One only needs to consider the amount of the country taken, the number of strategic targets that have been knocked out, and the small number of actual combat casualties in the short amount of time coalition forces have been in there to realize the unprecedented progress that has been experienced. Has there ever been a war in the past where such a huge job had progressed so quickly? Naturally, things will slow down once the real hot spots are delineated and the offensive/defensive pattern of the enemy is revealed. It would be foolish to assume that this stage would not have been anticipated in the original war plan (but alas there is always someone who desires to assume the worst or figures that they somehow have the commanding view of the original warplan just by observing as a casual spectator). This is plainly an unjust war in the eyes of certain individuals, so they will endeavor to find any and all things that are negative about forthcoming news events or don't work out exactly as "expected" to harp on that position. Never once does the positive ever occur to them. Everyday it is "doom & gloom" for them, and it is somehow edifying to them to make others feel guilty for not feeling the same as they do.
Don't worry about me, I change my beliefs every day.
Yeah, I get it, April Fool's Day.
Quote:
If us anti-war folks are picking our stories to support a dogma, where is the evidence that we're actually advancing faster than expected?
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
You're a fool if you think that. I link to a British General stating that things have bogged down and I'm biased? What about him? Doesn't he know more than you? I realize that maybe he's wrong, but I can't take your word over his because the possibility that you know more than he does is nearly zero.
This quote from Baer is important. He's who the neo-cons would put on the ground (former mid-east CIA operative) in the 90's to check the water:
Quote:
There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites, were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, ?Everybody wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They?ve been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they?re still winning. It?s a jihad, and it?s a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war.? There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria for ?martyrdom operations.?
I can't see why everyone who opposes this war is so idealistic. Logistically speaking this war is going very well. When its all done and over, this area will be like it was I hope before WW2, when jew and arab can live next to each other and play soccer together. A media person i work with compared Iraq to a drug addict, thats your good friend, you try to help and they resist, but ultimately it saves them. Hopefully that is. I thought that was a good comparison by contrast tho yes it sad that all these casualities are being taken to be civilians, so if a soldier dressed up as a civilian dies how is he counted? This needs to be done, so we can make friends with them in the middle east, next they they should go make palenstine and isreal one country and say deal with it heh. Make them work together. I also found it odd, so all this crap about anti american biz and boycott all our stuff there. What I found funny is they won't drink coca-cola they some other type out of europe, that happens to be owned by some rich jewish businessman, heh. Spin my post as necessary, I tried to be deliberately all over the place to make it difficult. I find it funny/interesting how every draws different conclusions from everyone else.
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
A media person i work with compared Iraq to a drug addict, thats your good friend, you try to help and they resist, but ultimately it saves them. Hopefully that is.
Problem is that the experimental drug you give him to get him off his addiction can actually also kill him, make him addicted to the new drug, make him a lunatic who wants to kill everybody else. You really don´t know do you?
I can't see why everyone who opposes this war is so idealistic ... When its all done and over, this area will be like it was I hope before WW2, when jew and arab can live next to each other and play soccer together.
I also saw a report from an Arab newspaper that highlighted the fact that Iraqi exiles were returning to fight the Invaders (that would be the US and UK)
People who know Saddam's brutality first hand are choosing to fight the US instead.
I hope that tthey all change their mind en mass give up and let us get in then get the hell out!!!
I also saw a report from an Arab newspaper that highlighted the fact that Iraqi exiles were returning to fight the Invaders (that would be the US and UK)
People who know Saddam's brutality first hand are choosing to fight the US instead.
I hope that tthey all change their mind en mass give up and let us get in then get the hell out!!!
Can you blame them? I have no doubt that most Iraqis hate Saddam Hussein, but would you not defend your country against invaders from overseas? Someone who hates Bush for example... take the most ultra-liberal, anti-Bush person and see what happens if a far away country comes to depose Bush, killing civilians and bombing their marketplaces and buildings along the way. I don't really like Bush but I'd defend my country against invaders.
I'm sure there are also plenty of Iraqi citizens who are just scared sh*tless and are running away from the battle zones. Maybe they hope the US/UK will depose Saddam. Maybe they're more concerned with just surviving the attacks.
I'm not implying that we're just wantonly running through, leaving a swath of destruction and dead innocents in our wake... we're not. But we are causing quite a bit of destruction. Also, remember that people are watching the news, which is filled with propaganda and will most certainly portray the US and UK as evil invaders who are killing and destroying left and right. I bet we'd be seeing the same sort of stuff if another country were invading us.
That's really horrible, jimmac. I can't believe you'd try to use something like that to make your absurdly weak point. It's really shameless.
You folks who think things aren't going well are arguing in the face of all logic on this planet. I don't care what bullshit quote you find. Look at the FACTS. Say it with me...F-A-C-T-S. We control 50% + of the territory. We have 60% of the oil fields. We are bombing the hell of the RG. This isn't Vietnam carpet bombing here...we are talking about practically EVERY bomb hitting its target. We are are dessimating the country's military. We have killed thousands of enemy troops...THOUSANDS. We hold THOUSANDS of POW's. Your arguments cannot be supported with ANY FACTS whatsoever.
The FACT is you would LOVE for the war to not go well....horrible as that is to say, I am starting to think it is true.
What would you have said if they let it run the checkpoint and it was another like the taxi full of explosives? You think that the soldiers are not having visions of exploding vehicles right now? 4 died the last time. How many could they lose to a van full? This was not the militaries fault alone, those people should have stopped when told to. Now there is a tragedy and you blame the military for it. How hateful.
I think the moral of the story is "Don't try to run a roadblock guarded by heavily armed men during wartime."
With the conspicuous use of human shields, it isn't outside the realm of possibility they were forced to do what they did, and that many more women and children would have died if they hadn't sacrificed themselves.
What would you have said if they let it run the checkpoint and it was another like the taxi full of explosives? You think that the soldiers are not having visions of exploding vehicles right now? 4 died the last time. How many could they lose to a van full? This was not the militaries fault alone, those people should have stopped when told to. Now there is a tragedy and you blame the military for it. How hateful.
Funny that you defend them, since their superior officer certainly didn't.
Quote:
"Fire a warning shot," the officer ordered. Then as the vehicle kept coming, he demanded that a round be fired into its radiator. Then, as nothing happened, he shouted into his radio: "Stop [messing] around."
Finally, with the vehicle close to the US troops, the officer ordered: "Stop him, Red One, stop him!" The vehicle was then hit by a dozen 25mm cannon shots from a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The captain was then said to have shouted over the radio at a platoon leader: "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"
My guess is that jimmac thinks he has a gloriously better solution to that scenario to show such disdain? Curious to hear what that solution is, other than just point and shaking fingers in disapproval...
My guess is that jimmac thinks he has a gloriously better solution to that scenario to show such disdain? Curious to hear what that solution is, other than just point and shaking fingers in disapproval...
The solution would have been not to be Invading Iraq in the first place and working with real diplomacy that would have worked with opinion on a grand scale including those of the dissaffected Iraqis before doing anything . . .
face it, the same way they miscalculated the Iraqi people's response is the same way they miscalculated the 'correctness' of the war at all!!!!
other than just point and shaking fingers in disapproval...
You mean like their commanding officer, because he sure must not be in the know like you either. You should call him and give him the same advice. I'm sure he will be real receptive to some know-it-all civilian who says it's ok for his men to kill women and children.
Those soldiers needed to be more careful and professional. Unfortunately, they are all probably 19 or 20 years old and scared. We might have the best trained military in the world, but we are seeing that we can do better. All you are advocating by defending their actions is stagnation of our progress toward warfare without 'collateral damage.'
Are you people really clueless to the fact that military commanders tend to be the biggest pacifics in our government?
PS: If you are so pro-war and unemployed (as your profile says), why don't you go join the military and actually contibute to the cause you advocate?
The solution would have been not to be Invading Iraq in the first place and working with real diplomacy that would have worked with opinion on a grand scale including those of the dissaffected Iraqis before doing anything . . .
face it, the same way they miscalculated the Iraqi people's response is the same way they miscalculated the 'correctness' of the war at all!!!!
As usual, no solution at all is given- just criticism and "this would not have happened if we did something different way back when". Apparently some people haven't gotten acclimated to the fact that we are here in reality now with given conditions in place. Belaboring over the past does very little vs. thinking in the present- how you respond to ongoing circumstances. One could easily argue that if the US did not enter into the war, a family would have been wiped out from UN sanctions or unfortunate "mishap" with an industrial shredder under Saddam's rule. So what's the point of belaboring over "what if"? The issue is we are herenow- what do you do? ...still awaiting jimmac's brilliant countermove (fostered entirely with the benefits of hindsight, mind you).
You mean like their commanding officer, because he sure must not be in the know like you either. You should call him and give him the same advice. I'm sure he will be real receptive to some know-it-all civilian who says it's ok for his men to kill women and children.
I'm sure you will cling to that to reaffirm your preconceptions. You think you can tell exactly what was going on in the officer's head just by citing some radio talk? Are you absolutely sure the officer doesn't agree in hindsight that nothing could have been done? Are you able to rule out that his particular statement was born out of an emotional response, rather than calm, rationed assessment? Can you be certain that a shot to the radiator would necessarily have shut the show down? That's a lot of "what if's".
Quote:
Those soldiers needed to be more careful and professional.
Yes, who is assuming they know better than those who actually perform the job? How did you ascertain the level of care and professionalism being practiced at this site w/o even being present? From some impassioned radio chatter? How do you come to the belief that something considerably different could have happened if your idea of "more careful and professional" was being practiced? Are you implying you have thought up the "magical response" which would have saved this family? Please do share!
Quote:
PS: If you are so pro-war and unemployed (as your profile says), why don't you go join the military and actually contibute to the cause you advocate?
Why don't you go become a human shield or fly to Iraq to join forces with those who oppose an "invasion"? How do you know I am still unemployed? What makes you think I would be able to make any difference whatsoever if I stepped on a bus to bootcamp tonight? Your comment is utterly distastful as a means to shutdown a discussion you don't wish to have. What exactly are you implying by your statement?
If this is the knee-jerk response from the "pacifists" everytime a war discussion occurs, one wonders if they have anything to discuss at all other than "give peace a chance" and "war is never justified". Truly pathetic.
Comments
One only needs to consider the amount of the country taken, the number of strategic targets that have been knocked out, and the small number of actual combat casualties in the short amount of time coalition forces have been in there to realize the unprecedented progress that has been experienced. Has there ever been a war in the past where such a huge job had progressed so quickly? Naturally, things will slow down once the real hot spots are delineated and the offensive/defensive pattern of the enemy is revealed. It would be foolish to assume that this stage would not have been anticipated in the original war plan (but alas there is always someone who desires to assume the worst or figures that they somehow have the commanding view of the original warplan just by observing as a casual spectator). This is plainly an unjust war in the eyes of certain individuals, so they will endeavor to find any and all things that are negative about forthcoming news events or don't work out exactly as "expected" to harp on that position. Never once does the positive ever occur to them. Everyday it is "doom & gloom" for them, and it is somehow edifying to them to make others feel guilty for not feeling the same as they do.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't worry about me, I change my beliefs every day.
Yeah, I get it, April Fool's Day.
Quote:
If us anti-war folks are picking our stories to support a dogma, where is the evidence that we're actually advancing faster than expected?
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
You're a fool if you think that. I link to a British General stating that things have bogged down and I'm biased? What about him? Doesn't he know more than you? I realize that maybe he's wrong, but I can't take your word over his because the possibility that you know more than he does is nearly zero.
EDIT: Istanbul not Constantinople
There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites, were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, ?Everybody wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They?ve been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they?re still winning. It?s a jihad, and it?s a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war.? There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria for ?martyrdom operations.?
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]Yeah, I get it, April Fool's Day.
...simply oblivious... Any news source that indicates so must be "unreliable" and "propaganda-ridden", so what's the point? Just go on believing what you believe.
What can I say?
Originally posted by kraig911
A media person i work with compared Iraq to a drug addict, thats your good friend, you try to help and they resist, but ultimately it saves them. Hopefully that is.
Problem is that the experimental drug you give him to get him off his addiction can actually also kill him, make him addicted to the new drug, make him a lunatic who wants to kill everybody else. You really don´t know do you?
Originally posted by kraig911
I can't see why everyone who opposes this war is so idealistic ... When its all done and over, this area will be like it was I hope before WW2, when jew and arab can live next to each other and play soccer together.
Hmmmm.
People who know Saddam's brutality first hand are choosing to fight the US instead.
I hope that tthey all change their mind en mass give up and let us get in then get the hell out!!!
Good job boys.
Originally posted by pfflam
I also saw a report from an Arab newspaper that highlighted the fact that Iraqi exiles were returning to fight the Invaders (that would be the US and UK)
People who know Saddam's brutality first hand are choosing to fight the US instead.
I hope that tthey all change their mind en mass give up and let us get in then get the hell out!!!
Can you blame them? I have no doubt that most Iraqis hate Saddam Hussein, but would you not defend your country against invaders from overseas? Someone who hates Bush for example... take the most ultra-liberal, anti-Bush person and see what happens if a far away country comes to depose Bush, killing civilians and bombing their marketplaces and buildings along the way. I don't really like Bush but I'd defend my country against invaders.
I'm sure there are also plenty of Iraqi citizens who are just scared sh*tless and are running away from the battle zones. Maybe they hope the US/UK will depose Saddam. Maybe they're more concerned with just surviving the attacks.
I'm not implying that we're just wantonly running through, leaving a swath of destruction and dead innocents in our wake... we're not. But we are causing quite a bit of destruction. Also, remember that people are watching the news, which is filled with propaganda and will most certainly portray the US and UK as evil invaders who are killing and destroying left and right. I bet we'd be seeing the same sort of stuff if another country were invading us.
Originally posted by jimmac
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ing/index.html
Good job boys.
That's really horrible, jimmac. I can't believe you'd try to use something like that to make your absurdly weak point. It's really shameless.
You folks who think things aren't going well are arguing in the face of all logic on this planet. I don't care what bullshit quote you find. Look at the FACTS. Say it with me...F-A-C-T-S. We control 50% + of the territory. We have 60% of the oil fields. We are bombing the hell of the RG. This isn't Vietnam carpet bombing here...we are talking about practically EVERY bomb hitting its target. We are are dessimating the country's military. We have killed thousands of enemy troops...THOUSANDS. We hold THOUSANDS of POW's. Your arguments cannot be supported with ANY FACTS whatsoever.
The FACT is you would LOVE for the war to not go well....horrible as that is to say, I am starting to think it is true.
Originally posted by jimmac
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ing/index.html
Good job boys.
What would you have said if they let it run the checkpoint and it was another like the taxi full of explosives? You think that the soldiers are not having visions of exploding vehicles right now? 4 died the last time. How many could they lose to a van full?
With the conspicuous use of human shields, it isn't outside the realm of possibility they were forced to do what they did, and that many more women and children would have died if they hadn't sacrificed themselves.
Originally posted by NoahJ
What would you have said if they let it run the checkpoint and it was another like the taxi full of explosives? You think that the soldiers are not having visions of exploding vehicles right now? 4 died the last time. How many could they lose to a van full?
Funny that you defend them, since their superior officer certainly didn't.
"Fire a warning shot," the officer ordered. Then as the vehicle kept coming, he demanded that a round be fired into its radiator. Then, as nothing happened, he shouted into his radio: "Stop [messing] around."
Finally, with the vehicle close to the US troops, the officer ordered: "Stop him, Red One, stop him!" The vehicle was then hit by a dozen 25mm cannon shots from a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The captain was then said to have shouted over the radio at a platoon leader: "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news...ixnewstop.html
Originally posted by Randycat99
My guess is that jimmac thinks he has a gloriously better solution to that scenario to show such disdain? Curious to hear what that solution is, other than just point and shaking fingers in disapproval...
The solution would have been not to be Invading Iraq in the first place and working with real diplomacy that would have worked with opinion on a grand scale including those of the dissaffected Iraqis before doing anything . . .
face it, the same way they miscalculated the Iraqi people's response is the same way they miscalculated the 'correctness' of the war at all!!!!
Originally posted by Randycat99
other than just point and shaking fingers in disapproval...
You mean like their commanding officer, because he sure must not be in the know like you either. You should call him and give him the same advice. I'm sure he will be real receptive to some know-it-all civilian who says it's ok for his men to kill women and children.
Those soldiers needed to be more careful and professional. Unfortunately, they are all probably 19 or 20 years old and scared. We might have the best trained military in the world, but we are seeing that we can do better. All you are advocating by defending their actions is stagnation of our progress toward warfare without 'collateral damage.'
Are you people really clueless to the fact that military commanders tend to be the biggest pacifics in our government?
PS: If you are so pro-war and unemployed (as your profile says), why don't you go join the military and actually contibute to the cause you advocate?
Originally posted by pfflam
The solution would have been not to be Invading Iraq in the first place and working with real diplomacy that would have worked with opinion on a grand scale including those of the dissaffected Iraqis before doing anything . . .
face it, the same way they miscalculated the Iraqi people's response is the same way they miscalculated the 'correctness' of the war at all!!!!
As usual, no solution at all is given- just criticism and "this would not have happened if we did something different way back when". Apparently some people haven't gotten acclimated to the fact that we are here in reality now with given conditions in place. Belaboring over the past does very little vs. thinking in the present- how you respond to ongoing circumstances. One could easily argue that if the US did not enter into the war, a family would have been wiped out from UN sanctions or unfortunate "mishap" with an industrial shredder under Saddam's rule. So what's the point of belaboring over "what if"? The issue is we are here now- what do you do? ...still awaiting jimmac's brilliant countermove (fostered entirely with the benefits of hindsight, mind you).
Originally posted by giant
You mean like their commanding officer, because he sure must not be in the know like you either. You should call him and give him the same advice. I'm sure he will be real receptive to some know-it-all civilian who says it's ok for his men to kill women and children.
I'm sure you will cling to that to reaffirm your preconceptions. You think you can tell exactly what was going on in the officer's head just by citing some radio talk? Are you absolutely sure the officer doesn't agree in hindsight that nothing could have been done? Are you able to rule out that his particular statement was born out of an emotional response, rather than calm, rationed assessment? Can you be certain that a shot to the radiator would necessarily have shut the show down? That's a lot of "what if's".
Quote:
Those soldiers needed to be more careful and professional.
Yes, who is assuming they know better than those who actually perform the job? How did you ascertain the level of care and professionalism being practiced at this site w/o even being present? From some impassioned radio chatter? How do you come to the belief that something considerably different could have happened if your idea of "more careful and professional" was being practiced? Are you implying you have thought up the "magical response" which would have saved this family? Please do share!
Quote:
PS: If you are so pro-war and unemployed (as your profile says), why don't you go join the military and actually contibute to the cause you advocate?
Why don't you go become a human shield or fly to Iraq to join forces with those who oppose an "invasion"? How do you know I am still unemployed? What makes you think I would be able to make any difference whatsoever if I stepped on a bus to bootcamp tonight? Your comment is utterly distastful as a means to shutdown a discussion you don't wish to have. What exactly are you implying by your statement?
If this is the knee-jerk response from the "pacifists" everytime a war discussion occurs, one wonders if they have anything to discuss at all other than "give peace a chance" and "war is never justified". Truly pathetic.