That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
You know you're right, it must be the fault of those pesky civilians. now if we could just get rid of those...clear the battlefield = fair fight. Thanks for the heads up, what was I thinking? Perhaps the fault is with the hiders not the hidden amongst!
BTW: Would your rule apply in reverse, isn't GW some sort of head of military or something? I'm sure I've spotted him on the news wearing a suit and looking like a civilian.
And johnq. As for wars being fought the old way. Just doesn't fit into today's wars and battles. There isn't any blue or grey (colonials didn't have uniforms...hmmm, that's an interesting topic...should I go on?) here. When you are the less superior side you'll use any tactics possible...whether dressing as civilians or even the enemy itself to get victory.
But these psychos will use any means possible. We should know this by now but as I posted above from interviews with commanders...they still don't have a clue.
Maybe if we and the Vietnamese just moved the whole conflict to Hawaii and had a surfing competition...we would have won...we all know "charlie don't surf".
They send their apologies to you for not conforming to the 'rules'. They also said to mention that they couldn't afford the bright orange jumpsuits that you'd prefer to see them fighting in.
These "rules" are for the protection of unarmed civilians. (!!)
That you make light of the situation my mocking it shows the depths of depravity to which you will go to simply to denounce Bush et al.
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
You know you're right, it must be the fault of those pesky civilians. now if we could just get rid of those...clear the battlefield = fair fight. Thanks for the heads up, what was I thinking? Perhaps the fault is with the hiders not the hidden amongst!
BTW: Would your rule apply in reverse, isn't GW some sort of head of military or something? I'm sure I've spotted him on the news wearing a suit and looking like a civilian.
What a foolish exaggeration of what I said.
I don't want civilians to die. Therefore I do not want insurgents operating near civilians.
The fact remains that we invaded this county for a set of reasons that are now entirely discredited, have found ourselves in an increasingly untenable position, and don't seem to have any fresh ideas about what to do.
Please check your facts. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of his 1991 surrender, including the accounting for a destroying all known WMD (still unaccounted for). Lets not forget 12 years of defiance of UN resolutions and shooting at coalition plans patrolling "no fly" zones. Not to mention human rights violations, giving refuge to terrorists (Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, etc). Those facts haven't changed.
Here's the speech that outlines the reasons for going to war with Saddam. Please compare to whatever revisionist history you've been reading that "entirely discredits" the reasons for going there.
No one said it'd be easy. With the handover date looming of course things will escalate. Why is that a big surprise? Like someone else said, the sky is not falling.
I would think that you would want to enlighten me, with the hope of me seeing some of your views as valid and agreeing with them and joining your efforts to stop this war along your lines of thinking.
But instead I get hyperbole, hostility, mockery, intimidation, condemnation, accusation, misrepresentation, etc.
Your posts have repulsed me and whatever ideals you may have and parties you belong to are absolutely sullied by what I've seen so far.
These "rules" are for the protection of unarmed civilians. (!!)
That you make light of the situation my mocking it shows the depths of depravity to which you will go to simply to denounce Bush et al.
I'm mocking you, not the situation.
Do you really expect that a resistance force, made up of civilians, is going to be out there in easily identifiable uniforms, on an 'official' battlefield, and playing by your so-called 'rules'?
Quote:
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
No one answers that.
What does it have to do with this thread?
Quote:
You are smug bordering on gleeful at the chaos and deaths of U.S. soldiers and at the same time wonder why people label you.
That's a good one.
I comment on your indignation that the US soldiers are up against a resistance that doesn't fight by the 'rules' and all of a sudden I'm against the US soldiers?
I think you need to cut down on the coffee.
I also think that the US military will never be able to effectively function in an urban setting, unless they adopt the same tactics which are used against them. This will undoubtedly cause severe moral and ethical problems back home, but the old 'rules' don't apply any more.
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
And this is funny why? Please elaborate... I wasn't paying nearly as much attention to politics back then so what am I missing here oh wise and mocking Giant? So since you picked that one out, is it the only one you feel you can refute or do you have smilies for the others as well?
And this is funny why? Please elaborate... I wasn't paying nearly as much attention to politics back then so what am I missing here oh wise and mocking Giant? So since you picked that one out, is it the only one you feel you can refute or do you have smilies for the others as well?
Shouldn't you know? Afterall, you are the only one who can 'check' the 'facts.'
The U.N. drafted 1441 for a frigging reason. Lack of WoMD is the mantra of the left at the moment, as a "we told you so" to Bush for having started the war "for no reason".
But the U.N. seems to go completely without blame for suggesting Saddam Hussein was a threat and had WoMD.
...all provided some level of "direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support."
it is far far more complex than you all want it to be.
I wish it was just the fortune cookie of "Bush/America/Republicans/Christians = bad; everyone else = good or at least justified" that you act like it is.
Apparently originally participated in by USA, Britain and France who claimed rights under Resolution 688 in order to protect Kurds. They weren't ever officially "UN mandated". They were never officially condemned either. I'll make an amendment to my post and remove that part.
Quote:
opinions based on false beliefs
Uh-oh I misrepresented by calling it "UN Mandated"!! Loooook out! Giant's got me now!
And all we really had was the support of national leaders. Note that in Spain the opposition to war ranged from 70-90%, so Aznar was not acting in the interest of the country.
1441? It was to resolution pushed by the US. Hell, the only reason we went to the UN was because of Powell. You want me to dig up a mountain of info from over a year ago so you can learn about it?
And here's what you said:
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
This makes zero sense. The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything. And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What? The reports, most of which came from wolfowitz's school pal, that US officials were passing along that indeed turned out to be lies?
And dviant, when you say "Please check your facts' and then make factually false statements that demonstrate your ineptitude, you better expect someone to call you out on it. Don't pretend to be an authority on Java if your only idea of a garbage collector is someone who makes more money than you.
[B]It's a fukin' mess over there right now. So the US has now got the Sunnis against them - understandably so because they largely supported Hussein. And now they've got the Shiites in Karbala up in arms. Tell me again how this is supposed to work out for the best?
Apparently the situation is not so black-and-white. According to one of my professors (Iranian, teaching Islamic World history), al-Sadr is a young cleric who has no real credibility, as far as the Islamic faith. Politically, he has the same philosophy as Khomeni (i.e., advocates an Islamic state). al-Sadr, besides his followers, may have support among the poor because of charity work. Most of the Iraqi Shi'a support Sistani, who does not advocate state run by Islamic clergy, although he does want a strong leadership role. The professor said that Sistani hates al-Sadr, so it is not right to assume that a significant population of Shi'a would follow al-Sadr. However, that does not rule out that there could be an alliance between the two.
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
This makes zero sense. The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything. And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What? The reports, most of which came from wolfowitz's school pal, that US officials were passing along that indeed turned out to be lies?
First, take your insults elsewhere. Again, way to make allies. Did someone do a preliminary tally and decide "Yup, we have enough support to defeat Bush, so we can make fun of the rest of the people that disagree with us"
I said: 'Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years?'
You said: "The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything."
Why do you think I used the quotes around the word 'thought'? Quit playing coy semantics. One can reasonably speak of organizations as if they are an individuals. You likely do it all the time yourself. Don't even go there.
I said: "Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?"
You said: "And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What?"
Since, if the idea that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" is a lie, then obviously a resolution predicated on the belief that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" would also be a lie.
If you are saying that the entire concept of Saddam possibly having WoMD is a myth tell it to the people he killed and to his neighbors.
Was it all made up by the U.S.? Okay, let's play make-believe. So that would mean that the U.N. is utterly inept, corrupt, ineffectual, untrustworthy, useless. There is no other possible interpretation.
Ok, I'll remember that next time the U.S. tries to go to war and "liberals/pacificts/etc." wants the U.S. to talk to the U.N. first.
Comments
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
You know you're right, it must be the fault of those pesky civilians. now if we could just get rid of those...clear the battlefield = fair fight. Thanks for the heads up, what was I thinking? Perhaps the fault is with the hiders not the hidden amongst!
BTW: Would your rule apply in reverse, isn't GW some sort of head of military or something? I'm sure I've spotted him on the news wearing a suit and looking like a civilian.
And johnq. As for wars being fought the old way. Just doesn't fit into today's wars and battles. There isn't any blue or grey (colonials didn't have uniforms...hmmm, that's an interesting topic...should I go on?) here. When you are the less superior side you'll use any tactics possible...whether dressing as civilians or even the enemy itself to get victory.
But these psychos will use any means possible. We should know this by now but as I posted above from interviews with commanders...they still don't have a clue.
Maybe if we and the Vietnamese just moved the whole conflict to Hawaii and had a surfing competition...we would have won...we all know "charlie don't surf".
Originally posted by audiopollution
They send their apologies to you for not conforming to the 'rules'. They also said to mention that they couldn't afford the bright orange jumpsuits that you'd prefer to see them fighting in.
These "rules" are for the protection of unarmed civilians. (!!)
That you make light of the situation my mocking it shows the depths of depravity to which you will go to simply to denounce Bush et al.
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
No one answers that.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
You know you're right, it must be the fault of those pesky civilians. now if we could just get rid of those...clear the battlefield = fair fight. Thanks for the heads up, what was I thinking? Perhaps the fault is with the hiders not the hidden amongst!
BTW: Would your rule apply in reverse, isn't GW some sort of head of military or something? I'm sure I've spotted him on the news wearing a suit and looking like a civilian.
What a foolish exaggeration of what I said.
I don't want civilians to die. Therefore I do not want insurgents operating near civilians.
What the hell is so wrong with that?
Addabox said:
The fact remains that we invaded this county for a set of reasons that are now entirely discredited, have found ourselves in an increasingly untenable position, and don't seem to have any fresh ideas about what to do.
Please check your facts. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of his 1991 surrender, including the accounting for a destroying all known WMD (still unaccounted for). Lets not forget 12 years of defiance of UN resolutions and shooting at coalition plans patrolling "no fly" zones. Not to mention human rights violations, giving refuge to terrorists (Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, etc). Those facts haven't changed.
Here's the speech that outlines the reasons for going to war with Saddam. Please compare to whatever revisionist history you've been reading that "entirely discredits" the reasons for going there.
No one said it'd be easy. With the handover date looming of course things will escalate. Why is that a big surprise? Like someone else said, the sky is not falling.
I would think that you would want to enlighten me, with the hope of me seeing some of your views as valid and agreeing with them and joining your efforts to stop this war along your lines of thinking.
But instead I get hyperbole, hostility, mockery, intimidation, condemnation, accusation, misrepresentation, etc.
Your posts have repulsed me and whatever ideals you may have and parties you belong to are absolutely sullied by what I've seen so far.
Try again.
Originally posted by dviant
Please check your facts... UN mandated "no fly" zone.
Originally posted by johnq
These "rules" are for the protection of unarmed civilians. (!!)
That you make light of the situation my mocking it shows the depths of depravity to which you will go to simply to denounce Bush et al.
I'm mocking you, not the situation.
Do you really expect that a resistance force, made up of civilians, is going to be out there in easily identifiable uniforms, on an 'official' battlefield, and playing by your so-called 'rules'?
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
No one answers that.
What does it have to do with this thread?
You are smug bordering on gleeful at the chaos and deaths of U.S. soldiers and at the same time wonder why people label you.
That's a good one.
I comment on your indignation that the US soldiers are up against a resistance that doesn't fight by the 'rules' and all of a sudden I'm against the US soldiers?
I think you need to cut down on the coffee.
I also think that the US military will never be able to effectively function in an urban setting, unless they adopt the same tactics which are used against them. This will undoubtedly cause severe moral and ethical problems back home, but the old 'rules' don't apply any more.
People could label you, too, by the way.
Originally posted by johnq
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Originally posted by giant
And this is funny why? Please elaborate... I wasn't paying nearly as much attention to politics back then so what am I missing here oh wise and mocking Giant? So since you picked that one out, is it the only one you feel you can refute or do you have smilies for the others as well?
Originally posted by dviant
And this is funny why? Please elaborate... I wasn't paying nearly as much attention to politics back then so what am I missing here oh wise and mocking Giant? So since you picked that one out, is it the only one you feel you can refute or do you have smilies for the others as well?
Shouldn't you know? Afterall, you are the only one who can 'check' the 'facts.'
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074302
You opinions are based on false beliefs. Have a nice day.
Originally posted by giant
This makes absolutely no sense.
The U.N. drafted 1441 for a frigging reason. Lack of WoMD is the mantra of the left at the moment, as a "we told you so" to Bush for having started the war "for no reason".
But the U.N. seems to go completely without blame for suggesting Saddam Hussein was a threat and had WoMD.
Bush did not act unilaterally:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan
...all provided some level of "direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support."
it is far far more complex than you all want it to be.
I wish it was just the fortune cookie of "Bush/America/Republicans/Christians = bad; everyone else = good or at least justified" that you act like it is.
Originally posted by giant
[B]Shouldn't you know? Afterall, you are the only one who can 'check' the 'facts.'http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074302
Apparently originally participated in by USA, Britain and France who claimed rights under Resolution 688 in order to protect Kurds. They weren't ever officially "UN mandated". They were never officially condemned either. I'll make an amendment to my post and remove that part.
opinions based on false beliefs
Uh-oh I misrepresented by calling it "UN Mandated"!! Loooook out! Giant's got me now!
Let's look at the situation at the start of the war:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...oalition01.htm
And all we really had was the support of national leaders. Note that in Spain the opposition to war ranged from 70-90%, so Aznar was not acting in the interest of the country.
1441? It was to resolution pushed by the US. Hell, the only reason we went to the UN was because of Powell. You want me to dig up a mountain of info from over a year ago so you can learn about it?
And here's what you said:
Originally posted by johnq
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
This makes zero sense. The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything. And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What? The reports, most of which came from wolfowitz's school pal, that US officials were passing along that indeed turned out to be lies?
And dviant, when you say "Please check your facts' and then make factually false statements that demonstrate your ineptitude, you better expect someone to call you out on it. Don't pretend to be an authority on Java if your only idea of a garbage collector is someone who makes more money than you.
Originally posted by torifile
[B]It's a fukin' mess over there right now. So the US has now got the Sunnis against them - understandably so because they largely supported Hussein. And now they've got the Shiites in Karbala up in arms. Tell me again how this is supposed to work out for the best?
Apparently the situation is not so black-and-white. According to one of my professors (Iranian, teaching Islamic World history), al-Sadr is a young cleric who has no real credibility, as far as the Islamic faith. Politically, he has the same philosophy as Khomeni (i.e., advocates an Islamic state). al-Sadr, besides his followers, may have support among the poor because of charity work. Most of the Iraqi Shi'a support Sistani, who does not advocate state run by Islamic clergy, although he does want a strong leadership role. The professor said that Sistani hates al-Sadr, so it is not right to assume that a significant population of Shi'a would follow al-Sadr. However, that does not rule out that there could be an alliance between the two.
Originally posted by giant
Originally posted by johnq
Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years? Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?
This makes zero sense. The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything. And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What? The reports, most of which came from wolfowitz's school pal, that US officials were passing along that indeed turned out to be lies?
First, take your insults elsewhere. Again, way to make allies. Did someone do a preliminary tally and decide "Yup, we have enough support to defeat Bush, so we can make fun of the rest of the people that disagree with us"
I said: 'Tell me why the U.N. "thought" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years?'
You said: "The UN is not a mind, so it could not have 'thought' anything."
Why do you think I used the quotes around the word 'thought'? Quit playing coy semantics. One can reasonably speak of organizations as if they are an individuals. You likely do it all the time yourself. Don't even go there.
I said: "Why did the U.N. draft 1441 if they thought it even MIGHT be a lie?"
You said: "And what 'MIGHT be a lie?' The resolution? What?"
Since, if the idea that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" is a lie, then obviously a resolution predicated on the belief that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for so many years" would also be a lie.
If you are saying that the entire concept of Saddam possibly having WoMD is a myth tell it to the people he killed and to his neighbors.
Was it all made up by the U.S.? Okay, let's play make-believe. So that would mean that the U.N. is utterly inept, corrupt, ineffectual, untrustworthy, useless. There is no other possible interpretation.
Ok, I'll remember that next time the U.S. tries to go to war and "liberals/pacificts/etc." wants the U.S. to talk to the U.N. first.
Originally posted by torifile
The civilians ARE the combatants now. We done gone and fvcked up the country and pissed of the populous.
You determined this to be true, how? ...or did you read it somewhere?
Originally posted by torifile
The civilians ARE the combatants now. We done gone and fvcked up the country and pissed of the populous.
All of the civilians are combatants? You should work at the Pentagon.
"We" done gone and fvcked up the country? I did? You did? Giant too?
A populous isn't a mind, so it cannot be "pissed off" at anything.
Sorry, just using Giant's semantics cuteness.