Anti War Ppl Kiss My Ass!

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 14:20

but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).

they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.

I don't think they watch Iraqi TV in Jordan that much. Those are people who left the country because they hated Saddam. They are returning, because (Quotation from an interview on BBC world) "I hate Saddam, but he is an Iraqi. I would rather put my hand in his than give one inch to a foreign invader".

I think I personally wouldn't need any TV to identify a foreign army on my land as an invader. As soon as someone starts shooting my countrymen, I would guess that that could be an enemy.

Not all of the Iraqis think like that. But I can understand those who do - and that is what I said before the war: I don't think the coalition has taken the mentality of the people into account as much as it was probably necessary.

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Master YodaX+27 March 2003 - 14:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 27 March 2003 - 14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50

You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.

this does not make it right&#33; [/b][/quote]
I agree. I don&#39;t think there is any right and wrong in a war. It&#39;s an awful bloody mess, and people try to hurt the enemy without getting hurt.

But what irritates me is that some people here seem to think it is brave to sit in a tank and shout at a man with a rifle who is hiding in a house:
"Come out you coward and fight like a man."

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Master YodaX+27 March 2003 - 14:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Master YodaX @ 27 March 2003 - 14:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@27 March 2003 - 12:50


I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say:&nbsp; They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour?&nbsp; So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?

They should have disarmed. [/b][/quote]
In other words: Surrendered. They believe in something. Some in the regime, others in their right to defend their country.
I wonder what you would think if it was vice versa: If a superior enemy who believes that your government needs to be removed invades your country. What would you do: Surrender?

["The Avatar Man"]

No they should have disarmed like they agreed to do after they lost the gulf war wich THEY STARTED

[jetje]

Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 15:20

but there are more and more Iraqi people who rather have a local dictator than a foreign invader. (Read the news about expatriates returning to fight).

they only look at the us as a foreign invader because all they watch is iraqui tv.

As much as i like to stay out of these topics, i can&#39;t....

WHAT IS WRONG BEING ANTI-WAR PPL ?? What is wrong being anti war, anti violence...???

Really the topic title is a paardepoep title....

An to Master Yodax...
Which TV stations do you watch that are not from your country.... Makes you think that you are well informed?
Why do you think those people doesn&#39;t see the right news and have acces to the right information and you have that....??


Just a few remarks..

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by Master YodaX@27 March 2003 - 15:23
No they should have disarmed like they agreed to do after they lost the gulf war wich THEY STARTED

Sorry, misunderstood you there. Well, that is a different issue, and I don&#39;t want to get into that now, because it would again come down to whether the position of the UN or the US was right - it&#39;s been discussed here too much and too often, and we are obviously not able to convince either side.

[BALD_GUY]

Ok heres my point. The war is allready started. We all have the right to protest and support the war. But I think now that protesters should relax a little till after the war to protest because what they are saying or doing will not stop the war. Maybe they will have a impact possibly after the war but in no way are they going to stop it. Now is the time I think everyone should be supporting the men and woman that are risking thier lives to do thier duty. I also think that a majoraty of people will not be happy till American troops get hit with Chemical or biological weapons. Not till then will a lot of people and countrys support this war. That is so wrong. I stand proud behind my country and its troops because what I see is them making life safer for all countries and the same time being as humane as possible to a country with a leader that kills its own people. I mean come on watch the news...Marines carry out injured Iraq soldiers....feeding them and treating like the rules state....humanely. America has made some mistakes and Im sure all countries have but America is not trying to take over Iraq just remove a regime that supports terrorism, hinds biological and chemical weapons and killing thier own and forcing them to fight when they dont want to. Someone needs to clean up the streets and that someone is America. We take the job because other countries are too busy worring what every one will think. So protesters take off your ductape from your mouth and put down your pickit signs for a while and support your troops and when all is said and done go back to protesting and be happy that it all over and you have a safe place to pickit. I mean you dont think you could do that kind of stuff over in Iraq and not get shot for it ......do you? God Bless America and its Troops.

[Spindulik]

BLUE = puremindmatters&#39; quotes
BLACK = Spindulik&#39;s reply



You might not have heard this before, but since the last Golf War they were not allowed to import any more weapons.

Allowed or not they managed to get what they have now. Agreements mean nothing to them, thus the war.

I was referring to "pre-1991". If Saddam wasn&#39;t so greedy, he could have managed a way for their economy to be fruitful. Let the money work for itself, so the citizens and businesses could grow. At the same time, Saddam could build a legitimate armed forces and still have his prestigeous power as a leader.


I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say: They should simply go out in the open and get killed by a merciless superior enemy with great honour? So it is honourable to get killed, and honourable to give up, but not trying to fight with what they have?

Yes. Otherwise, you say they are justified in risking the lives of women and children being fired upon. It is possible that the coalition forces may have to fire back to protect themselves.

Besides, "fight with what they have" is not the answer when all they have is women and children. This is one of the MAIN REASONS that the war exists.

You say a "merciless enemy"? The "enemy" could very easily take out Saddam&#39;s military with the innocent civilians, in a minute.

The idea is to liberate Iraq and its people, not conquer it and take it over.



You should analyze past wars and resistence movements - they have done pretty much the same, putting their own civilians at risk.

What "past wars" are you referring to? Terroristic wars? Wars of the past are no excuse for the Iraqi army to use human shields.


I don&#39;t really know why people think that it is clean and proper warfare to strike an enemy from the air when they have literally no means of defending themselves against it.

As YOU said "fight with what they have" (air power is what we have), however, it is proper warfare when you strike from the air (especially when the enemy is using terroristic tactics). The idea is to take out the enemy&#39;s key branches with minimal damage to the civilians and their comunity, and not to create casualties of your oun men too. Air strikes are very accurate and effective.

Anyhow, you say "..they have literally no means of defending themselves against it." Again, Saddam should have been prepared years ago, and not have been so evil and greedy. You don&#39;t do ilegitimate, or contraversial, business and have no backup plan if somebody or nation gets pissed off about it. The boyscouts motto is "Be prepared".



I think the war you are going to face after the removal of the current regime is going to be even more atrocious and more difficult to comprehend, if your president really insists on a military occupation, for this is bound to create terrorism (and not only from former Saddam supporters).

Our president isn&#39;t insisting on military occupation, as you are indicating. As with any recovery after a war, there is military control to help the communities to rebuild with their own people and respected leaders. For the post war, there have been immense careful planning and recovery tactics discussed months before the war was initiated.

Military occupancy is there to protect the innocent civilians. The military will gradually fade away as the people gain control to a civilized, humane Iraq.


This is not a game, and the Iraqis are no spoil-sports, they are trying to fight an enemy they haven&#39;t attacked in the first place. How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and how much are people trying to defend their country no-one can tell.

I agree, this is not a game. I have to admire the courage and strength of the Iraqi&#39;s attitude. After all, it is their country, and they are defending it, even if they are defending a ludicrous and shakey terroristic regime.

...an enemy they haven&#39;t attacked in the first place....

You don&#39;t have to attack an enemy, to have an enemy. Saddam has attacked his own people, therefore he has attacked mankind. Saddam has overwhelming evidence of terroristic activities. Saddam supports terrorists. His enemy is anyone who doesn&#39;t deal in his kind of shakey business.


...How many of those which are killed now really are "dead-enders" and...

None of this killing would have happend at all if Saddam would have completely complied with the UN inspectors. If Saddam has nothing to hide, he wouldn&#39;t have been in this situation. If he really cared about his people, his entire government would have been controlled and applied differently.

This war can end now. Saddam just has to admit that he is wrong, and his forces are going to be taken down, in time. Many lives can be saved.

[puremindmatters]

This would get lengthy if I start quoting, so I summarize and repeat:
So far they have used what they are supposed to have according to UN inspectors. So far, there were no surprises.
Actually, you are contradicting yourself - you are saying before they should have bought more weapons, what&#39;s the point if he isn&#39;t allowed to possess them. Part of the problems the people have now is that he was doing what you recommended before 1991, meaning instead of caring for his people he was buying weapons to lead endless wars.

The airstrikes: There was hardly any airforce worth mentioning before the war (one of the agreements after 1991), and the few anti-aircraft missles they had would never been able to reach a B52 bomber or the vessels launching missles and bombs. I know that everyone thinks that it is particularly "humane" to hit "military targets in this fashion" - but hell, there are actually human beings sitting in these targets. They can&#39;t fight back. I would call that slaughter. That is why I say merciless. Again, they have not attacked. If Saddam had attacked another country before the war, I had seen the point, but he hasn&#39;t, if there had been any reports of a current genocide of the tribes in his country, I would have seen the point, but that simply wasn&#39;t the case. You have attacked because he "potentially" could have done that again.

In WW2 many smaller countries had a resistence movement, funny enough even France, part of which was formed by former military, which changed the tatics because they could not oppose the Germans openly. They reverted to what you would call terrorist tactics nowadays. They might not have used "human shields" (others have, see Vietnam), but no-one complained about the Geneva convention being flaunted, on the contrary, they were considered heroes afterwards, and look - the ones who collaborated and surrendered were considered traitors and cowards afterwards. The only difference now is that they use it right from the beginning of the war.

It is easy to play by the rules if you have all the advantages on your side. If some revert to guerilla tactics, it is because they wouldn&#39;t stand a chance in conventional combat. If you force fanatics to guerilla warfare, you shouldn&#39;t be surprised that the results are extreme.

There is no country in this world which could resist a force like the one attacking Iraq now - would you say that they all should be prepared and make sure they have enough weaponry to put up a decent fight, just in case the US might fancy having a go at them in the future? That is a logic which really really scares me.
And it&#39;s the same logic - we have relative safety with our high-tech equipment, and we have every right to use it. They don&#39;t have it, and that is their fault, so they should just accept that and die. They wouldn&#39;t have to use human shields, if their country wasn&#39;t invaded.

War is the supension of all ethics, and that is why I oppose it when I think it is unnecessary. You see dropping two nuclear bombs on two civilian targets was backed by the Geneva Convention - that was "proper" warfare, and still that doesn&#39;t appear ethical to me. I know that the coalition forces are trying to obtain their objective with as little damage as possible, and as ethical as possible - but that doesn&#39;t make me feel any better about it, and all the people killed, civilians and soldiers sure don&#39;t care anymore if they&#39;ve been killed by ethical or unethical means.

[Spindulik]

Yes. It could get lenghty. I&#39;ll summerize too.

"Some" of the missles that they used were in violation to what they agreed not to have at all.

Saddam is allowed to have weapons. Just not the ones he agreed not to have. Also, you said the problem was, he increased his armory before 1991 (exactly what we don&#39;t want him to do). There is no problem with that, except that he used them on people without justified reason.

"...there are actually human beings sitting in these targets.". Too bad, it is not as if we didn&#39;t warn them in enough time. Saddam had months, days and hours to do something about it.

"If Saddam had attacked another country before the war...". Remember Kuwait? He even attacks his own country.

I agree with you about the guerilla tactics.

"...would you say that they all should be prepared..". In a sort, yes. Many smaller countries have formed allies. You can never under, or over, estimate the enemy&#39;s strength.

"...if their country wasn&#39;t invaded." This is an invasion of a different type. But it has to be done. If the USA and its allies weren&#39;t doing anything about it, the Iraqi regime would result into a greater threat, not only to its own people, but the rest of the world. Sooner or later, some nation would take a stance against Iraq.

War is tragic. I don&#39;t like it. Personally, I would do "everything humanly possible", before going into a war. I think Bush did almost that, but could have tried a little harder.

------------------------------------
Nice chatting here, with you puremindmatters, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. At the same time, I get to practice my typing skills better.