Matzi Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 From the pictures I see on TV and the things I hear this war is not as "human" as was promised I think by the US and GB. I mean, one of Bush's main intentions was to "free" the Iraqi people. I do not know what he means by this but as I think freeing people does not include to kill them (even if they might be freed in a way as well). What do you think about it?
Radical Edward Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 the US and UK never denied that there would be civilian casualties. Indeed, if the Iraqi forces had done what was asked i.e. just let us take out your leadership and we will let the rest of you live... then there would probably have been far less killing. however, the people who set up places like this aren't going to just give up.
Matzi Posted April 4, 2003 Author Posted April 4, 2003 But this does not justify throwing cluster bombs on civilian houses whcih by the way is quite senseless.
fafalone Posted April 4, 2003 Posted April 4, 2003 If the Iraqi people choose to let their government use them as human shields, they know full well they may be killed by our bombs. Your perception of the regime is so incredibly warped. Do you know why civilian targets are being struck? The regime is hiding weapons and soldiers and leadership there.
blike Posted April 6, 2003 Posted April 6, 2003 If the Iraqi people choose to let their government use them as human shields, they know full well they may be killed by our bombs. What do you mean chose?? These guys are shooting women who merely wave at US forces. You actually think they have a choice in the matter?
Sayonara Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 Originally posted by blike What do you mean chose?? These guys are shooting women who merely wave at US forces. You actually think they have a choice in the matter? LOL Blike, you and your crazy warped perceptions.
Radical Edward Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi But this does not justify throwing cluster bombs on civilian houses whcih by the way is quite senseless. your argument here is fundamentally flawed... it is not the house that is the target, it is the troops that are using them. I see no point in discussing your standpoint without sufficient information to judge whether the alleged attack was a valid one or not.
atinymonkey Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 Well, almost all of the evidence that can be found is biased. The only western reporters are led round by the US/UK troops. The reports of attacks are fed through the military, the civilian reports are contradictory and pander to whatever the reporters happen to be making a point about. There are no impartial reports from the area, but we can make logical assumptions that innocent civilians have died as a direct result of actions performed by both sides in the conflict. The American military like to use terms like 'surgical attacks' as they infer a use of tactics that will keep the civilian population safe. However they never say that 'surgical attacks' could mean napalming the whole area, the definition is whatever they decide after the event. In the meantime, the voters at home are content that the act of war is 'surgical' so won't be nasty or messy in any way, so they can igonre it and get back to muching donuts.
Radical Edward Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 indeed, ones opinion shouldn't really be swung either way by the media until you have got sufficient independent evidence to support a given case. for example in matzi's case above, there could be reasons for civilian housing getting hit by cluster bombs, such as them being full of soldiers (it is well known that they are hiding out in schools and hospitals, knowing that the US and UK will not strike them) or even a mistake.
atinymonkey Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 Or on purpose, it's not as if the US and the UK are a bunch of Saints themselves. It wouldn't be the first time either country had attacked civilians.
Radical Edward Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 possibly, though I would say unlikely. there would be nothing to gain from it.
atinymonkey Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 What, from the US attacking civilians? Unlikely you say? Ever heard of a small country called Japan? You may have missed it, but the US dropped two atomic weapons on the country. Not to mention the atrocitys in Vietnam, Naplam that village? Ok, why not?
Matzi Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward [...] there would be nothing to gain from it. I wouldn't exclude that. I think its rather the opposite. I mean, have you heard of the plans the US government has? Having Iraq organized by American leaders would certainly not be liked and wished by every Iraqi. Just one example.
fafalone Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Apparently you haven't. Find me any source besides biased leftist ones that the US will be placing American leaders in power. Our government has repeatedly discussed its plans for a post-war Iraq, and that's not part of it.
Radical Edward Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi I wouldn't exclude that. I think its rather the opposite. I mean, have you heard of the plans the US government has? Having Iraq organized by American leaders would certainly not be liked and wished by every Iraqi. Just one example. how does this relate to the US purposely bombing civilians though? you're not seriously saying that they are embarking on a sort of political genocide, where everyone with an opposing view is targetted with a cluster bomb attack?
Radical Edward Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Apparently you haven't. Find me any source besides biased leftist ones that the US will be placing American leaders in power. Our government has repeatedly discussed its plans for a post-war Iraq, and that's not part of it. In the short term, it is will known that the US will control Iraq, for as much as 6 months, probably more. you can find this sort of thing on CNN and the BBC alone.
Matzi Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Apparently you haven't. Find me any source besides biased leftist ones that the US will be placing American leaders in power. Our government has repeatedly discussed its plans for a post-war Iraq, and that's not part of it. Read it in my newspaper. The plan including the formation of four governmental districts in Iraq under leadership of some Americans. There were at least two generals and one former ambassador of ... don't remember that. Even if this were wrong: What would your government do? Having an Iraqi leading the state? From which ethnic should he be? There are many problems to solve and that certainly won't be possible without UN involvement as far as I see this.
fafalone Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 For accusing me of pro-war propaganda, you are sure putting out alot of anti-war propaganda. The US has never said it had a desire or plan to rule Iraq, period.
atinymonkey Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 This seems to be decending into a slagging match, What is proposed to happen is a group of formation of four governmental districts in Iraq under the direction of the Allies (US and UK) in order to put in place a democratic system that will enable the country to vote for local leaders and a government. Much like the UK forced the US to do when it was colonised. The governmental districts will be lead by the hand for the first few years, probably by the US given the UK's attempt at this in the 20 century, to enable the rebuilding of Iraq to happen without private citizens stealing the countrys cash reserves. However the intention is to only be in place to facilitate the restructuring of the country (socially and economically) and enable the country to be self sufficent again. The simple fact is no one want's to stay in the middle east, especially not in Iraq.
atinymonkey Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 And here is the plan http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2929365.stm subject to change, of course.
Matzi Posted April 9, 2003 Author Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone For accusing me of pro-war propaganda, you are sure putting out alot of anti-war propaganda. The US has never said it had a desire or plan to rule Iraq, period. 1) I'm not presenting any kind of propaganda. 2) look at atinymonkey's posts 3) Even if this plan was not published, don't you think there is one. I mean, I do not think that Bush invades Iraq without having plans for the future. That would really be nonsense and you have certainly will agree with me in that point.
fafalone Posted April 9, 2003 Posted April 9, 2003 Of course there will be a period without Iraqii leadership, this is INEVITABLE. We don't have a desire to rule Iraq and a government of Iraqis will be in place as soon as its possible.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2003 Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Of course there will be a period without Iraqii leadership, this is INEVITABLE. We don't have a desire to rule Iraq and a government of Iraqis will be in place as soon as its possible. I don't think "rule" is exactly what Matzi means, despite the actual use of the word.
fafalone Posted April 9, 2003 Posted April 9, 2003 An interrim US government until an Iraqi one can be formed sure beats anarchy, or a UN government with their record.
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