Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: All's Fair In Love And War

  1. #1
    What ever happened to that?

    I'm American, but I'm afraid I have to point out a major falacy of American news reporters.
    It is acceptable for a country to defend its interests by whatever means are at its disposal.
    I think the reporters need to take a refresher course in American history.

    Soldiers wearing whatever they grab on their way out the door is acceptable.
    In a war where your country is being invaded, every man with a gun becomes a soldier.
    If Iraq was invading us, I guarentee you I would not be wasting time at a uniform store.
    And If the enemy was stupid enough to pass by me and give me a chance to attack them from the rear...Hell yeah I'd take that chance.
    I think its funny that Bush talks about Iraq not following the normal protocol of war. We entered their country.
    That means, they get choice of weapons.
    They get choice of fighting style.

    The British lost to the minute men, because the minute men did not follow acceptable protocols.
    When you're out-gunned, only a fool would expect you to stand out in the open and shoot it out.

    I just think thats funny.

    Thats why I put it here.

  2. ** REGISTER to REMOVE This Ad On The Site!! **
    Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
  3. Funny S**t   -   #2
    How hard is it to spare civilian lives when dealing with these situations though. Hey watch out for those civs .... oh wait they're shooting at us !


    Later that day. Here are some innocent ppl . Take the risk..? Or kill them. They might really be civilians , surenduring military or they could be republican gaurd waiting to ambush those units moving to accept the surrendering parties.


    The Iraqi leadership shows little concern for there own people. Yet it's the Americans who get flamed by anti-war opinions for the civilian costs of a war.


    Do not take this post the wrong way I'm not flaming you just adding some details.

  4. Funny S**t   -   #3
    Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,882
    Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@25 March 2003 - 00:02
    What ever happened to that?

    I'm American, but I'm afraid I have to point out a major falacy of American news reporters.
    It is acceptable for a country to defend its interests by whatever means are at its disposal.
    I think the reporters need to take a refresher course in American history.

    Soldiers wearing whatever they grab on their way out the door is acceptable.
    In a war where your country is being invaded, every man with a gun becomes a soldier.
    If Iraq was invading us, I guarentee you I would not be wasting time at a uniform store.
    And If the enemy was stupid enough to pass by me and give me a chance to attack them from the rear...Hell yeah I'd take that chance.
    I think its funny that Bush talks about Iraq not following the normal protocol of war. We entered their country.
    That means, they get choice of weapons.
    They get choice of fighting style.

    The British lost to the minute men, because the minute men did not follow acceptable protocols.
    When you're out-gunned, only a fool would expect you to stand out in the open and shoot it out.

    I just think thats funny.

    Thats why I put it here.
    What I think Bush was referring to, was using women and children as human shields. Rule or no rule, that is just wrong.

    America is a bit well prepared. I believe they have a uniform, in stock, right now that would fit you perfectly, incase there is a draft.

    Saddam's army is haphazardly organized. The bulk of the army (the ones who quit or surrendered) are treated merely as security gaurds by Saddam. Then you have another higher level of solders. They protect Saddam from the "security gaurds". Finally, you have his personal army. The ones who are brain washed and loyal to him. The suicide nuts.

  5. Funny S**t   -   #4
    Originally posted by Blue_Seraphim@26 March 2003 - 04:21
    How hard is it to spare civilian lives when dealing with these situations though. Hey watch out for those civs ....    oh wait they're shooting at us !


    Later that day.  Here are some innocent ppl . Take the risk..?  Or kill them. They might really be civilians ,  surenduring military or they could be republican gaurd waiting to ambush those units moving to accept the surrendering parties.


    The Iraqi leadership shows little concern for there own people. Yet it's the Americans who get flamed by anti-war opinions for the civilian costs of a war.


    Do not take this post the wrong way I'm not flaming you just adding some details.
    Point taken.

    Now, turn the tables.

    What would you, as a citizen of your own country, that is being invaded by a foriegn enemy, think of citizens of your country surrendering to the enemy without a fight?

    And to Spindulik,

    They keep mentioning that too, but their main concern, as Blue_Seraphim points out, is that it is difficult to distinguish between the civilians surrendering and the soldiers who lack uniforms. They are trying to say that violates acceptable rules of war. Suppose to be a violation of the Geneva convention.

    However, To again turn the tables, I don't think repelling an invading army was really considered in that document.

    If we were the country being invaded, I wouldn't give a damn about the Geneva convention. As a free individual, I would take up arms and fight in the most insane ways I could think of, because Patton and every other prominant military leader proved that it is the unexpected that wins wars.
    Not acceptable conventions.


    Edited it to add this point:

    War is not a game.
    You can't reset it if you lose or don't like the outcome.
    Our great military minds need to stop thinking of it in those terms
    and get on with the war.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •