Sayonara Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 We need soldiers disguised as journalist, who spot militants and kill them. How many times have I seen video or photographs of militants, militants who kill U.S. soldiers, right there in front of the camera? A ripe time for death if you ask me. You don't think that might make journalists etc valid targets in the eyes of these militants?
matter Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 A large convoy is just asking to be attacked. Remember, a lot of these militant fighters show little regard for their own life - if you've got a huge convoy of troops going around, and then some guy with a pretty powerful bomb strapped to his back comes along and blows himself up, you're going to kill/maim a lot more of the soldiers. Hm, I tend to think a larger convoy would be less of a target for militants. What's more attractive for an attack, a small patrol with a few Humvees, or a large mobilization with air support and a large amount of troops? Certainly 10 or 20 militants are not going to capture soldiers out of a convoy of 200 troops. Some of the soldiers may die in attacks but that can't be prevented in this situation. What happens when the public find out about this, and sees pictures of firstly a load of Iraqis getting slaughtered by these militants, and then the US army mowing them down? There'll be an outcry. Remember, this is a politically biased war, more than anything else, and public opinion plays a majorly large role in what's going on out there. I don't think the militants would slaughter the citizens, and if they did, it SHOULD bring the public against them. I meant more along the lines of food, power and work. You don't think that might make journalists etc valid targets in the eyes of these militants? Of course I thought of that. Maybe field reporters should be banned. Not totally, but they shouldn't be in active areas. So who's going to report the news you ask? Were there field reporters during WW2? No, and the news got around as was necessary.
Dave Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 I don't think the militants would slaughter the citizens, and if they did, it SHOULD bring the public against them. I meant more along the lines of food, power and work. Remember what the guy that used to be in power did?
YT2095 Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 hang tough until the hand over, and get out of there, until then, NEVER negotiate with terrorist, hostages or not!
matter Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 Very true. But if they don't like being treated that way, what's stopping them from cooperating?
atinymonkey Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Answers in hindsight:- question or two Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh)' date=' if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people against war believe that saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. If we go to war, and he uses them, will this change your mind about the war? [/quote'] There never were any WMD. Apparently both Bush and Blair knew this, and the real reason to go to Iraq was because, um ...*cough* ...*bad*..... *mutter* .....*freedom* ....*democracy* which is obviously what was inferred by the pre war reports. What if Al Quaeda is found to be directly connected to iraq somehow, will this change your mind? Still no link. Actually, whatever happened to Al Quaeda and the 'War on Terror'? The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If either of the two aforementioned scenarios are found to be true, were we right in invading Iraq? You would have been right, but apparently national security was never an issue. We misheard Bush, he was talking about metaphorical weapons. High ranking defectors from Iraq have already stated that Saddam will use biological/chemical weapons against our soldiers, so I wouldn't be too suprised if they do have some stashed away.. Apparently, the high ranking defectors never existed. Plus, nobody ever mentioned them. Sorry. I just felt a before/after view would be funny
JaKiri Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Still no link. Actually, whatever happened to Al Quaeda and the 'War on Terror'? They're in Afghanistan, and they're winning. [edit] The Taliban, that is.
blike Posted July 16, 2004 Author Posted July 16, 2004 Answers in hindsight:- There never were any WMD. Apparently both Bush and Blair knew this' date=' and the real reason to go to Iraq was because, um ...*cough* ...*bad*..... *mutter* .....*freedom* ....*democracy* which is obviously what was [i']inferred[/i] by the pre war reports. Honestly now, I'd like some evidence to support that assumption. I'll respond to the rest of the post later.
atinymonkey Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction:- http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
Tesseract Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 They're in Afghanistan' date=' and they're winning. [edit'] The Taliban, that is. The US should have never left Afganistan (for the most part there still remained a few)
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 The US never HAD Afghanistan, outside of the major cities. Now they only really 'have' Kabul.
BeckyK Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Are they really "winning" in Afganistan? How so? atinymonkey- I 100% agree with you. There we no WMD. I never supported the attack on Iraq and it really disgusts me now.
matter Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I don't think the strategy was ever to conquer Afghanistan. I think the priority was just to set up operations and try to gather intelligence on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That could be the reason why there isn't a huge number of troops in that country.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 That's right. How many times do I have to post the link where we found shells containing sarin in Iraq?
atinymonkey Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 That's right. How many times do I have to post the link where we found shells containing sarin in Iraq? Untill you actually read the report, you can shut up about them. 3 dud shells do not a holocaust bring.
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Besides, there is no proof that the shells were there before the war started. The WMDs used to kill kurds were given by the US!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 3? http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5568967 http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1551580,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html More than that.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Besides, there is no proof that the shells were there before[/i'] the war started. The shells, which date from before Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait Ahem.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Are they really "winning" in Afganistan? How so? I'd say that controlling most of the country counts as 'winning'. [edit] That's the taliban and the warlords; they're not the same group, but I used the word 'taliban' as shorthand, as it didn't really matter.
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 FOX news, according to my sources, misguided 95+% of viewers on the war in Iraq. Moreover, FOX news would put anything -correct or false- on their media stations to make their point.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Are you refuting my claims? There were two other sources there.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 FOX news, according to my sources, misguided 95+% of viewers on the war in Iraq[/b']. Moreover, FOX news would put anything -correct or false- on their media stations to make their point. What about the other 5%? How did they misguide them? What are your sources?
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Are you refuting my claims? Are you strawmanning ATM?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I'm sorry, I don't know what strawmanning means.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I'm sorry, I don't know what strawmanning means. That's irrelevent. What is relevent is you have completely ignored his comments.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now