What did they expect???

[conjur]

Society for WMD Victims deplores massacring Iraqi civilians

First off, massacring is quite the misnomer. Yes, civilian casualties have occurred but a massacre is what has occurred under Saddam for the last few decades. Where was all of the outcry?

And, civilian casualties would be MUCH lower if Saddam wasn't such the vile animal he is and placed artillery sites and other military installations in around civilian areas. Don't see them deploring Saddam for having done that.

 

[HappyPuppy]

That article leaves me.....uh...speechless?

Unconventional warfare...targeting civilians? All of those embedded journalists must be on the payroll of the CIA and they're all reading from the same script flawlessly.

 

[Insane3D]

I think this article deserves a big ------>

 

[Kadarin]

The "Society for the Victims of Weapons of Mass Destruction" is Tehran-based, and the article, if you could call it that, was posted on the website for the Islamic Republic News Agency. You know they've got to be unbiased in their point of view...

 

[mechBgon]

If the coallition wanted to "massacre Iraqi civilians" it would be as simple as pulling forces back from the capital, loading a strategic nuclear bomb onto a B1, dropping it from 50000 feet and hitting the afterburners. Or we could resort to a massive drop of our Ultra-Secret Killer Pencils if we wanted to be sneaky about it With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

I wonder how many people would be dead now if the US hadn't enforced the no-fly zone all these years...

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

 

[Thraxen]

My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

I assume that's based on years of military experience?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

I assume that's based on years of military experience?

Just months of trolling. Morph is a tool. Ignore it.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

Morph, I'm just curious... if you were the President, would you have made the decision to go to war without U.N. support, as Bush did, or left the Iraqi regime in place and just kept patrolling the no-fly zone to keep him from massacring the Kurds, or left Saddam to do whatever he wants, or what?

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

What source are you refering to?

Without massive bombing, we would of endured much more ally casualites.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

Uh, you have a link to the civilian casualty count in Iraq? Care to show where the technologically advanced smart weaponry the coallition is using has, at any large measure, inflicted undo civilian casualties?

Come on, impress me and the rest here how smart you are.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Morph, I'm just curious... if you were the President, would you have made the decision to go to war without U.N. support, as Bush did, or left the Iraqi regime in place and just kept patrolling the no-fly zone to keep him from massacring the Kurds, or left Saddam to do whatever he wants, or what?

Morph has trouble answering direct questions. Trolls only like to offer up flamebait and spout out biased opinions.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

Well unless you have your own intelligence network including spy satellites and hundreds of anylysts to interpret the data for you I would venture a guess that your contention is based on nothing more reliable than what you read on you cereal box this morning. What the hell makes you think that you know even 1 tenth of 1 percent of what the defense dept knows about iraqi military and regime targets. Your contention is based on nothing more than your single minded opposition to the entire war. Based on your posts I would have to definately put you on my do not call list whenever i am in need of military intelligence.

 

[wnied]

Thats funny..."we could've dropped less bombs and still had the same effect!" Ha! Better that bombs be sent, rather than American Lives being wasted fighting an enemy easily softened or eliminated by superior air power.

I and anyone with half a brain could tell you there would be a price to pay for freedom in any war. This war is NO different. Whether it be civilian, or military, there will be casualties to both. The ends will justify the means, when a better administration begins the tasks of rebuilding a country thats been in dire need of it for decades. Ask any Iraqi a year, or two or five from now how much better his or her life is and see what answer you get.

~wnied~

 

[Wheezer]

Morph is a tool

 

[elzmaddy]

I would consider the current massacring to involve thousands of Iraqi soldiers as well as Iraqi civilians. Of course you could say they are Saddam's henchmen and "evil" and they all deserve to die -- unfortunately this is our governments reasoning. However, I would speculate that many are individuals who love their country and want to protect it from invaders (basically) who they perceive as imperialists desiring to exploit Iraq's wealth --perhaps fed by Saddam's propaganda. But given the situation you can't really blame them for thinking that. This is a theory; we do not know what is going on in their minds. But I cannot come to believe that fellow human beings are "evil" vile animals and deserve to be killed. And so since I believe this entire war is unnecessary and wrong, I would conclude that dropping JDAMS, cluster bombs, or any other weapons of mass destruction (essentially) on any concentration of humans is a criminal act.

But almost noone debates that the civilians do not deserve to be slaughtered. IRAQ Body Count estimates around nine hundred civilian deaths thus far. And don't forget about those injured, disfigured, etc. Think about this. September 11th already happened here. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? Saddam massacred individuals. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? No. But does that also mean that Saddam should stay in power? No, but it is up to the people of Iraq to depose of their leaders, not a foriegn invading force.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

Since we weren't bombing sand and goats, there were a lot of legitimate military targets in Iraq that we have bombed. The bombings that occurred in populated areas were targets we felt we had to hit. If you dont hit a target from the air, and there is not enough water in the desert to send in the navy, you are going to have to hit it from the ground. Since Saddam's forces have the nasty habit of firing from behind civilians, either way, civilian casualties are going to happen

 

[Thraxen]

However, I would speculate that many are individuals who love their country and want to protect it from invaders (basically) who they perceive as imperialists desiring to exploit Iraq's wealth --perhaps fed by Saddam's propaganda. But given the situation you can't really blame them for thinking that.

It's Saddam's regime that's exploiting the wealth, so if their soldiers believe we are there to do that then it is indeed fed by his propaganda. There are also thousands of those soldiers that are using their own civilians as shields, shooting civilians for trying to flee cities or get food, using threats of murder to force people to fight, etc, etc, etc.... I'm sure there are some that are innocent of these things, but what is the alternative? I rarely see anyone criticizing the US offer any other options other than sit back and do nothing (i.e. let the regime continue to oppress it's people).

 

[etech]

elzmaddy

The Iraqis have tried to get rid of Saddam before. They are dead and in many cases their families are dead.

I do feel sorry and sympathy for the Iraqi conscripts. If they fight they will most likely die, if they don't fight or try to surrender then Saddam's squads in the field will kill them. Hopefully it will be over soon and a new future will be available to them.

It's a terrible shame that the other Arab countries turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Iraqi people and did nothing to help them for so many years.

edit/
Saddam did more than kill individuals. Do a google search on the Marsh Arabs.

 

[vicvon]

Hey elzmaddy, if you don't like the way this country is run then feel free to live elsewhere.


I for one won't miss ya.

 

[UnixFreak]

I just wonder why they are speaking up now, I mean Saddam has been killing Iraqis for years, and they haven't said a thing.

Nothing like bandwagon compassion.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: etech
The Iraqis have tried to get rid of Saddam before. They are dead and in many cases their families are dead.

I do feel sorry and sympathy for the Iraqi conscripts. If they fight they will most likely die, if they don't fight or try to surrender then Saddam's squads in the field will kill them. Hopefully it will be over soon and a new future will be available to them.

It's a terrible shame that the other Arab countries turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Iraqi people and did nothing to help them for so many years.

Agreed. I doubt all of the Nazi soldiers were truly evil either, but they had to be driven from France regardless, and the Nazi regime had to be hunted back to Germany and defeated. Guess who had the guts to do it... yep. We won't be back 'til it's over, over there...

 

[Dangermouse33]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

Funny Guy.

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
I would consider the current massacring to involve thousands of Iraqi soldiers as well as Iraqi civilians. Of course you could say they are Saddam's henchmen and "evil" and they all deserve to die -- unfortunately this is our governments reasoning. However, I would speculate that many are individuals who love their country and want to protect it from invaders (basically) who they perceive as imperialists desiring to exploit Iraq's wealth --perhaps fed by Saddam's propaganda. But given the situation you can't really blame them for thinking that. This is a theory; we do not know what is going on in their minds. But I cannot come to believe that fellow human beings are "evil" vile animals and deserve to be killed. And so since I believe this entire war is unnecessary and wrong, I would conclude that dropping JDAMS, cluster bombs, or any other weapons of mass destruction (essentially) on any concentration of humans is a criminal act.

But almost noone debates that the civilians do not deserve to be slaughtered. IRAQ Body Count estimates around nine hundred civilian deaths thus far. And don't forget about those injured, disfigured, etc. Think about this. September 11th already happened here. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? Saddam massacred individuals. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? No. But does that also mean that Saddam should stay in power? No, but it is up to the people of Iraq to depose of their leaders, not a foriegn invading force.

JDAMs and cluster bombs are WMD? LOL Thanks for the laugh! By your logic, all wars are criminal acts which is fine if you're a pacifist. However, you then state that people subjected to criminal acts like the average citizen in Iraq should "depose of thier leaders". I suppose if they just all ask nicely Saddam will just decide to pack it up and leave eh?

 

[Tab]

But almost noone debates that the civilians do not deserve to be slaughtered. IRAQ Body Count estimates around nine hundred civilian deaths thus far. And don't forget about those injured, disfigured, etc. Think about this. September 11th already happened here. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? Saddam massacred individuals. But it is happening over there now thanks to our administration. Does that make it right? No. But does that also mean that Saddam should stay in power? No, but it is up to the people of Iraq to depose of their leaders, not a foriegn invading force.

All the blood of innocent lives killed falls on Saddam's plams. Interesting how Morph hasnt replied. Your are idiot, HA AHA HA HAHHA HAH!