Should America invade Iraq?

[quade 4]

Quote

Could some places possibly interpret some of our actions as "acts of terrorism"?

In a word, yes.

There is a very old saying . . .
"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

For instance, from King George's point of view, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

While I agree with Clay that it is very unlikely that U.S. soldiers are conciously and directly involved with mass killings of civilians, we do have quite a few "consultants" that give instruction to countries that do.

So, while we might not be directly involved in bulldozing the homes of civilians for instance, Israel, from time to time, is. Does that make us a terrorist state? There is another old saying, "The friends of my enemy are my enemy". So, maybe if you're living in Palestine, the U.S. is a terrorist state.

One fundamental thing to think about is that probably no "villain" that has ever walked the stage thought he was doing the wrong thing. Mind you, I'm not defending these people, just using them as examples. Hitler probably thought he really was doing the right thing for his people. Hirohito probably thougt he was doing the right thing for his people. As crazy as it sounds, Saddam Hussain probably thinks he's doing the right things for his people.

Does that make them right? Well, I don't think so, but obviously they think they're right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

> Don't let revisionist history fool you - we did our
> level best to kill as many people in Japan as
> possible. There were no surgical strikes to take
>out just weapons production plants while leaving
> civilians uninjured. Killing is what war is all about.
> Firebombing and nuclear weapons were very
> effective in that regard.

Pardon me, new voice from a newbie, but isn't that the point of war. Put a soldier on the ground to kill as many of the enemy as necessary and occupy the field until the other guy calls it quits.

Hold no delusions about this. We were at war with JAPAN, not the Japanese military. Getting them to quit while keeping our guys alive. Works for me. Even seems the current brass and above could learn some lessons here.

Kennedy

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

but isn't that the point of war. Put a soldier on the ground to kill as many of the enemy as necessary and occupy the field until the other guy calls it quits.

Actually...no it isn't. Military force is an extension of politics. The stated aim of warfare is to cause the enemy to capitulate to your will. Sometimes that has been accomplished without firing a shot. In other cases we haven't been so lucky.

[Skyrad 0]

Ok, so I first heard about this on a news program here in the UK on Channel 5. A documentary by a undercover news team is to be screened in a few weeks on channel 5. I have seen some of the highlights. It alledeges that prisoners were herded into frieght containers and when they complianed there was no air the NA fired through the side of the containers to make holes. These containers were then taken to a large prison under US comand. Allegedly when the officer in charge saw the insides of the containers he told the NA to get them away from the prison before they were photographed by satellite, allegedly he also told them to get rid of the prisoners still alive. Some of the prisoners were unloaded but many were driven off. Allegedly the executions took place in the presence of upto 30 US soldiers. The film shows interviews with people that took part in the mass executions, others that were there and shows the containers. What else I don't know until I see the whole documentary.
Check these links, and as soon as I know who made the film and exactly when its to be shown I'll let you know.[size 2]
[/size][size 2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/despatches/west_asia/33007.stm[/size][size 2]
[/size][size 2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/despatches/35412.stm[/size][size 2]
[/size][size 2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/42302.stm[/size]
Also the US wouldn't sign the war crimes convention because the rest of the signatorys refused to agree to a exemption for US forces to ever to stand trail for war crimes. Why?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

According to General Dostum, they were executed on the orders of another warlord, General Abdul Malek.

OK...so where is the US involvement? Just like the training scenario even if US SF guys were there they couldn't do anything except "ASK" them not to do it. After all....Afghanistan isn't our country. We can hardly go there and ORDER "friendly" forces to do things. Even if it occured as you said....What would you have done if you were presented with this situation? It stinks but when it isn't your country it's best for you to mind your own business and not interfere with the locals.

[Michele 1]

I'm sorry, Jamile, but I seem to have missed where the Americans were involved. Could you c/p that for me? I read all three links, but I don't see anything other than commentary about General Dostum and General Malik, commentary about the power struggle between these two Afghani warlords, and only 40 bodies confirmed...

I must be blind today. Could you do that for me? I'd appreciate it! And thanks for the links - they're interesting reading!

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Actually...no it isn't. Military force is an extension of politics. The stated aim of warfare is to cause the enemy to capitulate to your will. Sometimes that has been accomplished without firing a shot. In other cases we haven't been so lucky.

The aim politics is basically to get someone who disagrees with you to capitulate to your will, no? The difference is a question of magnitude. Politicians do some pretty despicable things to see their agenda done. It's a matter of how important things are to any given individual.

I was just defining things as they apply to scenarios in which we have chosen a goal to be more important than someone's life.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,090]

>Pardon me, new voice from a newbie, but isn't that the point of war.
> Put a soldier on the ground to kill as many of the enemy as
> necessary and occupy the field until the other guy calls it quits.

Can't agree with you there - we had no soldiers on the ground in Japan when we bombed them. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy, however you can. You can add politics to it, and say that the purpose is to change a government, or change a policy or something. You can add political correctness to it and claim that civilian casualties will be minimized. But the objective is to kill more of them, and destroy more of their country, than they do to us.

That's one of the things that bugs me about the hooplah about the war with Iraq. I think most people see it as a clean war, where laser guided bombs are used to destroy stockpiles of nuclear weapons parts, leaving the workers and children in the next building miraculously unscathed. War ain't like that.

[PhreeZone 20]

All three of those links refer to stories from 1997....

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

But the objective is to kill more of them, and destroy more of their country, than they do to us.

Mission of the USAF Enlisted Terminal Attack Controller- To kill as many Godless Communist Bastards as possible with the least expenditure of ammunition and resources in order that it restores cave dewelling as an acceptable way of life in the former communist region.

[Michele 1]

Quote

All three of those links refer to stories from 1997....

Good catch. See? I told you I was blind today! LOL!

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Pardon me, new voice from a newbie, but isn't that the point of war.
> Put a soldier on the ground to kill as many of the enemy as
> necessary and occupy the field until the other guy calls it quits.

Can't agree with you there - we had no soldiers on the ground in Japan when we bombed them. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy, however you can. You can add politics to it, and say that the purpose is to change a government, or change a policy or something. You can add political correctness to it and claim that civilian casualties will be minimized. But the objective is to kill more of them, and destroy more of their country, than they do to us.

That's one of the things that bugs me about the hooplah about the war with Iraq. I think most people see it as a clean war, where laser guided bombs are used to destroy stockpiles of nuclear weapons parts, leaving the workers and children in the next building miraculously unscathed. War ain't like that.

Ok, I rephrase, to put a soldier [airman, marine, seaman] INTO ACTION to kill as many of the enemy as necessary until the other guy calls it quits.

Actually, I just realized, we are all a little off on this. Freeflir29 may be closest, I think. War is used to convince someone to do something they don't want to do. Same as politics on a different level. Period, end of story.

Killing them or their side is simply means to an end, that end being convincing them to do what they don't want to. This begs the question, what if the other side doesn't share our view of death. f they think dying for a cause is a goal [other than helping them with the dying part] maybe our strategies needs adjustments, no?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Freeflir29 may be closest

That definition comes straight out of the "Performance Fitness Exam" study manual from the USAF. It's one of the tests I had to take for promotion.

[billvon 3,090]

>to put a soldier [airman, marine, seaman] INTO ACTION to kill as
>many of the enemy as necessary until the other guy calls it quits.

I'd agree there.

>War is used to convince someone to do something they don't want to
> do. Same as politics on a different level. Period, end of story.

I agree to that as well, but that's one of the USES of war, that's not what war IS. In addition, it's not true of all wars. WWII was not fought to convince anyone to do anything, it was fought to destroy the axis powers. Had Hitler said "Well, I think I'll release all those Jews, and be a better leader to my people" we would not have recalled our troops. The war in Afghanistan was not fought to convince Al Quaeda to change their ways, it was fought to destroy them (and the government that didn't want to help us find them.) Had they gone to CNN and said "We promise not to blow up any more US buildings!" we would not have called off the hounds of war.

>This begs the question, what if the other side doesn't share our view
> of death. f they think dying for a cause is a goal [other than helping
> them with the dying part] maybe our strategies needs adjustments,
> no?

And that, my friend, is the $64,000 question. At least it is one of the $64,000 questions. I hope we have a good answer to that question before we start another war over there.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

what if the other side doesn't share our view
> of death. f they think dying for a cause is a goal [other than helping
> them with the dying part] maybe our strategies needs adjustments,
> no?

Not at all...we have a philosophy for that too.

"USAF TACP(Or insert your favorite combat unit), giving the enemy soldier the maximum opportunity to give his life for his country."

[Kennedy 0]

and what, now we take the word of the government as right?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

now we take the word of the government as right?

Read some of my posts. I think you will find that's the LAST thing I am inclined to do. I always look for both sides and know that the "Truth" is somewhere in the middle.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>to put a soldier [airman, marine, seaman] INTO ACTION to kill as
>many of the enemy as necessary until the other guy calls it quits.

I'd agree there.

>War is used to convince someone to do something they don't want to
> do. Same as politics on a different level. Period, end of story.

I agree to that as well, but that's one of the USES of war, that's not what war IS. In addition, it's not true of all wars. WWII was not fought to convince anyone to do anything, it was fought to destroy the axis powers. Had Hitler said "Well, I think I'll release all those Jews, and be a better leader to my people" we would not have recalled our troops. The war in Afghanistan was not fought to convince Al Quaeda to change their ways, it was fought to destroy them (and the government that didn't want to help us find them.) Had they gone to CNN and said "We promise not to blow up any more US buildings!" we would not have called off the hounds of war.

OK. Not to start a debate on police, but I'm going to use them as an analogy. How are police taught to fire their weapons? To disarm? To wound? No. But they are not taught to "shoot to kill" either. They are taught to shoot to neutralize the threat. The best way to do this is shots to center mass. So while their aim does tend to end up with the other guy dead, that's just the byproduct.

Same idea here. The idea is to convince someone else to see your point of view. In order to convince the other guy [bin Laden, Hitler, et alia] you have to use ample force. We dont want to kill them, we want to convince them not to be a threat. Now, somebody above my paygrade determines the best way to "convince" them is to remove from them all freedom to act. The best way to do THAT, happen to be to remove them from this plane of existance. OK. So be it.

Again, the other guy [we call him the bad guy] ends up dead, but not because wewant to go out and kill him.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

quick question aside, when do I get to not be a newbie anymore?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,090]

>Same idea here. The idea is to convince someone else to see your
> point of view. In order to convince the other guy [bin Laden, Hitler,
> et alia] you have to use ample force.

Again, I'm sorry - I don't believe that, had Hitler _or_ Bin Laden suddenly seen our point of view, we would have stopped our attack. We would have kept on until he was dead, whether that death came about by an allied bomb or by a firing squad after their capture.

>We dont want to kill them, we want to convince them not to be a
> threat. Now, somebody above my paygrade determines the best
> way to "convince" them is to remove from them all freedom to act.
> The best way to do THAT, happen to be to remove them from this
> plane of existance. OK. So be it.

Someone above your pay grade determines which method to use to convince him to come about - in this case the president of the US. He may try diplomacy; he may try coercion; he may try threats. All are well known and well understood attempts to get what we want. Generally we have employed them pretty well.

Or he may try war. It is simply one of the means that we use to make things go the way we want them to. It involves killing and destroying as much of someone else's people and country as possible. It should be an absolute last resort, because there is nothing worse. The idea that war can be a surgical instrument, inflicting a bare minimum of damage with only the bad guys getting killed, has been debunked as often as it has been stated.

In addition, we better decide what we want to have happen over there in ten years. There is almost nothing as effective in turning an entire people against us than having those people watch as their families die slow agonizing deaths in a bit of unavoidable "collateral damage." I would also like to believe that we have risen far enough above barbarism to want to avoid that at all costs as well - even if the 8 year old girl that gets killed is an Arab instead of an American.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>This begs the question, what if the other side doesn't share our view
> of death. f they think dying for a cause is a goal [other than helping
> them with the dying part] maybe our strategies needs adjustments,
> no?

And that, my friend, is the $64,000 question. At least it is one of the $64,000 questions. I hope we have a good answer to that question before we start another war over there.

Actually, this was answered earlier in this thread when talking about the nuking of Japan. One of the reasons that we targeted such a populated area was because of the Japanese willingness to die for their emperor. Endless defeats in the field and the bombing of Tokyo did not dissuade them. Only by causing a horrific and catastrophic loss of life and demonstrating out ability to completely exterminate everyone in their country were we able to get them to surrender.

[JeanJeanie 0]

I am not sure about his stories being 2 years old, but here's one I read about recently.............

CNN Headlines

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/08/25/afghanistan.franks/index.html

U.S. general backs probe of reported Afghan mass graves
August 25, 2002 Posted: 3:54 PM EDT (1954 GMT)

~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK

[billvon 3,090]

>I am not sure about his stories being 2 years old, but here's one I
> read about recently.............

While I don't think it is much of an indication that US troops are killing mass numbers of POW's, it is a good reminder that we should pick our allies carefully. And, of course, we should pick our enemies even more carefully.

[billvon 3,090]

Update -

Regardless of public (or congressional) opinion, it looks like Cheney/Bush are preparing for an invasion. In a speech today Cheney said:

-Anyone who disagrees with attacking Iraq as soon as possible is guilty of "willfull blindness"

-Bush/Cheney do not need any congressional approval to attack Iraq

-It won't really be an invasion, it will be a liberation

-Saddam doesn't actually have any nuclear weapons which is why we should invade now


I swear, he sounds more and more like a character in a George Orwell book all the time. War is really freedom; offense is really defense. Nuclear weapons are bad; if he doesn't have them it's time to attack. And it's all part of the war on terror, and it's an invasion (sorry, a "liberation") of a foreign country, but it's not really a war, so the US government doesn't have to be consulted. That "war" part is just for show.

[AndyMan 7]

I wonder how long until people start accusing Bush of attacking Iraq to improve his dropping popularity?

This would NOT be the same people who accused Clinton of using Iraq to draw attention from the monica Lewinski affair, but probably would be the same people who accused G.B. (senior) of doing it to boost HIS failing popularity.

I really don't know if the US should attack. I do know they've consistently done a terrible job of justifying an attack both to the American people and their allies. I hope that if they do attack, they have good reasons they just haven't told us about.

_Am

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.