|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 16:41:01 GMT -5
That's a touch simplified, isn't it? Yes, just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 20:41:50 GMT -5
Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Question: how come at the end of every sentence vaguely mentioning some form of semi-millitary action you jhave to talk about the 'courage' or bravery' of the troops? We get it, you think they're pretty neat. And how come the Iraqi resistence, which has fought the most powerful army ever, alone, for seven years never gets the same treatment? Or how about the Iraq civilians? They don't even get guns! Yes, fred many people do. Why, because we are not fighting the majority of Iraq or Afghanistan civilians. No, just carting off their oil, trashing their economy and wiping out everyone and his mother who says no (Iraq) and Dawkins knows what in Afghanistan. Why do insurgence not get the same accolades as US troops, because US troops don't go into crowded market places and blow our selfs up. And yet the Iraqi people like the insurency oh so much more than the Americans. They are, for instance, often members of it.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 20:43:50 GMT -5
Mainly because blowing up everyone by way of suicide bombing or without any care in the world if it takes out the enemy or a marketplace of civilians they're supposedly fighting for is neither brave, nor have to require much courage. It's the act of a fundamentalist group that doesn't give two licks about anything except 'kill the americans' and 'virgins in heaven' And yet when an American launches a suicide attack they get the Medal of Honour.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 20:46:05 GMT -5
Do you know what's interesting? Al Qaeda in Iraq barely exists anymore, because the insurgency blew it away. Not the US army, the insurgency.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 20:54:53 GMT -5
No, just carting off their oil, trashing their economy and wiping out everyone and his mother who says no (Iraq) and Dawkins knows what in Afghanistan. Now we are stealing their oil? And yet the Iraqi people like the insurency oh so much more than the Americans. They are, for instance, often members of it. ...and there are some Americans that are members of the KKK. In both cases it is far from a majority. Now granted we never should have gone into Iraq, but don't try to equate our troops with terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 20:56:44 GMT -5
Mainly because blowing up everyone by way of suicide bombing or without any care in the world if it takes out the enemy or a marketplace of civilians they're supposedly fighting for is neither brave, nor have to require much courage. It's the act of a fundamentalist group that doesn't give two licks about anything except 'kill the americans' and 'virgins in heaven' And yet when an American launches a suicide attack they get the Medal of Honour. Difference is the target. I don't remember stories of American soldiers getting medals for suicide attacks on civilians.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 20:59:54 GMT -5
Does anyone really want the US army to win? Ie to pacify the country probably through mass-murder, and turn the place into a colony? Does anyone even want to Americans not to fail that objective miserably, even if that cost thousands of American lives? Well that's kind of loaded because what does "winning" even mean? I described it: complete pacification, and subsequent hands-off colonisation, where they do what they want except we get all the oil. That is at least obstensibly the goal of the US occupation. And I think that it's very clear that the US Army only wants peace and security as a secondary goal. I'm sure Russia wanted the Polish to be 'peaceful and secure' too, but only if the the Soviets stayed in charge. British Empire, too. My point is, anyone who opposed the Russian war on Afghanistan opposed the Russian troops' winning that war. If you think that imperialism is a bad thing, and that democracy is a good idea, then you think the same about American troops in Iraq. And, in fact, you want to see as many American killed, wounded or whatever as necessary to evict them for good. If the alternatives are peace or 'home rule' by the Iraqis, I'm pretty sure that they'll be like every other independence movement and decide on home rule. Particularly given that those aren't the alternatives. For one, any criticism of the war or Bush was met with accusations of hating the troops that now many cover themselves reflexivly, even if only facetiously. I find it hilarious and disturbing how people that sent 4263 of them to their deaths get to decide who hates them and who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 21:06:04 GMT -5
And yet when an American launches a suicide attack they get the Medal of Honour. Difference is the target. I don't remember stories of American soldiers getting medals for suicide attacks on civilians. Fair enough. That is a real difference. Terrorism, as opposed to mere warfare, is bad. But I'd like to point out that many well respected members of US society (particularly millitary society) have directed attacks at civilians. To beat a dead horse, Henry Kissenger order the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. Ronnie Raygun gave weapons to the Contras. And we bombed Fallujah, after preventing any civilians from fleeing. Ect, ect, ect. We can, however, give up this ridiculous argument that an attack is totally imorral and shows an entire culture to be evil if the attacker dies in the process, since we don't apply it to ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 21:14:51 GMT -5
Fair enough. That is a real difference. Terrorism, as opposed to mere warfare, is bad. But I'd like to point out that many well respected members of US society (particularly millitary society) have directed attacks at civilians. To beat a dead horse, Henry Kissenger order the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. Ronnie Raygun gave weapons to the Contras. And we bombed Fallujah, after preventing any civilians from fleeing. Ect, ect, ect. We can, however, give up this ridiculous argument that an attack is totally imorral and shows an entire culture to be evil if the attacker dies in the process, since we don't apply it to ourselves. I'm not going to get into your inane obsession with Kissenger again. Yes we bombed targets in Fallujah, military ones. We did not carpet bomb the city. Running into a crowd of civilians and blowing them up is immoral at any time, just as blowing them up with out dying in the process. Most people in the US don't think that all Muslims are evil becasue of the actions of a few.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 21:15:29 GMT -5
No, just carting off their oil, trashing their economy and wiping out everyone and his mother who says no (Iraq) and Dawkins knows what in Afghanistan. Now we are stealing their oil? Yeah. Didn't you get the memo? The war was about oil. Everybody agrees. ...and there are some Americans that are members of the KKK. In both cases it is far from a majority. Now granted we never should have gone into Iraq, but don't try to equate our troops with terrorists. They're much worse than terrorists. They are aggressors. Furthermore, not all members of the insurgency are terrorists, or even violent. And most Iraqis do not support American's invasion, meaning that they support the insurgency.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 21:22:44 GMT -5
.... And yet when an American launches a suicide attack they get the Medal of Honour. And yet how often does the US military do that anymore? When has it needed too? Suicide bombing certainly can be described as ghastly and wrong. But not cowardly. A suicide bomber will always face at least one significant consequence of his action. He will die regardless. As opposed to someone in a fighter jet who hits a button and sees an explosion on a screen. Let the flaming begin.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 21:32:35 GMT -5
Well that's kind of loaded because what does "winning" even mean? I described it: complete pacification, and subsequent hands-off colonisation, where they do what they want except we get all the oil. Yes though that is NOT the reason the American troops think they are there for. They might be wrong but one can't ignore their reasons. They think peace and security IS the primary goal. Plus I think you missed my point. Even if hey "win" their military objectives, they still lose. So did they really win anything? So when you say "win" people will probably have very different ideas of what that means. For one, any criticism of the war or Bush was met with accusations of hating the troops that now many cover themselves reflexivly, even if only facetiously. I find it hilarious and disturbing how people that sent 4263 of them to their deaths get to decide who hates them and who doesn't. Hell it's hilarious (more sad really) that the people who sent these people to their deaths are still listened too and not in jail. It's absurd that people who brought us to ruin or supported those policies are still be mollified in the name of bipartisanship. BUT the earlier above statement was an explanation, NOT a justification. IF someone hits you, even if you know you didn't deserve it, you still flinch.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 21:33:39 GMT -5
Yes we bombed targets in Fallujah, military ones. We did not carpet bomb the city. Somebody did. Something like 20% of the buildings were gone the day after the offensive, with another 75% dinged. And 6000 civilians died somehow. Someone also used White Phospohorus munitions, which are especially effective against people hiding in basements, out of the way of the fighting. Not only did we bomb that city pretty hard, we hit many, many other cities during the invasion, and are still bombing random villages in Afghanistan somewhere. And we used munitions like Depleted Uranium which will have a deadly effect on people for millenia. Most people in the US don't think that all Muslims are evil becasue of the actions of a few. I wasn't saying that most do. I was saying that some morons, usually in the National Review or Little Green Footballs or some other racist publication, do. Often on the basis of actions we do not consider wrong when we do it ourselves, like suicide bombing a millitary target.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 21:46:38 GMT -5
Somebody did. Something like 20% of the buildings were gone the day after the offensive, with another 75% dinged. And 6000 civilians died somehow. Someone also used White Phospohorus munitions, which are especially effective against people hiding in basements, out of the way of the fighting. Really, the only sources I can find that claim these numbers are from the middle east. Have a link to a credible source? Random? Again source? You mean the depleted uranium rounds that US soldiers self load into the Abrams Tanks? When have we suicide bombed a military target, when have we suicide bombed anything? The fact that many bombing in the middle east are suicide type is far less important then that fact they are targeting civilians.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 22:32:12 GMT -5
Somebody did. Something like 20% of the buildings were gone the day after the offensive, with another 75% dinged. And 6000 civilians died somehow. Someone also used White Phospohorus munitions, which are especially effective against people hiding in basements, out of the way of the fighting. Really, the only sources I can find that claim these numbers are from the middle east. Have a link to a credible source? 9000 (or 1 fifth) of buildings destroyed www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7503610/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64292-2005Apr18.htmlkilling about 6000, or a 'massacre' www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0412/041204.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1through the use of 'chemical weapons', meaning White Phosphorus. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html Random? Again source? You mean the depleted uranium rounds that US soldiers self load into the Abrams Tanks? I never said the US Army was smart. Gulf War Sydome? What's that? BTW, wow, the Abrams isn't a self-loader. That seems rather.. backward, really. By the standards of the US army. When have we suicide bombed a military target, when have we suicide bombed anything? The fact that many bombing in the middle east are suicide type is far less important then that fact they are targeting civilians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor#Post-Vietnam
|
|