a devistating amount of casualties at the hands of a mere hundred soldiers during the course of a single day.

Maybe we should just arm our soldiers with bad language, eh moron?

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Toasthead
umm if and when we go to war I surely hope that we hold nothing back. It is mot fair to our troops to not do EVERYTHING in our power to prepare the way for them. I can guarantee you thatIraq wont be holding back

hmmm....I guess as long as you keep thinking that American lives are more valuable than Iraqi lives, your point makes sence.

But....if you beleive, like I do, that ALL life is precious AND equal you will come to the conclusion that fighting the war the way you have suggested, is like beating your own brother with a baseball bat, simply because you know he will be fighting his hardest...even if he is only 2 and you are 18 .

Are you seriously dumb enough, naive enough, or childish enough to think that we should make this a fair fight?