Iraq, would you turn back the clock?

Would you turn back the clock on Iraq?

  • Turn back the clock

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Leave things as they are

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • Total voters
    14
Gonz said:
Squiggy said:
I'd rather look at things for what they are instead of twisting and whining about the words...
Click to expand...

Words have specific meaning. They are important. Comparing civilian deaths during a miltary engagement & actions taken to kill & maim civilians, as the target, is unjust & unfair. There is no correlation nor comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

I guess it's like comparing the deaths incurred when Hitler invaded Poland vs. deaths resulting from a IRA terrorist blowing up a building?
 
i think there is a fundamental difference between the actions of terrorists and the actions of what could be termed 'normal' geneva conventioned warfare [ie not aimed toward civilians/non-combatants].

we still refer to them as terrorists even when the target military installations though, which could almost be classed a legitimate target of militants/para-military, however bizarre that may sound.

it cannot be underestimated how much modern military warfare is geared toward the indirect involvement of civilians. cutting power, food, water supplies etc. the air-raids that create fear of death and destruction - no matter how targetted they are the civilian still fears for their life.
the notion of 'shock and awe' is not merely a military concept, it is there to frighten civilians and break down the society and civilisation as a whole.

in those terms they are creating a culture of terror. it is a distinct difference i think - one is the isolated, almost random, persecution of a society to breed fear; the other is part of something far more visible and obvious.
 
Thats exactly what I was saying till it got "twisted" into what it did...Many of our weapons add terror as part of its devastating effects....And much of what we do in war is syops or 'terrorizing' the enemy. The MOAB is a perfect example....Do you really think the press coverage that the test got was what would have normally happened?
 
Squiggy said:
I am not arguing in favor of barbaric minds. But Bin Laden is not just the barbarian who took out the WTC. His personal efforts against Russia in Afghanistan were very noble and heroic. Most aren't even aware of what went on there then and choose to remain ignorant of it. All they know of Bin Laden is what the government spoon fed us.

I have no problem recognizing our own screw ups. For some reason there are many who see that as unamerican. I'd rather look at things for what they are instead of twisting and whining about the words... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I, for one, do know of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and he was no more heroic or noble than he is now. He was a barbarian then, but he was our barbarian. The Soviet Union made easy targets simply because they didn't fit into the general population of the country.

Squiggy, since you' like to compare apples to apples, how about this comparison?

The twin towers in New York City are not, and never were, a military target. No DoD component was there, and no DoD business was being conducted there. It was targeted specifically to cause fear and anxiety to the population of the US. No care was taken that civilians were not killed or injured. In fact, the opposite was true. Al-Qaeda wanted as many civilian casualties as possible. They said as much on numerous videos shown since the attack. That fits the definition of terrorism, don't you think?

The bombing of the Ministry of Information building in Baghdad was done with precision weapons. The intent was to deny the Iraqi regime of any communication with the general population. The main intent was to knock out that building, and minimize the number of casualties in the civilian population. No civilians were directly targeted. In fact, leaflets were dropped in the days and weeks before the war actually started asking the civilian population to remain at home. Note the difference between the tow actions. ;)
 
Gato, I opened that statement saying that he wasn't just the barbarian who took out the WTC...But you totally ignored that to make yourself sound more patriotic than ...How fucking convenient.
And your idea that bin Laden's actions in Afgahnistan were less than noble are wrong. He was a true leader then. Often manning heavy equipment himself while under fire from Russian aircraft. Once again the RW is sliding into that "don't say anything here unless you are a right winger." So Ok ...I won't
 
the comparison is not necessarily like for like - the suicide bombings also attacked the pentagon, even as a military target it is hardly any more right.

the actions of the coalition to reduce civilian casualties are precisely what we should expect and are lauded, but the act of bombing cities has a psychological effect on the civilian popualtion regardless. some targets no doubt affect civilians more than military [tv, radio, power etc].
 
Hmm, so Bin Laden was ours and Saddam Hussein was ours.... who else is on the list of past foul-ups? Come to think of it, perhaps it's best not to ask... you never know where that might lead! :disgust2:
 
pretty much you name it and we've given them guns and money. take that evil gen pinochet and his mass murder - pretty sure he was one of ours.
 
notice how the dictatorship in pakistan with their nukes isn't raising too much profile. military dictatorships are fine as long as they suit us and when they don't we can be noble and stop them. win-win, apart from the boor buggers who have to live with it :(
 
Squiggy said:
Gato, I opened that statement saying that he wasn't just the barbarian who took out the WTC...But you totally ignored that to make yourself sound more patriotic than ...How fucking convenient.
And your idea that bin Laden's actions in Afgahnistan were less than noble are wrong. He was a true leader then. Often manning heavy equipment himself while under fire from Russian aircraft. Once again the RW is sliding into that "don't say anything here unless you are a right winger." So Ok ...I won't
Click to expand...

Geez, Squigg...Did I touch a nerve? I missed the word just. Does that mean that I'm more patriotic? Nope. It just means that I scan rather than read every word. Forgive my speed-reading technique.

As for 'manning equipment while under fire', so did everyone else he was with. As for him being a great leader, so was Hitler, so was Ghengis Khan, so was Hirohito, so was Mussolini...get the picture? Being a great leader doesn't make you noble.

"Once again the RW is sliding into that 'don't say anything here unless you are a right winger" was a definite low blow. I won't ask for an apology, nor do I expect one. If you disagree, then you disagree, but don't use the above statement as an excuse because that's just what it is. An excuse...to quote you again, how fucking convenient.
 
Say that after you read the rest of the responses to my posts in here today. If I said the sky was up, someone would accuse me of being unfair...I can't help it if people can't read what I typed in context and respond accordingly. I certainly would be given no grace for doing the same. And repeating yourself for clarification just gets a bit old...
 
BTW...Manuel Noriega was ours, too.

Squiggy, I'll put it this way. We both know how the game is played, and we both know who was hired and for what. Our ideas on why may be different, but that's pretty much it. You called me a right winger by association. I am not. I am a moderate by definition. a13 accused me of only repeating what others say, as if I buy off on everything I'm told. I do not. You and I both know that, and I see myself agreeing with you from time to time as well. The above response to my disagreement on Osama's nobility, however, was not to be ignored.

Bottom line time...

The only news you see is the news they give you. There is no true left, or true right. We fight amongst ourselves deciding who is correct and who isn't, and those who are in charge are enriched by it. Some say that I am spoonfed my 'news', which is laughable, as they, too, are spoonfed theirs. The truth is there, but you and I will never really find it.
 
ris said:
suppose that's the part that irks me - saddam is/was a very nasty bit of work. he lied he killed and he lied some more. but to say that we lied and killed less makes it ok is bothersome - trading lies for war and lives is not the way i want my country to do things in the world.
Click to expand...
Thanks, ris. That's exactly how I feel about it.
 
Sandinista and Castro were ours too...And Gato, if you take an unbiased look at what Osama did in Afgahnistan, you would surely consider it noble. He was fighting for something he believed in and it wasn't even his fight. Beyond that the man had no need to fight for anyone for any reason. He was in a position to enjoy his life to the fullest forever and still he commited himself to that cause. It was our mistake of turning our backs on Afgahnistan then that made him anti-american. And before anyone tries, that doesn't mean I condone what happened on 9/11. It just means I understand how he became what he did...
As far as the left right thing, I can't recall you ever seriously contesting something the right has posted in RW but the left has always been contested by you.
 
I think that if you don't understand (at least a little) why some people don't like Americans, You don't realy understand the world very well. I don't say they're always justified, but sometimes they have some justification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top