Unfair use of force in Iraq?

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 186
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    The US didn't join the war until attacked, so in a way you were defending your homeland.



    We weren't attacked by a European nation. Germany didn't attack us. Self-defense would've been us sticking to the Pacific theatre. But thanks for downplaying our role.



    And it wasn't in Russia's self-defense interests to liberate your nation either. I guess you're all for this foreign aggression when it benefits you, right?



    Quote:

    I was wondering about that as well. This is why I raised the question and posted the quote. So far I've gotten one or two serious responses.



    It's an idiotic question.



    Quote:

    I advocate letting the iraqis free themselves, like you americans did. And don't think for a minute I condone the sanctions. Just remember that the US did.



    So you advocate that they rebel against Saddam and for everyone else to stay out of it? Remember that they tried that in 1991 and 50,000 of them get slaughtered.



    Perhaps you don't advocate sanctions but for you to advocate revolution within Iraq is to call for far more blood than this war will shed. Far more.



    Quote:

    I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.



    How do we do that, then?

    I'll give you a hint: we CAN'T.

    If we leave Saddam and remove sanctions we are still evil because Saddam without limits is aggressive and dangerous.



    It is infuriating that you act like we could just ignore the problem and it would go away. That those people were happy before we went in there and messed everything up, just oblivious to reality.



    What the hell do you ADVOCATE?

    I mean, you're full of anti-US rhetoric, but do you have ANYTHING positive to contribute? Of course not.



    Quote:

    Right, without the idea of a "surgical war" we might not be in this shit at all.



    And the Iraqi people could just die of malnutrition and disease in peace. You are a humanitarian.



    Quote:

    Korea



    That's just as much on the USSR as it is on us.



    Quote:

    Cuba



    What aggressive action against them? The Bay of Pigs?

    I thought you wanted people to overthrow their own governments. Make up your mind.



    Quote:

    Panama



    There's one!



    Quote:

    [b]Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador



    [b]



    Did we go in to those nations and fight? Think about it.



    Quote:

    Colombia



    Attacking the drug barons? If so, I'll give you half.

    1.5



    Quote:

    Philippines



    What?



    Quote:

    Cambodia



    That was part of Vietnam.

    2.5



    Quote:

    Libya



    There's another one. (how many deaths? 12?)

    3.5



    and on and on indeed.



    It seems as if "aggression" in your mind has moved past the point of actual military involvement into the area of international policy you disagree with. How semantically pathetic. The bait and switch.



    The US more aggressive than the USSR... Christ... I don't even know why I waste time talking to you. Can we not acknowledge that the US had some horrible foreign policy decisions and participated in some violent and bloody situations without being stupid and melodramatic about it? Of course not.



    "BUSH IS HITLER!" "AMERICA IS THE WORLD OPPRESSOR!" "1,2,3,4 WE DON'T WANT NO ****ING WAR!"



    "Well, groverat, if you dramatize the bad and completely ignore the good America comes out looking very naughty."
  • Reply 42 of 186
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New





    The numbers of dead iraqi soldiers are now well passed a 1000, while UK&US casualties are about 50.







    Of the 20 British servicemen killed so far, 14 died in accidents, 4 died in 'friendly fire' incidents and only 2 died in combat. Ignoring accidents, the biggest threat to British servicemen seems to be the other coalition forces. \
  • Reply 43 of 186
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Well, this particular thread certainly takes "Dumbass Posting of the Year" award (and it's only March...amazing).



    Listen, why do some of you insist on waking up each and every day looking for things to point out about how the U.S. is doing this or that wrong or bad? Is it simply your life's work?



    How come you're not equally (or MORE so) upset with the way the Iraqi soldiers are fighting this thing? Are THEY being fair? Are they "following the rules"? If they had the resources and equipment we had, would they be humane and enlightened enough to go "you know, we really need to make this fair...". Shooting our POWs, parading the images on TV and the press, doing God-knows-what to the remaining POWs (especially that poor woman), pretending to surrender then opening fire on our troops, using townspeople and non-military sites as "shields", etc.



    Who's being "unfair"?



    :confused:



    We've got a superior, better-equipped/trained military and you want to handwring and bitch that we're "being unfair" and should somehow stop being superior and out to win this thing? You're an idiot.







    What would you like? Let's see: we should give Iraq half of our tanks and airplanes? How about some of our guns and navigation equipment?



    Would that make you happy? Would you feel better about it all then? Would you sleep with a lighter heart tonight, knowing that "the playing field is level now"?



    Where is "fairness" written? My God, the fact that we haven't flattened that fücking place and killed every living, breathing thing there is ample proof - to anyone with half a brain - that we're not going in there full-tilt, killing anything that moves, gunning for women, children, etc. If anything, pinhead, we're doing this whole thing with one arm tied behind our backs, going out of our way to ensure that we're not hurting civilians and damaging non-military structures and locations.







    I will never, ever understand some of you. I really won't.
  • Reply 44 of 186
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    Hey, have you guys seen the thread about big macs in this forum?! NO??? Check it out man, it's hilarious!!! There's this guy who has eaten like 19,000 Big Macs! Twice as many as me at least!!!



  • Reply 45 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    Either way, you were liberated by someone other than yourselves. Perhaps the Allies should have allowed you to do it on your own.



    Also, another question. Once the allies pushed germany out of the conquered nations, by your logic, shouldn't the war have ended there? Shouldn't the German people have been allowed the chance to change the regime on their own?




    err... did I ever say this? One thing though; some of the UK commanders in charge of bombing Germany should have been put on trial in Nuremberg as well. The American bombing was very targeted at military targets, the English night-bombing missions had elements of pure retaliation in them.





    Quote:

    Like the brave people of Norway did? How about the French, they sure didn't need any outside help.



    The Norwegian people freed themselves from Sweden in 1904 without bloodshed. The French freed themselves from tyranny in 1789 through a bloody revolution. But they gained a lot. these are comparable examples. Iraq is a sovereign nation burdened by dictatorship.



    Quote:

    I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.



    That's where the entire premise of your thread goes offline. Since the war is on and the US is trying to minimise civilian deaths (to even argue otherwise shows unbelievable ignorance), how are they supposed to win the war, other than by killing Iraqi soldiers that don't surrender? It is not a unfair, or banned by conventions of war to try and kill enemy soldier who continue to fight. But, if that's how you think a war works, perhaps that's why Norway was unable to liberate itself. In a war, soldier who choose to fight risk death...that's why it's called war. Even strictly following rules of engagement meant to minimise deaths and rules of war governing battle, soldier will still die.



    Norway was unable to liberate itself because it was a fly to an elephant compared to Germany. Like Iraq will loose to the US because of the difference in strength.

    You don't see the conflict in liberating and killing thousands of the very same people? sounds like vietnam rhetoric to me...



    Quote:

    Korea? You mean the UN sanctioned action in Korea? That was America's fault too?



    Yes, US, Soviet and Chinese aggression is to blame for Korea still being parted.

    Quote:

    Cuba? Sorry, USSR getting a foothold, obviously to threaten the US, isn't an act of US aggression.



    Bay of pigs?

    Quote:

    Afghanistan? You mean before or after it was invaded by the soviets? Lebabon? Before of after Syrian domination?



    what logic is this?



    Quote:

    Of course you bring up Israel. The UK creates the state and it's the US fault. The Arabs attack them, and that's America's fault too? Paletinians bomb them (not to create a state, but to destroy the state of Israel) and that's America's fault too?



    If it weren't for the US vetoes, there might have been more progress, and maybe even a palestinian stat alongside Israel by now.



    Quote:

    Sorry to break the news to you New, but not everyting bad is the fault of the US. Sometimes, others are as much or more to blame. Sometimes, you can't pin everything on 'US Aggression'



    I never said "just the US", did I? I just said "on top of the list".



    Quote:

    The outlasted the USSR, so that means they were more often the aggressor? Nice logic.



    read again. "historically in both directions". So if we just for the argument say the Soviet was worse at "f***ing over" other countries in the cold war. American history prior to Soviet and after its fall still puts it ahead on the list. Start with the Monroe Doctrine. read from there to the present.
  • Reply 46 of 186
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    That's why most countries call them defending forces is it? Even Israel calls its army the Israeli Defence Force.



    what's your point? these "defense" forces have never been used aggressively? you can call a turd a flower, but it wont make it smell any better. kind of like your point.





    Quote:

    Go ask a japanese if he or she thinks the bombs were necessary.



    i did. ilived in japan for almost 5 years. those that i spoke to were kind of split on it. even those that i spoke to that thought we were wrong to have used atomics had to admit that it probably did save many more lives.





    Quote:

    In my eyes you are repeating the very same mistakes as the colonial powers of Europe committed for several hundred years. In a modern context of course. digging yourself deeper down into the shit each time.



    care to elaborate, or you going to continue to throw vietnam at us?



    Quote:

    Did you know since WWII there have been a steady increase in US military actions and soldiers stationed abroad, almost at a year-to-year growth basis?



    My part of the world (Scandinavia) don't have much dirty work to be done. we have a quite good track-record of solving things peacefully.



    gee, i wonder if much of your continued security and relatively prosperity had to do with the thousands of of US forces stationed there after WWII? perhaps if we had stationed troops there after the first world war, we wouldn't have had the second one? sure you guy have done a bang up job. i guess that's why we had to clean up the mess you guys refused to take care of on your own doorsteps in yougoslavia. be sure to tip your maid.
  • Reply 47 of 186
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,742member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates





    Who's being "unfair"?







    In terms of how they are fighting the war, the US isn't doing anything unfair. Maybe unbalanced in terms of superior forces, but not unfair. New is just upset because of the war, and because he'd like to see a few more American deaths to even things out...make it more fair.
  • Reply 48 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Well, this particular thread certainly takes "Dumbass Posting of the Year" award (and it's only March...amazing).



    Listen, why do some of you insist on waking up each and every day looking for things to point out about how the U.S. is doing this or that wrong or bad? Is it simply your life's work?



    How come you're not equally (or MORE so) upset with the way the Iraqi soldiers are fighting this thing? Are THEY being fair? Are they "following the rules"? If they had the resources and equipment we had, would they be humane and enlightened enough to go "you know, we really need to make this fair...". Shooting our POWs, parading the images on TV and the press, doing God-knows-what to the remaining POWs (especially that poor woman), pretending to surrender then opening fire on our troops, using townspeople and non-military sites as "shields", etc.



    Who's being "unfair"?



    :confused:



    We've got a superior, better-equipped/trained military and you want to handwring and bitch that we're "being unfair" and should somehow stop being superior and out to win this thing? You're an idiot.







    What would you like? Let's see: we should give Iraq half of our tanks and airplanes? How about some of our guns and navigation equipment?



    Would that make you happy? Would you feel better about it all then? Would you sleep with a lighter heart tonight, knowing that "the playing field is level now"?



    Where is "fairness" written? My God, the fact that we haven't flattened that fücking place and killed every living, breathing thing there is ample proof - to anyone with half a brain - that we're not going in there full-tilt, killing anything that moves, gunning for women, children, etc. If anything, pinhead, we're doing this whole thing with one arm tied behind our backs, going out of our way to ensure that we're not hurting civilians and damaging non-military structures and locations.







    I will never, ever understand some of you. I really won't.




    I actually discussed this with a lawyer who specializes in international law at work yesterday. She was the who brought the matter of "fair use of force" to my attention. But please try to notice that my angle here is the use of force, compared to the glorious goal of liberation and democracy.
  • Reply 49 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    In terms of how they are fighting the war, the US isn't doing anything unfair. Maybe unbalanced in terms of superior forces, but not unfair. New is just upset because of the war, and because he'd like to see a few more American deaths to even things out...make it more fair.



    I'm upset because you think you can kill by the thousands, be liberators and have close to zero casualties at the same time. The chances of democracy is another issue.
  • Reply 50 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    "BUSH IS HITLER!" "AMERICA IS THE WORLD OPPRESSOR!" "1,2,3,4 WE DON'T WANT NO ****ING WAR!"



    Hey, you got the talent! come join the marches when Iran is attacked!
  • Reply 51 of 186
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    [list=1][*]Grab panties in hand.[*]Pull out of butt crack.[*]Panties are no longer in a bunch.[*]Breathe sigh of relief.[/list=1]
  • Reply 52 of 186
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    I'm upset because you think you can kill by the thousands, be liberators and have close to zero casualties at the same time. The chances of democracy is another issue.



    so it's our fault that our forces do their job better than theirs?



    "hey guys! i'm sorry, but could you not be so good and allow the enemy to kill a few more of you to even things out a bit more. the ratings are down a bit on cnn and we think this might spice things up a bit."



    this is a stupid line of thought.
  • Reply 53 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murbot

    [list=1][*]Grab panties in hand.[*]Pull out of butt crack.[*]Panties are no longer in a bunch.[*]Breathe sigh of relief.[/list=1]



    ahhh... nice... now you do the same!
  • Reply 54 of 186
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,742member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New





    Bay of pigs?







    I thought you were in support of a people trying to liberate themselves. Or are you upset that the US tried to assist them? Again, whatever happens, put the bame on the US.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by New



    If it weren't for the US vetoes, there might have been more progress, and maybe even a palestinian stat alongside Israel by now.





    The resolutions vetoed were always one sided. Unlike the Iraqi resolutions, there are 2 sides fighting over Israel. Can't sanction one without the other. Care to list any resolutions against the Paletinian leadership?









    Quote:

    Originally posted by New



    read again. "historically in both directions". So if we just for the argument say the Soviet was worse at "f***ing over" other countries in the cold war. American history prior to Soviet and after its fall still puts it ahead on the list. Start with the Monroe Doctrine. read from there to the present.




    Duration doesn't equate to a great level of aggression. During the reign of the soviet union, they were the true empire building, colonialist of the time. They conquered nations and ruled over them, mostly directly. Very different from US policy of encouraging agreeable regimes(even if the encouragement was through military action). Tell me, how many countries did/has the US conquered, colonised and ruled completely over?
  • Reply 55 of 186
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    NEW:



    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030312-32976.htm



    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_125536.html



    http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/iraq1991.htm



    Just to start. When shall we leave and let them liberate themselves? Now you say?



    What chance do they really have against Saddam? Especially when he obviulsy does not care about their human rights and fair rules of engagement.
  • Reply 56 of 186
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,742member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    I'm upset because you think you can kill by the thousands, be liberators and have close to zero casualties at the same time. The chances of democracy is another issue.



    So then absolutly nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The thread seemed to imply you were upset by the US using stronger force than the Iraqis were able to, and that this was unfair somehow. Unbalanced, but hardly unfair.
  • Reply 57 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by running with scissors

    care to elaborate, or you going to continue to throw vietnam at us?





    I see US foreign policy as a continuation if western dominance of the world. I just got worse with Wolfowitz and Bush.



    Quote:

    gee, i wonder if much of your continued security and relatively prosperity had to do with the thousands of of US forces stationed there after WWII? perhaps if we had stationed troops there after the first world war, we wouldn't have had the second one? sure you guy have done a bang up job. i guess that's why we had to clean up the mess you guys refused to take care of on your own doorsteps in yougoslavia. be sure to tip your maid.



    Your right in one aspect. Jugoslavia was a mess created by Europe.



    Rather than seeing it as just putting out fires. One should acknowledge that the most effective way of fighting fires is building houses less prone to fire and maintaing them well.

    Of course there are no glamourous fire-fighters in this parable.
  • Reply 58 of 186
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    So then absolutly nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The thread seemed to imply you were upset by the US using stronger force than the Iraqis were able to, and that this was unfair somehow. Unbalanced, but hardly unfair.



    Read the first post. I say that I question the way force is applied. I state that I think the way the US have started waging war is alienating the american public from the realities of war. And I don't think it goes very well together with the goal of "liberating" Iraq.
  • Reply 59 of 186




    Oh man. Good times.
  • Reply 60 of 186
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    I see US foreign policy as a continuation if western dominance of the world. I just got worse with Wolfowitz and Bush.





    Your right in one aspect. Jugoslavia was a mess created by Europe.



    Rather than seeing it as just putting out fires. One should acknowledge that the most effective way of fighting fires is building houses less prone to fire and maintaing them well.

    Of course there are no glamourous fire-fighters in this parable.




    you mean like we did with germany and japan? as i recall, they seem to be doing fairly well since we re-built them. so is panama and haiti for that matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.