Only proves that, like it or not, civilians will have to die. This was a checkpoint to determine the difference between a military and civilian vehicle. Problem is that the way the Iraq is fighting, that's tough to tell until they are on top of you.

One field commander apparently already told his unit to shoot anybody walking toward them with a raised white flag and not accept the surrender. It's about time!!!

What they need to do is start bombing the holy heck out of Baghdad before the go in. If civilians die ... so be it. They are going to be killed anyway if they surrender, join us, or rise against Saddam.

My dad, a Vietnam Veteran, says this is an attitude we've had forever and one that costs American lives. Nobody on the enemy side should be trusted, even if they have peaceful intentions.

If we continue as we've been doing the first week and a few days, we'll have a tragedy on our hands in Baghdad. The city must be bombed to kingdom come now, no matter how beautiful the city is, no matter how nice some of the Iraqi people are. Bomb Baghdad hard and do it now.

Thats exactly what Iraq wants us to do... start killing civilians because we can't take the chance to lose our own to fake surrenders.... then win or lose, they've still managed to turn a large amount of the people against us because we've killed there family members.

Saddam more than likely is hiding:

1 - In the bunker known to be under the Al Rashid Hotel
2 - In a bunker under a hospital
3 - In a bunker under a residential neighborhood
4 - In a bunker under a university

Bunkers are known/believed to be in these areas. Bomb them!!!

Civilians will die. But that's better than our troops being killed.

Really ... what is the UN going to do? Put sanctions against us.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Fine, than all that foreign aid we send. We'll keep the money for ourselves and improve our own economy. We'll just buy American.

Rest assured ... the world would never go for that.

Originally posted by mrskippy

Nobody on the enemy side should be trusted, even if they have peaceful intentions.


But haven't our leaders told us many times that the Iraqi people are not our enemies?

Originally posted by mrskippy
Saddam more than likely is hiding:

1 - In the bunker known to be under the Al Rashid Hotel
2 - In a bunker under a hospital
3 - In a bunker under a residential neighborhood
4 - In a bunker under a university

Bunkers are known/believed to be in these areas. Bomb them!!!

Civilians will die. But that's better than our troops being killed.

Really ... what is the UN going to do? Put sanctions against us.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Fine, than all that foreign aid we send. We'll keep the money for ourselves and improve our own economy. We'll just buy American.

Rest assured ... the world would never go for that.


Then the whole purpose of the war is gone, we are in Iraq to free the civilians from the dictatorship that Saddam runs the country with, to improve our safe being, and the safe being of the Iraqi people.

If we kill hundreds or even thousands of the civilians then its no use in even fighting this war because it will just turn all of Iraq against us... We really would be the terrorist then. Retaliation would be uncontrollable and we'd have more deaths after the war then during.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Civilians will die. But that's better than our troops being killed

this intrigues me. please detail the thought process that leads you to the conclusion that the life of an innocent iraqi civilian has less value than that of an innocent coalition soldier.

comments like this suggest you haven't quite figured out what it is to be human just yet. i wish you well in attempting to come to terms with this over your lifetime, perhaps the answer will dawn on you when you are on your deathbed. good luck.

Originally posted by Bishop
Then the whole purpose of the war is gone, we are in Iraq to free the civilians from the dictatorship that Saddam runs the country with, to improve our safe being, and the safe being of the Iraqi people.

If we kill hundreds or even thousands of the civilians then its no use in even fighting this war because it will just turn all of Iraq against us... We really would be the terrorist then. Retaliation would be uncontrollable and we'd have more deaths after the war then during.
This was one of the main concerns raised against the war before it began, the fact it would cause further instability in the region and be like a giant recruiting poster for enraged anti-US terrorists. Short sighted? It's hard to understand what the thought process was here by Bush's hawkish staff but it seems like they must have assumed a fast war or not understood that the world press would not simply print everything they said as fact.

Originally posted by andy m
this intrigues me. please detail the thought process that leads you to the conclusion that the life of an innocent iraqi civilian has less value than that of an innocent coalition soldier.

comments like this suggest you haven't quite figured out what it is to be human just yet. i wish you well in attempting to come to terms with this over your lifetime, perhaps the answer will dawn on you when you are on your deathbed. good luck.

I agree with andy m. First time for everything, I guess.

As much as I applaud the US for it's current strategy (avoid civilian deaths at all costs), you have to wonder if there will come a point when it begin to hurt Bush politcally. If US casualties start piling up, will the American public accept it or will they begin to question why so many of "their guys" are dying so that the president's hands are clean?

Originally posted by andy m
this intrigues me. please detail the thought process that leads you to the conclusion that the life of an innocent iraqi civilian has less value than that of an innocent coalition soldier.

comments like this suggest you haven't quite figured out what it is to be human just yet. i wish you well in attempting to come to terms with this over your lifetime, perhaps the answer will dawn on you when you are on your deathbed. good luck.

I'm glad someone finally said this. At least the soldiers have made the choice to place their lives on the line. They did that when volunteered to join the service. Innocent civilians have not done so. The attitude mr skippy advocates is really not much different than that of the terrorists.

Nuke em.

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
As much as I applaud the US for it's current strategy (avoid civilian deaths at all costs), you have to wonder if there will come a point when it begin to hurt Bush politcally. If US casualties start piling up, will the American public accept it or will they begin to question why so many of "their guys" are dying so that the president's hands are clean?

As long as were in Iraq (or any other Middle Eastern country) it will be no different than what happens in Israel. Everyone knows we can't touch them...the only main objective can be Saddam.

Quote:
"this intrigues me. please detail the thought process that leads you to the conclusion that the life of an innocent iraqi civilian has less value than that of an innocent coalition soldier. "

it is less valuable, when the difference is an American (which we are) and anyone who is not. this isn't Mister Rogers neighborhood - it's a "we vs. them" world. you, i hope, are on the side of "we". if you are then you care for the well-being of American troops, if not then send your income taxes to Iraq.

when the dust settles is when you look after "them", and provide aid for "them". but you support the things "we" gotta do to win in order to get to that point.

As I have said in a bajillion other threads, it's a little premature to talk about the high casulty count and civilian casulties before facts have come in to suggest otherwise. To this point our military has done an excellent (to say the least) job at minimizing soldier and civilian casulties. I don't doubt that the numbers in both regards will go up if there is city fighting, but as of yet this hasn't been the case. It may come to targeting civilian areas, but to this point we haven't been forced to, and as long as we continue to have low casulties, I don't see why we should start. It might be a hurdle we will have to cross when we get there.

Iraq VP said one Iraqi could kill thousands of troops. That's a little ominous. But than again, what's to stop an Iraqi soldier from strapping chem, bio, or nuclear bomb to themselves. That'd do the trick that Saddam wants.

Saddam isn't playing by the rules of war, so why should we?

I would give the Iraqi people 48 hours to flee Nasiryah, Basrah, Baghdad, etc. If they don't flee, than so be it. You bomb the city and that's it.

Our foolishness in this war, with precise strikes and slow movement will be our downfall.

This war might be about liberation, but reality says this war is supposed to be about the removal of a world threat.

I wonder if God thinks there is much of a difference between an innocent Iraqi civilian's life and a coalition soldier's.

If there are massive suicide bombings, there will be massive urban bombings, of course then, you will see Israel justify its course with Palestinians, that's when things really get interesting.

Originally posted by ice4277
I wonder if God thinks there is much of a difference between an innocent Iraqi civilian's life and a coalition soldier's.

Yes. God loves Americans more than others.

Originally posted by clintl
...is really not much different than that of the terrorists.

Except for the small matter that we didn't start this mess, a point that keeps getting convieniently overlooked.

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Except for the small matter that we didn't start this mess, a point that keeps getting convieniently overlooked.

We didn't invade Iraq?

See, you have to kill the Iraqis to save the Iraqis. Killing them, saves them.

You know the best way to ensure that no Iraqis hurt Americans - kill them all. Why isn't anyone considering genocide as a policy option? I'm glad skippy is leading the charge on this one.

I'm sensing some sarcasm here.

...or so my lady friend likes to say.

Originally posted by John Galt
See, you have to kill the Iraqis to save the Iraqis. Killing them, saves them.

You know the best way to ensure that no Iraqis hurt Americans - kill them all. Why isn't anyone considering genocide as a policy option? I'm glad skippy is leading the charge on this one.

What I'm saying John is this:

We now have several TV and radio broadcasts beaming into Iraq. We also have CNN. And we have the ability to put a broadcast over Iraqi TV.

Prior to invading any city, we broadcast a message for anyone who wishes to surrender:

Give them 48 hours to leave the city. Prior to leave the city they must strip naked (not even into underwear, because a bomb could be hidden there) and walk out with their hands up. They must go to a designated location. At that time they will be supplied with clothing and taken to a safe place.

Once the 48 hours is up, you than bomb the city, even if there still are civilians there.

While it's true that civilians would be killed attempting to surrender, those deaths would be on Saddam and not us.

Other civilians will decide to stay in order to protect their homes from bombing or to fight for the regime (either forced or by choice). In those instances they are no longer innocent, since they've accepted to fight the fight.

While going door to door works well in a small city or village, it will not work in Baghdad. If you've noticed the tall buildings. Those likely are apartment blocks. Saddam will either ambush the Coalition there, blow it up from within, or drop a bomb on it from a Russian Mig or French Mirage aircraft while we're inside.

Anyway, back to my point, after 48 hours you bomb the given city and bomb it hard.

You can't assume who is an innocent civilian and who isn't. We've already had several deadly incidents where we've done this. And there will be several, several far more deadly ones if we don't change our ways.

John, I know you're against this war. But once the war has started, you should be supporting our troops and that can accomplish what has been set out for them.

It seems that many Americans are rooting for the enemy. To those Americans, I offer them a free one-way ticket to Baghdad. Send me a PM, with your address. I'll tell you where to send your passport and who handles Iraqi diplomatic matters in your area so they can arrange for your new citizenship.

Be American for once. WE GAVE peace a chance ... 12 years. That's too long!!!

Oh and these genocide examples, comparing Bush and Hitler. I find that offensive. Hitler attempted to exterminate a people, without any legitimate motivation other than white power. Bush is merely trying to root out an evil regime and anyone who supports it, including civilians who will fight or die for Saddam.

Before I post my next hypothetical, I want to see what you think here.

Originally posted by mrskippy
What I'm saying John is this:

We now have several TV and radio broadcasts beaming into Iraq. We also have CNN. And we have the ability to put a broadcast over Iraqi TV.

Prior to invading any city, we broadcast a message for anyone who wishes to surrender:

Give them 48 hours to leave the city. Prior to leave the city they must strip naked (not even into underwear, because a bomb could be hidden there) and walk out with their hands up. They must go to a designated location. At that time they will be supplied with clothing and taken to a safe place.

Once the 48 hours is up, you than bomb the city, even if there still are civilians there.

While it's true that civilians would be killed attempting to surrender, those deaths would be on Saddam and not us.

Other civilians will decide to stay in order to protect their homes from bombing or to fight for the regime (either forced or by choice). In those instances they are no longer innocent, since they've accepted to fight the fight.

While going door to door works well in a small city or village, it will not work in Baghdad. If you've noticed the tall buildings. Those likely are apartment blocks. Saddam will either ambush the Coalition there, blow it up from within, or drop a bomb on it from a Russian Mig or French Mirage aircraft while we're inside.

Anyway, back to my point, after 48 hours you bomb the given city and bomb it hard.

You can't assume who is an innocent civilian and who isn't. We've already had several deadly incidents where we've done this. And there will be several, several far more deadly ones if we don't change our ways.

John, I know you're against this war. But once the war has started, you should be supporting our troops and that can accomplish what has been set out for them.

It seems that many Americans are rooting for the enemy. To those Americans, I offer them a free one-way ticket to Baghdad. Send me a PM, with your address. I'll tell you where to send your passport and who handles Iraqi diplomatic matters in your area so they can arrange for your new citizenship.

Be American for once. WE GAVE peace a chance ... 12 years. That's too long!!!

Oh and these genocide examples, comparing Bush and Hitler. I find that offensive. Hitler attempted to exterminate a people, without any legitimate motivation other than white power. Bush is merely trying to root out an evil regime and anyone who supports it, including civilians who will fight or die for Saddam.

Before I post my next hypothetical, I want to see what you think here.


Stop fishing, Skippy.

Some very solid comments Skippy.. I agree with what you've said.

If things continue as they have been going, there is going to come a time when something like the example Skippy has given may be necessary in order for the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the rest of the Coalition to acheive their stated objectives in all of this.

I too would like to here the opposing viewpoint of all of this..

This sounds like an interesting sociological experiment...

Treat a bunch of innocent people like criminals and strip them of all their possessions and even their dignaty. Now wait and see how they react when told that you are just trying to help them.

What do you think they will do? Forgive you? Thank you?

When Jesus said love your enemies, I don't think he meant kill them.

The only problem I can think of in telling people to surrender or leave the city by a specific deadline is that those who try to leave will probably be killed by Saddam's forces before they make it out. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how they'd go around this problem.

Tarkus

Originally posted by Tarkus
The only problem I can think of in telling people to surrender or leave the city by a specific deadline is that those who try to leave will probably be killed by Saddam's forces before they make it out. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how they'd go around this problem.

Tarkus

Come on Tarkus, stop injecting reality in to mrskippy land.

When Jesus said love your enemies, I don't think he meant kill them.

The Bible doesn't forbid war. War is allowable when it is in self-defense. And that's clearly the case here. And do those Christians who disagree with Bush ... read Romans 13 ... and to keep it fair to the Christians who opposed Clinton ... read Romans 13.

But enough Bible.

The only problem I can think of in telling people to surrender or leave the city by a specific deadline is that those who try to leave will probably be killed by Saddam's forces before they make it out. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how they'd go around this problem.

They key here is that with all the cameras on the scene, if more people see Saddam doing these heinous things it only hurts his cause.

If we had a cease fire now, those peple in Basrah, Umm Qusr, Nasariyah, Kurdistan, etc., will be brutally murdered. Happened after the first Gulf War.

Saddam is already telling his people to fight and forcing them to fight. Once they bear arms, whether they wanted to fight or not, they are the enemy. The guilt would be in Saddam's hands.

If these people try to leave they'll be killed. If it has to happen, it has to happen.

This sounds like an interesting sociological experiment...

Treat a bunch of innocent people like criminals and strip them of all their possessions and even their dignaty. Now wait and see how they react when told that you are just trying to help them.

What do you think they will do? Forgive you? Thank you?

OK than, come out with your clothes on. Just drop the weapon. We don't think you'll be hiding a gun in your pants or a bomb underneath your shirt. Nah, that suicide bomber ... he was just surrending.

It's that kind of bullshit mentality that will get us killed.

Saddam is fighting dirty and if that means we fight dirty than so be it. If it means getting rid of the embedded reporters, so be it.

Listen fellas, this is war. People die in war. Our pacifist attitudes have gone on long enough. We try to be nice way too much. It has hurt us before. It will hurt us again. Unless we change our ways now.

BTW Here's my hypothetical for us:

Let's say that Bush was the tyrant and Saddam was the guy taking charge in world affairs (but he still was an evil Satan looking dude). Let's say we had WMD and sanctions against us. Let's say Iraq, France, Germany, China, and Russia, were invading the USA and marching towards Baghdad.

Do you think they'd spare the fine people of Lafayette, IN, The Bay Area, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, Tucson, AZ, Austin, TX, Davis, CA, or ... hmmm Manhatten?

Let's say you're 13-year-old son was forced to be in the military. And you we're merely a conscript. You're family was poor, because, Bush is a Texas Christian ... and well, if you're anything but you're oppressed.

Now, you really hate Bush. But you hate Saddam and Iraq too, because they always seem to be meddling into other nation's affairs.

Yada, yada ... fill in all the crap about surredners, uprisings, fake surrenders, etc. here.

Do you think Iraq would give a shit about innocent civilians??? HELL NO!!!

You, your wife, your daughter, and any American citizen would be considered the enemy ... NO MATTER WHAT!!!

This war isn't just about liberation. Yes, Bush puts that front up because it makes everyone feel good. But in the end this war is about eliminating a world threat ...

Before the threat becomes even greater. It's already been shown that Russia, China, France, Syria and others support the regime. And private companies also have helped out. Money talks, especially when Saddam is floating in it. Saddam technically is one of the world's richest men. Let's not forget that.

What's to stop someone from selling a nuclear ICBM to Iraq? If the money was right, someone would. And Saddam would use it.

And none of this, didn't the US sell stuff to Iraq. Actually we gave stuff to Iraq in its war against Iran. We also gave stuff later to Iran (Ollie North anyone?). Today it all was an obvious mistake. But at the time, in the early 80s, Saddam was considered an ally ... since Iraq was and still is technically a secular country (it isn't an Islamic State ... which is why the other Arab nations hate it so much).

OK Enough ranting!!!

Our troops are going to be in Iraq for a long time. First removing the last elements of Saddam's regime, and then rebuilding the country. The more we destroy now, the more we must rebuild later and the longer we must leave our troops in danger. The more we alienate the populace now, the more we push them to fight us in the future.

In order to achieve long term stability (for the U.S.), we must win the support, or at least tollerance, of the Iraqi people (and as well as those throughout the Middle East).

mrskippy you are correct, people die in war. Suicide bombers are very difficult to stop. Just look the situation in Isreal. There is no way we can prevent all the deaths, but we can try to minimize the future danger to Americans in the region.

Finally, just because Saddam is fighting dirty, why should we stoop to such levels?

But Sadaam has Allah on his side. We don't stand a chance. :rolleyes:

Indeed. Allah is nowhere near as bad ass as Jesus.

Who's Allah? Wasn't he invented some 600 years after Christ?

Finally, just because Saddam is fighting dirty, why should we stoop to such levels?

Why not?

What are the rules of war?

There are no rules!!!

War isn't a football game. Nobody is keeping score. And unlike a game, people die.

This is one of those situations where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We must finish the job first and than hopefully make peace with the Iraqi people in the end.

Actually, I was thinking. We did it in Afghanistan, so why not in Iraq ... drop leaflets offering a reward to the first person who leads the Coalition to Saddam and leads to his arrest or assasination.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Why not?

What are the rules of war?

There are no rules!!!

War isn't a football game. Nobody is keeping score. And unlike a game, people die.

This is one of those situations where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We must finish the job first and than hopefully make peace with the Iraqi people in the end.

Actually, I was thinking. We did it in Afghanistan, so why not in Iraq ... drop leaflets offering a reward to the first person who leads the Coalition to Saddam and leads to his arrest or assasination.

There are no rules in war? Ok, then, I presume you have no problems with the actions on the part of the Iraqi's during the war such as torture, execution, disguising themselves as civilians, false surrenders, the potential use of chemical weapons, etc. Hey, this is war not a football game, people die. Your argument goes both ways. If you have no standards for the U.S. then you have to give Iraq a free hand also.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Why not?

What are the rules of war?

There are no rules!!!

[/B]

Actually there are rules of war. See the Geneva Convention for one.

We are fighting this war (in part) because Iraq violated international rules. If the U.S. violates those same set of rules, we undermines our justification for the war.

Tell me ... did Vietnam follow the Geneva Conventions? Nope!!! And guess what? We lost that war!!!!!

I can't think of many countries at war who have.

If we play by the rules, we will lose. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!!!

And how are the Geneva Conventions actually enforced? By the Hague? The UN? And if Saddam is violating them ... why isn't anything being done about it?

To hell with the UN!!! This is America!!! If you don't like it, get the fuck out!!!

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

skippy, u should run for president....you've got my vote

Of course, we could just pull out of Iraq now, save lots of lives, and wait for the bastard to kill us all.

Again ... if Iraq invaded the US ... do you think Saddam would care about you ... an "innocent cvilian?" Never. This man has killed so many of his own people, what makes him care about The Great Satan, the Zionists?

Originally posted by mrskippy
Tell me ... did Vietnam follow the Geneva Conventions? Nope!!! And guess what? We lost that war!!!!!

I can't think of many countries at war who have.

If we play by the rules, we will lose. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!!!

And how are the Geneva Conventions actually enforced? By the Hague? The UN? And if Saddam is violating them ... why isn't anything being done about it?

To hell with the UN!!! This is America!!! If you don't like it, get the fuck out!!!
Another reason people protest the war: people like this exist.

Anti-war protestors are:

1 - Pacifists
2 - Communists
3 - Environmentalists Whackos
4 - Fucked in the head
5 - Liberals
6 - Anti-American
7 - Pro-Iraqi
8 - Pro-Saddam
9 - Anti-Bush
10 - Anti-Establishment

.... Basically they don't represent the American way!!!

ROFL

Oh my God, keep kickin out the jams skippy. Don't let anybody tell you different!

Did you hear what Bush said to Chirac?

Don't worry, France is next!!!

Next time we invade Normandy, it won't be to get rid of the krauts, it'll be to get rid of the French!!!

You are a comedic genius. Your parody of the lunatic right fringe is spot on. You should take that show on the road.

Actually I forgot to add ...

Ignorant and stupid to my list!!!

I heard one anti-war protestor bitch because her brother is in the war and he didn't join the millitary to be in a war. Nah, he joined because he needed a job and free education.

Uh ... hello idiot ... do you know the purpose of the miltiary???

If he needed a job to pay for school ... ever heard of McDonald's. Dumb commie bitch!!!

Skippy you have made my day and I now wish to marry you.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Anti-war protestors are:

1 - Pacifists
2 - Communists
3 - Environmentalists Whackos
4 - Fucked in the head
5 - Liberals
6 - Anti-American
7 - Pro-Iraqi
8 - Pro-Saddam
9 - Anti-Bush
10 - Anti-Establishment

.... Basically they don't represent the American way!!!

Ok, all jokes aside, let's put this to the test here...I'm anti-war, let's see how I stack up:

1. Pacifist: Hmmm, I think pacifism is preferable to violence unless the situation demands violence. For example, if I come in to my home and find you raping my wife, I am probably going to get violent.

2. Communist: Nope. Actually, I think communism is the antithesis of everything I stand for.

3. Environmental wackos: Sorry, off base here as well. I'm for environmental regulations that keep our rivers and air from becoming toxic waste dumps, but I agree that many environmental activists go way too far.

4. Fucked in the head: Have to plead guilty here.

5. Liberals: Well, I didn't know being liberal was unamerican or a dirty word, but I guess you would describe me as a liberal. I don't know what the hell to call my politics myself.

6. Anti-American: I don't even know what this one means. I pay taxes, I go to work, ummm...what else do I need to do to be pro-American?

7. Pro-Iraqi: Well, I am pro human race and that does include Iraqis so I guess I plead guilty.

8. Pro-Saddam: Eh, no. Saddam Hussein is a brutal thug whose death would cause me no tears.

9. Anti-Bush: I think Bush is moraly bankrupt and a terrible president so I guess I plead guilty here too. Didn't know that was a crime or even something bad.

10. Anti-establishment: Rather broad wouldn't you say? If you narrow that down a bit I might be able to give an answer.

I'm not sure what any of the 10 things above have to do with the American way, whatever that is. If you can give me a clear and concise definition of the American way I might be able to tell you if I am for it or not.

I will try and give you a view of what I would guess the war looks like to an Iraqi, this might change your point of view somewhat or at least make you think twice before recommending genocide MrSkippy and hopefully might make you realise why many 'average' Iraqi citizens will simply be scared silly and feel very distrustful towards the Allied forces:

Is it really self-defense? - Iraq haven't attacked the United States and haven't been actively involved in any war in recent history (ie. last 5 years).

There has been no 'proven' connection between Iraq and 9/11 (in fact it is proven that Saddam and Bin Laden dislike each other intensively).

The Iraqi leaders had allowed inspectors into the country and are claiming they complied with their requests (please bear in mind that I'm not debating the accuracy of this, just indicating what the average Iraqi will know).

As for the tactics the Iraqi's are using, no great surprise... they're being attacked by an overwhelming force which they can't stand against using conventional weapons .... so yes of course they'll fight using non-convential means, anything else would be stupid (and just because they are enemies doesn't mean they are stupid - despite what the media would like people to believe Saddam must be a very intelligent chap ... otherwise he wouldn't have survived in power so long).

This is somethat that has been shown time and time again throughout history. Most military advisors would have realised that this would be the case before the war began. What amazed me most was the unrealistc inital estimates for the war length that the allied PR people were giving out.

Please also remember that 'tactics' are always viewed differently by different people, for instance many of the tactics they are using (ie. hit and run) were used by resistance fighters during WW2, we view those fighters as brave and courageous - not cowardly ... why because they were on our side. Don't be surprised that much of the Moslem world aren't buying the western propoganda they see a country being invaded by an overwhelming force which is better equipped and the 'plucky' freedom fighters attempting to stand up to them.

In contrast the Iraqi's will most likely view the Allied tactics of mass bombing from afar as cowardly because there is no effective defense that the Iraqi's can take against it (very limited anti-aircraft defenses, most of which was destroyed quickly) and its indiscriminate usage (again using what the average Iraqi will consider the truth).

Finally the people of Iraq have a great distrust of western people because of past evidence of our treatment of them, look back to what has happened in the past and admit there is basis for that reasoning, eg. America (and possibly UK - can't remember) enticing revolt during the Gulf war then failing to help back it (which lead to many people being slaughtered during the revolt), blocking trade etc. with the country which brought on poverty etc.

PS. I personally don't know whether this war is 'just' or not, was the country likely to attack America/UK - dunno, have they weapons of mass-destruction - dunno.

Its impossible imho for anyone outside of the Military/Goverment to know enough information to ascertain enough information to decide this imho.

I DO know that the reporting that is being done is an insult to the average persons intelligence (ie. A convoy of lightly armoured vehicles was AMBUSHED by people with machines and rocket launchers - there were no allied deaths? ... either the Iraqi's have been trained by the Empires Storm Troopers or the allied soldiers are bullet proof these days?.

I will try and give you a view of what I would guess the war looks like to an Iraqi

I'll try and be the flip side of what I think Iraqi's think.

Is it really self-defense? - Iraq haven't attacked the United States and haven't been actively involved in any war in recent history (ie. last 5 years).

Fair enough. I will agree with that sentiment.

There has been no 'proven' connection between Iraq and 9/11 (in fact it is proven that Saddam and Bin Laden dislike each other intensively).

A new proven fact is that Saddam enjoys the same tactics as Hamas and Al Qaeda. Suicide Bombers. It's not written in the Koran, so they must be learning these tactics from somewhere. And if Saddam is so quick to mimic Al Qaeda, the damage he can havoc is far greater than Al Qaeda.

But I agree, the average Iraqi doesn't understand this, they are not allowed to believe this.

The Iraqi leaders had allowed inspectors into the country and are claiming they complied with their requests (please bear in mind that I'm not debating the accuracy of this, just indicating what the average Iraqi will know).

If the Iraqi people have the same level of faith in their regime that a "western" nation has in theirs, I would agree. But they are well aware of Saddam Hussein's craftiness, so I seriously doubt they believe Saddam Hussein complied with anything.

As for the tactics the Iraqi's are using, no great surprise... they're being attacked by an overwhelming force which they can't stand against using conventional weapons .... so yes of course they'll fight using non-convential means, anything else would be stupid (and just because they are enemies doesn't mean they are stupid - despite what the media would like people to believe Saddam must be a very intelligent chap ... otherwise he wouldn't have survived in power so long).

For Saddam to use these tactics, he either uses them as doctrine (as I believe regardless of the American advantage) or out of desperations (like the Hamas and Japanese did with Suicide Bombers and the Germans with OST units and the old gun at the back of your neck trick).

Either way, I doubt the majority of Iraqi's feel these are noble defensive tactics.

This is somethat that has been shown time and time again throughout history. Most military advisors would have realised that this would be the case before the war began. What amazed me most was the unrealistc inital estimates for the war length that the allied PR people were giving out.

I would think the allied PR, as shown through history, shouldn't amaze you either.

Please also remember that 'tactics' are always viewed differently by different people, for instance many of the tactics they are using (ie. hit and run) were used by resistance fighters during WW2, we view those fighters as brave and courageous - not cowardly ... why because they were on our side. Don't be surprised that much of the Moslem world aren't buying the western propoganda they see a country being invaded by an overwhelming force which is better equipped and the 'plucky' freedom fighters attempting to stand up to them.

Hit and Run tactics are standard, it's the execution of prisoners being broadcast on Iraqi TV, the head on a stick barbarism, surrender flags and then fire, suicide bombings (or homicide bombings if your are a FOXNEWS fan), the dispersement of their military throughout civilian populated areas, the refusal to wear the uniform in a fight, and the basic idea's of using Civilian women and children to hide behind that is disgusting.

In contrast the Iraqi's will most likely view the Allied tactics of mass bombing from afar as cowardly because there is no effective defense that the Iraqi's can take against it (very limited anti-aircraft defenses, most of which was destroyed quickly) and its indiscriminate usage (again using what the average Iraqi will consider the truth).

I think the average Iraqi will notice that the US Army has "boots on the ground" and are within 100 miles of Baghdad and the Iraqi Army has been to afraid to defend their homeland. Same with regards to the British forces at Basra. I'm sure the women standing in their villages are trying to pull the soldiers off their backs and say, "You go out their and be a man and stop endangering my children."

Finally the people of Iraq have a great distrust of western people because of past evidence of our treatment of them, look back to what has happened in the past and admit there is basis for that reasoning, eg. America (and possibly UK - can't remember) enticing revolt during the Gulf war then failing to help back it (which lead to many people being slaughtered during the revolt), blocking trade etc. with the country which brought on poverty etc.

They do remember that, and I'm sure they are very skeptical, but we are in basic control all those lands where those people were (Kurds and Shia's).

PS. I personally don't know whether this war is 'just' or not, was the country likely to attack America/UK - dunno, have they weapons of mass-destruction - dunno.

I would submit to say the war is not just is to say that 12 years of UN Sanctions was not just, and to further regard the UN as irresponsible on top of irrelevant would be back breaking. I think the UN had it's reasons and they were just, I think the politics of things ruffled their feathers a little with the US/UK/Aus insistance that it be resolved now rather than......never?

Its impossible imho for anyone outside of the Military/Goverment to know enough information to ascertain enough information to decide this imho.

But it is possible to have more trust in our respective governments than Iraq's. And the only way in this instance to not trust ours is to, by default, believe what Iraq is saying. I just refuse to do that. In my opinion.

I DO know that the reporting that is being done is an insult to the average persons intelligence (ie. A convoy of lightly armoured vehicles was AMBUSHED by people with machines and rocket launchers - there were no allied deaths? ... either the Iraqi's have been trained by the Empires Storm Troopers or the allied soldiers are bullet proof these days?.

Reporters are generally very insulting, but I would suggest with an opposite spin. So far as I can tell, the reporters are trying to appease both the Supporters and the Anti crowd, and we all know that appeasement just pisses everybody off!

I can tell you that the Iraqi's resistance has been mostly disorganized and unworthy of being called a legitimate resistance. So I would suspect the real story is that some folks opened fire on a convoy and were soundly defeated. Let's not forget that the US and UK have gone up against relatively weak forces. These aren't 100% conditioned, hardened Republican Guard troops. And by the time we see them, they aren't going to be 100% either.



Add Marc Vaughan to your buddy list | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Is it really self-defense? - Iraq haven't attacked the United States and haven't been actively involved in any war in recent history (ie. last 5 years).

There has been no 'proven' connection between Iraq and 9/11 (in fact it is proven that Saddam and Bin Laden dislike each other intensively).

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Somebody is fronting bin Laden. It's proven that whoever is must have lots of cash. Saddam is one of the world's richest men and the most likely to use it for terrorism.

Everybody wants proof. Well, the only way we'll get proof is doing what we're doing.

Honestly, I think we'll end up finding bin Laden with Saddam.

I DO know that the reporting that is being done is an insult to the average persons intelligence (ie. A convoy of lightly armoured vehicles was AMBUSHED by people with machines and rocket launchers - there were no allied deaths? ... either the Iraqi's have been trained by the Empires Storm Troopers or the allied soldiers are bullet proof these days?.

Uh, we've had scores of injured allied forces. And a few deaths. Fortunately no mass casulaties yet. But once we hit Baghdad, don't hold your breath. My guess is that in Baghdad this war will get far more deadly ... possibly with chemical and biological weapons.

Saddam hasn't even brought out planes yet. I'm guessing he'll use aerial attacks on troops once they get to Baghdad, with chemical and/or biological weapons.

9. Anti-Bush: I think Bush is moraly bankrupt and a terrible president so I guess I plead guilty here too. Didn't know that was a crime or even something bad.

Clinton was too, but I didn't bitch about it or rip the President in a mean-spirited, anti-American way. Quite the contrary, I was an avid supporter of Bill Clinton, going as far to contact my Congressman (a Republican) and both Senators (two Democrats) to urge a no vote on impeachment.

Every President could be considered morally bankrupt (Bush I makign false tax promises, Reagan's Iran Contra fiasco, Carter's actions during the hostage crisis, Nixon's Watergate, Johnson's gung-ho attitude with Vietnam, Kennedy's bad company, and so on).

Why don't we stoop to the level of Saddam and his henchmen when they try these tactics on us?

Because we are the United States of America.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Clinton was too, but I didn't bitch about it or rip the President in a mean-spirited, anti-American way. Quite the contrary, I was an avid supporter of Bill Clinton, going as far to contact my Congressman (a Republican) and both Senators (two Democrats) to urge a no vote on impeachment.


Ok, but did you call those who did bitch about him and rip him in a mean-spirited way (and there were plenty of republicans doing so) anti-american?

This whole Kippy character has to be a troll playing us all for fools... there is no way he could possibly be a real person!

Originally posted by astralhaze
Ok, but did you call those who did bitch about him and rip him in a mean-spirited way (and there were plenty of republicans doing so) anti-american?

Sure!!! I'm non-partisan when it comes to how people treat a President.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Anti-war protestors are:

1 - Pacifists
2 - Communists
3 - Environmentalists Whackos
4 - Fucked in the head
5 - Liberals
6 - Anti-American
7 - Pro-Iraqi
8 - Pro-Saddam
9 - Anti-Bush
10 - Anti-Establishment

.... Basically they don't represent the American way!!!

i scored highly! but i won't say on which ones. here's an alternative, to be taken equally as seriously:

Pro-war death lovers are:

1 - people who get a hard on when they see an A-10 Tankbuster on TV
2 - fascists
3 - think they are being american and are promoting their corporate heroes by throwing their mcdonalds / coca cola branded waste out of the window of their SUV
4 - fucked rarely
5 - would think it was a good idea they everyone had a tracking device implanted in their neck
6 - have the stars and stripes tatooed on their butt
7 - giggle when iraqi civilians die
8 - would quite like saddam if he was american and they met him at the golf club
9 - trimmed a bush in their garden into the shape of george's face
10 - can't remember the last time they had a subversive thought