|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 30, 2003 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know you are right....there is historical precedence for scalping, cutting off the heads of enemies and shrinking them....hey lets just justify it all...all is fair in love and war...well I think those justifications are barbaric...it appears nothing the Iraqi wretches will do will phase you....sad to see people lose their sense of humanity....quite sad to see people rationalize such barbarian methods.
Now who's being emotional and not using reason? There's nothing historical about it, virtually every special forces in the world use similar tactics today. SAS, GS9, SEAL, DELTA, you name it, they all use that kind of tactics. If you think hussain's tactics are barbaric, then I am going to assume that you think the same about US/UK special forces tactics. No need to rationalise them, but this ludicrous attempt to show it as mainly an Iraqui tactic when clearly it is not does you no good. I could quote numerous samples of special forces tactics that you yourself consider barbaric if I needed to.
Of course you can expect there to be a cry for war crimes trials after this war, but you can garuntee no-one will charge the allied armies with war crimes, esp not the american ones since your government refused to sign up to that part of the UN. How convinient for you.
Quote:
If you can't see the obvious distinction of defending a city and intentionally using innocents as shields...well God help you.
Be more specific than a general "human shields" accusation then. Show me what you mean, I doubt it's a purely Iraqui tactic somehow.
Quote:
Please reference major peace protests to Kosovo and Somalia....I will buy you a cookie if you can even begin to compare the same numbers....I will even pitch in for a delicious chocolate chip cookie
Most interesting. Entirely irrelevant though.
A) I don't like CC Cookies
B) I was referring to individuals attitudes, not an overall bunch of people. You simply cannot tell if the individuals protested to those wars or not can you? So what's the point in generalising to make it look like none of them did then?
Quote:
No decry the war all you want....I have even encouraged such (Bort, Peacemaker, etc.)...as long as it is based upon reason and logic...
In your opinion, logic and reason vary for each person. What matters to one does not matter to another. When last I checked you do not have the final say on who is logical and who isn't, nor does any one person here.
Quote:
most of the anti-regime crowd are the same pathetic bunch as the "peace" protestors...they aren't really for peace or against regime change...just against America....it is obvious to even a child.
Really? You've met them all or most of them have you? How can you keep on wittering on about "anti america" when there's 48 nations in this coallition? surely they're anti them too?
Quote:
You use to be moderate in your assessment....you use to use reason...you use to pull upon recognized knowledge....
So.... the US and UK special forces using tactics like that (for an example) is not recognised fact? Tut tut, I think it is 
Quote:
as of late you have become quite irrational and made comparisons that denounce logic.
See above about logic and rationality. You're not judge and jury, there's enough people here who agree with my logic, some of them aren't what YOU call "anti american" either.
Quote:
just lately you have left it aside.... to which I can only interpret it due to a probable anti-american bias....sad to see a good poster degenerate lately into a rubble of illogic.
Again, in YOUR opinion.
Quote:
but don't retreat into the irrationality of excusing the inexcusable
I'll look forward to you saying the same about Delta force methods then. Are they inexcusable?
Quote:
Hmmm maybe you can enlighten us all with references to ANYONE in the USA administration that told anybody it would be over by now....
Funny, could just be me, but the Administration were full of telling us of how this "shock and awe" would cause the regime to collapse in 10-15 days and thousands of Iraqui's would surrender soon after we crossed the border. When last I checked, unfortunately this has not happened. Could admitedly be interpretations by the news people on what the Admin said, but the impression given by the Anglo/Americans was that this would be easy....
Quote:
Yeah it will be difficult¡...but 10 days into the conflict makes a laughingstock of your comment...LOL....besides Israel...what significant war in this century has been accomplished in 10 days?????
Funny, I was reffering to the notion that they tell us on day 1 "town x was captured today" day 2 - still fighting there, day 3 - still fighting there..... acceptable, but...
Something tells me the Iraquis are being more stubborn than expected.
Quote:
1. Assassinating POWs
2. Humiliating POW’s on TV
3. Pulling down the pants of POWs
4. Iraqi army wearing American uniforms
5. Iraqi army presenting white flag and then shooting
6. Tank, soldiers, and weapons in hospital
7. Iraqi army pretending to be American soldiers and killing any Iraqi that surrenders
8. Iraqi army not wearing military uniforms but disguising as civilians
9. Forcibly recruiting kids from home upon threat of death to their family
10. Iraqi army intentionally using families/women as shields
11. Iraqi army placing weapons right next to civilian neighborhoods.
12. Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave the city
13. Saddam having terrorists/Al Qaeda fight with them against coalition
14. Sadddam locating military weapons by historic sites
15. Saddam using suicide bombers to kill coalition forces
Not to be pedantic, but can we see the evidence for these? Again these are nothing unusual in warfare unfortunately and to suggest otherwise smacks of selective memory.
But to raise a few points here:
2. Uhmmmmm All I've seen is them being asked questions like "what is your name", "Where are you from", "why have you come to kill Iraquis?". Pretty standard stuff really....
4. Interesting, where on earth did they get these? Perhaps they were sold to Iraq when we couldn't care less about their tactics?
8. As I said about the seals, standard army practice.
11. All part of defending a town/city really.
13. More terrorsists or more ones like those in guantanamo bay who we never proved to be terrorists?
14. What do you expect! Their civilisation's citys have stood for centuries, if they defend them they are bound to fight near them! Again this is not a purely Iraqui tactic.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2003 05:19 PM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 30 Mar 2003
|
Intentional lies?
Hello dArGOn.
We seem to agree that there is a lot of misinformation during this war. But if I understand you right, you say that this is due to the competition between media, who rather broadcast something immediately to have hot news than to verify it first. I think there certainly is a truth in that, especially because media such as CNN broadcast 24 hours a day.
My point however, is that there is also a lot of misinformation that is purely caused by intentional lies from the Bush government. You are right that the contradictory news about Umm Qasr being taken or not, doesn't necessarily has to be interpreted as an intentional lie. But for me it was an example of propaganda, since it fits exactly into the American view of lightening invasion, happily surrendering armies, shock and awe and a prosperous, short war. You see, bringing good news to the American civilians reinforces Bush's position and gives his army extra morale. Of course, in this case we can't say which view is right, but I can certainly imagine your point of view.
However, I can give you less controversial examples of intentional lies by the American government.
I already told about the story of 'Najirah' in my previous post. Maybe I should add that president George Bush senior in his speeches repeatedly referred to the atrocities that Najirah told of.
A second example is during the Kosovo war. An American pilot bombed a railway while a train was on it, killing at least 10 civilians. The explanation from the government was that when the train came into view, the attack could not be undone because the missile was already fired. They even showed images of the accident and indeed, the train approached so fast that the explanation seemed justified. However, it appeared that these images were shown in triple speed. A spokesman of the Pentagon told that this wasn't done intentionally. However, The Washington Post revealed some time later that a second missile was fired after the first. Only then the government admitted its error. This is an other example of an intentional lie from the government concerning a war.
A third example is what Lews already mentioned:
'the Powell-media-show, where one of his most important pieces of evidence, supposedly handed to him by Blair´s intelligence sources, turned out to be from a student´s work, written 10 years ago. Even the spelling mistakes were the same!'
I might add that this error was admitted as well.
These are only three examples showing very clear how the American government lies to its citizens. Intentionally. My question to you, dArGOn, is the following. If the American government is not to be trusted entirely, how can we be sure that we know the exact motives of the war? That we know how the war progresses?
To me what Lews wrote doesn't seem very unreasonable:
We cannot say for sure but it seems very likely [that Bush lies about his motives for this war].
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 30, 2003 06:26 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 30 Mar 2003
|
1, You should back up your points (1-15) with evidences.
2, This is war! So what's the problem if he does things like this?
2, This is war! Who were the one to attack? Who is fighting on the enemy's territory? Now you still come here and say it is the victims fault.
So we can make the rules, can't we?
Iraq should place its military in the desert. They should wear their uniform with a special sign on it (so that they would be targeted more easily). Maybe holding a GPS each. Tanks come in the first row, troops in the secong row, other vehicles in the back row.
They aren't allowed to move - that's not fair. They can shoot, but only at the tanks and only at the front of the tanks. Air defense is not allowed - it is a pathetic thing to shoot those innocent and very expensive fighters and bombers from a distance.
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 12:52 AM |
|
|
Hello friends. Back from the abyss, much to you likely dismay. Let me apologize in advance for the long post. Chalk it up to my proclivity to always want the last word.
Missed you all terribly while I was gone and thought of you all much.
Okay, I have a lot here but before I start, let me warn you all that the first two days of my training while away was in logic.
Some general comments first --
PH: "lk st." (From now on, take this symbol as the act of licking one's thumb and then placing it on her hip causing steam to be produced.) Same for you Lews Therin.
But PH, baby, why do you feel the need to defend Saddam at all??? Or are we misperceiving??? My thought: He can be a really bad guy doing all this disgusting stuff and it still does not justify a war if the war will only make the problem we're trying to solve worse.
Sir Dunco, I am generally intuitively against this war too. So why is it that, to me, your lucid, objective, well-reasoned moments appear as rare as the Gootch's demeaning, insulting ones, and vice versa???
Gootch, I must admit, Sir Dunco makes me want to resort to name-calling as well. But you need not do this in order to make your point; your logic stands quite well on its own. : )
Wub, hello!! Glad to make your acquaintence!! Your statistics on the Gulf War media are staggering, but unfortunately, not surprising. What are your sources for this info???
dArGOn -- Hey Bud. Sup? These are my two main concerns, to be elicidated ad nauseum below:
1) Violence produces violence no matter how good your intentions
2) This war will produce more unnecessary violence, quantified directly by the degree to which it worsens an already suffering global sentiment respecting the U.S. Unfortunately, there is something you have personally experienced but are inclined not to perceive. That is, even when you have 90% sound or persuasive logic, when it is fouled by 10% arrogance, the arrogance wins out by alienating the audience's perception of the messenger. All logic is lost and wasted. Hence the Gootch's comment to you earlier about fighting a battle on all fronts. In this responct you are a perfect representative of the U.S. governmemnt. (By the way, any similar analysis of my communication habits is welcome, since you still have the 90% logic going for you.) 
Beginning clear back on the day I left (last Saturday): PH, on your point of Iraqui's being glad to see us only because we're better than a tyrant. Isn't that exactly the point??? What's wrong with that? If they's rather see us there than Saddam and so want him dead, who of us would not want to oblige them?
On the other hand, others, what about Csarma's point (similar to PH's) that the Iraqui citizenry may just be so trained, out of fear, to dance in the street in favor of whomever is in charge, what's to say they are not simply doing the same thing now???
To everyone in the thred debating whether 1441 sanctions war in the event of noncompliance -- the critical problem with this whole thing is that 1441, even if it sanctions war in response to non-compliance -- is a UN DOCUMENT. It therefore cannot sanction war in response to noncompliance by anyone other thant the promugating authority -- the UN. Therefore, dArGOn, it can only be used to justify war against Iraq for noncomplinace by analogy. The reason the US pulled out of Iraq the first time, leaving Iraqui rebels high and dry, was because the UN was the initiating part in that action and the UN said to pull out. Whether that call was the right one or not, and whether any of us agrees with the current action or not, 1441 became irrelevant the moment the coalition chose to act without UN sanctioning.
On PH's comments on the U.S taking on the role of world police: Once again. What DArGOn and others holding similar opinions don't seem to realize that even a benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Any country, whether they stand for freedom, right, good, or whatever other favorable adverbs you might want to hang there, who acts in isolation, still violates the fundamental principles on which this country was based. A decisionmaker of ONE cannot simultaneously make decisions and act on behalf of all other countries (world sentiment), whether or not they agree, and do so in the name of democracy. Granted, we are not acting in isolation. But we are also still a long way from representing a majority.
The point is this: Unless the globe in moving in the direction AWAY from representative government, the world cannot be policed by one government who has not already been accepted/legimized by those it purports to represent. Sorry guys, but "I represent you whether you like it or not" DOES NOT COUNT as consent of the governed.
As a friend said to me earlier this week, this war is a "self-defeating prophecy." (I thought that was about the funniest thing I've heard about the war so far, not to mnetion the most accurate.)
PH -- When have other troops pretended to be civilians, or to surrender, in ambush??? Not that I don't believe you, I am just curious about this and am frankly totally ignorant about it. More info on this would be every interesting in assessing how outrageous or not Saddam's tactics are.
BORT: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Loveya babe.
Katino -- Hello!!! Never spoken with you before. Nice talking with you. As an old fart protester let me clarify a few things for you. One of the primary points to protesting is to inform your government, that is presumably acting on your behalf, that they are not acting according to your wishes. When the bad actor is not your own government there is no point in protesting to get them to stop since you have no such direct connection with them.
Let me point some things out to you about protestors. First of all we do not all stand around and throw eggs at cars. I have never done such a thing and know of none -- not one -- who has. But the fact the some people do dumb things speaks only to those people, unless the observer inclines toward overgeneralization and bigotry.
Second, having space dust between one's ears can give one a very universal perspective. Straight up, dude. You are mistaken about the absence of intelligence in activists. They (the ones I know out here where I'm from) make most of the rest of us look like intellectual lightweights. I would love to count myself among that croud but know from experience that when I am with them I am merely along for the ride. I'd love to be that smart.
Third, (assuming I count as an activist) we are not all a bunch of lazy bumbs. Most of my old fart protester friends are some of the hardest-working people I know. Myself, I have worked since a few days before my sixteenth birthday; I put myself through law school despite being stricken with dyslexia, and now I hear and decide
employment cases. Well, perhaps you still think I don't work and sap off the system. I suppose I might have suspected that of administrative law judges and other such civil servants myself, until I found out the hard way what it takes to become and be one. Now when I see my friends on TV lying in the middle of the street protesting, I just feel guilty that I don't have time, or am not making the time like they are, to be down there with them.
Anyway, as to when other regimes do bad things to other people: yes, there is another form of protesting that nearly always occurrs, even though it it not your own government. At that point we do things like hold vigils, prayer circles, and do sappy things like stand around our government buildings lighting candles and crying and things like this. And yes, we do do that when other governments to terrible things. It might sound sappy but when you are helpless to do anything else but get together with groups of other people who feel the same way and cry, (or lie in the street for that matter) sometimes you just have to do that.
The whole point behind this whole tyrade -- the whole protestor's schtik -- is that violence breeds violence. It is true that we may not be forwarding ingenious ideas for how to solve this problem. Many people do not see the connection between stopping traffic in your hometown by lying in the street and stopping war. On the other hand, many of us may still believe that a dead Saddam only benefits the whole world. But still, the fact (for us protesters)is that continuing to respond with force is a "self-defeating prophecy."
It is generally believed among the activist community that one cannot solve a problem from within the same mindset whence it arose. Let me explain exactly what I am thinking when I engage in protest activities. I am thinking that the human race has just been presented with another spiritual test, and that the human race is failing it miserably. I cannot stop it; I can only say out loud, in as visible a manner as possible, that I think what is happening is terribly wrong.
Let me be clear. From a pragmatic standpoint I can see some very compelling reasons and have heard some very persuasive arguments for the war on Iraq. But first, I am fearful that the WAY we've gone about it might worsen the problem we are trying to solve rather than improving them, and second, more than any other time in my life, in the face of all that pragmatic reasoning, I am having a gut-level nausea that my fears are justified and that we have in fact begun World War III by the way we have gone about this.
As for your point on Clinton and whether there would have been or were as many protests against war actions here: Let us all stop and give this point serious consideration. I think Katino may have a point. Allow me to theorize here why this might be the case. I suspect that protestors are not as inclined to protest wars engaged in by democratic administrations because democratic administrations are in general (or are at leat perceived by activist communities to be) less inclined to engage in wars that are motivated for business reasons, which is one of the lowest form of motivation in the eyes of an activist.
Whether this perception is an accurate on or not is aside. The fact is that once the community gets stirred up against a given action the stirring process takes on a life of its own. This is a very human phenomenon. We all tend to look for information which supports our point of view and usually, no matter what the point of view is, information may be had to support it. This thread is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Which brings me to the next point. While I don't recall more than some candlelight vigils during the war en Kosevo, I likewise do not recall a loud, clamoring global outgry against it like the outcry we are being assaulted with in this case. What about this, Wolfman?? If sovereignty alone justifies this attack, how is it that the Bush doctrine could not be used/abused by Iraq or any other nation to justify "pre-emptive strikes???"
What are we telling the world about North Korea -- Christ Almighty, what are we telling Korea itself, when we use an anticipated strike against ourselves to justify striking first??? (SELF-DEFEATING PROPHECY) Furthermore, does this not bring us right back into the world police dilemma??? If we achieve alienation of the majority of therest of the world, by acting in thi mannter, how much more of the world are we going to have to "police" (translate defend ourselves against)?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But PH, baby, why do you feel the need to defend Saddam at all???
I don’t, I just fail to see the point in being all horrified at certain tactics of his when we operate similar tactics ourselves that don’t horrify us at all. If we’re going to cry foul, we could at least be decent enough to do so at all such troops using those tactics.
Quote:
PH, on your point of Iraqui's being glad to see us only because we're better than a tyrant. Isn't that exactly the point??? What's wrong with that? If they's rather see us there than Saddam and so want him dead, who of us would not want to oblige them?
My point would be they don’t actually want us there as such, they don’t even like us that much, they’re just surviving by adapting to the new boys on the block. And how much we remove them from a Tyrant really will depend on the post war solution we choose, and how democratic it will end up being.
Quote:
PH -- When have other troops pretended to be civilians, or to surrender, in ambush???
It’s pretty much standard operational practice in units like the SAS where infiltration, surprise and ambush are commonplace. Reading some of the orders for units/organisations like (for example) the SOE a british intelligence group in WWII responsible for training and support of resistance troops Europe wide) doesn’t half open your eyes. An example would be their mission to kill Hitler, which though never enacted came along with orders justifying “any and all actions necessary”. This was pretty Standard orders for allied units like the SBS and SAS, SOE and others during the war. These things happen in allied armies too, we’re just so much better at either ignoring them or conveniently forgetting about it. We assume the end result justifies the means undertaken in our armies, and that in Hussain’s case the result clearly doesn’t, but when we use our own special forces on missions with dubious aims for the long term (not here, but there have been many) why does no-one cry foul about their tactics then? Could it be a little bias creeping in here?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 04:20 PM |
|
|
I´m sure you can explain us, Dargon, why throwing down bombs from planes is more moral or "fair play" than dressing up as civilians.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 06:26 PM |
|
|
PH (GOOD MORNING!!!) THanks for the above clarifications. Your point about not fluttering around all these things Saddam does that everybody else does as well in justification for a takeover was especially good.
On that point: If you were to recommend a book that addresses the issue in your last post, to someone like me who was asking these kinds of questions, what book would it be? I guess I really mean a book on what is considered to be legal tactics in international law / what tactics are actually used, either in the face of or in spite of those principles. You know, like that.
By the way, everyone. I heard that 1) the huge chemical plant they found was empty, save a few chemical-resistant suits; and 2) reinforcements from other countries are now rushing to the aid of the guerillas resisting the coalition troops' advance toward Baghdad. Lets' hope these individuals are not sanctioned by the countries they are from, or we may in deed be looking at the beginning of World War III.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PH (GOOD MORNING!!!) THanks for the above clarifications. Your point about not fluttering around all these things Saddam does that everybody else does as well in justification for a takeover was especially good.
That's my point, we allow such tactics because we have taken the moral high ground (not hard when hussain is the opponent really), and denounce his same or similar tactics because, well we all know he's the antichirst right?
Quote:
On that point: If you were to recommend a book that addresses the issue in your last post, to someone like me who was asking these kinds of questions, what book would it be? I guess I really mean a book on what is considered to be legal tactics in international law / what tactics are actually used, either in the face of or in spite of those principles. You know, like that.
Hmmmmmmm dunno about international law on war. Geneva convention is ignored all too often by everyone to be considered really. Take agent orange, chemical weapon dropped by the americans on Vietnam. Despite it ruining the eco-system of costal vietnam for decades, therefore ruining the economy of that area the Americans have never accepted that it's use counts as wrong or in some way unjustified. Basic rules of the convention are flouted easily (like the example of guantanamo bay) by re-defining who is and is not considered under it's laws.
Bascially in war, all kinds of tactics are considered "legal" depending on how serious a threat is posed. In WWII the allies pretty much threw away the rule book because beating the axis powers was more important than the exact nature of how it was done. Recent wars, with closer scrutiny have demanded more "legal" tactics, but you still see pretty insane things happen anyway.
I don't really know that much about the precise laws, but whatever they are, politicians and generals basically will usually come up with the best plan that they can actually realistically get away with using.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 08:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sir Dunco, I am generally intuitively against this war too. So why is it that, to me, your lucid, objective, well-reasoned moments appear as rare as the Gootch's demeaning, insulting ones, and vice versa???
Gootch, I must admit, Sir Dunco makes me want to resort to name-calling as well. But you need not do this in order to make your point; your logic stands quite well on its own. : )
Peacemaker...from you comments it doesn't seem that you are against this war...but ok.
What do you call objective and well-reasoned?
Look if you don't belive me fine, but is shows an ammount of ignorance. If you belive that the US is realy a land of the free then go ahead.
If you belive that Bush is a fine president fine...
If you belive that I'm stupid beacouse of my age or that i don't make sence or whatever...I can't take that from you...and i also see that whatever I do is not going to change you mind...go ahead look one day you will see what I talk about, but by that time it will probably very late for everyone...(just to get you ahead read the book 1984)
Personaly i belive that The Gootch doesn't do anything else BUT insult...and that his logic stands way below normal, but that too is my opinion...
Now to the main subject...the war.
From what is going on it doesn't sound to bright for the so called coalition...they hugely underestimated the iraquis and that may be a huge mistake. they are very resourcefull. If they have started this conflict they better accomplish something major or it will be a huge faliure(not that i would be too dissapointed)...so far it's only Um-Kassar...
Still this war revolves around the main target which i Baghdad, especialy the americans foolishly belive that capturing it will win the war for them, but it's probably only going to enlarge and strenghten the resistance...
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 09:17 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 31 Mar 2003
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 10:26 PM |
|
|
Has anybody in the uk noticed how cagey the news coverage is. Some incidents are mentioned just once and if you are not on hand you miss it. A few days ago i was watching the news at 3.00 in the morning and it was announced that two US cruise misiles had missfired and landed in Turkey. It was also made clear that when a cruise missile missfires it does not get misdirected it just keeps going in the same direction until it runs out of fuel. Therefore for it to hit turkey it had to be fired in that direction to begin with. The event was described as a major embarasment on America and very suspicious as it coincided with Turkeys decision to put 1000 troops on the northern border which America was very unhappy about. The next day however this "Major hiccup" was never mentioned and has not to my knowledge been reported since.
I was just wandering if anyone else had heard about it.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 10:43 PM |
|
|
Sir Dunco, I take it from your post that you are a young person. In that case, my hat is off to you for engaging in this kind of debate at all. I still find it somewhat intimidating to do so and it has been my profession for coming on two decades now. In light of this, and knowing from my own experience that this sort of thing is very difficult to do without at first coming across in precisely the ways I have accused you of coming across, I have been too hard on you. I like to think of myself as largely conquering my own arrogance and judgementalism. I am dissappointed to see that I am wrong in those thoughts about myself.
Like you, I also do not have very much faith in my president and between you and me and this thread, suspect / fear he is a real dolt. I hope for the sake of the world that both you and I are wrong about this, but for me this hope is thin at the moment. As I have said earlier (this may have been in another thread like Take Back the Foos which is also very good), I do not trust my government, its intentions, or its proclamations concerning it motives. Based on my own personal experience I cannot trust it. Based on my studies I know that it (like every other country) usually does things for reasons other than the stated ones, that it manipulates the sentiments of its constituency, and that its actions are usually motivated by self-interests.
For all these reasons, I admire your sense of skepticism at your young age. You already have a head start over many other young people that it took me a great deal of experience to develop.
But should we stop there? Should we not both take this a step further and root out what the truth actually is? Should we not listen to people who disagree with us, to see if they have INFORMATION that we do not have that supports their propositions? Shouldn't our quest focus on whether or not that INFORMATION is there, not on making personal judgements of the people???
Do we want to know the truth, or do we want to be right?
I am not directing this thinking just to you, Sir Dunco, but to all of us, including myself. We all tend to be defensive when someone says unseemly things about us, and many of us tend to get defensive when someone just disagrees, whether or not (s)he says unseemly things.
This defensiveness is one of the things I am here to get better at not doing. Thanks you for helping me with that. Just as I preached to you and the Gootch, there is no reason for me to deteriorate to name calling like I did.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
posted April 01, 2003 08:23 AM |
|
|
Cool Photo
just highlight it or press ctrl-A.
____________
|
|
this_other_guy
Famous Hero
{0_o} heh...
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 08:40 AM |
|
|
lol! Thats one meaningful photo...
____________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 09:19 AM |
|
|
Quote
“the Administration were full of telling us of how this "shock and awe" would cause the regime to collapse in 10-15 days …… Could admitedly be interpretations by the news people on what the Admin said”
That is what I am getting at. No one in the Bush administration set a time table of 10-15 days. But as you mention there was media analysis that did indicate that it would be over quick. But then again what is quick? The first gulf war took between 60-90 days and that was had a much less ambitious goal as they were removing people from a conquered land vs. going into the “homeland”. And to me 60-90 days is a very short war. I think this one will be even shorter, though there will of course be pockets of continued resistance and guerilla attacks like we see in Afghanistan.
Quote
PUhmmmmm All I've seen is them being asked questions like "what is your name", "Where are you from", "why have you come to kill Iraquis?". Pretty standard stuff really....”
Hmmm perhaps you can let me know what other country has used TV to show interrogations of POWs. I sure don’t remember anybody. Moreover everyone knows after reading the Geneva Convention that POWs are not to be exhibited for public display/humiliation.
Well I have seen reports on all the previously mentioned topics. Granted some of it may not be fully substantiated as reports are in the heat of battle. But here is a few links that I found as time availed itself:
1. Assassinating POWs (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82285,00.html & http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030329-97749890.htm
2. Humiliating POW’s on TV (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030324/afp/030324193231top.html & http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030326-2118e1fc.htm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2881187.stm & http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,920646,00.html )
3. Pulling down the pants of POWs- as seen on video
4. Wearing American uniforms
5. Presenting white flag and then shooting (http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030324-afps05.htm & http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82010,00.html )
6. Tank, soldiers, and weapons in hospital (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.nasiriya.hospital/index.html )
7. Pretending to be American soldiers and killing any Iraqi that surrenders (http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03032806.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml )
8. Not wearing military uniforms but disguising as civilians (http://www.iht.com/articles/91346.html & http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/25/wfeda25.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/25/ixnewstop.html
9. Forcibly recruiting kids and adults from home upon threat of death to their family (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00.html & http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/bee/story/6361226p-7314212c.html & http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/25/wfeda25.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/25/ixnewstop.html
10. Using families/women as shields (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-womain303198294mar30,0,1314253.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines (
11. Placing weapons right next to civilian neighborhoods. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0303/S00465.htm )
12. Firing on civilians trying to leave the city (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=3&cid=586&u=/nm/20030328/wl_nm/iraq_basra_civilians_dc & http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/5502292.htm )
13. Having terrorists/Al Qaeda fight with them against coalition (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html )
14. Locating military weapons by historic sites (http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030326-afps01.htm )
15. Using suicide bombers to kill coalition forces (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030329/ts_nm/iraq_dc )
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 09:34 AM |
|
|
Quote
“My question to you, dArGOn, is the following. If the American government is not to be trusted entirely, how can we be sure that we know the exact motives of the war? That we know how the war progresses?”
First…good post Wub. I agree nobody can be trusted completely. But I do think your concerns are a little too cynical particularly in perspective of the totality of life and the fact that the absolute truth about situations is generally elusive.
The government definitely wants to put their spin on things. Out right lies…well I don’t think that happens often. And then the question becomes who intentionally lied….the President, a cabinet member, a military official, eyewitness, etc. etc? I also know that errors happen all the time from all sources of information. Just think even about 9/11. The first few hours the reports were 40-50000 dead….thereafter the numbers fell dramatically….till weeks later the official count was somewhere between 3900-4000.
Furthermore the nature of intelligence must be understood. Where does intelligence come from? How is it verified? The very nature of intelligence means that you are typically dealing with less then honorable people. For example, terror cell intelligence…it most likely comes from a terrorist you are bribing or a terrorist you captured. Any way it is collected it is open to distortion, partial truth, or complete truth. If intelligence only worked on completely verified material…then intelligence would become useless as by the time it is completely verified completely it is outdated.
Getting the full truth in life is nearly impossible…take for example murder trials. Here you have tons of resources, tons of experts, and months upon months to uncover the truth. Yet in the end one is still not able to arrive at complete truth. Psychological studies on eyewitness reports clearly show that most eye witness reports are not completely factual and often have unintended fabrication.
Moreover…there is constant misinformation given and stated as truth…by everyone from an individuals, to government officials, to the media (just think how many retractions a news media has to do in a given year).
So overall Wub I think your point is valid, but your application seems selective and too cynical. IF we didn’t believe anyone who stated things that were inaccurate…well I think then we couldn’t trust anyone…including ourselves!
One thing we can be certain of…we are getting so much more of the truth then the people of Iraq are getting from Saddam’s news network…from what he reports it would seem like the coalition forces are barely 2 miles over the Iraqi border and Iraq is winning the war.
So a question… if WMD are found (and they will be) does that then mean that you won’t be as suspicious of the USA government? Does that vindicate Bush or will you dismiss it as a lucky guess or that they planted the evidence?
Your skepticism is one reason freedom of the media is so important. The Bush administration has bent over backwards to have media directly embedded with the troops (about 600 reporters I believe)…no other government in the world has done this with a free media. If that doesn’t show the Bush administrations dedication to objective truth…well I don’t know what will.
Quote
“And when Iraq had finally started to cooperate and destroy it´s Scud-missiles”
LOL I missed that the first time. Let me see if I get this straight. UN resolution says Iraq must immediately declare and destroy all WMD/illegal weapons. Then about 4 months later the inspectors finally stumble upon some illegal weapons. Then Saddam takes about 2 weeks to destroy 1/3 of them (which he could of destroyed all of them in a day)…and this is cooperation???….not to mention the tons of WMD that he still hid from/never explained to the inspectors…..that is just too funny. Sometimes people are too easily fooled by the charades of a dictator and after 12 years it becomes comical.
Quote
“This is war! So what's the problem if he does things like this?”
Ummm well I hope as a human being you would have a problem with him doing these things. First all civilized nations recognize rules of war (such as if you surrender we won’t kill you, etc.) Without these rules of war there are a HUGE amount of increased military casualties…such as in my example…no one would ever surrender….I would think that would bother you.
More importantly there is a problem because when rules of war are not followed the biggest victims are the innocent civilians…as we just saw today…a bus that wouldn’t stop at a check point…women and children were killed….why do you think that happened? It happened because Saddam is sending out suicide bombers…so EVERYONE is now suspect. I would think you would have a problem with that.
Quote
“I´m sure you can explain us, Dargon, why throwing down bombs from planes is more moral or "fair play" than dressing up as civilians. “
If you really don’t already understand it, then it would be a complete waste of web space for me to try and explain it to you.
Quote
“I was just wandering if anyone else had heard about it.”
Yeah I heard about it…but I don’t remember hearing it being intentional. Personally I am amazed at how cynical people can be about weapons. On the one hand I am amazed at how accurate they are…but on the other hand I am more amazed by how when a weapon doesn’t go exactly where we want it to go…then people cry foul! For goodness sakes…humans make errors and technology makes plenty of errors/breakdowns itself.
Quote
“I admire your sense of skepticism at your young age.”
Skepticism does not mean wisdom! If it did the USA has the wisest teenagers in history. Heck by that standard I was wise past my years when I was a kid, and my parents need to be reprimanded for grounding me Psychologically speaking skepticism is a developmental stage of adolescence. Informed skepticism may be a sign of some maturity, but really has nothing to do with maturity in general….most people grow out of being skeptical “to be skeptical” once they learn about life.
Peacemaker…well your posts were 90% reasoned
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 09:56 AM |
|
|
"Ummm well I hope as a human being you would have a problem with him doing these things. First all civilized nations recognize rules of war (such as if you surrender we won’t kill you, etc.) Without these rules of war there are a HUGE amount of increased military casualties…such as in my example…no one would ever surrender….I would think that would bother you."
There are no rules in war. This is simple naivity.
War is the problem, not the way it is fought.
"More importantly there is a problem because when rules of war are not followed the biggest victims are the innocent civilians…as we just saw today…a bus that wouldn’t stop at a check point…women and children were killed….why do you think that happened? It happened because Saddam is sending out suicide bombers…so EVERYONE is now suspect. I would think you would have a problem with that."
Of course it has nothing to do with the american troops invading Iraq. It was Saddam who shot those women, right?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 07:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is what I am getting at. No one in the Bush administration set a time table of 10-15 days
But they did indicate mass surrenders were likely, not really happened.....
Quote:
And to me 60-90 days is a very short war
Depends on the time frame for peace too, something I note you are avoiding entirely....
Quote:
Hmmm perhaps you can let me know what other country has used TV to show interrogations of POWs.
So it's permissable to interrogate people and use forms of torture on them if you do it in a secluded room? Or is it ok if you call them terrorists? Hows about this for you.... the Iraqui's declare prisoners taken by their forces terrorists. Guess what! No need to pay attention the geneva convention anymore! If you can do it, why not any other country? The germans did in WWII with paratroops after all......
On the links: No time to look at all of them, but this caught my eye
1: The british "assasination" one has never been confirmed and the PM and company refuse to discuss it after questions raised about it proved uncomfortable for him..... As for the american ones
Overall though it's pretty early to be running around determining exactly what happened in assainations when the evidence comes from nothing more than a few seconds of tape and at least one (the british) is highly dubious....
6. It should be noted here that the building had long been abbandoned, as mentioned on that page by civilians. So instead of a bloody battle round a occupied hopital with innocents in, we just have a battle round another building......
7. It should also be noted that much of these troops are milita, a type of unit that almost never wears uniforms unless readily available.
11. I return to my information on my home peninsula, troops and bases in civilian areas is nothing strange.
Overall though it's maybe stretching matters a little to rely on what is said right now until we have chance to sit down and read the evidence during peacetime, where more proof can be found independantly, without propaganda and the sensationalism shown by my PM over those prisoners. It's a little early to prove as such any of these things.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 10:05 PM |
|
|
dArGOn, you really are being sweet about all my picking on you. Thanks. From now on if I continue to do this, consider it a backhanded gesture of friendly affection. Of coure I know you will razz me in return in a similar spirit.
For those of you who are interested, there is another interesting thread on this subject -- "War on Iraq" (also Other Side of the Monitor) -- Katina started it as a joke but as usual, everyone including me got embriolded in serious discussion...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 12:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The Bush administration has bent over backwards to have media directly embedded with the troops (about 600 reporters I believe)…no other government in the world has done this with a free media. If that doesn’t show the Bush administrations dedication to objective truth…well I don’t know what will.
Hey Dargon, I can sell you the Statue of Liberty for only 5000 bucks. Just transfer the money to my bank account, and she´s yours.
Oh, how unbiased and neutral these "free" reporters´ reports of yours are. No, these embedded guys are not the parrots of a war propaganda campaign, what they show is not manipulated and one-sided. America is a free country, you don´t get fired there for speaking a few critical words as an NBC journalist. Or censored when you are reporting for Al-Dschasira.
Well, measured by the standards of a free media, these embeds are as much journalists as a snow that you´ve rented for the night is your girlfriend.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
