[Kazan]

this city shot down a blackhawk last november and then danced on the wreakage.

this place is the last holdout of pro-saddamites.

One well placed line of precision guided 500lb bombs across the bridge and right down the main road at midnight - minimial causaulties, min housing destruction, etc - but one hell of a wakeup call

[Bobboau]

actualy with this groupe it might encurage them, if they think what there doing is causeing any change in our behavior the'll probly see it as a sign of them haveing an effect

[Kazan]

no matter what we do the will continue

if we do nothing? they must be scared of us! kill more of them!
if we retaliate? those bastards! kill them!

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
if we do nothing? they must be scared of us! kill more of them!
if we retaliate? those bastards! kill them!

Sounds like Sandwich's neck of the woods.

[Nico]

Is that about what I saw yesterday ( or the day before ) on the news ? They were dragging burnt to death bodies behind cars in the streets of whatever city. Quite awful images...

[Kazan]

mikhael: it IS sandwich's neck of the woods

[mikhael]

I meant more specifically, Kazan. Iraqi/US relations are beginning to sound more and more like Israeli/Palestinian relations.

[Unknown Target]

See, it goes against all rules of warfare which I believe in. If you kill a person, at least respect who and what they were, and who they were fighting for. Uday and Qusay were shown around (not mutilated), as proof that they were actually killed.
However, these Iraq "Freedom Fighters" mutilated and humiliated these people. Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.


While war is never the best option, it is often times the last option (even though that wasn't so in the Iraq War 2's case). I think that the "honorable" age of combat ended with World War II. Back then, everyone was involved in the war effort, the soldiers were welcomed as heroes, and tales of bravery showed in the papers. Right now, you can't even tell we're at war, which is really sickening. All you people up in the states go to the mall, hang out with freinds, bla bla bla, and yet people are fighting and dying out there, with no recognition except maybe a small homecoming party.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
See, it goes against all rules of warfare which I believe in. If you kill a person, at least respect who and what they were, and who they were fighting for. Uday and Qusay were shown around (not mutilated), as proof that they were actually killed.
However, these Iraq "Freedom Fighters" mutilated and humiliated these people. Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.


While war is never the best option, it is often times the last option (even though that wasn't so in the Iraq War 2's case). I think that the "honorable" age of combat ended with World War II. Back then, everyone was involved in the war effort, the soldiers were welcomed as heroes, and tales of bravery showed in the papers. Right now, you can't even tell we're at war, which is really sickening. All you people up in the states go to the mall, hang out with freinds, bla bla bla, and yet people are fighting and dying out there, with no recognition except maybe a small homecoming party.

Of course, it's worth noting that Vietnam was the first war with TV coverage..... people became aware then of what war was really like - not the gallant, brave effort it was shown as during WW2 (and presumably the korean war).  And, of course, back then we (i.e. the Allies as they were) were actually fighting for the right to exist as nations - not invading small near-3rd world countries under spurious justification.

Now, on this whole topic I don't think it should considered acceptable to mutilate anyone once they're dead.  But at the same time it's dangerous for the US to react heavy handidly - not only is there the risk of increasing reciprocal violence, but there may also be the political issue if (if?) it appears that the US cares more for it's own, than for the Iraqis.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.

Their cause was the almighty dollar, and that doesnt earn them a whole pile of respect in my book.

[mikhael]

So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?

[kasperl]

Mik: no, but if you are going in just for the pay, and in a conflict you have no purpose in, I have a lot less respect then someone who goes into combat to defend his country, or to defend allies he or his country's leader has sworn to protect.

Also, mercenaries are going in for nothing but the money. Most of em would just as well fight for the other side the moment the pay was better. That is not someone I'd respect. If someones only reason to join an army was money, I'd have my doubts too. Those doubts would mostly concern the country that person is coming from, and it's welfare and education system in particular. I mean that if either the army pays so much it is a better source of revenue than a normal job, then the country is either preparing for war and doesn't want to conscript, or it has money left over. If the welfare is so much crap that someone is forced in the service, that is even more wrong.

[Unknown Target]

If they were mercenaries, well, they were still fighting. And I don't think they should be mutilated, especially the way they were (burned, dismembered, hanged), nomatter who they are. I would say the same thing if likewise was done to Bin Ladin himself. He is still a combatant, and is privy to certain forms of respect.

EDIT: Don't get the wrong idea, I want to see Bin Ladin dead. It's just that mutilation and public embarrassment (about the closest word) is just wrong.

[kasperl]

UT: I was only responding to Mik's question. I condemn this.

[Gank]

Originally posted by mikhael
So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?

Lets give both of us a bit of credit here and presume we know the difference between a soldier who follows orders and a mercenary who chooses his line of work. Not saying they deserved what happened to them but at the end of the day they chose to be there. For money.

UT, they dont fight, they guard Bechtel, Halliburton etcs profit making

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mikhael
So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?

Bingo. If you are not willing to fight for no pay, that means either the conflict doesn't involve you, and you should stay the hell away, or you are not fighting not for freedom, peace or whatever but for power, usually someone else's.

Think about this for a second. If we were to simply take away every soldier's pay, very few would fight in America's wars, which are always offensive. The only time that people would be willing to fight for no pay would be when they are either defending their homeland or when they are fighting for an ideal they believe very strongly enough. No one would fight in wars of conquest, because they don't get a piece of the pie in the end.

Seems like a wonderful system to me, if it could be implemented. By its nature, it makes wars of conquest and subjugation almost impossible. Even with all the "Go go America, kill the dirty terrorist bastards" talk around the States, how many soldiers do you think would be willing to be shipped overseas for no pay whatsoever? Not many I would think.

________

Oh and, as for the brutality, I believe that TV news stations should show more of it, both Iraqis and Americans. If people see the realities of war, they are much less likely to support them. On CNN, they show a nightvision shot from an airplane of a missle hitting a warehouse, and them boom. Thats too sterile. You don't see the guys who got burned alive, the guys who are missing half of their bodies, the guys who simply exploded into red mist, the guys with their brains and guts seeping out. If you are too squemish to handle that kind of stuff, then the answer is simple: don't support the ****ing war in the firstplace. People need to see what their taxdollars and their support is doing, they need to see the consequences of their actions.

[Unknown Target]

Rictor: I don't think that's going to happen. The recent trend in war coverage seems to be the sterile video game aspect. You see TV guided bombs hitting targets, gunfire over the horizon, but nothing that would actually make you think you're watching a war.

Besides, I still don't think anyone, regardless of who you are, should be mutilated in the way that the Iraqis did. It's despicable. Sure, fight for your freedom, but do it honorably, not like the barbarians you say the US is.

[ionia23]

See, it's a catch-22.  The actual response and the correct response will be 2 different things.

In the actual response, it'll be door to door searches, arrests, blah blah.

In the correct response, it would be like a 400+ cruise-missle strike on the city as a whole.  Indisriminate targeting with no warning whatsoever.  The message being "Sucks when we play by your rules, doesn't it?"

Of course, it wouldn't work.  You can't "rebuild" something on one side and keep leveling everything else.  Besides, the outrage expressed by even our allies would be pretty phenomenal.  I'd rather we just withdraw all our troops overnight from the whole of the middle east and let nature take it's course.

What I love is all the bleeding hearts out there crying about the "poor innocent Iraqis" being stomped by our vicious troops.  You don't hear any of them crying about the tens of thousands mercilessly crushed under Hussein, nooo.  The only bad guy on the planet is America and America is solely repsonsible for anyone's woes anywhere.

It'd be nice if some of you would do a little reading up on the zero-sum theory.

Success rarely breeds popularity.  It's no wonder so many people hate America.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23
What I love is all the bleeding hearts out there crying about the "poor innocent Iraqis" being stomped by our vicious troops.  You don't hear any of them crying about the tens of thousands mercilessly crushed under Hussein, nooo.  The only bad guy on the planet is America and America is solely repsonsible for anyone's woes anywhere.

It'd be nice if some of you would do a little reading up on the zero-sum theory.

Success rarely breeds popularity.  It's no wonder so many people hate America.

The reason I'm not *****ing about Hussien is

a) His reign of terror is over. America's doesnt' look like its going anywhere soon, so they have the potential to cause much more damage in the world.

b) While Saddam was commiting his atrocities, I wassn't old enough to be really thinking of world politics.

Originally posted by ionia23
See, it's a catch-22.  The actual response and the correct response will be 2 different things.

In the actual response, it'll be door to door searches, arrests, blah blah.

In the correct response, it would be like a 400+ cruise-missle strike on the city as a whole.  Indisriminate targeting with no warning whatsoever.  The message being "Sucks when we play by your rules, doesn't it?"

Yes, and since when have the Iraqis targeted civilians? Thats not playing "by ther rules", thats genocide. Can you make the disticntion between civilians in their own country and soldiers occupying a foreign country. You kill their soldiers, they kill your soldiers, its called a ****ing war. Or do you think they should just lay down their arms because killing American soldiers is evil?

[Rictor]

Life of an average American soldier

Lived his whole live in freedom
Lived his whole life in *relative* wealth
Fight for money
Fights a war of agression in a foreign nation
Occupies a sovereign country
Recieves good pay for his service, or excellent (100k+) if he is a "defense contractor"
Has superior traning
Has superior equipment, technology and recon.
Low probablilty he will be killed.
His wife and kids are safely at home, on the other side of the world.



Life of an average Iraqi resitance fighter

Lived his whole live under Saddam's tyranny.
Fights for the safety and freedom of his family and his nation.
Fights with inferior technology
Fights against overwhelming odds (numbers, tech, recon etc)
Recieves little pay
Has his possession looted, and his family humiliated
Good probability he will be killed


now, who am I supposed to feel sorry for again? Which of these men is the honourable one?