NationStates Jolt Archive

Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.

Dad ... what's a terrorist?

Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.

Why do they kill them?

Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.

Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?

Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.

So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?

No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.

Good blackmail? What's that?

That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.

But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.

True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.

So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?

No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.

Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?

Yes ... just like him.

But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?

Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.

So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?

Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.

What uniforms do terrorists wear?

That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.

War has rules?

Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.

So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?

Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.

The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?

Technically speaking, yes. But ...

So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?

Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.

But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?

Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.

Is it a better place?

I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.

Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?

Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...

So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?

Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...

Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.

What?

I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.

But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.

I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?

David Campbell is a Melbourne writer.

SOURCE.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html?from=top5

COMMENT.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."

Luke 18:15-17

Any human death is a tragedy. War has never determined who is right, only who is left.

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

i plan to fly a plane into bin laden`s cave pretty soon. one of these days now...

thank you.

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Why do you deny the power of children?

I had a similar conversation like that with my father in 91'

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Why do you deny the power of children?

I had a similar conversation like that with my father in 91'

Find me one child who asks questions like that and one father who would handle the situation like that


Realistic = A good point

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Nice generalisations. How do you know what ALL children in the US know? The article doesn't even specify the child's age. Try countering with something intelligent next time.

my dad wouldnt have beat me silly for asking stupid questions like that. then i woulda run away and joined the army and died in iraq. confusing huh?

Find me one child who asks questions like that and one father who would handle the situation like that

Do you expect me to deliver a family to your door-step?

Besides, your focusing on a non-sequenture. The point is that there is no logic or reason to America's foreign policy and even a child can figure it out.

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Nice generalisations. How do you know what ALL children in the US know? The article doesn't even specify the child's age. Try countering with something intelligent next time.

Okay....like all the generalizations about Americans eating McDonalds all day long and being stupid retards? :roll:

Yeah....figured

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on IraqI beg to differ, children are very informed. I was shocked that soem children as young as 8 understood what was happening in Iraq at a local Primary School.

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on IraqI beg to differ, children are very informed. I was shocked that soem children as young as 8 understood what was happening in Iraq at a local Primary School.

Okay...I'll agree with you

You were nicer :P

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Nice generalisations. How do you know what ALL children in the US know? The article doesn't even specify the child's age. Try countering with something intelligent next time.

Okay....like all the generalizations about Americans eating McDonalds all day long and being stupid retards? :roll:

Yeah....figured

Okaaaay...that was completely irrelevant. I lived in the States for 12 years. You can't really call my observations generalizations. I met lots of McDonalds-addicts and retards, but of course everyone wasn't.

Could we try to stay on topic?

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on IraqI beg to differ, children are very informed. I was shocked that soem children as young as 8 understood what was happening in Iraq at a local Primary School.

Okay...I'll agree with you

You were nicer :Plol, I liek this new style of debate. :D

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on IraqI beg to differ, children are very informed. I was shocked that soem children as young as 8 understood what was happening in Iraq at a local Primary School.

Okay...I'll agree with you

You were nicer :Plol, I liek this new style of debate. :D

well who ya gonna go with? One that questions your way of thinking? One that tells you to act more intelligent? Or one that is polite

:wink:

I would just like to reiterate to my esteemed NS'er Smeagol (by the way, can't wait for the last movie to come out on DVD, have the first two already)..that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians....the article would rather allude to the fact that we do not care bout innocent civilian deaths or injuries if it still gets us to our main objectives....that is patently false..and if the article writer knows of a manner in which we can isolate only those insurgents who are against peace in Iraq or at the very least stop using a mosque, like they've used in Fallujah (now made a legal target according to the Geneva Convention of War because they've used it as a base for attacks)..I'd gladly smooth the way to the Dept of Defense for him.

Ah, I remember Gulf I. Good times. :wink: I think I was 6-7 years old. I remember almost exactly what I said though..

Me: What's on T.V.? (my dad almost never watched T.V.)

My dad: The War.

Me: Are we in the war?

Him: Yep.

Me: We gonna win?

Him: Yup.

Me: You sure?

Him: Yup.

Me: What if we don't.

Him: Nothing.

That's about it.

Meh. So, my family never talked much. :P

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

no, the bombs were intentional

the innocents that were caught in the bombing were accidental

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

no, the bombs were intentional

the innocents that were caught in the bombing were accidental

uh-huh... so it was "accidental" when innocent people were bombed in a civilian-population that was "intentionally" bombed?

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

no, the bombs were intentional

the innocents that were caught in the bombing were accidental

uh-huh... so it was "accidental" when innocent people were bombed in a civilian-population that was "intentionally" bombed?

EXACTLY!

:roll: Hey, you gotta wait about 20-30 years until I become an Air Force General...THEN I'll decide where the bombs hit!

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

no, the bombs were intentional

the innocents that were caught in the bombing were accidental

uh-huh... so it was "accidental" when innocent people were bombed in a civilian-population that was "intentionally" bombed?

The first bombings targeted command-and-contol centers. And Saddam, but obviously not successfully.

The first bombings targeted command-and-contol centers. And Saddam, but obviously not successfully.

That's a nice story: like the one where Saddam was in a restaurant full of people that we bombed and we wouldn't know if he was in there until we did DNA testing... so, all of that "collateral damage" and we put him up in a Ritz-Carlton... smoke-and-mirrors

The reality is that "Shock-and-Awe" was just an excuse to move inventory out of the warehouses so the Administration could jump-start munitions production.

I would just like to reiterate that we do not intentionally nor deliberately target innocent civilians

Right... so Shock-and-Awe (the blanket bombing of a civilian population) wasn't "intentional nor deliberate," were those accidental bombs?

no, the bombs were intentional

the innocents that were caught in the bombing were accidental

Come, come, we should all remember that military-speak for civilian casualties is "collateral damage", sounds much nicer, doesn't upset those watching TV while eating their meal, or reading the newspaper at breakfast time. We should all try to remain civilized.

EXACTLY!

:roll: Hey, you gotta wait about 20-30 years until I become an Air Force General...THEN I'll decide where the bombs hit!

Are you one of those kids that thinks bombing a US city is justified because you have to protect us from "domestic threats" ???

Here is a more realisitc view, both my sons were there:

Oldest Son:Dad...hope this email gets to you today, not sure how the servers here are working...PAO (public affairs officer) says we can do email from here.

Dad.....don't worry...I'm fine..we took fire from some guys in a mosque, I didn't think that muslims would use a mosque for a base of operations, totally blew the mind of my buddy Achmed, you know him..he's a Lebanese-American in my unit...says that no true muslim would dishonor Allah by using a house of God to attack us, says he's ashamed of them.

Dad....helped rebuild a school today...gave it a fresh coat of paint and fixed about a dozen desks...seems Saddam didn't give two farts in the wind for helping Shiite schools..the Sunni ones seem to be outfitted pretty well though.

Dad..little bro is up with the Kurds, he called me yesterday..told me the power is up everywhere...seems Saddam pretty much had concentrated the power grid in the Sunni Triangle to the detriment of everyone else...and apparenly he would turn it off in order to let everyone know who was in charge.

Dad....little bro says you'd be floored by all the business that is booming with the Kurds...says they whole heartedly welcome us, wish the insurgents would let the average Iraqi alone so they could have the same prosperity that they are having.

Dad..I'm going to have to stay here longer then I thought...but it's worth it....because yesterday....I got to play soccer with some kids...they were bright eyed...loved the game..I'd stack them against any of the kids back home...course they really loved the baseball hats you sent us...remind me to send an email to the that company you did business with. And they can't get enough of the chocolate we have in our MRE's...

Dad....actually visited one of uday's..."rape rooms" yesterday..made me sick that in here everyone from little girls/boys and old women were violated in the worst way here...what kind of sick bastard does that to women?

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...

EXACTLY!

:roll: Hey, you gotta wait about 20-30 years until I become an Air Force General...THEN I'll decide where the bombs hit!

Are you one of those kids that thinks bombing a US city is justified because you have to protect us from "domestic threats" ???

dude, I am American

what?

this thread is insane!

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...

*Suffocates with all the patriotism*

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...

*Suffocates with all the patriotism*

Excuse me?..my oldest did tell me that..thank you...

Excuse me?..my oldest did tell me that..thank you...

I'm not doubting that he did, but True freedom?

free·dom (P) Pronunciation Key (frdm) n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3. Political independence.
4. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
5. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
6. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
7. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
8. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

1. A country can't really be in restraints - unless you got a helluva lot of chains.

2. I feel that the Iraqi's are being opressed - no doubt you don't and we could argue over this for hours, me complaining about the occupiers, you citing Saddam's rape rooms and tortue cells as a reason to 'liberate' Iraq.

3. Enforcing democracy is not political independance.

4. Iraqis don't have complete civil liberty, neither do we.

5. There are shortages of water, electricity. medical and educational facilities, to name a few. I'm not lumping this all on the occupation forces though.

6. Iraqi's definately don't have that, but again, neither do we...

7. Iraqi's cannot go where they please in Iraq.

8. The coalition has already shut down a newspaper.

Excuse me?..my oldest did tell me that..thank you...

I'm not doubting that he did, but True freedom?

free·dom (P) Pronunciation Key (frdm) n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3. Political independence.
4. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
5. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
6. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
7. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
8. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

1. A country can't really be in restraints - unless you got a helluva lot of chains.

2. I feel that the Iraqi's are being opressed - no doubt you don't and we could argue over this for hours, me complaining about the occupiers, you citing Saddam's rape rooms and tortue cells as a reason to 'liberate' Iraq.

3. Enforcing democracy is not political independance.

4. Iraqis don't have complete civil liberty, neither do we.

5. There are shortages of water, electricity. medical and educational facilities, to name a few. I'm not lumping this all on the occupation forces though.

6. Iraqi's definately don't have that, but again, neither do we...

7. Iraqi's cannot go where they please in Iraq.

8. The coalition has already shut down a newspaper.

1. Free to not be mass murdered...free of the restraints on religous freedom (show me anytime where Saddam allowed for the Shia to be unfettered?)

3. Hand over of political sovereignity occurs in 2 months..would you have said the same to the Nazis..that they should have have allowed that system to remain in place?.or perhaps worship of the Emperor like the Japanese did..no..we shut down those old political systems in place of something that would further promote democratic ideals.

4. They sure as hell have more civil liberty then they did under Saddam.

5. Actually...the power grid is up in almost all of the country now...whereas before it was centered in on primarily the Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country suffered brownouts or would be shut off by Saddam just to let everyone know who was in power.

7. Give us time..as soon as the security issue is resolved...

that's still not True Freedom, just 'more freedom that before, but still not a whole lot'...

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...

*Suffocates with all the patriotism*

Excuse me?..my oldest did tell me that..thank you...

Middle Eastern countries have had "true freedom", if by that you mean the right to self-determination, but that was in the distant past.

Their recent history shows them as being colonies of the British, Turks and French, all of whom exploited them.

The majority of the present nations names and borders are those determined by these colonial masters. A large number of the present regimes are those set up as suitable "puppet" regimes by the departing colonial powers. Try reading the true story of Lawrence of Arabia sometime. Should we be surprised that an occupying Western army is now viewed with such deep suspicion and hostility? As for the Crusades, no need to go there (deliberate pun).

And please, look at the history and reality of the politics, leave out the "mum and apple pie, fighting for peace and freedom" propaganda lines...we've heard 'em all before.

Ahh...Lawrence of Arabia

Pretty good movie....no doubt the Arabs had damn good reasons to dislike the British

or am I making up stuff?

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...

*Suffocates with all the patriotism*

Excuse me?..my oldest did tell me that..thank you...

Middle Eastern countries have had "true freedom", if by that you mean the right to self-determination, but that was in the distant past.

Their recent history shows them as being colonies of the British, Turks and French, all of whom exploited them.

The majority of the present nations names and borders are those determined by these colonial masters. A large number of the present regimes are those set up as suitable "puppet" regimes by the departing colonial powers. Try reading the true story of Lawrence of Arabia sometime. Should we be surprised that an occupying Western army is now viewed with such deep suspicion and hostility? As for the Crusades, no need to go there (deliberate pun).

And please, look at the history and reality of the politics, leave out the "mum and apple pie, fighting for peace and freedom" propaganda lines...we've heard 'em all before.

Smeagol...I've read up on the history of the region..apparently you've glossed over it..name me one other country, other then Turkey that has had freedom of the sort the West is used to?...The region was used to Oligarchs, Monarchs, Dictators, etc....which Middle Eastern country had a democratically elected government that represented all parties and ethinicities in a fair power sharing arrangement?

And the bit bout mum, and apple pie...can I help it if my sons who were there saw it that way?

Its satire peeps.. calm down!

The line between an 'insurgent' or freedom fighter and a terrorist is thin. I would define a terrorist as one who attacks civilians and civilian targets.

1. Free to not be mass murdered...free of the restraints on religous freedom (show me anytime where Saddam allowed for the Shia to be unfettered?)

You, or your son rather, said 'True freedom'. Not 'free-er than under Saddam.

3. Hand over of political sovereignity occurs in 2 months..would you have said the same to the Nazis..that they should have have allowed that system to remain in place?.or perhaps worship of the Emperor like the Japanese did..no..we shut down those old political systems in place of something that would further promote democratic ideals.

Your still enforcing a political system. Enforced democracy is not democracy.

4. They sure as hell have more civil liberty then they did under Saddam.

Woop-de-doo. Again, you said 'true freedom'.

5. Actually...the power grid is up in almost all of the country now...whereas before it was centered in on primarily the Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country suffered brownouts or would be shut off by Saddam just to let everyone know who was in power.

Almost all, not all. Not 'True freedom'.

7. Give us time..as soon as the security issue is resolved...

Oh yeah, as soon as those 'insurgents' turn around and start hugging your troops.

So what....true freedom needs to be anarchy in order for you to be happy?

1. Free to not be mass murdered...free of the restraints on religous freedom (show me anytime where Saddam allowed for the Shia to be unfettered?)

You, or your son rather, said 'True freedom'. Not 'free-er than under Saddam.

3. Hand over of political sovereignity occurs in 2 months..would you have said the same to the Nazis..that they should have have allowed that system to remain in place?.or perhaps worship of the Emperor like the Japanese did..no..we shut down those old political systems in place of something that would further promote democratic ideals.

Your still enforcing a political system. Enforced democracy is not democracy.

4. They sure as hell have more civil liberty then they did under Saddam.

Woop-de-doo. Again, you said 'true freedom'.

5. Actually...the power grid is up in almost all of the country now...whereas before it was centered in on primarily the Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country suffered brownouts or would be shut off by Saddam just to let everyone know who was in power.

Almost all, not all. Not 'True freedom'.

7. Give us time..as soon as the security issue is resolved...

Oh yeah, as soon as those 'insurgents' turn around and start hugging your troops.

Damn..but you'd argue over semantics?....True Freedom..or More freedom is my son supposed to review his words?...In comparison to what the Iraqis had..my oldest did assume what we'd give is true freedom.

And it's only enforced democracy til the system is accepted..again I ask you, would you have had us leave the political systems of the Nazis and the Japanese in place simply because we'd be enforcing democracy on them?

True Freedom? I reckon so
Freedom? nope (that'd just be nice)

[quote=Utopio][quote=Salishe]Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom... ....*

Middle Eastern countries have had "true freedom", if by that you mean the right to self-determination, but that was in the distant past.

Their recent history shows them as being colonies of the British, Turks and French, all of whom exploited them.

The majority of the present nations names and borders are those determined by these colonial masters. A large number of the present regimes are those set up as suitable "puppet" regimes by the departing colonial powers. Try reading the true story of Lawrence of Arabia sometime. Should we be surprised that an occupying Western army is now viewed with such deep suspicion and hostility? As for the Crusades, no need to go there (deliberate pun).

And please, look at the history and reality of the politics, leave out the "mum and apple pie, fighting for peace and freedom" propaganda lines...we've heard 'em all before.

Smeagol...I've read up on the history of the region..apparently you've glossed over it..name me one other country, other then Turkey that has had freedom of the sort the West is used to?...The region was used to Oligarchs, Monarchs, Dictators, etc....which Middle Eastern country had a democratically elected government that represented all parties and ethinicities in a fair power sharing arrangement?

And the bit bout mum, and apple pie...can I help it if my sons who were there saw it that way?

The '"freedom" that I specifically quoted was "self-determination". This includes the right to determine the government type that best suits them, not what others may think best suits them.

Does the attempt at giving them a hand-picked "representative council" consisting of some particularly shady long-term exiles, while busily closing down their newspapers represent the type of freedom you suggest we bring them?

As for your sons, no it is not your fault that they are fed propaganda, but you should have a responsibility to teach them to question it. In Vietnam, all the soldiers were taught that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then all of South-East Asia would also fall ("domino theory"). Many of the troops there believed that for some time too. Do you sons still believe that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction? Seems that they put up a very poor fight for a nation so armed.

[quote=Utopio][quote=Salishe]Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom... ....*

Middle Eastern countries have had "true freedom", if by that you mean the right to self-determination, but that was in the distant past.

Their recent history shows them as being colonies of the British, Turks and French, all of whom exploited them.

The majority of the present nations names and borders are those determined by these colonial masters. A large number of the present regimes are those set up as suitable "puppet" regimes by the departing colonial powers. Try reading the true story of Lawrence of Arabia sometime. Should we be surprised that an occupying Western army is now viewed with such deep suspicion and hostility? As for the Crusades, no need to go there (deliberate pun).

And please, look at the history and reality of the politics, leave out the "mum and apple pie, fighting for peace and freedom" propaganda lines...we've heard 'em all before.

Smeagol...I've read up on the history of the region..apparently you've glossed over it..name me one other country, other then Turkey that has had freedom of the sort the West is used to?...The region was used to Oligarchs, Monarchs, Dictators, etc....which Middle Eastern country had a democratically elected government that represented all parties and ethinicities in a fair power sharing arrangement?

And the bit bout mum, and apple pie...can I help it if my sons who were there saw it that way?

The '"freedom" that I specifically quoted was "self-determination". This includes the right to determine the government type that best suits them, not what others may think best suits them.

Does the attempt at giving them a hand-picked "representative council" consisting of some particularly shady long-term exiles, while busily closing down their newspapers represent the type of freedom you suggest we bring them?

As for your sons, no it is not your fault that they are fed propaganda, but you should have a responsibility to teach them to question it. In Vietnam, all the soldiers were taught that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then all of South-East Asia would also fall ("domino theory"). Many of the troops there believed that for some time too. Do you sons still believe that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction? Seems that they put up a very poor fight for a nation so armed.

How can one be "fed" propaganda when you are actually there experiencing it?...And unless you missed it..but Cambodia, Laos did fall to communism at one point.

And the council is not only made up of exiles..but of every religous group and ethnicity..power would have been truly shared, not just by one group. Which is what the Sunni Iraqis had..which is what the Shiite Iraqis want.

Self-determination?..how does one determine anything under a monarchy or a tyrant?

[quote="Smeagol-Gollum"][quote=Salishe][quote=Utopio][quote=Salishe]Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom... ....*

...In Vietnam, all the soldiers were taught that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then all of South-East Asia would also fall ("domino theory"). Many of the troops there believed that for some time too. Do you sons still believe that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction? Seems that they put up a very poor fight for a nation so armed.

How can one be "fed" propaganda when you are actually there experiencing it?...And unless you missed it..but Cambodia, Laos did fall to communism at one point.

And the council is not only made up of exiles..but of every religous group and ethnicity..power would have been truly shared, not just by one group. Which is what the Sunni Iraqis had..which is what the Shiite Iraqis want.

Self-determination?..how does one determine anything under a monarchy or a tyrant?

The army (any army) is notorious for pushing its own form of propaganda, which is why all armies consider themselves to be doing the right and honourable thing. Its deliberately used for morale purposes, or haven't you noticed?

The army in Vietnam, as I said, were fed their particular propaganda, as is the present one. What you experience day to day and what you are told about the reasons, motivation, causes and justifications for what you experience are totally different. That is why extermination camps can and have functioned, where Nazis believed they were doing the right thing.

As for "power would have been truly shared, not just by one group. Which is what the Sunni Iraqis had..which is what the Shiite Iraqis want."... why not let them decide what they really want? The council are puppets hand picked by the US.

"Self-determination?..how does one determine anything under a monarchy or a tyrant?" ....or under a foreign army of occupation?

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq
I wonder what questions the little children of Iraq are asking their parents?

Do you think that they might have more than 2 or 3 questions?

Perhaps those childrens questions have been silenced by bombs?

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq
I wonder what questions the little children of Iraq are asking their parents?

Do you think that they might have more than 2 or 3 questions?

Perhaps those childrens questions have been silenced by bombs?

oh yes. every single little man, women, and child


I should edit stuff like this out after I show my later responses.

Here is a more realisitc view, both my sons were there:

Oldest Son:Dad...hope this email gets to you today, not sure how the servers here are working...PAO (public affairs officer) says we can do email from here.

Dad.....don't worry...I'm fine..we took fire from some guys in a mosque, I didn't think that muslims would use a mosque for a base of operations, totally blew the mind of my buddy Achmed, you know him..he's a Lebanese-American in my unit...says that no true muslim would dishonor Allah by using a house of God to attack us, says he's ashamed of them.

Dad....helped rebuild a school today...gave it a fresh coat of paint and fixed about a dozen desks...seems Saddam didn't give two farts in the wind for helping Shiite schools..the Sunni ones seem to be outfitted pretty well though.

Dad..little bro is up with the Kurds, he called me yesterday..told me the power is up everywhere...seems Saddam pretty much had concentrated the power grid in the Sunni Triangle to the detriment of everyone else...and apparenly he would turn it off in order to let everyone know who was in charge.

Dad....little bro says you'd be floored by all the business that is booming with the Kurds...says they whole heartedly welcome us, wish the insurgents would let the average Iraqi alone so they could have the same prosperity that they are having.

Dad..I'm going to have to stay here longer then I thought...but it's worth it....because yesterday....I got to play soccer with some kids...they were bright eyed...loved the game..I'd stack them against any of the kids back home...course they really loved the baseball hats you sent us...remind me to send an email to the that company you did business with. And they can't get enough of the chocolate we have in our MRE's...

Dad....actually visited one of uday's..."rape rooms" yesterday..made me sick that in here everyone from little girls/boys and old women were violated in the worst way here...what kind of sick bastard does that to women?

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...
Ummm you forgot the open air concerts at the bandshell and all the Iraqis running around with a US flag in one hand and a new Iraqi flag in the other?

Here is a more realisitc view, both my sons were there:

Oldest Son:Dad...hope this email gets to you today, not sure how the servers here are working...PAO (public affairs officer) says we can do email from here.

Dad.....don't worry...I'm fine..we took fire from some guys in a mosque, I didn't think that muslims would use a mosque for a base of operations, totally blew the mind of my buddy Achmed, you know him..he's a Lebanese-American in my unit...says that no true muslim would dishonor Allah by using a house of God to attack us, says he's ashamed of them.

Dad....helped rebuild a school today...gave it a fresh coat of paint and fixed about a dozen desks...seems Saddam didn't give two farts in the wind for helping Shiite schools..the Sunni ones seem to be outfitted pretty well though.

Dad..little bro is up with the Kurds, he called me yesterday..told me the power is up everywhere...seems Saddam pretty much had concentrated the power grid in the Sunni Triangle to the detriment of everyone else...and apparenly he would turn it off in order to let everyone know who was in charge.

Dad....little bro says you'd be floored by all the business that is booming with the Kurds...says they whole heartedly welcome us, wish the insurgents would let the average Iraqi alone so they could have the same prosperity that they are having.

Dad..I'm going to have to stay here longer then I thought...but it's worth it....because yesterday....I got to play soccer with some kids...they were bright eyed...loved the game..I'd stack them against any of the kids back home...course they really loved the baseball hats you sent us...remind me to send an email to the that company you did business with. And they can't get enough of the chocolate we have in our MRE's...

Dad....actually visited one of uday's..."rape rooms" yesterday..made me sick that in here everyone from little girls/boys and old women were violated in the worst way here...what kind of sick bastard does that to women?

Dad..tell Mom I love her..but this is important here...we're starting something that no Middle Eastern country has ever had...true freedom...
Ummm you forgot the open air concerts at the bandshell and all the Iraqis running around with a US flag in one hand and a new Iraqi flag in the other?

Notice I didn't say "Woe to the US Army, we're being slaughtered left and right, the country is in tatters, that no one is better off" that the other side would have me swallow

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq
I wonder what questions the little children of Iraq are asking their parents?

Do you think that they might have more than 2 or 3 questions?

Perhaps those childrens questions have been silenced by bombs?

oh yes. every single little man, women, and child


I should edit stuff like this out after I show my later responses.
Perhaps you forgot that there are children on both sides of this issue? Perhaps you don't care, at least that is what it appears like.

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh..there's a HUGE difference..don't you dare to lump a military strike that normally uses laser-guided weaponry to make impact within 6 feet of it's target with every consideration given to the possibly impact on civilian casualties..and a murderous sadistic fanatic who straps a bomb on his chest or drives a vehicle into a bunch of civilians ON PURPOSE into one package....

Mercy how I hate this "Comparing military actions to terrorists" posts..the two concepts are just so alien to one another, the only way you base it is if you have the opinion that all war is a terrorist action and that all military members of every nation are terrorists.

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh..there's a HUGE difference..don't you dare to lump a military strike that normally uses laser-guided weaponry to make impact within 6 feet of it's target with every consideration given to the possibly impact on civilian casualties..and a murderous sadistic fanatic who straps a bomb on his chest or drives a vehicle into a bunch of civilians ON PURPOSE into one package....

Mercy how I hate this "Comparing military actions to terrorists" posts..the two concepts are just so alien to one another, the only way you base it is if you have the opinion that all war is a terrorist action and that all military members of every nation are terrorists.

Not to the people who are being blown apart, there's not. I'm not comparing military actions to terrorists: I'm comparing military effects to terrorist effects. And when one is feeding the other... well.

The current conflict in Iraq is turning into one huge recruitment campaign for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. So not only is the targeting of civilian areas immoral in my opinion ("we try hard not to kill non-combatants" isn't the greatest ethical statement I've ever heard), it's extremely foolish from a strategic point of view as well.

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh..there's a HUGE difference..don't you dare to lump a military strike that normally uses laser-guided weaponry to make impact within 6 feet of it's target with every consideration given to the possibly impact on civilian casualties..and a murderous sadistic fanatic who straps a bomb on his chest or drives a vehicle into a bunch of civilians ON PURPOSE into one package....

Mercy how I hate this "Comparing military actions to terrorists" posts..the two concepts are just so alien to one another, the only way you base it is if you have the opinion that all war is a terrorist action and that all military members of every nation are terrorists.

Not to the people who are being blown apart, there's not. I'm not comparing military actions to terrorists: I'm comparing military effects to terrorist effects. And when one is feeding the other... well.

The current conflict in Iraq is turning into one huge recruitment campaign for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. So not only is the targeting of civilian areas immoral in my opinion ("we try hard not to kill non-combatants" isn't the greatest ethical statement I've ever heard), it's extremely foolish from a strategic point of view as well.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh..there's a HUGE difference..don't you dare to lump a military strike that normally uses laser-guided weaponry to make impact within 6 feet of it's target with every consideration given to the possibly impact on civilian casualties..and a murderous sadistic fanatic who straps a bomb on his chest or drives a vehicle into a bunch of civilians ON PURPOSE into one package....

Mercy how I hate this "Comparing military actions to terrorists" posts..the two concepts are just so alien to one another, the only way you base it is if you have the opinion that all war is a terrorist action and that all military members of every nation are terrorists.

Not to the people who are being blown apart, there's not. I'm not comparing military actions to terrorists: I'm comparing military effects to terrorist effects. And when one is feeding the other... well.

The current conflict in Iraq is turning into one huge recruitment campaign for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. So not only is the targeting of civilian areas immoral in my opinion ("we try hard not to kill non-combatants" isn't the greatest ethical statement I've ever heard), it's extremely foolish from a strategic point of view as well.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?
They are trying to defend THEIR country and you call them cowards? They don't have the equipment that the US does, especially gunships and stealth bombers, so they will fight the enemy anyway they can. Remember YOU invaded THEIR country under false pretenses.

To take issue with a few points:

1. Free to not be mass murdered...free of the restraints on religous freedom (show me anytime where Saddam allowed for the Shia to be unfettered?)

Actually, with the exception of some mass pilgrimages that he banned, he generally did not interfere with their religion per se.

3. Hand over of political sovereignity occurs in 2 months..would you have said the same to the Nazis..that they should have have allowed that system to remain in place?.or perhaps worship of the Emperor like the Japanese did..no..we shut down those old political systems in place of something that would further promote democratic ideals.

Sovereignity normally means having control. The handover specifies that the next iteration of interim leadership will nothave the power to make any laws. That will still rest in Bremmers hands. As such, it is a symbolic handover at best with no real meaning. IT is a step towards sovereignity, but nowhere near that yet.

4. They sure as hell have more civil liberty then they did under Saddam.

Except for women who have been placed back under the tenants of Sharia law by the CPA. In some respects Saddam was far more secular than the Shi'ites are driving Iraq towards.

5. Actually...the power grid is up in almost all of the country now...whereas before it was centered in on primarily the Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country suffered brownouts or would be shut off by Saddam just to let everyone know who was in power.

According to most recent reports, power supply is still only at prewar levels, and the water supply is still horrible (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/17/BUGAI66IF61.DTL). And thanks to unrest many contractors have picked up and left ongoing work unfinished do to the security problems.

And regarding the Kurds booming economy, don't forget that they have had a decade building that up. This is not just since the invasion. Saddam pretty much left the north alone once the no-fly zone was put in place so that the Kurds have had autonomy for a decade, and had already started to develop trading routes with Kurdish groups in Turkey and Iran. They also kicked a lot of people out of Tikrit and other cities once they got control and did some "creative acquisistion" of resources.

Meanwhile the Shi'ites were still more severely controlled by Saddam due to the strategic needs to keep his oil flowing via Basra, and the stronger blockade by the Americans along the Kuwaiti and Saudi borders. Then add into the mix that the bulk of the war tore through their territory as the troops headed north while the Kurdish area was virtually untouched.

So yeah, I'm happy the Kurds are improving their lot. But to characterize this all as being post-invasion improvements is not entirely accurate.

-Z-

Bombs are bombs and death is death, and it makes very little difference to those intimately involved whether the explosives arrive on the nose of a multi-million-dollar missile or in the back of a van. All you can really say in defence of the Coalition dropping HE into areas inhabited by civilians is that they are not deliberately targeting them: although I doubt if those civilians appreciate the distinction. Still, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh..there's a HUGE difference..don't you dare to lump a military strike that normally uses laser-guided weaponry to make impact within 6 feet of it's target with every consideration given to the possibly impact on civilian casualties..and a murderous sadistic fanatic who straps a bomb on his chest or drives a vehicle into a bunch of civilians ON PURPOSE into one package....

Mercy how I hate this "Comparing military actions to terrorists" posts..the two concepts are just so alien to one another, the only way you base it is if you have the opinion that all war is a terrorist action and that all military members of every nation are terrorists.

Not to the people who are being blown apart, there's not. I'm not comparing military actions to terrorists: I'm comparing military effects to terrorist effects. And when one is feeding the other... well.

The current conflict in Iraq is turning into one huge recruitment campaign for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. So not only is the targeting of civilian areas immoral in my opinion ("we try hard not to kill non-combatants" isn't the greatest ethical statement I've ever heard), it's extremely foolish from a strategic point of view as well.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?
They are trying to defend THEIR country and you call them cowards? They don't have the equipment that the US does, especially gunships and stealth bombers, so they will fight the enemy anyway they can. Remember YOU invaded THEIR country under false pretenses.

More B.s...we liberated them from a evil despotic thug...the ones who are currently fighting Coalition troops are former Sunnis who had it good under Saddam to the detriment of every else...fundamentalist Shiites who are funded by Iran and want THEIR way of life imposed on the rest of Iraq irregardless of how the Sunni or Kurds feel......now the Kurds are prosperous..happy, and united and love having us there...perhaps you'd better start with them and ask them how they feel bout us. Hell for that matter..most of the country is pacified and content..at best the problems lie in 3-4 major cities..that's it..Iraq is more then just Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit, and Najaf ya know.

And as far as equipment..they are just as well armed as the average Marine in Fallujah...3 full divisions of the Republican Guard vanished just before the fall of Baghdad...that's over 80000 personnel, fanatics of Saddam...and they had a helluva lot of equipment with them when they vanished.

And hiding behind the human shields of innocent non-combatants..how brave are they?

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

So, what you're saying is that you hoped guys with no armour, no air force, and only limited small arms, RPGs and mortars would go for an old-style pitched battle against M1s, Cobras, and AC130 gunships?

I mean - come on. Really. You want them to either give up a struggle or commit mass suicide for the amusement of the corps? I respect your disagreement with me in most areas Salishe - but this one is really pushing the bounds.

You may not agree with their struggle, but presenting that as their only viable option lest you spit on their honor is pretty unjustified.

Or do the MArines not teach their soldiers guerrilla tactics for when needed? Or escape and evasion?

If a marine troop is caught behind enemy lines - are their orders to walk towards the nearest enemy tank they can find firing their rifle to die needlessly and to no effect?

No?

Didn't think so....

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

Ah, I see... so you feel it's OK to accidentally kill the civilians that your enemies are unsportingly hiding behind. It's sounding less and less accidental all the time. You know the civilians are there; you know the enemy is hiding behind them; you shoot anyway. Are you sure it's not just frustration?

Currently, Coalition troops are driving people in Iraq into the arms of terrorists and warlords. In terms of the War on Terror (remember that?) as well as in terms of the future stability of Iraq, this is a bad idea. Any "better solution" to this grotesque problem must involve NOT shooting at (or near, however thin you want to slice it) the civilians.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

Ah, I see... so you feel it's OK to accidentally kill the civilians that your enemies are unsportingly hiding behind. It's sounding less and less accidental all the time. You know the civilians are there; you know the enemy is hiding behind them; you shoot anyway. Are you sure it's not just frustration?

Currently, Coalition troops are driving people in Iraq into the arms of terrorists and warlords. In terms of the War on Terror (remember that?) as well as in terms of the future stability of Iraq, this is a bad idea. Any "better solution" to this grotesque problem must involve NOT shooting at (or near, however thin you want to slice it) the civilians.

Again...I ask you..if you have a better way of getting at them I'm sure the commanders on the ground taking fire from a mosque in Fallujah are open to any suggestion.

Message for Salishe

I now understand why you have to believe that Iraq is righteous.

I knew you had served as a soldier and thought it was just patriotism.

But with 2 sons in the US Occupation Forces then of course you wish to believe that what they are doing is right. No father would wish otherwise. And no father would criticise the actions of US troops in Iraq when his own sons may be performing those actions. But you also have to realise that your view is biased because of that family loyalty. If there are two ways of viewing an action then of course you will see it in the best possible way.

I respect your loyalty to your sons and hope they stay safe.

In order to show you that I mean it I will not sign off with my usual devil smile.

Have a nice day.

I didn't read it all but those you are talking about can not be described as terrorists (unless by the dumb uncredible war on terror propaganda machine). They don't intentionally target civilians, they don't target spanish troups (withdrawing ones). There may be some terrorrists taking a few hostages who have killed one man on one day, they don't hide the bulk of the fighters, who have made less civilian casualties than the americans.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

Ah, I see... so you feel it's OK to accidentally kill the civilians that your enemies are unsportingly hiding behind. It's sounding less and less accidental all the time. You know the civilians are there; you know the enemy is hiding behind them; you shoot anyway. Are you sure it's not just frustration?

Currently, Coalition troops are driving people in Iraq into the arms of terrorists and warlords. In terms of the War on Terror (remember that?) as well as in terms of the future stability of Iraq, this is a bad idea. Any "better solution" to this grotesque problem must involve NOT shooting at (or near, however thin you want to slice it) the civilians.

Again...I ask you..if you have a better way of getting at them I'm sure the commanders on the ground taking fire from a mosque in Fallujah are open to any suggestion.

For starters, move further away from the mosque. Sit outside the city. Stop firing HE into the city. Develop a dialogue. Be prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth. Swallow your distaste and make the best compromises possible. The alternative? Be sucked into a never-ending terrorist war that will grind on and on and on, bleeding off a soldier here, a civilian there, for decades -- until someone is finally prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth, etc. Such is life.

Oh my goodness! The press is destroying our children! Children shouldn't learn about violence and terrorism until I say they are old enough! Why should any parent have to answer their child's questions like this?!

[In case anyone didn't get it (which I am absolutely sure happened) - this is sarcasm]

For starters, move further away from the mosque. Sit outside the city. Stop firing HE into the city. Develop a dialogue. Be prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth. Swallow your distaste and make the best compromises possible. The alternative? Be sucked into a never-ending terrorist war that will grind on and on and on, bleeding off a soldier here, a civilian there, for decades -- until someone is finally prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth, etc. Such is life.Terrorism and war are two different things. There's no such thing as "terrorist war". Guerilla war if you want. enough with this propaganda and their aspirations are no scum.

Well..we tried asking the combatants to come out and play like adults but they wish to be cowards and hide amongst the non-combatants..have a better solution to get at them?

So, what you're saying is that you hoped guys with no armour, no air force, and only limited small arms, RPGs and mortars would go for an old-style pitched battle against M1s, Cobras, and AC130 gunships?

I mean - come on. Really. You want them to either give up a struggle or commit mass suicide for the amusement of the corps? I respect your disagreement with me in most areas Salishe - but this one is really pushing the bounds.

You may not agree with their struggle, but presenting that as their only viable option lest you spit on their honor is pretty unjustified.

Or do the MArines not teach their soldiers guerrilla tactics for when needed? Or escape and evasion?

If a marine troop is caught behind enemy lines - are their orders to walk towards the nearest enemy tank they can find firing their rifle to die needlessly and to no effect?

No?

Didn't think so....

Improvised Explosive Devices are cheaply made as anti-tank mines..they can rip thru a tank..RPG's they have by the bushel and can also rip thru a humvee or Bradley fighting vehicle..in other words..they do not need tanks...ground to air missiles such as our Stinger and it's russian or chinese equivalent are cheap compared to a helo or gunship and can just as easily take them out of the sky...ask the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who used our Stingers to devasatating effect on Soviet Hind gunships.

In short..they have the capability..what they lacked is courage..

And in accordance with our Code of Conduct...Art. 1 "I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and my way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense"

Art. 2 I will never surrender of my own free will if in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist..

These are basic precepts taught to every soldier/Marine/airman/sailor...

For starters, move further away from the mosque. Sit outside the city. Stop firing HE into the city. Develop a dialogue. Be prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth. Swallow your distaste and make the best compromises possible. The alternative? Be sucked into a never-ending terrorist war that will grind on and on and on, bleeding off a soldier here, a civilian there, for decades -- until someone is finally prepared to sit down and talk to some of the scum of the earth, etc. Such is life.[/quote]

In other words..appease the terrorists..give in to their demands? And what if their demands we can't meet?..what if they do not see the need to negotiate?

Improvised Explosive Devices are cheaply made as anti-tank mines..they can rip thru a tank..RPG's they have by the bushel and can also rip thru a humvee or Bradley fighting vehicle..in other words..they do not need tanks...ground to air missiles such as our Stinger and it's russian or chinese equivalent are cheap compared to a helo or gunship and can just as easily take them out of the sky...ask the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who used our Stingers to devasatating effect on Soviet Hind gunships.

In short..they have the capability..what they lacked is courage..

And in accordance with our Code of Conduct...Art. 1 "I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and my way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense"

Art. 2 I will never surrender of my own free will if in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist..

These are basic precepts taught to every soldier/Marine/airman/sailor...They have firing power but not the armor. That's why they need to hide no?

In other words..appease the terrorists..give in to their demands? And what if their demands we can't meet?..what if they do not see the need to negotiate?In what are they terrorists? They don't target civilians.

Damn..but you'd argue over semantics?....True Freedom..or More freedom is my son supposed to review his words?...In comparison to what the Iraqis had..my oldest did assume what we'd give is true freedom.

Well he would be sorely wrong. This is more than semantics, and I would hope yur son doesn't believe that he is bringing 'true freedom' to Iraq.

And it's only enforced democracy til the system is accepted..again I ask you, would you have had us leave the political systems of the Nazis and the Japanese in place simply because we'd be enforcing democracy on them?

No, but I also wouldn't bomb a Buddhist shrine or German church, or beseige Frankfurt or Kyoto because of a rebel voice, or close down Die Welt or Asahi Shinbun because they printed views opposed to the occupiers, then call it 'liberating' or 'True freedom'.

Damn..but you'd argue over semantics?....True Freedom..or More freedom is my son supposed to review his words?...In comparison to what the Iraqis had..my oldest did assume what we'd give is true freedom.

Well he would be sorely wrong. This is more than semantics, and I would hope yur son doesn't believe that he is bringing 'true freedom' to Iraq.

And it's only enforced democracy til the system is accepted..again I ask you, would you have had us leave the political systems of the Nazis and the Japanese in place simply because we'd be enforcing democracy on them?

No, but I also wouldn't bomb a Buddhist shrine or German church, or beseige Frankfurt or Kyoto because of a rebel voice, or close down Die Welt or Asahi Shinbun because they printed views opposed to the occupiers, then call it 'liberating' or 'True freedom'.

Usage of a mosque as a base of attacks is expressly forbidden by the 4th Geneva Convention..once they do use it...all bets are off and it's a valid target.

Oh..and one other thing..we've tried negotiation in Fallujah and Najaf..the insurgents were supposed to turn over weaponry and allow for Iraqi police to patrol their streets...to date..what they've given is junk and not anywhere near the amount of weaponry we know they possess...so..we talked..and it got nowhere...now...Sadr is entrenched with an army he is not willing to give up...now he's in a position to dictate..not negotiate..dictate terms...and his strings are being pulled by Iran.

In other words..appease the terrorists..give in to their demands? And what if their demands we can't meet?..what if they do not see the need to negotiate?

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter. The IRA and their contempories received great support from the US since 1969 and they were terrorists. They were a minority who wished to force the majority of the Ulster people to agree to their demands. They blew up civilians, innocent men, women and children with cowardly bombs and yet in the US they were considered Freedom Fighters fighting to re-unite Ireland.

Problem is that the majority of Ulster want to be British!

If one man has a knive and the other a rifle then the sensible thing to do is sneak behind him and stab him in the back. The stupid thing to do would be to stand in front of him and say "Lets Fight...Bang!"(sound of dead body hitting ground with large hole in head)

:twisted:

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter. The IRA and their contempories received great support from the US since 1969 and they were terrorists. They were a minority who wished to force the majority of the Ulster people to agree to their demands. They blew up civilians, innocent men, women and children with cowardly bombs and yet in the US they were considered Freedom Fighters fighting to re-unite Ireland.

Problem is that the majority of Ulster want to be British!

If one man has a knive and the other a rifle then the sensible thing to do is sneak behind him and stab him in the back. The stupid thing to do would be to stand in front of him and say "Lets Fight...Bang!"(sound of dead body hitting ground with large hole in head)

:twisted:The IRA targets civilians, those do not.

Message for Salishe

I now understand why you have to believe that Iraq is righteous.

I knew you had served as a soldier and thought it was just patriotism.

But with 2 sons in the US Occupation Forces then of course you wish to believe that what they are doing is right. No father would wish otherwise. And no father would criticise the actions of US troops in Iraq when his own sons may be performing those actions. But you also have to realise that your view is biased because of that family loyalty. If there are two ways of viewing an action then of course you will see it in the best possible way.

I respect your loyalty to your sons and hope they stay safe.

In order to show you that I mean it I will not sign off with my usual devil smile.

Have a nice day.

I want to thank you for your remarks..extremely considerate of you..and I don't want you, Zep, or any other anti-Iraq war poster to think that your opinions don't mean squat..mebbe my sons are looking for the best face of Iraq..I don't know..when I was Vietnam I sure didn't give a damn bout the best face of our troops..I was more concerned with getting all 40 of my boys back in one piece so they could go hang out at malls or go to college..

It is just my position that there is more to the country then the few cities we have had problems with..on the whole..the entire country..just one simple question..do you think the average Iraqi is thankful Saddam is gone..I realize they wanted us to to do it, and then quickly leave..I'm pretty sure that is what most thought...that we'd do their fighting and as soon as the Republican Guard surrenderd and Saddam captured we'd head out...but once the fighting was over and we continued to stay then set up shop with Bremer and co...I'm pretty sure they must have thought they'd traded one regime for another..it is my hope though that they'll come to the realization that what we hope for them is a way of living better then the one they had.

I want to thank you for your remarks..extremely considerate of you...

No problem. I meant it.

:twisted:

Improvised Explosive Devices are cheaply made as anti-tank mines..they can rip thru a tank..RPG's they have by the bushel and can also rip thru a humvee or Bradley fighting vehicle..in other words..they do not need tanks...ground to air missiles such as our Stinger and it's russian or chinese equivalent are cheap compared to a helo or gunship and can just as easily take them out of the sky...ask the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who used our Stingers to devasatating effect on Soviet Hind gunships.

In short..they have the capability..what they lacked is courage..

And in accordance with our Code of Conduct...Art. 1 "I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and my way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense"

Art. 2 I will never surrender of my own free will if in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist..

These are basic precepts taught to every soldier/Marine/airman/sailor...

So, for those of us who haven;t served....

What you are saying is that using urban cover is inherently cowardly? Even when outgunned?

So, running street battles where US forces use houses / shops / etc such as those illustrated in Black Hawk Down are

a) against regulations
and
b) cowardly

You therefore support the court martialling of those men who fought their way out of Mogadishu then? Or at least denigrating them for their cowardly lack of honour for not standing in the center of the streets to be picked off by a numerically superior foe?

Somehow, I doubt very much that this represents your viewpoint Salishe. It certainly isn't mine. I'm just illustrating that when the shoe is on the other foot, ALL soldiers are trained to use the cover available - regardless of the civillians who happen to be about.

But if they did do a suicidal mass attack on foot against the M1s, you;d also be the first to call them stupid for doing it. Under your perception, not matter what these guys do besides surrender is dishonorable.

Very few occupied persons feel that resistance is dishonorable.

-Z-

I know that if someone came to the USA to liberate us from Bush's rule and take away his massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction so they could bring their own style of governance... I would not be accepting of them even though I want to see Bush go.

I would fight the invading forces in ANY way I could. I would use dirty tricks if I could.

And after Bush was out of power and in custody I would expect them to leave since they accomplished their main objective and let us figure out how we are going to rebuild.

Improvised Explosive Devices are cheaply made as anti-tank mines..they can rip thru a tank..RPG's they have by the bushel and can also rip thru a humvee or Bradley fighting vehicle..in other words..they do not need tanks...ground to air missiles such as our Stinger and it's russian or chinese equivalent are cheap compared to a helo or gunship and can just as easily take them out of the sky...ask the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who used our Stingers to devasatating effect on Soviet Hind gunships.

In short..they have the capability..what they lacked is courage..

And in accordance with our Code of Conduct...Art. 1 "I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and my way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense"

Art. 2 I will never surrender of my own free will if in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist..

These are basic precepts taught to every soldier/Marine/airman/sailor...

So, for those of us who haven;t served....

What you are saying is that using urban cover is inherently cowardly? Even when outgunned?

So, running street battles where US forces use houses / shops / etc such as those illustrated in Black Hawk Down are

a) against regulations
and
b) cowardly

You therefore support the court martialling of those men who fought their way out of Mogadishu then? Or at least denigrating them for their cowardly lack of honour for not standing in the center of the streets to be picked off by a numerically superior foe?

Somehow, I doubt very much that this represents your viewpoint Salishe. It certainly isn't mine. I'm just illustrating that when the shoe is on the other foot, ALL soldiers are trained to use the cover available - regardless of the civillians who happen to be about.

But if they did do a suicidal mass attack on foot against the M1s, you;d also be the first to call them stupid for doing it. Under your perception, not matter what these guys do besides surrender is dishonorable.

Very few occupied persons feel that resistance is dishonorable.

-Z-

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

In other words..appease the terrorists..give in to their demands? And what if their demands we can't meet?..what if they do not see the need to negotiate?

Oh..and one other thing..we've tried negotiation in Fallujah and Najaf..the insurgents were supposed to turn over weaponry and allow for Iraqi police to patrol their streets...to date..what they've given is junk and not anywhere near the amount of weaponry we know they possess...so..we talked..and it got nowhere...now...Sadr is entrenched with an army he is not willing to give up...now he's in a position to dictate..not negotiate..dictate terms...and his strings are being pulled by Iran.

No, I don't mean "appease the terrorists". I mean, "cut them off at the knees". Remove from them the reason they are gaining the support of the general Iraqi population. All we're doing at the moment is recruiting for Sadr and his ilk. Even if we kill or capture the current leaders -- insofar as there are any leaders -- it will make no difference: others will spring up to take their place. The only way to win this conflict is to remove the grievances which fuel support for the resistance.

Negotiation on the sort of scale needed isn't carried out through a bullhorn. It's long-term, exhausting, infuriating, difficult and unpleasant. But I'm afraid that it's the only viable option. You have to build real ties with intermediaries. You have to get the power and water back on again. You have to get local forces on the ground (paying them a decent wage might help; currently an Iraqi policeman gets less than half the salary of a worker in Pepsi's new Baghdad bottling plant Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1184993,00.html)). You have to stop slicing up their country and selling it off at knock-down rates to the President's cronies. And you really have to stop firing HE into civilian areas.

When Fallujah is retaken by Coalition forces, the resistance will just go back underground again, to surface elsewhere. This will go on and on and on and the more civilians that die -- for whatever reason -- the more fuel it adds to the fire. When somebody's neighbour or family gets killed, do you think they stop to ask themselves, "Now is it really fair to blame this on the Americans?" Or do you think they'll just behave like human beings everywhere and focus their rage on the foreigners?

Improvised Explosive Devices are cheaply made as anti-tank mines..they can rip thru a tank..RPG's they have by the bushel and can also rip thru a humvee or Bradley fighting vehicle..in other words..they do not need tanks...ground to air missiles such as our Stinger and it's russian or chinese equivalent are cheap compared to a helo or gunship and can just as easily take them out of the sky...ask the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who used our Stingers to devasatating effect on Soviet Hind gunships.

In short..they have the capability..what they lacked is courage..

And in accordance with our Code of Conduct...Art. 1 "I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and my way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense"

Art. 2 I will never surrender of my own free will if in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist..

These are basic precepts taught to every soldier/Marine/airman/sailor...

So, for those of us who haven;t served....

What you are saying is that using urban cover is inherently cowardly? Even when outgunned?

So, running street battles where US forces use houses / shops / etc such as those illustrated in Black Hawk Down are

a) against regulations
and
b) cowardly

You therefore support the court martialling of those men who fought their way out of Mogadishu then? Or at least denigrating them for their cowardly lack of honour for not standing in the center of the streets to be picked off by a numerically superior foe?

Somehow, I doubt very much that this represents your viewpoint Salishe. It certainly isn't mine. I'm just illustrating that when the shoe is on the other foot, ALL soldiers are trained to use the cover available - regardless of the civillians who happen to be about.

But if they did do a suicidal mass attack on foot against the M1s, you;d also be the first to call them stupid for doing it. Under your perception, not matter what these guys do besides surrender is dishonorable.

Very few occupied persons feel that resistance is dishonorable.

-Z-

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...
Thats because you were fighting in THEIR jungle which they knew better than YOU. That is why you used "agent orange", or did you forget?

I think we should send Bush over to talk to the freedom fighters.

Thats because you were fighting in THEIR jungle which they knew better than YOU. That is why you used "agent orange", or did you forget?[/quote]

Actually I was pretty at home there..not to different from back home, vegetation was just different..the white officer we had put me and a Lakota on point normally...his thinking was we Indians should be used to sneaking around in the greenery.

Also Agent Orange was not used thruout the Republic of South Vietnam.

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

You are going to compare the Vietnamese combat environment to Iraq?

Desert to dense jungle?

Exactly what cover and concealment is available in most areas of Iraq?


Zip, zero, nada. Or not much at least. At best you might be able to hide a small squad somewhere for an ambush. and this against all of the increased IR/night-vision gear, heat sensors, and satellites that you didn;t have on your side in 'Nam. And tunneling in sand is a much diferent proposition than tunneling in a rainforest.

So equating those two from a battlefield viewpoint is so far from fair as to be rediculous Salishe.

Plus they might just remember when they tried to be that way in Kuwait and put in trenches. The US response was to send in armoured plows to bury them alive.....

Like I said: them fighting armour out in the open would be mass suicide and you damn well know it!

Which leaves only the urban arena for them to fight from.


And given that it has been estimated that over 300,000 innocent civillians died in Vietnam to go with the 3/4 million or so NVA/Cong - somebody sure as hell was fighting in and amongst them!

-Z-

You mind shutting that kid up?

For one, a child would never ask more than 3 questions like that in a row.

And two, a child wouldn't know that much on Iraq

Why? Because the kid is saying things you don't want to hear or acknowledge? I say, right on! Besides, some kids ARE that precocious and ask questions like that. I know I did when I was a little kid. Drove my parents nuts!

Hey, even the Bible says, "A little child shall lead the way."

You, Colodia, just do not want to face up to the uncomfortable truths that this child's questions are raising. Because you'd rather kiss Bush's butt. Sorry, but Saddam was never a threat. We went there for two reasons...

O-I-L and GRUDGE. No other reasons. If we went in to dangerous regimes who had WMD's and threatened to use them...then why aren't we in North Korea right now instead of Iraq? Well, two reasons...no oil and no grudge.

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

You are going to compare the Vietnamese combat environment to Iraq?

Desert to dense jungle?

Exactly what cover and concealment is available in most areas of Iraq?


Zip, zero, nada. Or not much at least. At best you might be able to hide a small squad somewhere for an ambush. and this against all of the increased IR/night-vision gear, heat sensors, and satellites that you didn;t have on your side in 'Nam. And tunneling in sand is a much diferent proposition than tunneling in a rainforest.

So equating those two from a battlefield viewpoint is so far from fair as to be rediculous Salishe.

Plus they might just remember when they tried to be that way in Kuwait and put in trenches. The US response was to send in armoured plows to bury them alive.....

Like I said: them fighting armour out in the open would be mass suicide and you damn well know it!

Which leaves only the urban arena for them to fight from.


And given that it has been estimated that over 300,000 innocent civillians died in Vietnam to go with the 3/4 million or so NVA/Cong - somebody sure as hell was fighting in and amongst them!

-Z-
Your knowlege and understanding of both the situation in Iraq and military tactics is not hopeless, but still quite vague. To my knowlege, Iraq is not all desert, and even where it IS desert, it is a rocky desert with mountains (Salishe, correct me if I'm wrong). BUT even if we assume that urban areas are the only ones suitable for guerilla warfare, the Iraqi insurgents still do not abide by a huger number of rules.

They do not wear uniforms to distinct themselves from civilian population,

They deliberately take firing positions in places that, according to the Geneva convention, are protected places- like hospitals and mosques.

They exploit ambulances for attacks.

They take firing positions in buildings with civilians still inside.

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

You are going to compare the Vietnamese combat environment to Iraq?

Desert to dense jungle?

Exactly what cover and concealment is available in most areas of Iraq?


Zip, zero, nada. Or not much at least. At best you might be able to hide a small squad somewhere for an ambush. and this against all of the increased IR/night-vision gear, heat sensors, and satellites that you didn;t have on your side in 'Nam. And tunneling in sand is a much diferent proposition than tunneling in a rainforest.

So equating those two from a battlefield viewpoint is so far from fair as to be rediculous Salishe.

Plus they might just remember when they tried to be that way in Kuwait and put in trenches. The US response was to send in armoured plows to bury them alive.....

Like I said: them fighting armour out in the open would be mass suicide and you damn well know it!

Which leaves only the urban arena for them to fight from.


And given that it has been estimated that over 300,000 innocent civillians died in Vietnam to go with the 3/4 million or so NVA/Cong - somebody sure as hell was fighting in and amongst them!

-Z-
Your knowlege and understanding of both the situation in Iraq and military tactics is not hopeless, but still quite vague. To my knowlege, Iraq is not all desert, and even where it IS desert, it is a rocky desert with mountains (Salishe, correct me if I'm wrong). BUT even if we assume that urban areas are the only ones suitable for guerilla warfare, the Iraqi insurgents still do not abide by a huger number of rules.

They do not wear uniforms to distinct themselves from civilian population,

They deliberately take firing positions in places that, according to the Geneva convention, are protected places- like hospitals and mosques.

They exploit ambulances for attacks.

They take firing positions in buildings with civilians still inside.

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

You are going to compare the Vietnamese combat environment to Iraq?

Desert to dense jungle?

Exactly what cover and concealment is available in most areas of Iraq?


Zip, zero, nada. Or not much at least. At best you might be able to hide a small squad somewhere for an ambush. and this against all of the increased IR/night-vision gear, heat sensors, and satellites that you didn;t have on your side in 'Nam. And tunneling in sand is a much diferent proposition than tunneling in a rainforest.

So equating those two from a battlefield viewpoint is so far from fair as to be rediculous Salishe.

Plus they might just remember when they tried to be that way in Kuwait and put in trenches. The US response was to send in armoured plows to bury them alive.....

Like I said: them fighting armour out in the open would be mass suicide and you damn well know it!

Which leaves only the urban arena for them to fight from.


And given that it has been estimated that over 300,000 innocent civillians died in Vietnam to go with the 3/4 million or so NVA/Cong - somebody sure as hell was fighting in and amongst them!

-Z-
Your knowlege and understanding of both the situation in Iraq and military tactics is not hopeless, but still quite vague. To my knowlege, Iraq is not all desert, and even where it IS desert, it is a rocky desert with mountains (Salishe, correct me if I'm wrong). BUT even if we assume that urban areas are the only ones suitable for guerilla warfare, the Iraqi insurgents still do not abide by a huger number of rules.

They do not wear uniforms to distinct themselves from civilian population,

They deliberately take firing positions in places that, according to the Geneva convention, are protected places- like hospitals and mosques.

They exploit ambulances for attacks.

They take firing positions in buildings with civilians still inside.

Anyway Salishe, I don't want this to get heated. I respect you opinions and experience.

However I would just like to remind you of a couple of things.

1.) By and large, the insurgents HAVE based their attacks outside of urban areas. A good majority of the attacks have come along the various supply line highways where convoys and patrols have been hit.

2.) You fight where your enemies are. Doesn't do you any good sitting in the middle of the desert with a gun when all the US bases are in and around urban areas. If that's where your troops are, that is where they will be attacked. Expecting otherwise is silly.

3.) It was the US that made Falluja the battleground that it is. They are the ones who surroudned the city and announced that they were going in to take out the people who nailed those four contracters. It wasn't the Sunnis' who made that city the military flashpoint. It was the overwhelming response that the US military instituted after that attack.

Perhaps Falluja will be their Alamo. Who knows. But the decision to make that city a pitched battleground was an American decision. Because they tired of the guerilla tactics they were facing, and public opinion dictated that the perpetrators of those indignities get punished.

Did you honestly expect the insurgents to go "oh well, we're surrounded.... let's go down without a fight"?

The US took the battle to the city. The insurgents are taking you up on it. Saddly, civillians are in the way, but to both sides that is tactically a side-issue to the battle at hand.

All I'm saying is that there are two sides to the reason this urban battle is going on. Pointing the finger of blame only at one side is simply not fair.

-Z-

Thats because you were fighting in THEIR jungle which they knew better than YOU. That is why you used "agent orange", or did you forget?

Actually I was pretty at home there..not to different from back home, vegetation was just different..the white officer we had put me and a Lakota on point normally...his thinking was we Indians should be used to sneaking around in the greenery.

Also Agent Orange was not used thruout the Republic of South Vietnam.
Since 1994, Hatfield Consultants Ltd. has been investigating the impacts of Agent Orange on the environment of Viet Nam. Agent Orange was one of many herbicides sprayed over Viet Nam by US military forces between 1962 and 1971. In total, over 10% of the area of South Viet Nam was sprayed with herbicides during the War.

Our studies since 1994 have shown that high concentrations of the substance applied during the war persist in Viet Nam today, and have irreversibly altered complex ecosystems. Defoliants eliminated 50% of the mangrove forests in Viet Nam and had serious effects on the wildlife population.

None in South Viet Nam huh?

I'm afraid we may be referring to totally different things..using cover and concealment is one thing....using innocent non-combatants as virtual shields because you know we won't just tear ass thru them to get at the combatant is another..

Charlie did just fine against us..and rarely if ever fought from the cover of innocent non-combatants...

You are going to compare the Vietnamese combat environment to Iraq?

Desert to dense jungle?

Exactly what cover and concealment is available in most areas of Iraq?


Zip, zero, nada. Or not much at least. At best you might be able to hide a small squad somewhere for an ambush. and this against all of the increased IR/night-vision gear, heat sensors, and satellites that you didn;t have on your side in 'Nam. And tunneling in sand is a much diferent proposition than tunneling in a rainforest.

So equating those two from a battlefield viewpoint is so far from fair as to be rediculous Salishe.

Plus they might just remember when they tried to be that way in Kuwait and put in trenches. The US response was to send in armoured plows to bury them alive.....

Like I said: them fighting armour out in the open would be mass suicide and you damn well know it!

Which leaves only the urban arena for them to fight from.


And given that it has been estimated that over 300,000 innocent civillians died in Vietnam to go with the 3/4 million or so NVA/Cong - somebody sure as hell was fighting in and amongst them!

-Z-
Your knowlege and understanding of both the situation in Iraq and military tactics is not hopeless, but still quite vague. To my knowlege, Iraq is not all desert, and even where it IS desert, it is a rocky desert with mountains (Salishe, correct me if I'm wrong). BUT even if we assume that urban areas are the only ones suitable for guerilla warfare, the Iraqi insurgents still do not abide by a huger number of rules.

They do not wear uniforms to distinct themselves from civilian population,

They deliberately take firing positions in places that, according to the Geneva convention, are protected places- like hospitals and mosques.

They exploit ambulances for attacks.

They take firing positions in buildings with civilians still inside.
This is an UNDECLARED war. It was an invasion. The citizens have the right to protect themselves in any manner. The citizens do not need to wear military clothing. The US is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. If you invaded MY country, I wouldn't put on a uniform to let you know that I was the enemy.

Thats because you were fighting in THEIR jungle which they knew better than YOU. That is why you used "agent orange", or did you forget?

Actually I was pretty at home there..not to different from back home, vegetation was just different..the white officer we had put me and a Lakota on point normally...his thinking was we Indians should be used to sneaking around in the greenery.

Also Agent Orange was not used thruout the Republic of South Vietnam.
Since 1994, Hatfield Consultants Ltd. has been investigating the impacts of Agent Orange on the environment of Viet Nam. Agent Orange was one of many herbicides sprayed over Viet Nam by US military forces between 1962 and 1971. In total, over 10% of the area of South Viet Nam was sprayed with herbicides during the War.

Our studies since 1994 have shown that high concentrations of the substance applied during the war persist in Viet Nam today, and have irreversibly altered complex ecosystems. Defoliants eliminated 50% of the mangrove forests in Viet Nam and had serious effects on the wildlife population.

None in South Viet Nam huh?

No...if you read what I posted..was that the whole of the Republic of South Vietnam was sprayed.

This is an UNDECLARED war. It was an invasion. The citizens have the right to protect themselves in any manner. The citizens do not need to wear military clothing.
Wrong. What I have listed are direct violations of the Geneva Convention- international treaty that regulates warfare and management withing the occupied territory in all situations of occupation. The Geneva convention is not a suicide pact for the Occupying power, and it places clear obligations on BOTH parties to the conflict, including irregular armed forces a.k.a. guerillas. If a guerilla force does not abide by the Geneva Convention, they place themselves outside the international law, and from that moment on the Occupying power is not obliged to treat them in accordange with international conventions either.


The US is in violation of the Geneva Conventions
Really? Please quote which articles of the Geneva Convention the US currently stands in violation of.

If you invaded MY country, I wouldn't put on a uniform to let you know that I was the enemy.
In which case, of course, you would lose any right to complain about your opponents not abiding by the Geneva convention. In other words, by doing so you would make it legal for your opponents to do to you and your people as they please.

Womblington is right...are we the only ones subject to the Geneva Convention?...Our enemy is not identifying themselves as combatants.. they are utilizing mosques as Observation posts for mortar and rocket attacks.....they have used ambulances to commit ambushes on Coalition troops..they were caught using US uniforms in order to infiltrate (that alone they can be shot as spies)..

And Zep..I never said anything bout fighting out in the open..but using the 2nd story of an apartment as a sniper platform or observation post for mortar while a family huddles on the first floor is using innocent non-combatants as shields...or ambushing a convoy then running to a crowded civilian neighborhood..just how do you expect us to fight?..Our enemy sees no reason to stick to the Geneva Conventions....yet we still are expected by the world to do everything possible to prevent innocent deaths when our enemy has no such compunction..such as the car bombing of Iraqi police stations recently when busload of 10 children were taken out by a car bomb outside an Iraqi police station.

This is an UNDECLARED war. It was an invasion. The citizens have the right to protect themselves in any manner. The citizens do not need to wear military clothing.
Wrong. What I have listed are direct violations of the Geneva Convention- international treaty that regulates warfare and management withing the occupied territory in all situations of occupation. The Geneva convention is not a suicide pact for the Occupying power, and it places clear obligations on BOTH parties to the conflict, including irregular armed forces a.k.a. guerillas. If a guerilla force does not abide by the Geneva Convention, they place themselves outside the international law, and from that moment on the Occupying power is not obliged to treat them in accordange with international conventions either.


The US is in violation of the Geneva Conventions
Really? Please quote which articles of the Geneva Convention the US currently stands in violation of.

If you invaded MY country, I wouldn't put on a uniform to let you know that I was the enemy.
In which case, of course, you would lose any right to complain about your opponents not abiding by the Geneva convention. In other words, by doing so you would make it legal for your opponents to do to you and your people as they please.
WRONG, gee I can say that too?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Preamble

The High Contracting Parties,

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

So what....true freedom needs to be anarchy in order for you to be happy?

Thank you. True Freedom is not unfettered. With it comes responsibility, an aspect lovingly ignored by the childish all or nothing thinking of anarchists. Abolish the constraints of government, which is designed to limit the freedom of some to benefit the majority, and you revert to a law of the jungle. That would be much less freedom for all but the powerful few.

Children are smarter than that. What is with the anarchists anyway? Too much drugs or not enough meds?

:shock:

WRONG, gee I can say that too?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Preamble

The High Contracting Parties,

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

I hate to encourage the idea that war is ever justified or that this particular action was, in fact, legal, but this doesn't say what you imply that it says. What this Protocal addition indicates is that all states agree to function under the Charter of the UN, which they've already agreed to by joining the UN. While I do not think we were justified in acting unilaterally in Iraq, we did not break the UN charter via our action (at least not as it has been proven to this point, future proofs may invalidate this statement). Therefore, we are not in violation of the Geneva Convention nor in violation of the UN Charter.

Wrong. What I have listed are direct violations of the Geneva Convention- international treaty that regulates warfare and management withing the occupied territory in all situations of occupation. The Geneva convention is not a suicide pact for the Occupying power, and it places clear obligations on BOTH parties to the conflict, including irregular armed forces a.k.a. guerillas. If a guerilla force does not abide by the Geneva Convention, they place themselves outside the international law, and from that moment on the Occupying power is not obliged to treat them in accordange with international conventions either.


Absolutely right. If the enemy is not willing to subject themselves to the rules and regulations of the Geneva convention, then the US should not be expected to treat them according to the rules and regulations of the Geneva convention either.

WRONG, gee I can say that too?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Preamble

The High Contracting Parties,

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

I hate to encourage the idea that war is ever justified or that this particular action was, in fact, legal, but this doesn't say what you imply that it says. What this Protocal addition indicates is that all states agree to function under the Charter of the UN, which they've already agreed to by joining the UN. While I do not think we were justified in acting unilaterally in Iraq, we did not break the UN charter via our action (at least not as it has been proven to this point, future proofs may invalidate this statement). Therefore, we are not in violation of the Geneva Convention nor in violation of the UN Charter.
Actually several international lawyers have expressed that the US may very well be in violation of international law. The only difference is that the US has not been called upon yet to answer for the transgression. I am sure that the weeks and months ahead may prove very interesting indeed, especially since it has become apparent that Bremer's Orders threaten any emerging economy.

What is to prevent the new Iraqi Government (if it is ever formed), to level charges against the US at the UN level. There may even be documented violations of the Geneva Convention that cannot come to light until after the dust has settled.

I saw a recent article that Saddam's wife has hired a lawyer to defend her husband as the rightful ruler of Iraq. That could be interesting as well.

The US attacked Iraq against the oppostion of France, Germany, and China. Will they play the trump card if required?

The war is illegal. The US just hasn't received the citation YET.

WRONG, gee I can say that too?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Preamble

The High Contracting Parties,

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

I hate to encourage the idea that war is ever justified or that this particular action was, in fact, legal, but this doesn't say what you imply that it says. What this Protocal addition indicates is that all states agree to function under the Charter of the UN, which they've already agreed to by joining the UN. While I do not think we were justified in acting unilaterally in Iraq, we did not break the UN charter via our action (at least not as it has been proven to this point, future proofs may invalidate this statement). Therefore, we are not in violation of the Geneva Convention nor in violation of the UN Charter.
The violations exist, the citations have not yet been issued. Not only has Iraq been invaded illegally, their people have been "victimized" not only by the use of WMD, but now their economy is being hijacked by Bremer's Orders, and their flag has been removed. How do you spell RAPE?

Should be interesting in the weeks and months ahead.

If you invaded MY country, I wouldn't put on a uniform to let you know that I was the enemy.
In which case, of course, you would lose any right to complain about your opponents not abiding by the Geneva convention. In other words, by doing so you would make it legal for your opponents to do to you and your people as they please.

Sorry Womblington, but you are wrong on the issue of uniforms.

Article II of the Hague Conventions (which are still the primary rules of war to which the Geneva conventions are simply an addendum) notes that legal belligerents include "The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1"

Which is to say that they do not need uniforms or a recognized command structure. Spontaeous reistance is legal.

The debateable point for this instance would be whether Falluja represented "occupied territories", however they could have a good case considering it was not been policed by occupation forces at the time that they surrounded the city. The critical legal point on this would likely include the lack of a formal surrender by any member of the old regime. If you weren't occupying it, this could be seen as spontaneous resistance in an ongoing war - which makes the lack of uniforms legal.


-Z-

Actually several international lawyers have expressed that the US may very well be in violation of international law. The only difference is that the US has not been called upon yet to answer for the transgression. I am sure that the weeks and months ahead may prove very interesting indeed, especially since it has become apparent that Bremer's Orders threaten any emerging economy.

This is true and I have heard about it, but as of yet, like you said, no actual charges have been put forth. So, claiming that the US is in violation of UN Charter or Geneva Convention is opinion and heresay at this point. Not to say it won't happen (and most likely will), but still unfounded at this point.


What is to prevent the new Iraqi Government (if it is ever formed), to level charges against the US at the UN level.

Certainly nothing, although I'm sure we're hoping the new Iraqi government will be "thankful" enough for being in power that it won't think about bringing forth those charges. Time will tell on that score, though.


There may even be documented violations of the Geneva Convention that cannot come to light until after the dust has settled.

Yes, but this goes both ways. It can be argued that Hussein was in violation of the Geneva Convention and our actions were correct and this was less of a war and more of a police action. I'm not saying that it's right, but this is one argument being put forth.


I saw a recent article that Saddam's wife has hired a lawyer to defend her husband as the rightful ruler of Iraq. That could be interesting as well.

I agree, although I thought it was his daughter who I believe was in Jordan or Syria who was hiring the lawyer. Not sure, though.


The US attacked Iraq against the oppostion of France, Germany, and China. Will they play the trump card if required?

The question isn't will they, but can they? Frankly, it's a muddle and all of these countries are just as guilty of this crime in their own pursuits as the US is.


The war is illegal. The US just hasn't received the citation YET.

The war is definitely wrong and immoral, but I'm not sure we should be calling it illegal yet as there has been no official charge or even debate about it. That's all I'm saying.

I think we should send Bush over to talk to the freedom fighters.
This is absolutely the best idea I have heard yet on these threads. Perhaps he could enjoy a cup of tea with Al-Sadr?

This is funny! It reads like a Jack Chick cartoon! :lol:

The war is definitely wrong and immoral, but I'm not sure we should be calling it illegal yet as there has been no official charge or even debate about it. That's all I'm saying.
Okay I will agree with you that the war is "definitely wrong and immoral", and since I am not a lawyer, I am not qualified to definitely say that it is "illegal", but I was only throwing that out there for the comments that I have read. There has been debate, one lawsuit filed (perhaps more) and plenty of conjecture:

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqWar.htm

http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/Iraqstatemt.htm

http://traprockpeace.org/LawsuitWaronIraq.html

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf

There are many more examples. It shall be interesting to see if any of these see the light of day. Somehow I do have my doubts.