Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Iraq Updates V

Iraq Updates

  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#21 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 01:16 AM

Too bad. It's what I think.  They started this war for unjust reasons and nothing that has happened since they did so has changed my view that they did that.  And I don't know about your definition of murder but unjust killing certainly comes within my definition.  

You don't have to agree with me but I haven't attacked you for having your opinion.  I assure you that the pass I'm giving you out of friendship *this* time will not be repeated.

If you can't separate the opinion from the poster then go discuss it with someone else because I haven't the temperament or the patience to put up with it without returning the favor.

Once warned is all you will be.
Posted Image

#22 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 02:00 AM

You're entitled to your opinion Lil, just as we all are entitled to ours.

If you think I was attacking you, I am sorry for that. That was not the intent, and I don't believe my post conveyed that message. If you feel it did, I will edit it, out of friendship to you.

That doesn't mean, however, that I wasn't extremely offended by your comparison between the President of the United States and the Oklahoma City bombers. If my offense is an attack on you, then let it be a quarrel between us, but I sincerely hope that is not the case.

You and I have been through too much together to let this get between us, Lil.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#23 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 02:11 AM

jon3831, on Apr 11 2003, 11:49 PM, said:

That doesn't mean, however, that I wasn't extremely offended by your comparison between the President of the United States and the Oklahoma City bombers. If my offense is an attack on you, then let it be a quarrel between us, but I sincerely hope that is not the case.
yes and I'm offended by the US government's cavalier attitude towards the carnage it has caused, particularly as I believe they don't even have the bad excuse of having the courage of their convictions.

Shall I attack you and tell you how disappointed I am that you don't see this?

Would that offend you?

Or shall we realize that people can disagree about this and ixnay on the mudslinging.

Your call.
Posted Image

#24 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 02:27 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 11 2003, 03:00 PM, said:

Or shall we realize that people can disagree about this and ixnay on the mudslinging.
Fair enough. See above for notes on my meaning and intent. This is a hot issue, and it is possible for people of good conscious to disagree.

In other news, V Corps has prohibited the display of the American flag on Iraqi soil

NYT Article

I think you need to be registered with the New York Times to read it, so here's the money quote:

Quote

Today, the Army, seeking to demonstrate that its troops in Iraq are liberators and not conquerors, barred any display of the American flag on vehicles, buildings, statues and command posts.

And, CENTCOM has started issuing decks of playing cards emblazoned with the names and faces of Iraq's Most Wanted...  

http://www.thisislon...?itemId=4321901

Saddam himself is apparently the Ace of Spades...
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#25 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 02:29 AM

^

I don't get that. Why make them PLAYING cards? Do they expect people to play solataire with Iraqi's Most Evil? Why not just make them.. regular cards. :confused:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#26 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 02:33 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 11 2003, 03:18 PM, said:

^

I don't get that. Why make them PLAYING cards? Do they expect people to play solataire with Iraqi's Most Evil? Why not just make them.. regular cards. :confused:
Actually... Yeah.

Putting pictures and training aids on decks of playing cards is a time-honored tradition.

EDIT: I have a deck of WWI playing cards with sayings in French printed on 'em that was issued to my uncle when he went overseas.

People won't use flashcards 'cause they're considered to be too "juvenile" and they'll either be thrown out or ignored.

If they're issued playing cards, though, they'll use 'em, and they'll learn who these people are without actually taking the time to do it. It's a fringe benefit to the canasta or cribbage that the Marines are playing.

Edited by jon3831, 12 April 2003 - 02:36 AM.

"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#27 Shaun

Shaun
  • Islander
  • 788 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:12 AM

[QUOTE]MuseZack,Apr 11 2003, 09:28 PM
I see Rumsfeld's comment is that "freedom's untidy."  Yeah, when I think of looting, arson, mayhem, and clerics getting hacked to death by mobs, "untidy" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind.[/quote][/QUOTE]

I sat here in absolute disbelief along with a human rights lawyer at the comments made by Rumsfeld, along with those of British ministers. I've been told that the original plan did include sending around 4000 military police to ensure continuity of law and order, however Rumsfeld decided that they weren't necessary.

Coalition forces must act immediately to stablise the situation in Iraq, particularly in regards to protecting key assets including hospitals. Their failure to do so up to this point is a violation  of the Geneva Convention.

In Mosul the people are furious that gangs have been allowed to go on a rampage while US troops in the area are sent to secure oilfields.

Baghdad residents are equally disappointed and angry at the failure of the Coalition to provide adequate security measures. The pattern of anarchy is repeated across the country.

Even more worryingly some of the violence is starting to split along religious lines.

The food, water and medical situation remains dire with a very real probability of an outbreak of Cholera along with other diseases.

Kurdish troops according to the lastest reports are still in Kirkuk, the US is probably applying pressure to get the Turks to wait before they launch an incursion into Kurdish controlled territory.

I am truly relieved that Saddam has been removed from power, but what replaces it should not place the Iraqi people in an even more desperate situation.

Edited by Shaun, 12 April 2003 - 03:13 AM.

Shaun
Veni, vidi, vici

#28 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:20 AM

MuseZack, on Apr 11 2003, 05:28 PM, said:

I see Rumsfeld's comment is that "freedom's untidy."
I'm sorry, my apartment is untidy.

I also enjoy considerable freedom, a freedom I employ to let it get untidy.

Neither word --free or untidy-- suits Iraq. Anarchy is destructive. Freedom is not untidy.

And don't even get me started on the hospitals either.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#29 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:25 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 11 2003, 07:18 PM, said:

I don't get that. Why make them PLAYING cards? Do they expect people to play solataire with Iraqi's Most Evil? Why not just make them.. regular cards.
Because think about it. If Tariq Aziz is the jack of spades, then you've got pattern recognition. They see him, they don't think Muhammad al-Qhatever, they think, two of diamonds, four of clubs, nine of hearts. They know he's on the deck, so they don't let him get away. Pattern recognition counts for a lot in battlefield situations. And when your average checkpoint/patrol soldiers are at least half as smart as the guys on the decks, you can't rely on chance. Kind of like in cards.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#30 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:36 AM

jon3831, on Apr 11 2003, 05:58 PM, said:

Why didn't we level Baghdad? Why didn't we level Basra? Why didn't we level Nasiriyah? We could've done that easily.
"We could've done that easily". I'll see that, and raise you "then we would reap the whirlwind".

There's a perfectly good reason collateral damage has been so anathema in the conduct of this war. The majority of people it'd be targeted against would be Shia Muslims. The same kind that Osama and his crew love to recruit. And if the nebulous and doubtful links to al-Qaeda that the Saddam regime allegedly has prove true, wouldn't a levelled Baghdad make a lovely breeding ground for a next generation of terrorists?

To say nothing of the public-relations disaster that would doubtless follow if an unpopular war were to be conducted by sheer airpower alone. The other Muslims of the world may not be too fond of Saddam, but paving Baghdad into crunchy rubble would've only proven their Great Satan to be every bit as evil as they allege. And it would've meant terror, and lots of it.

Of course they're being careful. What's the alternative? They're already perceived as bad-guys by at least some of the Muslim world. It wouldn't take much for those extremists and fundamentalists -- whoever -- to point to al-Jazeera & say, 'see?' and mobilize moderates to support a push for some ass-kickings. As it stands, the US is rattling its sabre at Syria, and Iran is replying in kind.

While I certainly don't agree with Lil's characterization or comparison, I also can't see what about carpet-bombings could have been done 'easily'. Yes, the right order from Bush would've made it done.

But nothing about it would have been easy. Especially not easy to live with afterwards.

Not to intrude on a private matter or anything.... just wanted to point that out.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#31 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:44 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 11 2003, 04:05 PM, said:

Too bad. It's what I think.  They started this war for unjust reasons and nothing that has happened since they did so has changed my view that they did that.  And I don't know about your definition of murder but unjust killing certainly comes within my definition.
Lil, I agree with your objection to Rumsfeld's "freedom is untidy" statement. It's a dismissive, foolish, and uncompassionate thing to say. But I still do not understand your problem with the term "collateral damage."

This is a concept common to all wars everywhere, even the most noble. I appreciate that you and many others think that this particular war is ignoble -- but can you really expect our leaders to alter the standard terminology of war, just because some people don't think this is a conflict we should be fighting? Isn't this a misplacement of your criticisms?

The reason, I think, that some of us may have a problem with this particular criticism, is that it seems to displace blame from those who are actually responsible for getting us into this war, and lay it on those who are simply doing their jobs in the only way that they can. It is one thing to criticize something like Rumsfeld's "freedom is untidy" dismissal; by doing so you're simply objecting to the priorities and objectives of our war planners, and there's certainly room for people to criticize what they are doing. But to object to the very idea of "collateral damage" is necessarily to fault not just the planners but also the troops who are simply carrying out orders, because they could not function -- both tactically and, I expect, psychologically -- if they were not allowed to accept that their actions might, regrettably, put civilians at risk.

--
Dev F

#32 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:58 AM

the'Hawk, on Apr 11 2003, 06:25 PM, said:

There's a perfectly good reason collateral damage has been so anathema in the conduct of this war. The majority of people it'd be targeted against would be Shia Muslims.
I think it's important to remember that collateral damage doesn't "target" anyone. That's the whole nature of the concept -- it refers to people who are hit when you're trying to hit someone else.

Collateral damage can be reckless, of course, and it becomes more and more unconscionable the less necessary it happens to be. But I don't think we should lose sight of the difference between deliberately targeting civilians so as to instill fear in them and their leaders, and targeting legitimate military targets with the tragic side effect that civilians die in the process. That's what, despite anything one might think about our leaders, separates them from terrorists like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

--
Dev F

#33 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 03:59 AM

Double post.

Edited by Dev F, 12 April 2003 - 04:29 AM.


#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 04:26 AM

No DevF I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between the policies of the leadership of this country, policies which I think are reprehensible, and the conduct of good people doing  a job.

And it's not the deliberate targetting of civillians to which I object.  Okay I DO object.  It's the cavalier attitude about it following it that only reinforces my belief that this war is not motivated by any altruism but by pure unadulterated greed and lust for power.

Sorry DevF, I know you don't agree with my view point but there it is.  I'm not trying to impose it on anyone but it *is* how I feel.
Posted Image

#35 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 04:34 AM

the'Hawk, on Apr 11 2003, 07:14 PM, said:

Because think about it. If Tariq Aziz is the jack of spades, then you've got pattern recognition. They see him, they don't think Muhammad al-Qhatever, they think, two of diamonds, four of clubs, nine of hearts. They know he's on the deck, so they don't let him get away. Pattern recognition counts for a lot in battlefield situations. And when your average checkpoint/patrol soldiers are at least half as smart as the guys on the decks, you can't rely on chance. Kind of like in cards.
Precisely.  How do you turn something tedious and difficult into something fun that you'd want to do?  Turn it into a game, of course.  You don't really think that they'd memorize wanted posters all day long would you?

Soldiers who are bored will pull out their packs and play cards and laugh about it and say, I'll got me a Revolutionary Command Council Straight Flush.  I win!  They'll stare carefully at their cards and have these guys' faces imprinted on their mind so that one day they might see a guy in a disguise and say,

Gomer Pyle, USMC: Well shucks, that tall, stocky looking woman looks just like that Tariq Aziz guy on my cards last night.  Hey guys, check that one out!  Err...wait a minute...  *cocks M-16*  Halt!

You get the idea.


:ninja:
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#36 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 06:37 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 11 2003, 05:15 PM, said:

No DevF I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between the policies of the leadership of this country, policies which I think are reprehensible, and the conduct of good people doing  a job.

And it's not the deliberate targetting of civillians to which I object.  Okay I DO object.  It's the cavalier attitude about it following it that only reinforces my belief that this war is not motivated by any altruism but by pure unadulterated greed and lust for power.

Sorry DevF, I know you don't agree with my view point but there it is.  I'm not trying to impose it on anyone but it *is* how I feel.
I agree with Lil.  And Rumsfield's attitude is nauseating.  Iraq has gone from the frying pan into the fire.  

Liberated indeed, ask the collateral damage victims in the hospitals that are forced to close due to the looting if they feel liberated.

The country is in disparate trouble due to cholera threats and chaos.

Taking a battle into a city where there are civilians used to be called a siege. Even with "smart bombs" if thousands of bombs are dropped on a city a lot of people will get hurt and hurt badly.

This strategy was always why I was against a war.  And I still feel that way.

One thing I have noticed is that American media isn't showing the details of the "collateral damage," I have to go to BBC to see this face of the "liberation"

Only time will tell if this was right or not, right now it is a delicate situation at best.  

gigi, whose dreams last night included images of armless people
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#37 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,495 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 06:38 AM

Quote

Civilian casualties happen. That's the nature of the beast. But the point of the matter is, they've already happened. So, the issue here now isn't so much whether this war was justified, it's now a question of making that "collateral damage" worth it.

Hey, don't ask Lil or me if it's worth it. Go ask those who've lost family in the bombings if it's worth it to them. Or ask some kids who've lost limbs.

Of course civilian casualties happen, because war does that. I've just always considered "collateral damage" to be a dehumanizing term, and that's probably why it's used, so we don't have to think too hard about people dying. (We like everything to be clean and sterilized, don't want to have to think about death and dismemberment.)

Quote

Ask yourself, Lil. How many would've died under Saddam's regime if we had let him go for another 10 years?

Ah. One of those emotional manipulations along the lines of: if you don't support war, how many more skyscrapers have to fall, and how many more planes will be hijacked, and what will you say when North Korea nukes the West Coast? :glare: (Actually, I won't say much at all if NK bombs us. I'll be gone along with California...)

I'd like to ask, yet again, why we couldn't get it right the first time, why we had to go back 12 years later and do it again. (Okay, probably because the point of Desert Storm was to get Kuwait free of Iraq, not to unseat Saddam Hussein. Even so...)

Quote

Zack:
I see Rumsfeld's comment is that "freedom's untidy."

Hawk:
I'm sorry, my apartment is untidy.

I also enjoy considerable freedom, a freedom I employ to let it get untidy.

Neither word --free or untidy-- suits Iraq. Anarchy is destructive. Freedom is not untidy.

Good grief, yes. My place is untidy. It isn't filled with looters and carjackers. My use of freedom doesn't involve going out and behaving like a terrorist.

If this is liberation... well, a lot of people are suddenly "liberating" a whole lot of material that isn't theirs, aren't they?

(I'm reminded of the "Boondocks" strip by Aaron McGruder -- yes, I do get a kick out of it -- which makes political fun of everything. It made a dig at liberation and civilian deaths, having Rumsfeld comment "Sudden death is very liberating!")

I could be wrong, but I don't think anarchy *always* has to be destructive. I support the sort of anarchy that the Doctor in "Doctor Who" embodied in his wandering lifestyle. (Although one could make a case that death and destruction tended to follow him, though he tried to be peaceful.)

Quote

And don't even get me started on the hospitals either.

Gah. It's not enough that the hospitals are in a mass-cal (mass casualities) situation; idiots have to steal all the equipment?? Some are leaving signs around saying that looting is unIslamic, but it doesn't appear to be stopping anyone...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#38 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 06:55 AM

Ok I understand  Bush Bad.  


As to  Bombing the cities. Yeah Saddam was giving us a choice  I mean he wanted to have his troops fight as far from the cites as possilbe. Iwas Rummy and George who came up with the idea of killing every peron in those cites and they hugged the crap out of out guys becasue they were losing humanitrain Hussian and getting Greedy Bush.


To use the double positve Yeah right.

Look war is one of the most horrible of things to have happen.  But I hear about Children's Prisions and mass graves and I wonder why folks cannot see this as while not a great thing better than letting these monsters keep  killing. Ready what the guy from CNN was sitting on these are acts that might just get beyond some parts of the holcaust in levels of in humanity.  I know that thos e speaking out are not doing it in support of what happened but realize that  getting rid of this guy may be the best thing that has happened for the world. It gives us and I mean the world a chance to change things for the better.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#39 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:05 AM

Dev F, on Apr 11 2003, 08:47 PM, said:

I think it's important to remember that collateral damage doesn't "target" anyone.
I also think it's important to remember that I'm a dumbass.

I knew that. I think I meant 'affected by' not 'targeted by'.

At least, that's my story.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#40 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:21 AM

Just a general thought:

First, we were told that we'd be going it alone. 49 stations signed on.

Then, we were told that Isreal would be drawn into the conflict; that did not happen.

We were told that the Iraqi people would rise up against the Americans, perceiving us as the greater of two evils. That didn't happen.

We were told that the siege of Baghdad would be bloody, long, and with immense civilian casualties. That didn't happen.

We were told that it would take months; it's been three weeks, and we're almost done with the combat phase.

We were told by some we wouldn't find WMD. That one has been a bit slower in coming, but we think we have uranium, plutonium, and a mobile weapons lab. Granted, this hasn’t been verified yet... by the UN had 11 years. How about giving us 11 weeks?

We were told that the Elite Republican Guard would fight to the last man; those that put up a resistance were neutralized quickly.

Now we’re being told that this chaos will cost thousands of lives, that we’re creating anarchy, and that there’s going to be mass suffering. I don’t believe it. Based on the track record of such dire predictions to date, I think I’m justified.

This has been the most successful military campaign ever, and with the fewest amount of civilian and friendly casualties.

I’m profoundly heartened that the only criticism left is the Iraqi civilians are so overjoyed that they’re out of control. Those same Iraqi civilians who are supposed to be rising up against us and martyring themselves, according to the NY times.

Here’s hoping we can restore order quickly, and get things back the way they should be.

Has there been unpleasantness? You bet.

Will it be rectified in short order? Yes.

Will there still be new challenges that face the Iraqi people? Absolutely.

All IMO, and not to denigrate the anti-war group. :cool:.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Updates

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users