The Iraqi civilians with "half a mind" know damn well we aren't targeting civilians. Those VERY low civilian casualty numbers would speak for themselves, if Aljazeera would bother to point that out. Hell, Aljazeera might also point out the FACT that these civilians are being shot in the back by their own people! Hmmm, why does that FACT fall by the wayside from their point of view? I see no reason why we shouldn't take over Aljazeera if they can't seem to be bothered with these small details... :disgust:
"Guerrilla War,"
by W.D. Ehrhart
It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Vietcong.
Nobody wears uniforms.
They all talk
the same language,
(and you couldn't understand them
even if they didn't).
They tape grenades
inside their clothes,
and carry satchel charges
in their market baskets.
Even their women fight
and young boys,
and girls.
It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Vietcong;
after a while,
you quit trying.
by W.D. Ehrhart
It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Vietcong.
Nobody wears uniforms.
They all talk
the same language,
(and you couldn't understand them
even if they didn't).
They tape grenades
inside their clothes,
and carry satchel charges
in their market baskets.
Even their women fight
and young boys,
and girls.
It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Vietcong;
after a while,
you quit trying.
THE LAWS OF WAR
- In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
apoppin
Lifer
Which HUMANS are you referring to as ANIMALS? You shot what little credibitity you had to hell.
I guess you SIMPLY don't know about the Asymetric 4th Generation Warfare "Rules" the Iraqis are following in facing a SUPERIOR force defending THEIR country . :roll:
EDIT: Are you English? They thought George Washington and their ragtag band of REBELS were also ANIMALS.
I guess it's a good thing that the American revolution occurred prior to the penning of the Geneva Convention. Guerrilla warfare, as you surely know, was a tactic that was employed (this was prior to the phrase 'guerrilla warfare' even being coined) and was instrumental in the American defeat of British forces... assuming you're not also implying that our forefathers were "animals."
I'm sorry, btw, that you appear to have so grossly misread the poem, Ornery, that you thought it supported the views you seem to be espousing.
cumhail
I'm sorry, btw, that you appear to have so grossly misread the poem, Ornery, that you thought it supported the views you seem to be espousing.
cumhail
And how do you suggest they do anything different, given the insane circumstances they're under? IMO they're doing the best darn job they can, given what they're facing. It's *their* fault that civilians are being used as human shields and suicide bombers against us? Our intent to try and minimize civilian casualties is our weakness in Saddam's eyes, and he'll damn well take advantage of it. If they don't understand *that*, then there's NOTHING we can do to prove to these people that we're not there to simply slaughter them mindlessly, despite the fact that some of you here think that's our goal.
On a related note, before I started reading these threads, I was teetering between both arguments, both for and against the war. I felt both sides had some valid points. But the mere attitude of the bulk of you anti-war folks is enough to push me over to the pro-war side full-blown. Here's an observation: just because you follow up your asinine or completely heartless statement with a smilely doesn't make it OK. I honestly feel sorry for those anti-war people who are level-headed and have a legitimate point to make, because a quite a few of you make your cause seem like it's backed by nothing but raving lunatics.
I apologize in advance because this is by far the most risque post I've ever made in my life, but I had to get it off my chest; this has been bothering me far too much.
Fencer, I really like your sig, specifically: "I'm sorry war is such a complicated issue, requiring a rigorous debate - but you can't answer such important questions with abuse and sarcasm." Some of you should pay heed to that. Think about it.
apoppin
Lifer
First of all, there are plenty of "raving lunatics" on the pro-war side in these forums - those who can't think clearly enough to present any argument but RIDUCULE - i.e. "you're clueless" as a pat response to everything. THERE IS PLENTY OF "abuse and sarcasm" FROM YOUR SIDE.
You asked, "And how do you suggest they do anything different, given the insane circumstances they're under? IMO they're doing the best darn job they can, given what they're facing." I posted over-and-over - THEY CAN'T - THEY ARE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN AND THEY WERE JUSTIFIED IN FIRING ON CIVILIANS - EVEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN - IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY WONT HEED ORDERS because of the everpresent danger of suicide bombings.
That said, it still doesn't answer MY question: HOW DO WE WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE IF WE KEEP BLOWING AWAY THEIR CIVILIANS?
We should NOT be in Iraq at all - the war is ILLEGAL - we wouldn't have these problems IF the UN was there with fellow ARABS to LIBERATE THEM FROM SADDAM.
apoppin
Lifer
I will help you with a definition:
u·ni·lat·er·al: Obligating only ONE of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
In fact there are more than 50 countries supporting in one way or another.
We have legal grounds to be there. Any country has a right to a preemptive strike to defend itself. UN sanctioning is not the only source of legal rights. France and Germany are making too much money selling weapons and nuclear equipment to Iraq. They would never support us unless they were bombed. Hussein is developing chem/bio weapons and has used them. He has associations with Al Qaeda that are very alarming also.
apoppin
Lifer
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.
However, we are making a valid point - the war is only in it's second week - and you are going to hear a LOT MORE of it. If you are tired of hearing that "we shouldn't be there" then drop out of the anti-war discussions. . . . The war IS illegal in the viewpoint of the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants and we should get out of Iraq.
The only ones who defend this war are Bush supporters. All the rest of America just "support our troops".
You see, yours really IS the MINORITY viewpoint.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
apoppin - "but we have lost the stated purpose of our campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis - we would NOT have that problem if we had arab nations fighting along side us to liberate their Iraqi "brothers".
When the World Court rules we will see if this invasion is legal or not."
1) The World Court has no juristiction and will not be making a ruling on the "legality" of the war. What is important is if the war is legal under US law, and so far any US court where the question has been asked has said that it is legal.
2) What makes you the expert on if we have won the "hearts and mind" of the Iraquis? Maybe you should wait until the Baath party's thugs are removed from direct influence and the Iraqui people actually have a say on it before spouting off your doom and gloom. The media reports of "reaction" from other Arab countries actually show the protest to be very muted compared to what many of the doomsayers have been saying.
a) We have active support from several Gulf-area Arab countries - at minimum they're giving us overflight rights
b) The Shiites are not rising up, but the last time we were there we asked them to and then Bush Sr. let them get slaughtered. There are killing squads and other enforcers all over the Shiite areas now, so them not rising up seems about right to me.
In my point of view, this debate is more on defining what has to be done to "win" the war. Now that it is started, the game seems to be to try and set shifting and impossible "goals" that have to be hit. For example - what does winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqui people really mean and how can it be measured?
Michael
When the World Court rules we will see if this invasion is legal or not."
1) The World Court has no juristiction and will not be making a ruling on the "legality" of the war. What is important is if the war is legal under US law, and so far any US court where the question has been asked has said that it is legal.
2) What makes you the expert on if we have won the "hearts and mind" of the Iraquis? Maybe you should wait until the Baath party's thugs are removed from direct influence and the Iraqui people actually have a say on it before spouting off your doom and gloom. The media reports of "reaction" from other Arab countries actually show the protest to be very muted compared to what many of the doomsayers have been saying.
a) We have active support from several Gulf-area Arab countries - at minimum they're giving us overflight rights
b) The Shiites are not rising up, but the last time we were there we asked them to and then Bush Sr. let them get slaughtered. There are killing squads and other enforcers all over the Shiite areas now, so them not rising up seems about right to me.
In my point of view, this debate is more on defining what has to be done to "win" the war. Now that it is started, the game seems to be to try and set shifting and impossible "goals" that have to be hit. For example - what does winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqui people really mean and how can it be measured?
Michael
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.
However, we are making a valid point - the war is only in it's second week - and you are going to hear a LOT MORE of it. If you are tired of hearing that "we shouldn't be there" then drop out of the anti-war discussions. . . . The war IS illegal in the viewpoint of the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants and we should get out of Iraq.
The only ones who defend this war are Bush supporters. All the rest of America just "support our troops".
You see, yours really IS the MINORITY viewpoint.
Uh huh....have you seem the poll numbers lately? You know...the ones that show something like 70% of the people in the U.S. support the war. You keep saying that this war is illegal over and over again....it's like you hope it will become true if you say it enough. Again, let me point you to the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Hussein's violation of that document is more than enough reason for the current action. Let's also not forget about good old U.N. Resolution 1441 that said Iraq WAS currently in breach of the previous U.N. Resolutions dealing with their WMD program and that it had to come clean or face "serious consequences" What do you think serious consequences means? Do you think it means we needed to give Iraq a time out and make them stand in the corner? You continue to come on here and spout off your opinion like it is the honest to goodness truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, they are fools, they don't understand things, or better yet they have "no debating skills." You simply refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. You ignore any facts they post and brush them aside as being some right wing conspiracy or invalid because they are posted by "Bush supporters." You really remind me of Texmaster....damn the facts when they challenge your viewpoint, but welcome them with open arms if they support your view in even the most remote way.
We can't. You cannot force a population to feel a particular way (short of brainwashing of course)...they either want to or don't, the decision is up to them. Given the power of the U.S. military I would think that the mere fact that every major Iraqi city has not been obliterated from the face of the Earth, killing millions, would be evidence enough that we are not targeting civilians. If Iraqis choose to disregard that broader picture and focus on a few tragic events then there is nothing that can be done.
Remember that traffic accident in South Korea? Let's think about that event logically. Traffic mishaps happen all the time among the civilian population, so with 38,000 U.S. troops stationed in SK for decades isn't it only a matter of time before they get in an accident themselves? Of course. But S. Koreans prefer to work themselves into a frenzy over an unfortunate accident and villify the U.S. as a whole. It is a classic example of people believing whatever they want to believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary...a triumph of pure, unbridled emotion over cool, measured reason. We'll probably see the same reaction from Iraqis to their own civilian casualties, just as Americans would react the same way.
It's tough to say, really. When we see Iraqi civilians on camera we have no way of knowing whether they are expressing their true feelings or putting on a show because they fear Iraqi/coalition forces, are simply temporarily frustrated by the lack of humanitarian aid (esp. water), or are trying to wheedle some humanitarian aid out of coalition troops.
The good news is that public opinion is not static. After the war as humanitarian aid begins to flow regularly, oil revenue pours back into the country to rebuild its infrastructure, people get a taste of freedom from Saddam's regime, and the passage of time dulls bad memories and traumatic experiences, it is possible that Iraqi opinion of the U.S. will improve, though that may only happen years later, after American forces have left the country. We'll just have to wait and see.
I'd like to point out that there is no "my side". As I stated earlier (selective reading?), I'm not pro-war, though I'm tempted to take up that side simply because of the attitudes of many people here. I'd prefer you not to label me as some sort of follower to either side. As I've admitted in another thread, I personally believe war is a bit too much, but whatever, if labelling me as a pro-war lunatic makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead. I won't take it personally.Originally posted by: apoppin
First of all, there are plenty of "raving lunatics" on the pro-war side in these forums - those who can't think clearly enough to present any argument but RIDUCULE - i.e. "you're clueless" as a pat response to everything. THERE IS PLENTY OF "abuse and sarcasm" FROM YOUR SIDE.
Additionally, I should've known that your programmed response would've been something along the lines of "But mommy, they're doing it too!!". I'm not going to get into a contest of counting which posts from which sides are more ludicrous, as WONDERFUL as that would be (yes, sarcasm for once), but if you'd look at the forums with an objective mind, you'd see how much more often the anti-war folks like to jump to conclusions on the spot. I know I won't convince you of this because from what I've been reading in various threads, you won't ever admit you were the slightest bit wrong and you'll twist anything to prove your point, rather than actually debate and consider the fact that your word might not be the end-all-do-all for once. The very fact that you can't see how heartless or unhinged some of your posts are makes me realize that you won't listen to anything anyone says unless they 100% agree with you, so I'd best stop while I'm ahead.
When labelling others a raving lunatic, take a look at who's been yelling in ALL CAPS TRYING ADAMANTLY TO PROVE THAT HE'S CORRECT. If it walks like a duck...
Once again, just because you finish up your sentence with a smilie doesn't make your post less arrogant. You can keep trying though.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Staley8
Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.
However, we are making a valid point - the war is only in it's second week - and you are going to hear a LOT MORE of it. If you are tired of hearing that "we shouldn't be there" then drop out of the anti-war discussions. . . . The war IS illegal in the viewpoint of the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants and we should get out of Iraq.
The only ones who defend this war are Bush supporters. All the rest of America just "support our troops".
You see, yours really IS the MINORITY viewpoint.
Check out CNN's polls. Out of almost 269,000 votes, 85% say it was justified to fire on the van. And according to FoxNews A Majority of the US, 78% in fact, Supports the War ....here's a quick summary "The latest FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, finds that fully 78 percent of Americans support (66 percent ?strongly? support) taking action to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power and 18 percent oppose. Earlier this month support for action was at 71 percent (54 percent ?strongly? supported) with 20 percent opposed. ".
Tell me again whose viewpoint is in the MINORITY? You might want some facts next time OK
"...you thought it supported the views you seem to be espousing..."
Wrong! These people are animals for not only hiding behind civilians, but shooting them in the back! Not to mention forcing men to fight or have their families killed. They ARE animals. There is hopefully a special place in hell waiting for this scum. :|
Wrong! These people are animals for not only hiding behind civilians, but shooting them in the back! Not to mention forcing men to fight or have their families killed. They ARE animals. There is hopefully a special place in hell waiting for this scum. :|
Originally posted by: SpideyCU
I'd like to point out that there is no "my side". As I stated earlier (selective reading?), I'm not pro-war, though I'm tempted to take up that side simply because of the attitudes of many people here. I'd prefer you not to label me as some sort of follower to either side. As I've admitted in another thread, I personally believe war is a bit too much, but whatever, if labelling me as a pro-war lunatic makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead. I won't take it personally.Originally posted by: apoppin
First of all, there are plenty of "raving lunatics" on the pro-war side in these forums - those who can't think clearly enough to present any argument but RIDUCULE - i.e. "you're clueless" as a pat response to everything. THERE IS PLENTY OF "abuse and sarcasm" FROM YOUR SIDE.
Additionally, I should've known that your programmed response would've been something along the lines of "But mommy, they're doing it too!!". I'm not going to get into a contest of counting which posts from which sides are more ludicrous, as WONDERFUL as that would be (yes, sarcasm for once), but if you'd look at the forums with an objective mind, you'd see how much more often the anti-war folks like to jump to conclusions on the spot. I know I won't convince you of this because from what I've been reading in various threads, you won't ever admit you were the slightest bit wrong and you'll twist anything to prove your point, rather than actually debate and consider the fact that your word might not be the end-all-do-all for once. The very fact that you can't see how heartless or unhinged some of your posts are makes me realize that you won't listen to anything anyone says unless they 100% agree with you, so I'd best stop while I'm ahead.
When labelling others a raving lunatic, take a look at who's been yelling in ALL CAPS TRYING ADAMANTLY TO PROVE THAT HE'S CORRECT. If it walks like a duck...
Once again, just because you finish up your sentence with a smilie doesn't make your post less arrogant. You can keep trying though.
Yeah, all issues aside, the whole CAPITALIZING every OTHER random word AS if it WERE adding some KIND of authority AND validity to his POSTS habit is GETTING rather annoying and adds nothing to the argument. I'm surprised someone hasn't called him on it earlier.
Seriously though, that's where I stand too. While, unlike you, I do support the war (but only marginally as a last effort to achieve what seems to me an important cause; and obviously I'm not passionate enough in my opinion to participate in heated, continuous discussion on the topic), seeing the vitriol, vicious and irrelevant ad hominems and America bashing, and the grasping of straws at any remotely negative event that pops up to justify elaborate conspiracy theories and forecasts of doom expressed by a significant number (and the most vocal) of anti-war protestors has only tempted me to drift my opinion even farther against theirs.
I've been wondering about something. Over the past few weeks/months there have been scores of members here who have stated that the fact that Iraq has violated the agreements of the ceasefire gives us the right to go in...basically making it a legal war. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't...I can't say for sure. But my question(s) are this...
I don't recall anybody in our administration saying this. It's always "1441 this" or "1441 that", but has anyone (Powell, Rumsfield, Bush, etc) ever said anything about the violations of the terms of the ceasefire(not subsequent resolutions) giving us the right to go in.
One more thing...If we are fighting Iraq for violating the ceasefire, does that give a go-ahead to replace the government? Is there any reference in the ceasefire that says "If this doesn't happen, then a regime change will happen."?
I don't recall anybody in our administration saying this. It's always "1441 this" or "1441 that", but has anyone (Powell, Rumsfield, Bush, etc) ever said anything about the violations of the terms of the ceasefire(not subsequent resolutions) giving us the right to go in.
One more thing...If we are fighting Iraq for violating the ceasefire, does that give a go-ahead to replace the government? Is there any reference in the ceasefire that says "If this doesn't happen, then a regime change will happen."?
Are you saying that we take the higher moral ground in this conflict to bail the unfortunate Iraqis from Saddam?
Why has your government & CIA taken responsible for its crimes against humanity that people such as Milosevic are on trial for?
How do explain the despicable act that the US government has carried out against the weak countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Guatamala, etc...
Your government has stoop as low or lower than Saddam so their friends & associates can make money from the poor blood, and to have uninformed lemmings defending their cause.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Your point? What point is that exactly....that your "example" as to how pissed "we" would be in your supposed scenerio? Of course I didn't miss your "point", evidently you missed my point: your analogy is a flawed and dishonest misrepresentation of events that happened and bears no relationship to your moronic scenerio of the reverse.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter