We live in the same city but have never met, as far as we know.
I’m sorry, but that sounds like bullshit.
Hey, maybe it’s true. I have no way of knowing. But it sure reads like it’s made up.
[sub]joke, joke… couldn’t resist, sorry[/sub]
Actually, he’s my evil twin. Or I’m his evil twin.
How exactly were you planning on driving the Iraqis out of urban areas? The grossly exaggerated timeline aside, it’s quite feasible for the Iraqis to bog down the US by defending the cities.
Sure, the US has the capability to destroy every one of those cities, but the political will just isn’t there (that bit about sparing civilians and all).
“What did you do in the war, Daddy?”
Well, that’s fine. Obviously there was no intent to mislead us earlier with that statement “I was in the Gulf War”. :rolleyes:
As I recall Jackmanii, several red cross workers received the bronze star for their service in the gulf war.
I don’t see why it’s misleading for such a person to say they’ve experienced war.
Yeah, Jackmanii, that seems out of order.
Give me a break. It’s misleading because “I was in the Gulf War” has the connotation that one was a combatant. Humanitarian aid workers are not combatants. They are civilians.
They could, except they were only really talking about holing up one city. Baghdad. No reason why a seige could not be erected and, in fact, there are many benefits to it.
Anyway, I think it’s kind of funny that the Iraqis would hole up in a city, and then if the US were to go in there and attack them and the inevitable civilian casualties occur there would be mass outrage at US “war crimes.” Of course, the real blame should be laid at the feet of the Iraqis who put the civilians at risk in the first place.
No no no, the only way you ever experience war is if ye’ve got the smell of napalm in yer nose, and the enemy in yer
sights. . .
Maybe this is some sort of difference in cultural perspective, but I wouldn’t view the phrase “in the war” as only applicable to combatants.
For example, I’d refer to non combatants such as the following as having been “in world war 1” - http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/zennun/drivers.html.
Well, to be fair, the U.S. isn’t out of Afghanistan yet. I sincerely hope they learn a lesson or two from the Soviets in that department.
Anyone care to place bets on whether there will still be a U.S. military presence of some sort in Afghanistan by this time next year?
I’ve no idea what he actually did in the war or where he was but it was closer than I’ve ever been or ever want to be to a war.
Is having a gun and being able to shoot back the only qualifier for being “in” a war? I agree with Gary is this a cultural thing?
Maybe it is.
But when someone says “I was in the Gulf War”, and makes comments like this:
“There is a big difference between actually being PRESENT in a war zone, seeing it up close, fucking SMELLING it, and sitting on your fat ass, eating cheetos and watching the CNN coverage of 911.” - it reads like a veteran castigating the civilian slackers for not understanding what war is all about.
And then it turns out he was a civilian delivering the mail. My cultural perspective is that he opened up a nifty credibility gap for himself there.
And for the record, I am currently opposed to the Bush Administration’s plans to wage undeclared war on Iraq.
I keep saying I’m done with this, bit I have to say one more thing…well two more things. First of all, all I said was that I was PRESENT in a war zone, which I WAS. What possible difference does it make if I had a gun or not?
Secondly, Tucker, you keep implying that I’m “afraid” of getting drafted. Maybe you didn’t read all my last post, but I am 36 years old which means I CAN’T get drafted. I’m too old.
BTW I notice you didn’t actually claim to have any DEGREES in psychology, you only took a few courses. Big deal, so did I.
My original post which set this off was a somewhat facetious and maybe poorly phrased comment about what I perceive to be as an often callous attitude by the American public towards the “collateral damage” we inflict with our bombing campaigns. The American media was not allowed to show pictures of civilian casualties during the Gulf war out of fear that it would change puiblic opinion about the war. to see it up close is emotonally affecting.
I have a three year old daughter. There is nothing that my government could do, no matter how evil, which would justify another country harming my little girl, even “collaterally.” I feel that the three year olds in Iraq are just as innocent, just as blameless as my daughter, and that our country should have the same regard for children in other countries as we do for our own.
Oh yeah?
Well - I’m outta here!
I’d argue that regard for Iraqi children means we should overthrow Saddam ASAP, before he can harm even more of them.
And, BTW, are we not morally obligated to overthrow Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe?
Hijack: I recently saw a revival of the old musical The Boys From Syracuse, by Rogers and Hart, which includes a song called Oh, Diogenes
There was an old zany who lived in a tub;
He had so many fleabites
He didn’t know where to rub.
He kept looking for an honest man
Said “I’m gonna find him if I can”
If i could meet Diogenes today,
This is what i’d say:
Rub-a-dub-dub
Oh, Digenes!
Find a man who’s honest!
Oh, Digenes!
Wrap him up for me
Oh, Digenes!
Find a man who’s stolid-solid
Hook that fish if he’s in the sea
Hunt him! Trail him!
Catch him! Nail him!
If he is free
Have you got your stick?
Have you got your lantern?
Can you do the trick
And produce him, please!
Catch that fellow!
Ring that bell, oh
Diogenes
“Not allowed” to show pictures of civilian casualties? What are you talking about? The american media can print any damn pictures they please, and the government can pound sand.
Perhaps what you meant to say was that the military didn’t make it easy for journalists to tag along and take pictures. That’s not exactly the same as censorship.
Now, about your contention that the use of force must be absolutely immoral if there is any chance of a civilian being injured. Please. So dictators and murders can now act with impunity as long as they hold their own population hostage? “We are constructing nuclear missiles targeting the city Diogenes lives in. However, if you try to stop our nuclear program, we will kill this little girl. You are powerless against us!” That might work for supervillains in comic books. But it isn’t going to work in the real world. We have to balance the potential loss of life, loss of liberty and loss of freedom to the rest of the world by letting the tyrants and murders act with impunity with the danger of civilians and conscript soldiers being harmed.
Your way means that we must dismantle our military forces, even if we were being invaded by Nazi Germany. After all, by defending ourselves we might hurt someone in the other country. Please. Don’t be an idiot.
On another topic: The contention that Saddam can simply hole up in the cities and use the civilian population as human shields. Maybe…if he had an ounce of support from the general population. Exactly how many suicidal fanatics support Saddam? No, the Iraqis support Saddam out of fear. If the US beseiges Baghdad, don’t you think the average civilian and the average conscript soldier would simply go over to the American lines? Exactly how many soldiers will Saddam have left once the conscripts start surrendering? Even if they don’t surrender en masse, we’ll see lots of units holding in place and having communication difficulties with headquarters that prevent them from getting the orders to sacrifice themselves.
Of course, we should have plans for what to do if the Iraqis actually do manage a defense. But the odds are against it.
To answer Gary, too…I think it must be a cultural thing. For instance, nobody I know would consider what Diogenes did to actually be in the war. But it’s not so much a matter of having a gun and being able to shoot back, either, it’s more of being there in some sort of official government capacity.
For example, a military photographer could say that he was in the war, but an independent press war correspondent could not say the same thing, even though they might be right next to each other during the fighting and neither of them really playing a role in the actual combat.
Yeah, it’s irrational and arbitrary and there are grey areas, but that’s a rough idea of how the phrase “in the war” is used over here.
No, you did not. You said you were in the war. Assuming you are American, you should have known that the two have a different connotation to Americans.
Ooooh…the children! The children! Won’t someone please think of the children!!
Please. No one wants to see kids get killed, except maybe the Iraqi government so it can use their deaths to appeal to the emotions of people like you. Of course, no one points out that the children would be fine if the Iraqis didn’t keep putting military targets (AA guns, troop bunkers, etc) in the middle of urban areas.
That’s my point. If Diogenes the Cynic saw the results of war first hand, smelt it etc. then he can speak with a greater authority on the subject that me who watched it on tv with sanitised military passed footage.
The point is that he said he was there. If he was and actually was at the area of conflict then he can say things like
How about saying he was at the war 
This is assuming he’s not lying, naturally.