We did WHAT!?

[Volourn]

You cna only p0lay poloyics if the other side is willing to play politics. This is why you won't be seeing the US strike at 'terrorist cells' in Kanada without permission any time soon. Or most European countries as well. *shrug*

 

But, yeah, we all know WW2 would have been avoided if the rest of Europe had just negotiated with Hitler. Bad, Europe, Bad!

[Gorgon]

I thought the point was to keep the flies out.

Yes, that is a bit strange. What would you need flies for.

[random n00b]

But, yeah, we all know WW2 would have been avoided if the rest of Europe had just negotiated with Hitler. Bad, Europe, Bad!

Actually, we did.

 

But we are doomed to not learn from our mistakes, it would seem.

Edited October 28, 2008 by random n00b

[Nick_i_am]

seven men

Now they get to call in a helicopter!

 

I'm going to murder you you freaking nerd.

[Walsingham]

Not really a surprise I'm afraid.

 

Mkreku has a point about disregard for civilian casulaties. Yes, every time we do an air strike civilians tend to get killed. Sometimes a LOT of civilians. This doesn't make me proud but consider three points:

 

1. There are massive headquarters units whose only job is checking air strike missions for the effect on civilians. They can and do veto missions if they are judged to be legally and morally unsound*

2. _If_ the target was a terrorist financier or bomb maker then they are themselves responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths in Iraq. Is taking them out not a justified reduction in civilian deaths?

3. Terrorism also involves hiding behind civilians. Coalition forces do not hide behind civilians. If you do this you endanger civilians. That's why we don't do it.

 

A few thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

*By the rules of war and Geneva conventions

[random n00b]

3. Terrorism also involves hiding behind civilians.

This. Being a successful terrorist is more an exercise in PR than killing. It's actually a very shrewd tactic to have your enemy do the killing for you. Some of it, at least.

 

 

*By the rules of war and Geneva conventions

Which, apparently, apply to Coalition forces only.

 

You seem to know your stuff, so what can you tell us about unlawful combatants?

[Epirote]

I can tell you that they apply to all countries and their armies who signed them. I can also tell you that nobody gives a damn about them, especially the US Army. They call the killing of civilians unfortunate collateral damgage and are done with it. And of course, they never apply to the winner of a war, since the winners always dictate the rules of the game.

[Brdavs]

Guess we now know why some people get their panties in a knot at the mere mention of the possibilty of Russia selling Syria stuff like s-300 defense systems.

 

Oh, and on the back of the 24/7 sovereignty sermons not too long ago (georgia), this is friggin HILLARIOUS.

[Walsingham]

I can tell you that they apply to all countries and their armies who signed them. I can also tell you that nobody gives a damn about them, especially the US Army. They call the killing of civilians unfortunate collateral damgage and are done with it. And of course, they never apply to the winner of a war, since the winners always dictate the rules of the game.

 

I could take offence to that, given I have friends in the US Army. They do give a damn. But that's not really what you mean. You mean the organisation. However, as I've just explained, there's a massive organisation which tries to minimise civilian casualties. moreover you can bet that if you could come up with a way to entirely remove civilian casualties they'd buy it immediately. You'd be a millionairre. Whereas a terrorist would have no use for such a device. They NEED to kill civilians to scare the bojangles out of people.

 

I should also point out that according to the Syrians, the attack wasn't an air strike. It was a special forces team. Makes it rather less likely that those killed where civilians (although clearly far from impossible).

 

Ref n00bo's question, I don't know what constitutes an unlawful combatant, but I think it is something to do with wearing a uniform, and not including persons wearing the red cross or red crescent.

[Brdavs]

Reducing the argument to weather or not the killed were civilians is cynical at best. Those 7 or 8 might aswell been the scum of the earth smuggling crack cocain to toddlers in gotham city, that still doesnt change a few pesky facts about a certain nations army again violating all internationall law.

[Leferd]

What do you know about international law? Jus in Bello? Jus ad Bellum? Syria has throughout recent history engaged in acts of Cassus Belli.

 

There are many things wrong with the US foreign policy as perpetrated by G.W. Bush, but I hardly think that this ranks highly on that list.

[Gorgon]

I can tell you that they apply to all countries and their armies who signed them. I can also tell you that nobody gives a damn about them, especially the US Army. They call the killing of civilians unfortunate collateral damgage and are done with it. And of course, they never apply to the winner of a war, since the winners always dictate the rules of the game.

 

I could take offence to that, given I have friends in the US Army. They do give a damn. But that's not really what you mean. You mean the organisation. However, as I've just explained, there's a massive organisation which tries to minimise civilian casualties. moreover you can bet that if you could come up with a way to entirely remove civilian casualties they'd buy it immediately. You'd be a millionairre. Whereas a terrorist would have no use for such a device. They NEED to kill civilians to scare the bojangles out of people.

 

I should also point out that according to the Syrians, the attack wasn't an air strike. It was a special forces team. Makes it rather less likely that those killed where civilians (although clearly far from impossible).

 

Ref n00bo's question, I don't know what constitutes an unlawful combatant, but I think it is something to do with wearing a uniform, and not including persons wearing the red cross or red crescent.

Sounds like a nice device, but really isn't that a rather childish hypothetical. War, military operations, they costs lives, innocents lives too. You do what you can, but accept it as the price of achieving an objective. If you were merely trying to show that they weren't as bad as the terrorists, well, it's not that hard being better than a terrorist, no browny points for that achievement alone.

 

Of course it's in Syrias interest to prove that the US slaughtered a kindergarten to achieve its aim, but one would be just as foolish to accept an official US military version of what happened.

[Epirote]

Yes, I meant the US Army leadership, including the political leadership. Soldiers are the same all over the world; they simply follow orders. It's those issuing those orders that are responsible and should be on trial. To illustrate my point more: after WWII German leaders were tried for crimes against humanity, while the victors went unpunished, although they had committed equally hideous acts, eg. bombing of Dresden (at that time Dresden was full of refugees with very little defending forces), the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were really more intended to show the world: Watch out, we got the ultimate bomb!

 

The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense, but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties.

 

I could rant on four hours, citing example after example, but it's rather pointless. I'll just repeat: history is written by victors and conquerors. They dictate the rules of the game.

[Volourn]

"Actually, we did.

 

But we are doomed to not learn from our mistakes, it would seem"

 

That was no real negotiation. Germany got the heck bombed out of them until they surrendered. L0L It's called 'negotiation after the fact'.

 

 

"The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense"

 

Nope. Stop being fixated on just ONE reason for the war. Multip0le reasons wer egiven, and most of the them were legit.

 

 

"but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties."

 

Simp0ly not true. If there wa sno consideration for civilization casulaties, they would have just flat out carpet bombed the city. They didn't hence why most of the ciity still stood afterwards. *shrug*

 

 

 

"It's those issuing those orders that are responsible and should be on trial. To illustrate my point more: after WWII German leaders were tried for crimes against humanity, while the victors went unpunished, although they had committed equally hideous acts, eg. bombing of Dresden (at that time Dresden was full of refugees with very little defending forces), the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were really more intended to show the world: Watch out, we got the ultimate bomb!"

 

Boo hoo hoo! War is ugly.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense, but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties.

 

I could rant on four hours, citing example after example, but it's rather pointless. I'll just repeat: history is written by victors and conquerors. They dictate the rules of the game.

 

You seem like a reasonable chap, so I'll ask you to justify your claim that the war was fought without any regard for civilian casualties. I've met senior RAF officers who still worry about decisions made. Not to mention the fact that the publicised order of battle has whole units whose only job is to worry about civilian casualties. From politicians, to generals, to air controllers, to pilots to ground crew I've seen and heard people worrying about civilian casualties. Not in a newspaper or a public relations exercise. I mean candidly, off the record. Your example of hiroshima is just one more reason why they DO worry now. Because we've like, you know, learned from our mistakes.

 

However, I won't disagree that victors write the rules of the game. Which is why doing the right thing has to be balanced aginst bloody winning. Lest the history of this period be written by the humourless bastards, in between their attempts to outlaw women, fun, free thought, and waffles. I really don't see what viable alternative viewpoint could be seriously entertained.

[Epirote]

Volourn, first of all, learn to quote. Second, get a spell checker. That said, they way I remember the declaration of war on Iraq is: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it supports Al Quaida." Both of the reasons, were simply fabrications. The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US. On the bombing of Bagdad: it's undeniable that they bombed a lot of targets in the city that had no military value, with high civilian casualties, and with the only intent to break the morale of the opponent and make him surrender. And yes, war is ugly. It's even uglier when it is fought for no reason.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Epirote

[Leferd]

"...the real reason was to get some revenge on the 'bloody arabs' "

 

Ok. I'm as borderline pinko and anti-Iraq war as almost anyone, but that's a little daft.

 

As much as George W. wanted some comeuppance to come Saddam's way after the apparent assassination attempt at Bush Sr., that starship won't fly with the US Congress, the Joint Chiefs, the National Security Advisor, and pretty much anyone else involved in the decision making and approval granting process of the US government.

 

Plus, I really don't think that Bush would go to war JUST for revenge. He's not that kind of monster.

[kjradio]

Actually, this is how I feel the entire war should have been fought. In, hit them, and out. This should have been a special forces war.

[Epirote]

The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense, but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties.

 

I could rant on four hours, citing example after example, but it's rather pointless. I'll just repeat: history is written by victors and conquerors. They dictate the rules of the game.

 

You seem like a reasonable chap, so I'll ask you to justify your claim that the war was fought without any regard for civilian casualties. I've met senior RAF officers who still worry about decisions made. Not to mention the fact that the publicised order of battle has whole units whose only job is to worry about civilian casualties. From politicians, to generals, to air controllers, to pilots to ground crew I've seen and heard people worrying about civilian casualties. Not in a newspaper or a public relations exercise. I mean candidly, off the record. Your example of hiroshima is just one more reason why they DO worry now. Because we've like, you know, learned from our mistakes.

 

However, I won't disagree that victors write the rules of the game. Which is why doing the right thing has to be balanced aginst bloody winning. Lest the history of this period be written by the humourless bastards, in between their attempts to outlaw women, fun, free thought, and waffles. I really don't see what viable alternative viewpoint could be seriously entertained.

 

You could go look up civilian casualties during the assault on Bagdad, I guess. The fact is when you bomb a city, there are a lot of civilian casualties. Also, the RAF and the British army, behaves very differently from the USAF or the US Army. And worrying or saying you're sorry, doesn't change anything. I'll just give you two more examples of US Army ruthlessness:

 

1. During the war in Yugoslavia, the USAF bombed a civilian train. The official excuse was: "Sorry, we mistook it for a weapons convoy." Well, if the most advanced army of the world with the most advance military satellites mistakes a train for a weapon's convoy, I don't know what to say.

 

2. In Afghanistan, they bombed a village during a wedding and wiped it out. Apparently, they had some intelligence that an Al Qaida official would attend the wedding, which he didn't.

 

What is doing the right thing? For a military commander carpet bombing a city sure is the right thing to do, because it minimizes casualties on his side and maximizes casualties on the opponents side, even if they include civilians. As I said, or more precisely US Army officials, have said: collateral damage. Is it right to impose your political system and your way of life on somebody else? As to the alternative viewpoint: end all wars now! Utopic, yes, but:

 

"Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one"

 

John Lennon, Imagine

[Volourn]

"Volourn, first of all, learn to quote. Second, get a spell checker. That said, they way I remember the declaration of war on Iraq is: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it supports Al Quaida." Both of the reasons, were simply fabrications. The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US. On the bombing of Bagdad: it's undeniable that they bombed a lot of targets in the city that had no military value, with high civilian casualties, and with the only intent to break the morale of the opponent and make him surrender. And yes, war is ugly. It's even uglier when it is fought for no reason."

 

L0LZ

 

How cna anyone believe what you write when you contradict yourself in your own post.

 

First you say: 'The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US.'

 

Then you write: 'when it is fought for no reason.'

 

So, the question remains, did the war have a reason, or was there no reason?

 

NEWSFLASH;' Just because you disagree with a reason doesn't mean it isn't a reason.

 

And, oh, once again there were many reasons given for the Iraq War. You named two. Others include Iraq's general support of terrorism (FACT!), and Saddam's Hussein being in power was unacceptable to the US espicially given the events of 9/11.

 

The fact you think the US attacked Iraq simply because they were 'bloody Arabs' is just fooliosh considering the US has ARAB/Muslim/ ME allies including inside Iraq.

 

 

War is ugly. That's why it's best to avoid it if at all possible. That's why someone needs a chat with Saddam Hussein has he brought the invasion to his country due to HIS poor choices.

 

It's also nice that you accuse the US of being biogted against 'bloody Arabs' when you show your bigotry towards Amerika (and, who knows, maybe you are one). But, plenty of people are full of self hatred.

[random n00b]

"Actually, we did.

 

But we are doomed to not learn from our mistakes, it would seem"

 

That was no real negotiation. Germany got the heck bombed out of them until they surrendered. L0L It's called 'negotiation after the fact'.

Heh. Well, I know you're the Magical Volo and you post before thinking, but did you even click the link I posted?

 

A part of Czechoslovakia was given over to Nazi Germany in a (failed) attempt to placate their expansionist urges. Yes, that was BEFORE the war.

 

But it gets better, because it's one of the most glaring examples of why one shouldn't negotiate with that sort of international scum. So it was actually an argument in support of what you said, in a general sense at least.

 

\o/

 

 

You could go look up civilian casualties during the assault on Bagdad, I guess.

No. You are the one claiming that the US military bombed Baghdad indiscriminately. You come up with the figures, buddy.

 

 

What is doing the right thing? For a military commander carpet bombing a city sure is the right thing to do, because it minimizes casualties on his side and maximizes casualties on the opponents side, even if they include civilians. As I said, or more precisely US Army officials, have said: collateral damage. Is it right to impose your political system and your way of life on somebody else?

Only in the day of mass media, wars are fought as much in the homefront against the attrition in the public opinion, as they are on the battlefield. You can't just firebomb a city to rubble nowadays and expect to get away with it. Oh wait, you can, if you're Russian. But yeah, it's no fun bashing anyone that's not America.

 

It's not surprising that after such display of one-dimensional thinking one can make arguments such as this, and keep anything resembling a straight face:

 

 

As to the alternative viewpoint: end all wars now! Utopic, yes, but:

<snip>

 

John Lennon, Imagine

Yeah. Good ol' Johnny is right up there with a bunch of other all-time greatest political theorists such as Che Guevara and Khomeini. Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[mkreku]

A part of Czechoslovakia was given over to Nazi Germany in a (failed) attempt to placate their expansionist urges. Yes, that was BEFORE the war.

 

But it gets better, because it's one of the most glaring examples of why one shouldn't negotiate with that sort of international scum. So it was actually an argument in support of what you said, in a general sense at least.

So you give one example of where negotiations was a mistake and that's supposed to somehow prove that you should never negotiate, just go to war at once? Seriously, not even you can be this daft. Please explain what your one example is trying to show.

[Epirote]

L0LZ

 

How cna anyone believe what you write when you contradict yourself in your own post.

 

First you say: 'The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US.'

 

Then you write: 'when it is fought for no reason.'

 

So, the question remains, did the war have a reason, or was there no reason?

 

Ok, I'll give you that. It was poorly phrased. I should have said: It's even uglier, when it's fought for no valid reason. Valid reason to go to war for me and my country is only a defensive war.

 

NEWSFLASH;' Just because you disagree with a reason doesn't mean it isn't a reason.

 

And, oh, once again there were many reasons given for the Iraq War. You named two. Others include Iraq's general support of terrorism (FACT!), and Saddam's Hussein being in power was unacceptable to the US espicially given the events of 9/11.

 

The fact you think the US attacked Iraq simply because they were 'bloody Arabs' is just fooliosh considering the US has ARAB/Muslim/ ME allies including inside Iraq.

 

I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq. I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US. I remember a time when he was counted among friendly to the US Arab leaders. I also seem to remember that he got weapons of chemical warfare from the US and the EU and he used it all on dissident Kurdish people. That's why they never found any weapons of mass destruction by the way, despite the propaganda lies that the then Secretary of State told the UN, to get the approval to invade Iraq. As far as allies are concerned: sure, as long as they give the US what they want, namely military bases and oil, there ok, but as soon as they dissent, they are bound to become a target.

 

War is ugly. That's why it's best to avoid it if at all possible. That's why someone needs a chat with Saddam Hussein has he brought the invasion to his country due to HIS poor choices.

 

It's also nice that you accuse the US of being biogted against 'bloody Arabs' when you show your bigotry towards Amerika (and, who knows, maybe you are one). But, plenty of people are full of self hatred.

 

At least, we both agree that war is ugly and best avoided. I am not a US citizen and I don't hate US citizens. I hate it's leadership and what it does to this world. I happen to live in a country, where the CIA helped stage a military coup d'etat to help some crazy right wing militarist run the country for seven years. I also happen to be peace loving and hate war, especially a imperialistic war fought to secure more oil.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

So you give one example of where negotiations was a mistake and that's supposed to somehow prove that you should never negotiate, just go to war at once? Seriously, not even you can be this daft. Please explain what your one example is trying to show.

Hahaha. You drew the wrong conclusion from what I wrote, as per usual. I said nothing about "going to war IMMEDIATELY!!1", or suggested anything of the sort. It was pretty obviously a one-time reply to the point Volo brought up about WW2.

 

But I didn't really need to explain that to you. Not even you can be THAT daft!

[Volourn]

"Valid reason to go to war for me and my country is only a defensive war."

 

Really? You don't believe in defending friends, and allies then? Afterall, Germany was no real threat to my country yet we still went to war against them to help our European allies. *shrug* I'm glad we did, too.

 

 

"I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq."

 

Not true. Iraq supported terroism. In fact, they paid terrorists (after the fact 'of course') aka suicide bombers in Isreal as just one proven example. Iraq also did have some dealings with AQ (and, yes, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). So, to say that iraq didn't support terrorism simply isn't teue. Terrorism does not AQ.

 

 

"I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US. I remember a time when he was counted among friendly to the US Arab leaders. I also seem to remember that he got weapons of chemical warfare from the US and the EU and he used it all on dissident Kurdish people. That's why they never found any weapons of mass destruction by the way, despite the propaganda lies that the then Secretary of State told the UN, to get the approval to invade Iraq. As far as allies are concerned: sure, as long as they give the US what they want, namely military bases and oil, there ok, but as soon as they dissent, they are bound to become a target."

 

Really? I don't know of any Amerikan bases in my country (ther ekmiught be I don't worry about such things), and last I checked we aren't on the US target list. *shrug* And, my country disgarees with the US a lot including on the Iraq War.

 

As for why Hussein went from being an 'ally' to the US to an enemy. First off, he was never an ally. They used him in their war with Iran. That's it. And, I like how you try to blame eveyrone but Saddam for his use of chemical weapons.

 

 

"especially a imperialistic war fought to secure more oil."

 

I love how the defintion of imperialism has changed just so that label cna be pinned on the US. And, contrary to the conspiracy theory, not all Amerikan Wars are base don oil. In fact, if they were, the Iraq War would be a failure since the pirce of oil/gas has gone up since it occured.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Volourn