Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
We don't do bodycounts
Options
Comments
-
Manic Moran wrote: »
The debate would be, at any rate. Yes, we'll let people go ahead and serve ten-year-old sons baked with a fruit stuffed in their mouths to their parents as symbols. I mean, that's a little excessive for the crime of not forcing sheep to wear diapers so that their genitalia show, isn't it?
NTM
Michael Yon's reporting eh? I had to Google ten-year-old-baked-with-fruit to find out what you were talking about. The pictures on his blog from the massacre at al-Hamari are truely shocking. His article I didn't bother read though. Did he mention that Al Queeda's presence in Iraq was nil before the invasion by any chance?0 -
Shutuplaura wrote: »Michael Yon's reporting eh? I had to Google ten-year-old-baked-with-fruit to find out what you were talking about. The pictures on his blog from the massacre at al-Hamari are truely shocking. His article I didn't bother read though. Did he mention that Al Queeda's presence in Iraq was nil before the invasion by any chance?
Featured on littlegreenfootballs is all I needed to know! He seems to be saying ever so subtly see-how-much-worse-alqueada-are-than-us. Of course that absolves us and our governments for crimes committed in our name and with our tacit support of them.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »
Not a chemical weapon, regardless of how much people scream and shout about it. Nasty, yes. Chemical, no.
When "we" use it...not a chemical weapon. When "they" do...chemical weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
"Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."0 -
MeatProduct wrote: »In this scenario the US is the aggressor and Iraq is in the defensive position and you are asking me should the Iraqis respond with armed force. Well they can do whatever they want FYI and I may or may not agree with it. I won't agree with it if it involves killing people however. Their plight is absurdly difficult. If they kill an American then that is used by the US propaganda war machine to fuel more hatred towards Iraq. It's a destructive cycle that is perpetuated by violence. I do believe that if one side were to stop playing the game it would eventually become obvious to the world who the real bully is.
Okay, so you reserve the right to support or withhold support for an armed resistance, your right of course. But few resistances will live up to peace time ideas of respect and tolerance for invaders. Violence begets violence of course - and the violence begins with the act of aggression. But this isn't really the point...your original statement was:MeatProduct wrote: »to my knowledge no one here is trying to justify those in Iraq who are killing American soldiers
Surely Iraqi attacks on occupying forces, previously invading forces, are actually and uncontroversially +justified+? The right to self defense is enshrined in the UN Charter, is it not?0 -
Oil? Who sells that oil? Who gets the revenue?
You're asking the wrong questions.
Who gets to buy the oil? Thats the question you need to look at.
It doesn't matter what price oil is if its being sold to someone else.Before it started it was less than $30/Bbl and now its over $90/Bbl.
The Americans need foreign oil. They'd like cheap foreign oil, but they'll take expensive foreign oil over no foreign oil.Yes, the Americans must be rolling in cheap petrol prices. Get real!0 -
Advertisement
-
No matter what happens in Iraq, and has happened, "might is right" appears to be the US philosophy .People will justify what the US and its allies do and their use of cluster bombs and killing, and continuing occupation of Iraq.People need to realize that might is not always right and in time the US will lose their military dominance and have to toe the line like most other nations. Until that time many will blindly believe all the propaganda and lies that emanate from the US authorities and the like .0
-
Okay, so you reserve the right to support or withhold support for an armed resistance, your right of course. But few resistances will live up to peace time ideas of respect and tolerance for invaders. Violence begets violence of course - and the violence begins with the act of aggression. But this isn't really the point...your original statement was:
My mistake, I took your question out of context, it wasn't clear that you were referring to that particular post that I had made. I'm not really trying to argue people's rights FYI, more of a moral arguement about the valuing of human life.
If a person is attacked then it makes sense that they should defend themselves, I accept that and there is even a rationality to it but when this defense comes to killing I don't think it helps their cause, especially in this day and age.
I agree that there is a justification to Iraqi attacks on the occupying forces, it's a very human reaction and it is often the most obvious.Surely Iraqi attacks on occupying forces, previously invading forces, are actually and uncontroversially +justified+? The right to self defense is enshrined in the UN Charter, is it not?0 -
MeatProduct wrote: »My mistake...
I accept that and there is even a rationality to it but when this defense comes to killing I don't think it helps their cause, especially in this day and age.
No problem.
It is difficult though to apply concepts such as 'this day and age' to places like present day Iraq. The country has literally been pulverised back to the dark ages - water, electricity, food, employment - people are fleeing in the millions. Exactly as some of those in power intended...
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, an overt backer of the Iraq war, said during the bombing of Serbia in 1999:
"Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too...."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=137230 -
With that I meant was the power of the coalition to use propaganda far more effectively than was possible in the past. So by killing a US soldier it will probably do the Iraqi cause more harm than good.It is difficult though to apply concepts such as 'this day and age' to places like present day Iraq.
Nick0 -
MeatProduct wrote: »With that I meant was the power of the coalition to use propaganda far more effectively than was possible in the past. So by killing a US soldier it will probably do the Iraqi cause more harm than good.
Nick
To whom would the US (or the Insurgents) be marketing their propaganda?
It looks as though the insurgency is still going strong, so either their propaganda is working or the Iraqi people really are mightily pissed off at the yanks.
Which do you prefer?
Or do you have some other explanation.
I mean, if your statement were true, than surely the insurgency would have calmed down by now.0 -
Advertisement
-
MeatProduct wrote: »With that I meant was the power of the coalition to use propaganda far more effectively than was possible in the past. So by killing a US soldier it will probably do the Iraqi cause more harm than good.
Nick
Ah, fair enough. My mistake this time then. Still a useful quote to keep in mind though.
But to address your actual point - the US militray tried for a very long time to down play the level of violence, it was seen as contrary to their statements of being welcomed by Iraqis and undermined all the rhetoric of bringing democracy, stability and peace to the Middle East. As the violence increased, they went to great lengths not to even mention the words 'civil war'.
As it increased further and as militas and insurgents gained control of towns and cities, they manufactured the idea that the 'resistance' was in actuality a foriegn jihadist organisation in the ilk of Al Qeada in Iraq - this was and is of course rubbish, but it served a purpose - that the 'normal' Iraqi supports the US in their plans.
Generally the US has attempted to downplay the scale of the resistance and the scale of the resistance's 'successes' (if you can call being good at killing, a success - our armies do at any rate). So I am not sure your contention that an effective armed resistance actually harms the Iraqis call for liberation from occupation.
It is the work of terrorists, criminals and extremists that undermines the Iraqis cause, but these groups are in the minority and it is illigitimate to characterise their actions as representative of the majority Iraqi opinion - as some in the US administration attempt to do.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »
The debate would be, at any rate. Yes, we'll let people go ahead and serve ten-year-old sons baked with a fruit stuffed in their mouths to their parents as symbols. I mean, that's a little excessive for the crime of not forcing sheep to wear diapers so that their genitalia show, isn't it?
NTM
You actually read that crap? read what they have to say about illegal aliens and how many white American women they rape a year, or how many hundreds of thousands of Americans drunk illegal aliens run over in their cars every year. I'm surprised he doesn't mention 'Batboy' either.
Forget the "left liberal pinko's", the extreme right in the US is very scary.0 -
Generally the US has attempted to downplay the scale of the resistance and the scale of the resistance's 'successes' (if you can call being good at killing, a success - our armies do at any rate). So I am not sure your contention that an effective armed resistance actually harms the Iraqis call for liberation from occupation
The only problem is that "resistance or liberation from occupation" as you call it would target the soldiers that are doing the occupying and not the civilians that your resistance fighters are trying to liberate.
In reality they are mainly targeting each in abductions and killings. There is a civil war going on; no one wants a centralised government, there are many diverse groups and each wants their own piece of the pie. We are about to reach the point where the Americans will become irrelevant in this tradegy that is being played out.
I have heard Iraq compared to Somalia as a failed state. There are a couple of warlords in the south already, so perhaps the comparison may not be that far off.
Bush merely opened up a Pandora's box.0 -
Forget the "left liberal pinko's", the extreme right in the US is very scary.
All extremists are scarry!0 -
To the American people.To whom would the US (or the Insurgents) be marketing their propaganda?
I'd go with the latter.It looks as though the insurgency is still going strong, so either their propaganda is working or the Iraqi people really are mightily pissed off at the yanks.
I think you are misunderstanding me or I am not communicating myself well enough. From the point of view of US propaganda it is helpful to have another dead US soldier, that's my point. I'm not debating how upset the Iraqis are about the situation. And it's certainly not contrary to to what I have said, it's easy to see why US propaganda might upset "insurgents" even more.I mean, if your statement were true, than surely the insurgency would have calmed down by now.
Nick0 -
He seems to be saying ever so subtly see-how-much-worse-alqueada-are-than-us. Of course that absolves us and our governments for crimes committed in our name and with our tacit support of them.
It seems like AQ has become the yard stick to which the US armed forces would like us to measure themselves to....as long as we are not that bad then you should not complain. Its nice to see the most powerfull nation on earth setting itself such high standards....0 -
The American Govt. was actually being honest when it said Sadaam had WMDs, he did have WMDs and America knew this for a fact because they supplied him with many Chemical and Biological weapons during the Iran Iraq war. Now while I would certainly agree they shouldn't have done so you must remember it was during the time of the cold war and I don't think any of the western governments were thinking completely straight [Britain and France also supplied Iraq] so be under no allusions, Sadaam did have WMDs. People are being ridiculous if they think America lied and made up this allegation to use as an excuse for invading Iraq if that was really the case they would have planted them months after the invasion when pressure was building for proof of WMDs but they didn't because they were truly confident they would find the WMDs they supplied Sadaam.
I don't think anyone would argue America was wrong to invade Afghanistan. It was not an act of aggression as countries are allowed to invade other countries if there is a threat to their own country that the invaded government can't deal with. After sept 11 the Afghanistan government was not only unable to deal with the terrorist camps that were all over Afghanistan but was actively supporting them and the man responsible for the attacks.
America immediately needed the neighbors on side. Pakistan as we saw, duly complied, Iraq however didn't. In order for America to have a successful campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq needed to be dealt with. Afghanistan would never have been successful with a brutal, repressive tyranny next door and of course Sadaam would never support a democratic ally of USA. So for that reason America decided to invade Iraq. America wanted a stable Middle East to ensure it would never have to deal with a threat similar to Sept 11 again. However while initially America was quite successful in Iraq [and they were look at opinion polls at the beginning] it soon turned sour. The reasons for this was Iranian. Iran whether directly or indirectly sponsored the small minority of fighters and began to cause chaos in Iraq. The objective was to cause unrest and turn the people against the American forces. The added pressure on the American forces inevitably led to them making mistakes with the Iranian sponsored propaganda pouncing on said mistakes as reasons why America should be made leave by force [at this stage the same propaganda had spread the message to Iraqis that America was planning on occupying the country which was completely untrue] and of course this led to new recruits swelling the ranks of the militant groups.
Groups were actually ordered to concentrate on targeting civillians for a sustained period and not US soldiers, the reason for this was simple, the more civilian casualties the more relatives of the deceased, frustrated at the war, would join the cause. This worked well for the insurgent groups as instead of blaming the actual insurgents directly responsible for the deaths the people began to blame the Americans. This began to build and build until eventually it was a serious problem with Iran both funding, arming and giving intelligence to the insurgents [even allegations of Iran sending in SF to target Americans] so what you now have is America fighting a well trained, well supported, unidentifiable army.
The only way to have a chance of taking control of Iraq again would be a full invasion of Iran and then Syria. I believe America is possibly planning this right now however with Bush leaving soon they might not go ahead with it. Though Israels dry runs over Syrian airspace and Sarkozys recent comments seem to suggest otherwise.0 -
The only problem is that "resistance or liberation from occupation" as you call it would target the soldiers that are doing the occupying and not the civilians that your resistance fighters are trying to liberate.
In reality they are mainly targeting each in abductions and killings.
You are exceptionally ill/un-informed for someone who professes to 'know things', I'm afraid the facts don't support your fabricated contentions again.
In case you actually want to discuss things from a reasoned stand point, here is some essential reading:
"GAO-07-677 Iraq Electricity and Oil," p. 34 [via Juan Cole]
Insurgent attacks predominantly directed towards coalition troops.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/chart-of-enemy-attacks-in-iraq-here-is.html
"Although about 80% of insurgent attacks are targeted against coalition forces, the Iraqi population suffers about 80% of all casualties, according to US officials in late 2005." [from the BBC]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm
GAO 'Stabilization, Reconstruction, and Financing Challenges'
"the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgents' attacks are still aimed not at Iraqi security forces or at civilians, but rather at U.S. and coalition troops." [via the Slate]
http://www.slate.com/id/2135859/
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06428t.pdf
"Of those deaths that are actually attributable, the coalition are responsible for the bulk. So that's 31% coalition, 24% 'other' (death squad, insurgent, civil war, criminal) and the rest 'unknown'."
[derived from the Lancet and via The Tomb]
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/10/obnubilation.html0 -
"Of those deaths that are actually attributable, the coalition are responsible for the bulk. So that's 31% coalition, 24% 'other' (death squad, insurgent, civil war, criminal) and the rest 'unknown'."
so basically that should read 69% other (death squad, insurgent, civil war, criminal) and 31% coalition.
And most of the civilians killed by the US forces would have been in the initial bombing campaign something which wouldn't have happened if the Iraqi Army didn't pretend to surrender to American forces giving them false co-ordinates for their bunkers which turned out to be civilian houses [Read up it happened a lot]0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »so basically that should read 69% other (death squad, insurgent, civil war, criminal) and 31% coalition.
It would read that, if that were the case. Since it's not the case, you're just making stuff up.
No WMDs have been found. Iraq was fully disarmed. Chemical and Biological weapons have a SHELF LIFE.
Countries are not allowed to invade other countries. Afghanistan did not attack America.
Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
In fact most, if not all of your post, is more imaginary stuff and not worth responding to. So...0 -
Advertisement
-
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »so basically that should read 69% other (death squad, insurgent, civil war, criminal) and 31% coalition.
And most of the civilians killed by the US forces would have been in the initial bombing campaign something which wouldn't have happened if the Iraqi Army didn't pretend to surrender to American forces giving them false co-ordinates for their bunkers which turned out to be civilian houses [Read up it happened a lot]
I think thats a little bit rich now .The US blanket bombed many parts of IRAQ day and night for a considerable period .Thousands were killed ,all done to soften the enemy up.Its a strategy used by the US as it was in Serbia .Of course as we all know (we have seen the videos) the bombs only find the bad guys .The American public buy that ,many on this side of the pond do not. Blame the Iraqis .Hey just roll over as we invade your country .0 -
It would read that, if that were the case. Since it's not the case, you're just making stuff up.
No WMDs have been found. Iraq was fully disarmed. Chemical and Biological weapons have a SHELF LIFE.
Possibly I don't know America supplied them in 1980 and in 1992 the Iraq government still had usable warheads thats 12 years hardly a short shelf life I know some agents have very short shelf lives but I don't think thats the case anymore even if that was the case then Iraq would still have the knowledge to produce them and going on recent events [kurds] the intention to use them as wellCountries are not allowed to invade other countries. Afghanistan did not attack America.
Except when said country is under threat from an element that the invaded country can't control. I seem to recall Britain planning on invading Ireland during the WW2 because Ireland was unable to patrol it's waters.Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Yes but Iraq would never support a democratically elected US allied government next door and would have done everything in its power to prevent it thus America had to get rid of it.0 -
I think thats a little bit rich now .The US blanket bombed many parts of IRAQ day and night for a considerable period .Thousands were killed ,all done to soften the enemy up.Its a strategy used by the US as it was in Serbia .Of course as we all know (we have seen the videos) the bombs only find the bad guys .The American public buy that ,many on this side of the pond do not. Blame the Iraqis .Hey just roll over as we invade your country .
While I agree Serbia was carpet bombed to an incredible degree I do not believe Baghdad was the same. America certainly made a notable effort to only strategically bomb and this was clear, they were so confident in their ability to only hit army/govt. buildings that they even let press film from rooftops only a hundred metres away FFS hardly the actions of a country planning on just carpet bombing a city.
You want to see real Carpet bombing see Beirut after Israel, what America did to baghdad was perfectly inside rules of engagement.0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »While I agree Serbia was carpet bombed to an incredible degree I do not believe Baghdad was the same. America certainly made a notable effort to only strategically bomb and this was clear, they were so confident in their ability to only hit army/govt. buildings that they even let press film from rooftops only a hundred metres away FFS hardly the actions of a country planning on just carpet bombing a city.
You want to see real Carpet bombing see Beirut after Israel, what America did to baghdad was perfectly inside rules of engagement.
I am sorry I do not agree with the latter part of your post .There were huge casualties with the bombing as Iraq was not secure neither was the intelligence reliable in view of WMD lies .Yes,there was probably some degree of selection as regards targets but that I fear was the only consideration.0 -
I stopped reading there.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »America immediately needed the neighbors on side. Pakistan as we saw, duly complied, Iraq however didn't. In order for America to have a successful campaign in Afghanistan, Iraq needed to be dealt with. Afghanistan would never have been successful with a brutal, repressive tyranny next door...
When was the last time you've looked at a map?0 -
Featured on littlegreenfootballs is all I needed to know! He seems to be saying ever so subtly see-how-much-worse-alqueada-are-than-us. Of course that absolves us and our governments for crimes committed in our name and with our tacit support of them.
Bigtime. The pictures I saw were horrific to be sure and there was no was to excuse it except by saying that the invasion opened the door for al Queeda to operate in Iraq. And of course I saw pictures of what american munitions do to kids in a channell 4 doc recnetly and while it wasn't as wilful it was as shocking.0 -
You are exceptionally ill/un-informed for someone who professes to 'know things', I'm afraid the facts don't support your fabricated contentions again.
In case you actually want to discuss things from a reasoned stand point, here is some essential reading:
Actually I am significantly more informed and familiar with the situation than you are. I have been there. I am near there.
You on the other hand, tend to "derive" your information from anti-american/anti-war biased sources. You do not wish to read news, you merely wish to read "essays" that mere reinforce your pre-concieved notions.
I am not sure you are capable of discussing this when you throw out statements like "I'm afraid the facts don't support your fabricated contentions again."
I joined this thread in hopes of having an intellegent discussion of what is happening there. To my regret, all I have found was anit-american rhetoric and bias from the get go.
If this earns me another demerit for saying the truth, so be it.0 -
Actually I am significantly more informed and familiar with the situation than you are. I have been there. I am near there.
You on the other hand, tend to "derive" your information from anti-american/anti-war biased sources. You do not wish to read news, you merely wish to read "essays" that mere reinforce your pre-concieved notions.
I am not sure you are capable of discussing this when you throw out statements like "I'm afraid the facts don't support your fabricated contentions again."
I joined this thread in hopes of having an intellegent discussion of what is happening there. To my regret, all I have found was anit-american rhetoric and bias from the get go.
If this earns me another demerit for saying the truth, so be it.
You label sources of information provided to you as "anti-war" or "anti-american" yet you have failed to provide any sources for your contentions thus far.
Being somewhere does automatically make you more informed than someone that isnt'.
My family is from Louisiana and yet they still think there were "snipers" waiting to take out rescue workers during the Katrina disaster as was oft reported in American media at the time.0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »Except when said country is under threat from an element that the invaded country can't control. I seem to recall Britain planning on invading Ireland during the WW2 because Ireland was unable to patrol it's waters.
No exceptions...read Article 51 of the UN Charter. In any event if that was the reason for invading Iraq then the US would have to prove that threat to the Security Council and get a resolution authorizing force.
During WW2 there was no UN Charter or UN so while morally that would have been repulsive it would not have necessarily been against international law.Yes but Iraq would never support a democratically elected US allied government next door and would have done everything in its power to prevent it thus America had to get rid of it.
A statement like that just completely defies reality and the history of Iraq and the region. Saddam was a US puppet until he invaded Kuwait and even then he ask permission to do so. He also offered to go into exile if the US would not invade Iraq.
Incidentally since they invaded Iraq the obvious government that would be formed from a truly democratic system (instead of the puppet government they have now under Maliki) would be Islamic and have a lot of influence from Iran.0 -
Advertisement
-
You on the other hand, tend to "derive" your information from anti-american/anti-war biased sources. You do not wish to read news, you merely wish to read "essays" that mere reinforce your pre-concieved notions.
Sovtek, I wouldn't bother arguing.
The 'anti-american' sources he is referring to are:
The BBC
The John's Hopkins School of Public Health (an +American+ university!!!!)
and...
wait for it...
GAO (The U.S. Government Accountability Office - "the investigative arm of Congress")0
Advertisement