Oh, absolutely. You will get no argument there from me.
Sounds like a good compromise. Or even in the war zone would be fine. Like I said, it’s a stupid and abitrary rule, but it’s how it is.
Lemur - there’s a difference between what they (the media) can do legally, and what they actually do based on ratings. Surely you don’t disagree that whatever the media’s motivation (legal or business), they did sterilize what they put on TV.
My cousin worked for NBC during the Gulf War, watching video and filtering out the clips that were too disturbing for general viewing. He took pictures of his own, pics that I saw and that I can assure you are a lot more graphic and disturbing than the ubiquitous “laser-guided bomb hits target” clips we’ve seen a million times.
(erg… I edited my original post down after preview… it should have just been aborted… Ignore it, thank you…)
Well, I was at the Gulf War, and I was in the Gulf War, and I carried an M-16, and I saw combat and the results of combat, but never fired my weapon or came under direct fire myself.
Categeorize that as you will.
Anyway, you know what I saw regarding civilians and children? I saw them waving little American flags with tears of joy in their eyes. I saw them coming up to us to touch us and let us know through language or pantomime how much they appreciated us protecting them from Saddam.
I think we did a good deed (though unfinished) over there, and I resent the implication or accusation that I am somehow a racist warmonger, and that the Army I served in intentionally targets cilvilians.
That 3-year old Iraqi girl the OPer would have us think about–I submit that U.S. inaction would result in more civilians being killed by Saddam (intentionally killed, by the way) than would happen during the U.S. causing/aiding his overthrow. He’s got quite the head start. Just look at what he did to the Kurds. Just look at the reports of the families who claim that quite a few from the group of the recently released dissidents/political prisoners are unaccounted for.
Hypothetically, if U.S. action causes “X” number of civilian casulties, but U.S. inaction allows “3X” such casulties, where is the morality in standing by and doing nothing? That’s what we did with the Rwanda situation. What was it? 800,000 dead civilians? If we stepped in and inadvertantly bombed or otherwise killed 1,000 civilians in stopping the slaughter, would that make us racist warmongers because of those 1,000?
Of course the U.S. should pick its battles because there is no way we can right all the moral wrongs in this world, and I don’t see a problem with letting stragegic interests being the dominant factor.
So, rail against U.S. action in Iraq if you want, but don’t categorize proponents as racist warmongers or baby killers.
Really!
Henry B, I quoted your entire post. I even used the “quote” button to do it. For some reason, the hamsters won’t bring over previously quoted text. Beats me why, and I didn’t notice it at the time. Go easy on the accusations of malfeasance. It was an innocent mistake.
Eva Luna, since I believe a stable Afghanistan is a strategic necessity, I’d be delighted to see US soldiers there as a stabilizing force for however long it takes for Karzai to figure out how to jump start his country and get his own loyal, standing army. I do, however, believe that the lion’s share of the combat in which the US will be involved is finished. The difference between what we’re doing and what the USSR tried to do, as has been said many times in the past, is that the Soviets were fighting a war of conquest. We’re not.
I have 3 kids. A six year-old Boy, a 4 year-old girl, and a 19 month-old baby girl.
If my home ever fell under the control of a ruthless genocidal dictator I would pray to God somewhere in the world someone would try to save my family, even if it put our lives at risk.
Is the US Government’s motivation that altruistic? Absolutely not, but lots of regular American service members are.
Baby killers?
Fuck you.
Sgt. J
I did not intend any criticism of individual service members. I Know that they are not “baby-killers.” I grew up on Air Force bases. My father is a Viet Nam era veteran, my grandfather was at Omaha Beach, I was in the Navy for a short time but I sucked at it.
My criticism is for a government which would use a military invasion for cynical political reasons, as well as a public which can be callous about the suffering involved.
If we’re going to invade another country, we better have a damn good reason to do it. So far IMHO the presisdent has not shown one.
So Diogenes, how exactly would that relate to your conjecture that “Americans basically get off on killing people, especially brown people”?
Much the same way Woody Harrelson would, I imagine.
Well, I’m going to have to agree with Henry and say that this thing could, COULD get ugly if it turns into an urban battle (and it sounds like that’s what Saddam is trying to prepare for). I’m not saying we shouldn’t go into Iraq, although I think we’d be wise to do so as part of a UN-sanctioned action, but I think we need to prepare ourselves for heavy casualties on both sides. I’m not sure how long a siege would last and you’ve got to take into account that a siege may actually lead to more civilian casualties than a straight-out assault (I’m thinking a Leningrad-type of situation). The thing that makes me very uncomfortable about stating that this thing is going to be a cake-walk is that you’re relying on the assumption that Saddam’s forces won’t fight. I don’t know if they will or not, but we can’t go into this without realizing that they might, in fact, fight to the death.
Anyway, urban combat is bloody and nasty. I sincerely hope that Saddam dies a horrible death before it becomes necessary but, unfortunately, I’m not holding my breath.
I did read all of your last post, I know you say you’re 36 years old, but thanks to the wonder of the internet, that don’t mean shit. I can claim to be a 14 year old lesbian, provide pictures “proving” I’m a 14 year old lesbian, and still be lying. So you can state all you want that you’re 36 years old, but as long as your posting style resembles the inane rantings of a paranoid teenager, I ain’t gonna buy it.
As for the dangers of fighting in the cities, remember how everyone thought that the Afghans would be pissed-off at the US because of civilian casualties during the early days of the war? Didn’t happen. The Afghans knew that they weren’t the targets of US attacks, and they accepted that any civilian casualties were the lesser evil, when compared to the Taliban. I would be surprised if the Iraqis felt any different if the US decided to physically remove Saddam from power.
Oh I agree Tucker, I’m just saying that we can’t go into this war assuming that the Iraqi’s will react like the Afghani’s did. We need to prepare for the possibility that this could be a bloodbath although I’m pretty sure the Iraqi’s have little love for Saddam. Overconfidence is a killer (I submit Somalia as an example).
Tucker, I don’t know what to say. How does somebody prove their age over the internet? I was born in 1966. I’m thirty fucking six. I’m not draftable. your theory is wrong. I don’t know what evidence would be acceptable over the internet. is there a way to check birth certificates online? Do you want to ask me questions about the 70’s? Can you prove you’re not a little girl?
I can’t prove I’m not a little girl, nor can I understand why you’re so hysterical over trying to prove your age (also equally astounding that you continue to return to this thread when you’ve stated repeatedly that you’re done with it), you seem obsessed with making me believe you’re 36, as if that would somehow add more weight to your argument.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit how old you are, your hysterical ravenings about the US being a blood thirsty nation which exists solely to slaughter those of a different skin pigmentation undermine any valid points that you might have. The fact that you keep harping on your age, only leads me to believe that it is, in fact, a big lie. One which you insist on repeating in the vain hope that I’ll somehow swallow not only it, but also your theories as to what America’s motivation in ousting Saddam really are as well. Give it up, it ain’t gonna happen. Face it, you were wrong to call us a nation of baby killers, your figures on civilian casualty figures were wrong, and quite possibly, you’re wrong on what will happen IF America does go to war with Iraq. The best way you can save face now, is to apologize and move on. Somehow, though, I think that you lack the balls to do that.
Ogre
It’s Ok. Thank You for Your logical explanation. Peace.
Dear fellows!
- I am for an UN-force, a permanent one. I am for a solution where UN will begin to solve more and more of our problems. It might take 100 years to complete the task, but it is better to begin as soon as possible to build on what is already built.
And it can do that only if it is respected and helped by the main countries that founded it. (No names here).
Or do we need a WWIII to see that? Is the power so precicious that we can not give any of it to “an outstander”?
And btw. we have a lot of armies e.g. in Europe doing exactly “nothing.” No offence, but when we are spending much (well invested, no doubt) money in our different defence systems, why not use it for the common good. Common good as this planet?
Or is it oil?
- I am against a “international force” that is more or less from one country - any country.
- I agree that, (which is originally written by V.I. Lenin, like it or not), “Violence is allowed only when it prevents even a bigger violence”.
- This is about oil and power in an area.
So, even if no European politicians do believe that it is a war meant as a humanitarian one, do You need that kind of proof, that Germany, France, Finland, Russia etc. would tell: “It is a lie!” (About the humanitarian motivation). Can’t You understand that when the politicians are politely saying “No” it is in the diplomatic codex a quite strong word?
If and when the war begins it will be a city-war. Heavy losses on both sides. If the “attackers, freedom-fighters”, whatever You want to call them are from UN, a army of the world, it will be much harder for the Husseinian propaganda to say it is “The American Agressors!”
This is maybe more important after the war, when someone has to decide who can be in the next elections, (Obviously Baath will not be allowed?) and how to built up everything from scratch again. Or do You think that Iraq will be more or less intact? Just put the right guy in power etc.?
So.
Let us now think that there is a bloody war going on and The Good Guys are taking the capital. Do You think that Saddam will be there, like Hitler did? Is it the Hitler-picture You have in Your mind?
Further.
Bin Laden and his gang will get more recruits during and after this war. And money can easily be collected.
Which do You think that will be an easier task for bin Laden:
1) if the war is lead by USA or
2) if it is led by UN?
You can say: “Yankee go home!” But to say: “World go home!” has not the same rung?
Just remember that You/we are going to a war against a dictator that will take everything and everyone with him to Hell.
Even CIA said, that they do not believe he is an threat against USA, but if attacked, he surely will be.
Remember that, or do You think that it is disinformation? Disinformation that hurted Bush quite a lot? (outside US anyhow).
This will not be a desert war, it will be a man against man var in the cities, if not the cities are bombed back to stone-age, which I do not believe.
And the new terrorists will grow up like mushrooms everywhere, but maybe not so many in Iraq. And these terrorists will most likely not hit the troops in Iraq, they will hit elsewhere.
The terrorists want a global war, they are not playing according to the rules.
According to US-authorities this war will take decades.
If the world really thinks that it is a neccesary war; so be it.
If Bush really think he is going to go alone to this war; so be it.
I think this can be a beginning of disaster, but it can also come out in a situation where the chocks are so immense, just a few millions dead, that the world really begins to speak what to do.
And once again, we have only one international player common for 99% of the world: UN.
Idiots are laughing at it now, crying bitterly later.
Or is Saddam shack-matted already? What moves can he make?
Harass the inspections = Most probly facing a war against UN.
Unarm, if there is something to unarm = or certainly having a war against UN.
I think we give Blix a chance. It costs us nothing and the world can concentrate on bin Laden. Or what do You think?
Anyhow, help UN and You help Yourself.
Last: What is the politicans of the world most afraid of today morning?
Answer: That the Chechens in Moscow are religious fanatics, not just freedom-fighters (if You like to call them that, called terrorists in Russian media).
This would mean that we already have a global war.
It was quite global even before, but to think that bin Laden and his gang is beaten within a decade is quite optimistic.
I naturally hope the world can do it soon, but do not believe it.
For Your knowledge: The biggest force in Afghanistan is from Germany, not from USA.
:eek:
Look, I don’t give a shit if you disagree with me, think I’m an anti-American commie, think I’m an asshole, whatever. But one thing I’m NOT is a fucking liar. I don’t appreciate being called one over and again. If you don’t want accept my cites, then fine, don’t accept them, the counter-cites speak for themselves. But unless you actually have some real proof that I’m flat out lying about something, I’d appreciate it if you kept your smug ad hominems off of the boards. I’m not some college kid Tucker, no matter how cleverly you think you’re interpreting my posts. I’m a 36 year old stay-at-home dad. I’m a left-wing liberal, ex-pothead hippie, failed rock-star wanna-be. Maybe I have a case of arrested develpoment that “reads” like I’m a kid. I don’t know. It’s incredibly frustrating to be called a liar unjustly and to have absolutely no way to disprove it. For this reason, I think it is an unfair debating tactic to accuse someone of lying about personal details. It’s cheap and easy to do, but it doesn’t make you right. Attack my cites all you want. attack my propositions, my arguments, et al, but don’t make condescending assumptions about my motives, and don’t fucking call me a liar.
Well you keep lying about being done with this thread.
You’ve got me there, Neurotik.