Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. I don't see how one can therefore conclude GWB is going to to the Hague...or even should.
They are avoidable if you don't go to war.
If the war was about liberating Iraq, then you are statistically more likely to die at the hands of the US then you were from Saddam.
If the war was about WMD, then ... well, enough said.
If the war was about liberating Iraq, then you are statistically more likely to die at the hands of the US then you were from Saddam.
If the war was about WMD, then ... well, enough said.
SH installed military weapons among civilian neighborhoods. The blame for the vast majority of those deaths lies solely on the shoulders of SH and his military. It was a purposeful ploy. It has been proven time and again that SH did not care for his own people.
SH installed military weapons among civilian neighborhoods. The blame for the vast majority of those deaths lies solely on the shoulders of SH and his military. It was a purposeful ploy. It has been proven time and again that SH did not care for his own people.
I one hour you managed to dig up two articles that contradict your point, two pre-war scenario speculations... and three articles qouting Rumsfeld saying nothing... (Rumsfeld being the fellow going down in history as the guy who gave the orders to use torture).
Where are all the picures of Saddam's weapons installed in civilian neighbourhoods?
I one hour you managed to dig up two articles that contradict your point, two pre-war scenario speculations... and three articles qouting Rumsfeld saying nothing... (Rumsfeld being the fellow going down in history as the guy who gave the orders to use torture).
Where are all the picures of Saddam's weapons installed in civilian neighbourhoods?
I will spell it out for ypu:
Article 1: "We didn't want war. I was scared of this war," said Abbas. "Our house was just a poor shack, why did they want to bomb us?" said the young boy, unaware that the area in which he lived was surrounded by military installations.
Article 2: "Create as many images of collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible." "One thing is fairly clear, however, and that is that Saddam will seek to create and sustain a humanitarian crisis in the South and possibly in Baghdad and use it as a weapon.*
Article 3: ??They have put their communications systems in downtown Baghdad, and commingled civil action, civil activities with military activities. And they have done it in very close proximity to large numbers of innocent men, women and children.??
Article 4: "During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq used both foreign hostages and Iraqi civilians as human shields." "Saddam Hussein ... has used civilians as human shields on the battlefield, exposing them to bullets and bombs in the hope that they would be killed and he could then blame that on others for propaganda reasons"
Article 5: "In addition, Iraq has forced civilians to act as human shields by placing military facilities near concentrations of civilians. Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of human shields."
Article 6: "With fresh airstrikes pounding Baghdad and U.S. troops pressing closer, Pentagon officials warned Iraqi troops could use civilians as shields."
Article 7: "Senior Pentagon officials have said for weeks that Iraq was putting civilians in military buildings and putting military equipment, including artillery and fighter jets, at or near schools, mosques and hospitals, to protect their command posts and arms from attack."
The point was that it was widely known that SH would use these tactics, both before and during the war. He used the same tactics during GW1.
The point was that it was widely known that SH would use these tactics, both before and during the war. He used the same tactics during GW1.
Not one of your links is any proof of this claim. It is widely known, however, that this fits totally in with the black and white view you right-wingers have of the rest of the world.
"uh-ha, That Satanic Demon Saddam, he's so Evil he must have all his cannons dressed up as day-care centers..."
Why don't you link every article written about the war the last two years.
You still won't find evidence That Saddam installed weapons systemtically in order to create large numbers of civilian casualites.. Because it's a lie.
Why don't you link every article written about the war the last two years.
You still won't find evidence That Saddam installed weapons systemtically in order to create large numbers of civilian casualites.. Because it's a lie.
Well then how do YOU explain it then?
Why would a responsible leader put his citizens at risk like that?
Naples and SDW are right about Saddam using these tactics . . . it is well known . . . half of his military in wartime were made up of forced conscripts . . . . like a draft, except they would pick you up off the street.
No doubt SH was a twisted murderous sick bastard that deserves what we won't allow ourselves to give him.
He probably should have been taken care of too . . .
But not in the manner in which we approached this war, not the timing, not with the false pretenses, and not alone.
But, with all that said, there were outrageous casualties in the first war . . . but the numbers was particularly high due to the hits on water and sanitation and electricity and basic infrastructural necessities.. . . which were not targetted due to 'human shields' but were deliberately targetted. . . . there were, of course also many dirty tricks played by SH . . .
But the US did not allow real figures to come out . . . even firing one statistician for her very researched tally that she managed to have published.
So, if SH deliberately let the body count rise we did not let the world see . . . though I think it was for our own dislike of letting the dead be seen, not to hide some possible dirty deed be Hussein.
I will aslo say that we did not try to kill civilians --I think that we are probably the only military since WW2 that has consistently conducted itself with a semblance of a code of honor with regards to civilian deaths (at least in places other than in Panama and by selected individuals and platoons in Vietnam!)
Why would a responsible leader put his citizens at risk like that?
There is a long... looooong distance between finding hidden weapons tucked away, and claiming Saddam strategically placed weapons in order to have civilians bombed.
If you can't distinguish between the two, I'm truly sorry.
Naples and SDW are right about Saddam using these tactics . . . it is well known . . . half of his military in wartime were made up of forced conscripts . . . . like a draft, except they would pich you up off the street.
No doubt SH was a twisted merderous sick bastard that deserves what we wpn't allow ourselves to give him.
He probably should have been taken care of too . . .
But not in the amnner in which we approached this war, not timing not with the false pretenses and not alone.
But, with all that said, there were outrageous casualties in the first war . . . but the number was particularly high due to the hits on water and sanitation and electricy and basic infrastructural necessaities.. . . which were not targetted due to 'human shields' but were deliberately targetted. . . . there were, of course also many dirty tricks played bu SH . . .
But the US did not allow real figures to come out . . . even firing one statistician for her very researched tally that whe managed to have published.
So, if SH deliberately let the body count rise we did not let the world see . . . though I think it was for our own dislike of letting the dead be seen, not to hide some possible dirty deed be Hussein.
I will aslo say that we did not try to kill civilians --I think that we are probably the only military since WW2 that has consistently conducted itself with a semblance of a code of honor with regards to civilian deaths (at least in places other than in Panama and by selected individuals and platoons in Vietnam!)
What they are doing is putting the responsibility for loss of civilian lives on the iraqi defenses, as opposed to holding the attacker responsible for what he bombs.
And I'll say it again. There is no evidence of systematically placing large amounts of civilians together with millitary targets in order to boost the bodycount.
That does in no way make Saddam a better guy. Still a rotten asshole responsibel for thousands of deaths.
What they are doing is putting the responsibility for loss of civilian lives on the iraqi defenses, as opposed to holding the attacker responsible for what he bombs.
And I'll say it again. There is no evidence of systematically placing large amounts of civilians together with millitary targets in order to boost the bodycount.
That does in no way make Saddam a better guy. Still a rotten asshole responsibel for thousands of deaths.
While I DO realize that an attacking force holds some responsibility for civilians killed, but everyone knew SH would purposely put them in harms way to protect his own sorry ASS. This make the whole thing a little obvious than you appear to want it to be.
I simply am stating that the original aggressor, SH, has the majority of the blood on his hands. A handful of conditions could have been met and all of this would never have happened. SH was the gatekeeper and refused to comply to world view.
You and the network media and many here in AO choose to ignore the previous 12+ years of Iraq/US/UN dealings and far too readily blame ONLY the US and more specifically president GWB for this current episode in the decades old Iraqi saga.
"We pledged to sacrifice ourselves, money, and children in the heat of the faith-based jihad to uphold the cause of God, the homeland, the people, and the nation ... Had Saddam Hussein had 100 children, other than Uday and Qusay, Saddam Hussein would have sacrificed them on the same path." - SH, Tuesday, 29 July, 2003
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. I don't see how one can therefore conclude GWB is going to to the Hague...or even should.
They are avoidable if you don't go to war.
If the war was about liberating Iraq, then you are statistically more likely to die at the hands of the US then you were from Saddam.
If the war was about WMD, then ... well, enough said.
Originally posted by Harald
They are avoidable if you don't go to war.
If the war was about liberating Iraq, then you are statistically more likely to die at the hands of the US then you were from Saddam.
If the war was about WMD, then ... well, enough said.
SH installed military weapons among civilian neighborhoods. The blame for the vast majority of those deaths lies solely on the shoulders of SH and his military. It was a purposeful ploy. It has been proven time and again that SH did not care for his own people.
Originally posted by NaplesX
SH installed military weapons among civilian neighborhoods.
link?
Originally posted by NaplesX
SH installed military weapons among civilian neighborhoods. The blame for the vast majority of those deaths lies solely on the shoulders of SH and his military. It was a purposeful ploy. It has been proven time and again that SH did not care for his own people.
Absolute, total, utter fucking bollocks.
Originally posted by New
link?
GMAB!
You do know how to search google right, or maybe infoseek, or lycos?
Originally posted by NaplesX
GMAB!
You do know how to search google right, or maybe infoseek, or lycos?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...hidden&spell=1
Originally posted by New
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...hidden&spell=1
You guys are so predictable.
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/03/naples/d923412a.htm
there are thousands of such reports.
keep digging.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys are so predictable.
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/03/naples/d923412a.htm
there are thousands of such reports.
keep digging.
Your link does not say anything about installed weapons (as in bomb-targets), it just describes irregular guerilla like fighting.
You keep digging...
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+tactics&hl=en
http://www.iht.com/articles/90829.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200303055.html
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/lawsofwar-pr.cfm
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/04...pent_brf030404
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news...ws_avoid.shtml
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wrong.
Maybe futures investment and stock speculation, but the rest of the economy is based an real numbers.
Taxes are based on actual income and real numbers.
yeah, see! its all 'Real' . . .
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.jerusalemites.org/iraq/snap18a.htm
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+tactics&hl=en
http://www.iht.com/articles/90829.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200303055.html
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/lawsofwar-pr.cfm
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/04...pent_brf030404
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news...ws_avoid.shtml
oh boy....
I one hour you managed to dig up two articles that contradict your point, two pre-war scenario speculations... and three articles qouting Rumsfeld saying nothing... (Rumsfeld being the fellow going down in history as the guy who gave the orders to use torture).
Where are all the picures of Saddam's weapons installed in civilian neighbourhoods?
Originally posted by New
oh boy....
I one hour you managed to dig up two articles that contradict your point, two pre-war scenario speculations... and three articles qouting Rumsfeld saying nothing... (Rumsfeld being the fellow going down in history as the guy who gave the orders to use torture).
Where are all the picures of Saddam's weapons installed in civilian neighbourhoods?
I will spell it out for ypu:
Article 1: "We didn't want war. I was scared of this war," said Abbas. "Our house was just a poor shack, why did they want to bomb us?" said the young boy, unaware that the area in which he lived was surrounded by military installations.
Article 2: "Create as many images of collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible." "One thing is fairly clear, however, and that is that Saddam will seek to create and sustain a humanitarian crisis in the South and possibly in Baghdad and use it as a weapon.*
Article 3: ??They have put their communications systems in downtown Baghdad, and commingled civil action, civil activities with military activities. And they have done it in very close proximity to large numbers of innocent men, women and children.??
Article 4: "During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq used both foreign hostages and Iraqi civilians as human shields." "Saddam Hussein ... has used civilians as human shields on the battlefield, exposing them to bullets and bombs in the hope that they would be killed and he could then blame that on others for propaganda reasons"
Article 5: "In addition, Iraq has forced civilians to act as human shields by placing military facilities near concentrations of civilians. Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of human shields."
Article 6: "With fresh airstrikes pounding Baghdad and U.S. troops pressing closer, Pentagon officials warned Iraqi troops could use civilians as shields."
Article 7: "Senior Pentagon officials have said for weeks that Iraq was putting civilians in military buildings and putting military equipment, including artillery and fighter jets, at or near schools, mosques and hospitals, to protect their command posts and arms from attack."
The point was that it was widely known that SH would use these tactics, both before and during the war. He used the same tactics during GW1.
Here are some more:
http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/ar...red_iraqi.html
http://www.idsnews.com/story.php?id=16091
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...rms-iraq_x.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0502/p03s01-woiq.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...2smallarms.htm
The point was that it was widely known that SH would use these tactics, both before and during the war. He used the same tactics during GW1.
Not one of your links is any proof of this claim. It is widely known, however, that this fits totally in with the black and white view you right-wingers have of the rest of the world.
"uh-ha, That Satanic Demon Saddam, he's so Evil he must have all his cannons dressed up as day-care centers..."
fits right in with:
"Those bloodthirsty palestinians"...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/05/se.02.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84005,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...all-arms_x.htm
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...ch/032703.html
Shall I go on?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here is some more:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/05/se.02.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84005,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...all-arms_x.htm
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...ch/032703.html
Shall I go on?
Why don't you link every article written about the war the last two years.
You still won't find evidence That Saddam installed weapons systemtically in order to create large numbers of civilian casualites.. Because it's a lie.
Originally posted by New
Why don't you link every article written about the war the last two years.
You still won't find evidence That Saddam installed weapons systemtically in order to create large numbers of civilian casualites.. Because it's a lie.
Well then how do YOU explain it then?
Why would a responsible leader put his citizens at risk like that?
No doubt SH was a twisted murderous sick bastard that deserves what we won't allow ourselves to give him.
He probably should have been taken care of too . . .
But not in the manner in which we approached this war, not the timing, not with the false pretenses, and not alone.
But, with all that said, there were outrageous casualties in the first war . . . but the numbers was particularly high due to the hits on water and sanitation and electricity and basic infrastructural necessities.. . . which were not targetted due to 'human shields' but were deliberately targetted. . . . there were, of course also many dirty tricks played by SH . . .
But the US did not allow real figures to come out . . . even firing one statistician for her very researched tally that she managed to have published.
So, if SH deliberately let the body count rise we did not let the world see . . . though I think it was for our own dislike of letting the dead be seen, not to hide some possible dirty deed be Hussein.
I will aslo say that we did not try to kill civilians --I think that we are probably the only military since WW2 that has consistently conducted itself with a semblance of a code of honor with regards to civilian deaths (at least in places other than in Panama and by selected individuals and platoons in Vietnam!)
[EDIT: wow, typOrama!!!]
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well then how do YOU explain it then?
Why would a responsible leader put his citizens at risk like that?
There is a long... looooong distance between finding hidden weapons tucked away, and claiming Saddam strategically placed weapons in order to have civilians bombed.
If you can't distinguish between the two, I'm truly sorry.
Originally posted by pfflam
Naples and SDW are right about Saddam using these tactics . . . it is well known . . . half of his military in wartime were made up of forced conscripts . . . . like a draft, except they would pich you up off the street.
No doubt SH was a twisted merderous sick bastard that deserves what we wpn't allow ourselves to give him.
He probably should have been taken care of too . . .
But not in the amnner in which we approached this war, not timing not with the false pretenses and not alone.
But, with all that said, there were outrageous casualties in the first war . . . but the number was particularly high due to the hits on water and sanitation and electricy and basic infrastructural necessaities.. . . which were not targetted due to 'human shields' but were deliberately targetted. . . . there were, of course also many dirty tricks played bu SH . . .
But the US did not allow real figures to come out . . . even firing one statistician for her very researched tally that whe managed to have published.
So, if SH deliberately let the body count rise we did not let the world see . . . though I think it was for our own dislike of letting the dead be seen, not to hide some possible dirty deed be Hussein.
I will aslo say that we did not try to kill civilians --I think that we are probably the only military since WW2 that has consistently conducted itself with a semblance of a code of honor with regards to civilian deaths (at least in places other than in Panama and by selected individuals and platoons in Vietnam!)
What they are doing is putting the responsibility for loss of civilian lives on the iraqi defenses, as opposed to holding the attacker responsible for what he bombs.
And I'll say it again. There is no evidence of systematically placing large amounts of civilians together with millitary targets in order to boost the bodycount.
That does in no way make Saddam a better guy. Still a rotten asshole responsibel for thousands of deaths.
Originally posted by New
What they are doing is putting the responsibility for loss of civilian lives on the iraqi defenses, as opposed to holding the attacker responsible for what he bombs.
And I'll say it again. There is no evidence of systematically placing large amounts of civilians together with millitary targets in order to boost the bodycount.
That does in no way make Saddam a better guy. Still a rotten asshole responsibel for thousands of deaths.
While I DO realize that an attacking force holds some responsibility for civilians killed, but everyone knew SH would purposely put them in harms way to protect his own sorry ASS. This make the whole thing a little obvious than you appear to want it to be.
I simply am stating that the original aggressor, SH, has the majority of the blood on his hands. A handful of conditions could have been met and all of this would never have happened. SH was the gatekeeper and refused to comply to world view.
You and the network media and many here in AO choose to ignore the previous 12+ years of Iraq/US/UN dealings and far too readily blame ONLY the US and more specifically president GWB for this current episode in the decades old Iraqi saga.
"We pledged to sacrifice ourselves, money, and children in the heat of the faith-based jihad to uphold the cause of God, the homeland, the people, and the nation ... Had Saddam Hussein had 100 children, other than Uday and Qusay, Saddam Hussein would have sacrificed them on the same path." - SH, Tuesday, 29 July, 2003