| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2003 11:51:20 PM · #426 |
so in your eyes, these people have just accepted their fates and decide to go have coffee to talk about it? they know we aren't going to kill them if they fled baghdad, if anything the republican guard would kill them. you put too much faith in the enemy to realize that
and what do you say to the fact that baghdad tv has only come up with 3 deaths after over 4000 bombs have been dropped on baghdad? these people understand that we aren't trying to kill them. we haven't even bombed the government tv station, which means they are receiving propaganda 24 hours a day. that's because the tv stations and communications centers are placed in densely populated areas of baghdad.
just use common sense...how did the 1.5 million refugees get out the first time? the bombing was much less accurate then and people fled like crazy. common sense says that the people aren't worried enough to flee. just look at cnn right now. people are going about their daily lives as if nothing was going on. this wasn't the case in the first gulf war because the cruise missiles and gps systems weren't available and cruise missiles were going astray into populated centers. there is a big difference from gulf war 1 and 2
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 00:01:50. |
|
|
|
03/23/2003 11:58:43 PM · #427 |
regardless of who would kill them, they will have a good chance of dying if they try to leave. To say that they have "trust in american weapons" is silly.
Would you stay home if the US was bombing the hose down the street?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2003 11:59:38 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by achiral:
NO. you posted claiming to have info about precision weapons not being precise. nothing in that sentence was about missiles not being precise. it was about blast radii of bombs that could be dropped, not what has actually happened. to date, Iraq TV itself has only claimed that 3 people have died as a result of bombings. IRAQ TV SAID THAT. but somehow you have the inside track on collateral damage. |
No. I posted an article which described how it was possible for weapons described by our military and news media may cause significantly more damage than is implied by the adjective "precision."
I do not claim to have any "evidence" one way or another regarding civilian or military casualties, or infrastructure, and you can bet a lot I'm not going to Baghdad to assess the situation myself.
Now, even our Central Command has acknowledged that a couple of our missles have landed in (fortunately sparsely populated areas of) Turkey, and our Patriot Missles have possibly shot down a British fighter (under investigation).
What do you expect will happen if one of those cruise missles splits the side of one of those tanks of chemical or biological weapons you insist Mr. Hussein has?
Please...I think Mr. Hussein is a reprehensible individual and influence we are well-rid of. I don't happen to believe in the strategy or tactics employed by the US government, and I believe they will be ultimately destructive of our economic and moral standing... |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:06:33 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
NO. you posted claiming to have info about precision weapons not being precise. nothing in that sentence was about missiles not being precise. it was about blast radii of bombs that could be dropped, not what has actually happened. to date, Iraq TV itself has only claimed that 3 people have died as a result of bombings. IRAQ TV SAID THAT. but somehow you have the inside track on collateral damage. |
No. I posted an article which described how it was possible for weapons described by our military and news media may cause significantly more damage than is implied by the adjective "precision."
I do not claim to have any "evidence" one way or another regarding civilian or military casualties, or infrastructure, and you can bet a lot I'm not going to Baghdad to assess the situation myself.
Now, even our Central Command has acknowledged that a couple of our missles have landed in (fortunately sparsely populated areas of) Turkey, and our Patriot Missles have possibly shot down a British fighter (under investigation).
What do you expect will happen if one of those cruise missles splits the side of one of those tanks of chemical or biological weapons you insist Mr. Hussein has?
Please...I think Mr. Hussein is a reprehensible individual and influence we are well-rid of. I don't happen to believe in the strategy or tactics employed by the US government, and I believe they will be ultimately destructive of our economic and moral standing... |
and you will ultimately be wrong. at least america is doing something about it. you would rather sit in the street and block traffic than propose solutions.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 00:12:52. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:07:51 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
regardless of who would kill them, they will have a good chance of dying if they try to leave. To say that they have "trust in american weapons" is silly.
Would you stay home if the US was bombing the hose down the street? |
nice analogy...since the us isn't bombing civilian targets, you really can't equivocate houses to presidencial palaces. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:19:40 AM · #431 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What do you expect will happen if one of those cruise missles splits the side of one of those tanks of chemical or biological weapons you insist Mr. Hussein has? |
Well it's no longer a "we" or "you" insist that Saddam has chemical weapons anymore, it's now a FACT and they HAVE been found. So I think we can stop doubting that FACT that Iraq DOES have illegal weapons and has been LYING all along (gee, I'm suprised).
And why would anyone blame the US for a missle that hits a tank filled with chemical weapons, don't you think that SADDAM should be blamed for having them in the first place?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Please...I think Mr. Hussein is a reprehensible individual and influence we are well-rid of. I don't happen to believe in the strategy or tactics employed by the US government, and I believe they will be ultimately destructive of our economic and moral standing... |
We all may disagree on how to get rid of Saddam and believe it's in the best interest of World peace and security and best for the Iraqi people, but there's a bid difference in people's opinion on HOW to do it. So if force isn't the best idea what is? Letting the inpectors "do their job" is no longer a viable or realistic solution because Saddam would have NEVER let the inspectors do it... We've found chemical weapons that Saddam had sworn on Allah that they didn't have! What else would be a good solution... Apply more sanctions on Iraq? No that doesn't work... Saddam still sells his oil and that's more then enough to keep HIMSELF ONLY very wealthy and the Iraqi people starving. So what other choice/option do we have besides military action?
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:19:41 AM · #432 |
IraqBodyCount.net is reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible.
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:28:47 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by lisae:
IraqBodyCount.net is reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible.
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
yeah now people can better understand why turkey wouldn't allow US troops. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:31:51 AM · #434 |
Originally posted by lisae:
IraqBodyCount.net is reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible.
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
even at those levels it's absolutely amazing considering the number of bombs dropped |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:33:36 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by lisae:
IraqBodyCount.net is reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible.
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
your absent minded reasoning and beliefs still leave me in disbelief... if your going to mention 126 civilians killed by us trying to free the iraqi people, don't forget to mention the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands that saddam has killed... it's only fair to mention both sides...
//www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:35:22 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by lisae:
...reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible. |
The only reason it's that high (if the figures are true) is because Saddam has a clear policy of putting women and children in front of "himself" (as human shields) like a true coward dictator would. It's just like the criminal that is running from the cops and picks up a child to cover himself with so that the police don't shoot him.
Originally posted by lisae:
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
We'll see about that, I'm also worried about that. The first step is to get into Baghdad and clean house. This looks like it's going to be harder then most anticipated. :( But we will get it done.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:37:50 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by lisae:
IraqBodyCount.net is reporting a minimum of 126 and max. of 199 civilian casualties so far, from a survey of world media. From everything I've read, their methodology appears sound. I'm relieved that it's still quite low, and I'm hoping the war will be over as quickly as possible.
However, the worrying thing is those Turkish troops lined up at the northern border... reportedly up to 30,000 of them. Also worrying are the Iranian troops and activities that suggest the two countries will unite in an unsanctioned (by the US) war to stop the Kurds getting an independent state. This is what scared me most in the lead up to this war, as I posted a few times in this thread. If the conflict spreads, we can expect thousands of Kurdish civilians to die. |
your absent minded reasoning and beliefs still leave me in disbelief... if your going to mention 126 civilians killed by us trying to free the iraqi people, don't forget to mention the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands that saddam has killed... it's only fair to mention both sides...
//www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html |
[anti-war position explained]
What are you talking about there's no evidence of that! this is all the United States' fault. They should haved saved them! God save Saddam! let's go smoke another bowl and block traffic to advance our silly cause.[/anti-war position explained] |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 12:52:56 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
your absent minded reasoning and beliefs still leave me in disbelief... if your going to mention 126 civilians killed by us trying to free the iraqi people, don't forget to mention the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands that saddam has killed... it's only fair to mention both sides...
//www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html |
Um?
What did I say in my post that was pro-Saddam? What have I ever said that was pro-Saddam? I crossed my fingers and hoped that monster was dead after the first missile strikes. That doesn't mean I think this war is a good idea or being managed well. I maintain that until we see what's going to happen in Northern Iraq, I will be fearful for the Kurds. If you don't care about the conflict spreading and turning into WW3, then fine. Some of us have a long view of history and don't enjoy watching the fuse on a powderkeg being lit. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:01:07 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by achiral:
What are you talking about there's no evidence of that! this is all the United States' fault. They should haved saved them! God save Saddam! let's go smoke another bowl and block traffic to advance our silly cause |
The protestors all over the World and in the US are what communists nations and orgainizations call them: "our usefull idiots". Did you know that anti-war demonstrations are funded by many world communist orgainizations? Why? Because communists around the world see this (Muslim/American/Capitalism conflict) as another opportunity to advance their cause against capitalism and the US and other capitalistic free nations, and will use these "usefull idiots" in the world to help them with their cause.
And most of the protestors in this country don't even know what they are protesting against, except that their 12th grade liberal school teacher or "red-diaper-doper-baby" professor in college has told them to hate all things American. They go out and repeat this (in their protests), and thus, we have the "usefull idiots" of the country and World. :) Not real hard to figure out.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:03:05 AM · #440 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
We'll see about that, I'm also worried about that. The first step is to get into Baghdad and clean house. This looks like it's going to be harder then most anticipated. :( But we will get it done. |
I'm glad you're worried about it, as everyone should be regardless of their "side" in the debates leading up to the war. But it's wrong to say that "this looks like it's going to be harder then most anticipated". A lot of people warned that it would be hard, but were shouted down for being anti-war - including scholars, ex-military people and veterans of the first Gulf War, etc. They deserved to be listened to, but everyone with any objections was treated as though they loved Saddam and didn't care about his brutality. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:04:17 AM · #441 |
I feel terrible about this whole thing. I am both British and Canadian (more than half of my extended family lives in England) and thus am torn between my support of the Canadian government, who I am glad decided not to join the war, and feeling support for British (and American) troops which are there, and indeed all people who will suffer during the conflict.
This war is a tragedy for everyone involved. Bickering about civilian casualties this early is truly worthless...just wait until the human catastrophe which will ensue when the street fighting starts in Baghdad. If the fighting in the South is any indication, it will not come easily at all. How can you tell militia from regular army? Are they going to arrest/emprison 5 million people? It's going to be a gongshow. Clean house? Damn, guy, that's the wrong phrase. What makes anyone think they'll even find Hussein?
This is going to be catastrophic. Truly horrible. Aaron Brown is going to permanently wipe that damn smirk off his face. I'd really like to see those bastards at CNN try and sanitise this next stage.
This is what those of us who opposed the war feared the most, and it will come true. The streets of Baghdad will be hell on earth. I feel sick just thinking about it. God help 'em all.
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 01:11:07. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:13:22 AM · #442 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
your absent minded reasoning and beliefs still leave me in disbelief... if your going to mention 126 civilians killed by us trying to free the iraqi people, don't forget to mention the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands that saddam has killed... it's only fair to mention both sides...
//www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html |
Um?
What did I say in my post that was pro-Saddam? What have I ever said that was pro-Saddam? I crossed my fingers and hoped that monster was dead after the first missile strikes. That doesn't mean I think this war is a good idea or being managed well. I maintain that until we see what's going to happen in Northern Iraq, I will be fearful for the Kurds. If you don't care about the conflict spreading and turning into WW3, then fine. Some of us have a long view of history and don't enjoy watching the fuse on a powderkeg being lit. |
i'm curious as to how you see ww3 evolving out of this |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:15:37 AM · #443 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I feel terrible about this whole thing. I am both British and Canadian (more than half of my extended family lives in England) and thus am torn between my support of the Canadian government, who I am glad decided not to join the war, and feeling support for British (and American) troops which are there, and indeed all people who will suffer during the conflict.
This war is a tragedy for everyone involved. Bickering about civilian casualties this early is truly worthless...just wait until the human catastrophe which will ensue when the street fighting starts in Baghdad. If the fighting in the South is any indication, it will not come easily at all. How can you tell militia from regular army? Are they going to arrest/emprison 5 million people? It's going to be a gongshow. Clean house? Damn, guy, that's the wrong phrase. What makes anyone think they'll even find Hussein?
This is going to be catastrophic. Truly horrible. Aaron Brown is going to permanently wipe that damn smirk off his face. I'd really like to see those bastards at CNN try and sanitise this next stage.
This is what those of us who opposed the war feared the most, and it will come true. The streets of Baghdad will be hell on earth. I feel sick just thinking about it. God help 'em all.
James. |
aaron brown is so annoying, i agree. you don't think it's possible that when we defeat the republican guard on the outskirts of the city, the population will be able to taste freedom and begin to turn on saddam? i could see it going either way. it's too hard to tell though |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:16:29 AM · #444 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
This is going to be catastrophic. Truly horrible. Aaron Brown is going to permanently wipe that damn smirk off his face. I'd really like to see those bastards at CNN try and sanitise this next stage. |
I don't like Aaron Brown's "smirk" either... I don't know if it's a smirk or not but sometimes I wonder if they think this is a game or some kind of entertainment, but it isn't.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
This is what those of us who opposed the war are going to fear the most, and it will come true. The streets of Baghdad will be hell on earth. I feel sick just thinking about it. God help 'em all. |
The allied forces are doing what's needed to free Iraq from a dictator who is brutal to its citizans, and it will be done without intentionally hurting civilians. The people will be better off after this is over. Saddam has killed 2 million of his own people. Nothing could be worse for them then having Saddam and his government stay in power. Doing nothing is the same as saying you accept and can deal with another 2 million murders.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 01:18:14. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 01:37:51 AM · #445 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i'm curious as to how you see ww3 evolving out of this |
There has always been speculation that Turkey and Iran would fight the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. This is because the ancient Kurdistan overlapped southern Turkey, northern Iraq and parts of Iran and Syria. Turkey fought a long and bloody civil war against the Kurds, and Iran has slaughtered them as well. A Kurdish state would spark an uprising in both those countries. However, since 1998 northern Iraq has experienced autonomy from the rest of Iraq under the protection of the no fly zone and UN administration. They will no accept the idea of being part of Iraq again once regime change occurs. This is one area of conflict.
As well as this, there have been a lot of signs that Sharon will use the Iraq war as cover for some brutal moves against the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. We haven't seen this yet. I'm hoping that Bush and Blair have struck a deal with him. If not, things could get messy, because actions against the Palestinians at the same time as civilian casualties among Arab Muslims in Iraq WILL spur on new waves of terrorist attacks. And since Saddam attacked Israel last time, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't do it again, with everything he has left over once it looks like he's lost the war.
A flow on effect of these things would incite extremists in Pakistan. There has already been a massacre in Kashmir of Hindus by Islamic gunmen. The US government courted Musharraf (the military dictator in charge of Pakistan) during the Afghan campaign, and he is generally being held in good esteem by Bush. He is necessary to a lot of Bush's plans. Right now Musharraf could overrun Kashmir and no one would do anything, since the only countries that would oppose it are too busy. And remember that both India and Pakistan have nukes. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:58:38 AM · #446 |
I ran across those POW images from Al Jazeera. I do have a link but please be warned, these aren't for the weak hearted. Click at your own risk: LiNk
American media should know that in the days of the internet, censorship is essentialy dead.
Click Here if you can read arabic<--- omg i really can't beleive they posted some of what they did on this site.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 09:10:43.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 09:17:38 AM · #447 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
i'm curious as to how you see ww3 evolving out of this |
There has always been speculation that Turkey and Iran would fight the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. This is because the ancient Kurdistan overlapped southern Turkey, northern Iraq and parts of Iran and Syria. Turkey fought a long and bloody civil war against the Kurds, and Iran has slaughtered them as well. A Kurdish state would spark an uprising in both those countries. However, since 1998 northern Iraq has experienced autonomy from the rest of Iraq under the protection of the no fly zone and UN administration. They will no accept the idea of being part of Iraq again once regime change occurs. This is one area of conflict.
As well as this, there have been a lot of signs that Sharon will use the Iraq war as cover for some brutal moves against the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. We haven't seen this yet. I'm hoping that Bush and Blair have struck a deal with him. If not, things could get messy, because actions against the Palestinians at the same time as civilian casualties among Arab Muslims in Iraq WILL spur on new waves of terrorist attacks. And since Saddam attacked Israel last time, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't do it again, with everything he has left over once it looks like he's lost the war.
A flow on effect of these things would incite extremists in Pakistan. There has already been a massacre in Kashmir of Hindus by Islamic gunmen. The US government courted Musharraf (the military dictator in charge of Pakistan) during the Afghan campaign, and he is generally being held in good esteem by Bush. He is necessary to a lot of Bush's plans. Right now Musharraf could overrun Kashmir and no one would do anything, since the only countries that would oppose it are too busy. And remember that both India and Pakistan have nukes. |
I don't agree with your doomsday mentality. These three situations, while agreeably bad situations, don't equate to the start of a world war. These clashes have been going on for centuries, what makes you think it now amounts to a possibility of world war. I would agree with you if i thought france germany russia and china were on the side of iraq or any of those countries, but the fact is no super power wants to get involved in pakistan or india's problems. the fact that they both have nuclear weapons only shows that both are trying to deter the effects of each others weapons research. no nukes have been dropped and there is no sign that nukes will be dropped. i think it's time to stop having such a bleak world view and focus on actually improving situations in the area, not sitting back and opining about eschatology
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 09:23:00 AM · #448 |
arcial: here's a photo of those people you were talking about just having coffee and relaxing because they "trust" american weapons systems.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 09:23:38.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 09:37:25 AM · #449 |
Originally posted by achiral:
I would agree with you if i thought france germany russia and china were on the side of iraq or any of those countries, but the fact is no super power wants to get involved in pakistan or india's problems. |
But the point is that, with the UN now undermined by the US and its allies, we have one less tool to keep these situations under control. Europe has been split by this war. NATO has also been split. We are all in a very weak position here.
Originally posted by achiral:
i think it's time to stop having such a bleak world view and focus on actually improving situations in the area, not sitting back and opining about eschatology |
Jesus... Turkey already has troops lined up, and a massacre has started a new round of tensions in Kashmir, and you say I just have a "bleak world view"? |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 09:53:22 AM · #450 |
I find this thread fascinating, and should make clear right from the start that I fully support any action aimed at alleviating the suffering of innocent people. I also think Bush and Blair showed a lot of character, standing up for what they believe in, under extreme pressure. I guess Bush's distinguishing moment for me will always be the look on his face when he was first told of the September 11 attacks, and the resolve he showed shortly after, when he pulled America back from the brink of chaos.
What I do find disturbing though is the blatant disregard, not only for public opinion, but for the general ability of the average man to draw intelligent conclusions. For example, if the sole purpose of the action in Iraq is to rescue the Iraqi people from a monster (which I firmly believe Saddam to be), then it must be assumed that attacks on other countries will shortly follow, countries like Libia for instance which is also ruled by a dictator, or Zimbabwe where 6 million people are starving because the ´´democratically elected`` government of Robert Mugabe refuses humanitarian aid (mainly from the US) to its people, because it is afraid of the long term effects of genetically altered foods on people. Funny how he has no objection to feeding this ´´poison from the west`` to his soldiers. If there are no ulterior motives to this conflict ( I never said oil :) ) it stands to reason that the US will be removing one dictatorship after another until the whole world is free from oppression.
Maybe the whole Iraq thing really is about weapons of mass destruction. Bush said Iraq is a threat to the world because it has WMD's, and is not afraid to use them, is ruled by a man who has a history of violating international law and has no regard for the lives of innocent people. America has WMD's, is the only country ever to have used an atomic bomb in war (which in my mind proves that it has no regard for the lives of innocent non-americans) and has violated international law on many occasions. Does this mean that North-Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and South Africa are next? South Africa claims to have destroyed its nuclear arsenal, but where's the proof? South Africa is still producing weapons grade plutonium in its nuclear power plant at Koeberg in the Cape Province.
Another thing that really gets under my skin is the political correctness of the American military. Take terms like Collateral Damge for instance. Collateral Damage is such a nice clinical term for dropping bombs on children, how would you feel if it was your Collateral being Damaged? Why not just call it what it is: We're killing innocent Iraqis, so we can save the lives of American service men. Nice if you're an American soldier, not so nice if you're an Iraqi civilian. Calling murder by its name is upsetting, but at least everybody knows what they're dealing with.
I also find it rather hypocritical of Collin Powell to cry ´´Geneva Convention`` after Iraqi television aired footage of captured US service men. I think what was done to these American service men (and woman) is horrible, but how is it different from parading Iraqi soldiers on CNN, or dropping pamphlets with photographs of dead Iraqi service men on towns in Iraq?
War is hell. It is also an unfortunate part of humanity. I don't believe we'll ever live in a war free society, I just wish we could all agree that, no matter how cool the movies are that Hollywood produces after each conflict, war should be avoided as long as humanly possible. Is it neccessary to remove Saddam from power? Hell yes! Is it neccessary to do it forcefully? Probably. Did Iraq pose an immediate danger to the safety and security of America and the world, after twelve years of silence, operating at only 28% of the strenght it had at the time of the 1st Gulf War? Probably not.
|
|
