Iraq

Jammer · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Dec 12 2003, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Dec 12 2003, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The polls surely are evidence of this </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I wouldnt like to 'discredit' a source or anything, but if it were me, Id rather my proof came from somewhere other than www.<b>opinionjournal</b>.com
aside from the domain, its a matter for statisticians (they dont say exactly how small the poll size was, but "our survey was necessarily limited in scope" hints it wasnt 'big')

aside from this is the fact that none of us really have any idea at all what the hell is happening.
after all the spin, propaganda and lies, I cant even be sure my own opinion is valid, let alone anyone elses, not that it ultimatly matters anyway.

/offtopic </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Opinion Journal is the name of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. I linked to an EDITORIAL citing a POLL.

The poll was not created by someone's opinion that "hey, this is whats probably going on." :-)
Also, modern polls are pretty accurate. This wasn't the offical poll release, so they didn't mention the margin of error.

Still, theres nothing 'discrediting' about OpinionJournal.com

In regard to the other part of your post: People assume what they want to assume. I tend to think, and I've found evidence backing me up, that the situation in Iraq is WORLDS better then the mainstream media, who want it to be another vietnam, are portraying it. I'm sure if you were looking for Vietnam proof, you could scrounge up some shaky evidence.

EDIT
I'd just like to reiterate my disgust at calling these terrorists 'Freedom Fighters' trying to 'preserve' their way of life (aka Fascism).

uranium_235 · December 2003

I was going to post a long reply but the sheer idiocy and ignorance coming from Jammer and Forlorn stopped me. Instead I'm going to say this.

<b>THERE'S A BIG freaking DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TERRORIST (READ: TARGETS CIVILIAN AND SOFT TARGETS TO INCITE TERROR) AND SOMEONE KILLING FOREIGN INVADERS.</b>

If both of you can't actually grasp that concept that there's actually MORE THEN ONE IDEALOLOGY IN THE WAY THEY FIGHT then go back to the CStrike forums or whereever you came from. Did I say Terrorists? No, both of you schmucks decided to infer that from my post simply so that you could post flamebait replys. I specifically mentioned IRAQI RESISTANCE FIGHTERS.

Something mentioned in the TIME article: Some guy said that he'd be willing to kill 20 Iraqi civilians to get to 1 GI. Everyone he was with was aghast and said that 'why the hell would we kill who we're trying to protect'. There are nutjobs out there, there's the Syrians, and there's the native Iraqis.

Guess which freaking group I'm talking about?

AAARRGH!

Kheras · December 2003

Was that before or after a Time magazine correspondent had his hand blown off by an improvised grenade that was planted in his vehicle?

Yes there is a difference between a terrorist and a resistance fighter. How a person applies that difference is polluted by point of view. One must also understand there is a difference between what people will tell a reporter and what they actually do.

uranium_235 · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Dec 13 2003, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Was that before or after a Time magazine correspondent had his hand blown off by an improvised grenade that was planted in his vehicle?

Yes there is a difference between a terrorist and a resistance fighter. How a person applies that difference is polluted by point of view. One must also understand there is a difference between what people will tell a reporter and what they actually do.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Well considering the reported had to accompany them everywhere, including a remote missile strike on baghdad airport...

Forlorn · December 2003

From <a href='http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#107064213408292305' target='_blank'>an Iraqi blog</a>.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Several hundred Iraqis protested for peace and against terror yesterday at Fardus square in front of the Palestine and Sheraton hotels. The rally was organized by the Iraqi Democratic Trend, prominent tribal leaders, and clerics from southern Iraq. The demos which were led by children carrying flowers called for immediate steps to be taken by the CPA and GC to put a stop to all violence against Iraqi citizens and coalition forces, and to resinstate the Iraqi army after screening out Ba'athist elements.

Aziz Al-Yassiri secretary of the Iraqi Democratic Trend described the daily attacks in Iraq as acts of terrorism and that any attempt to legitimize or justify these acts as 'resistance' are ridiculous.

Safaa Al-Ajili of the Iraqi Nationalists Movement demanded the closing of borders with neighbouring countries to prevent the infiltration of saboteurs, criminals, and terrorists seeking to destabilize the country and undermine reconstruction efforts.

Protestors carried signs and banners that said 'No to terrorism', 'Yes for peace', 'Iraqis stand united against terror and violence', 'Thanks to CPA soldiers', 'We thank the coalition for our FREEDOM'. (Via Azzaman Baghdad edition)

Here is a photo of the demonstrations scanned from Azzaman paper (poor quality).

Preparations for larger rallies and a national day against terror are still under way and are planned for mid December.

By the way, what the hell are news organizations trying to prove by putting terrorism between idiotic quotation marks like this? I've decided to put quotation marks myself on the following terms: 'news organizations', 'media', 'press', 'coverage, 'reporter', and 'journalist'. F*ing morons.

In the meanwhile please visit this site and get a banner for your website or blog like the one on my sidebar to show your support for the Iraqi demonstrations and peace in Iraq. Encourage as many people as you can to do the same. Many thanks to ManInTheShadows, Ruleta, Bianca, and everyone else for their great efforts.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It's funny how even the Iraqi's don't share your view uranium... curious.

Melatonin · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 13 2003, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> From <a href='http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#107064213408292305' target='_blank'>an Iraqi blog</a>.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Several hundred Iraqis protested for peace and against terror yesterday at Fardus square in front of the Palestine and Sheraton hotels. The rally was organized by the Iraqi Democratic Trend, prominent tribal leaders, and clerics from southern Iraq. The demos which were led by children carrying flowers called for immediate steps to be taken by the CPA and GC to put a stop to all violence against Iraqi citizens and coalition forces, and to resinstate the Iraqi army after screening out Ba'athist elements.

Aziz Al-Yassiri secretary of the Iraqi Democratic Trend described the daily attacks in Iraq as acts of terrorism and that any attempt to legitimize or justify these acts as 'resistance' are ridiculous.

Safaa Al-Ajili of the Iraqi Nationalists Movement demanded the closing of borders with neighbouring countries to prevent the infiltration of saboteurs, criminals, and terrorists seeking to destabilize the country and undermine reconstruction efforts.

Protestors carried signs and banners that said 'No to terrorism', 'Yes for peace', 'Iraqis stand united against terror and violence', 'Thanks to CPA soldiers', 'We thank the coalition for our FREEDOM'. (Via Azzaman Baghdad edition)

Here is a photo of the demonstrations scanned from Azzaman paper (poor quality).

Preparations for larger rallies and a national day against terror are still under way and are planned for mid December.

By the way, what the hell are news organizations trying to prove by putting terrorism between idiotic quotation marks like this? I've decided to put quotation marks myself on the following terms: 'news organizations', 'media', 'press', 'coverage, 'reporter', and 'journalist'. F*ing morons.

In the meanwhile please visit this site and get a banner for your website or blog like the one on my sidebar to show your support for the Iraqi demonstrations and peace in Iraq. Encourage as many people as you can to do the same. Many thanks to ManInTheShadows, Ruleta, Bianca, and everyone else for their great efforts.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It's funny how even the Iraqi's don't share your view uranium... curious.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
i guess discussions like this will never work as long as we assume there is one defining Iraqi voice, which sums up the sentaments of the entire nation.
or there is one defining ideology which sums up the reasons behind every attack on US forces.

following from what uranium already said, what if there are terrorists <b> and </b> freedom fighters?

uranium_235 · December 2003

Look here's part of my blog:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I hate Forlorn I'm going to kill him I hope he dies. I have four pounds of explosives wired to his moms car. I'm the messiah! I'm going to go blow up ALL of New York City on 01/01/2004!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And because it's in my blog, it's a reliable source of information and it MUST be true!

How ******* stupid can you get Forlorn? I can probably find a Blog stating that the holocaust was a ficticious lie, and it MUST BE TRUE!

Kheras · December 2003

There are terrorists and freedom fighters, but the freedom fighters are fighting for a return to power. They are the old regime, and while they are fighting towards a goal, it is not a goal the Iraqi on the street wants to see come to pass.

Joe and Jane Iraq's stance is "Ok, thanks and all, but hurry up and leave plz thx" and it is displayed in demonstrations rather than killin'. Problem is the process of setting up a government is tough because even getting officials seated is like trying to get the EU to agree on the color of s*it.

Jammer · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Dec 13 2003, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look here's part of my blog:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I hate Forlorn I'm going to kill him I hope he dies. I have four pounds of explosives wired to his moms car. I'm the messiah! I'm going to go blow up ALL of New York City on 01/01/2004!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And because it's in my blog, it's a reliable source of information and it MUST be true!

How ******* stupid can you get Forlorn? I can probably find a Blog stating that the holocaust was a ficticious lie, and it MUST BE TRUE!  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Just becuase it is a blog doesn't mean its false. Considerign the source, an actual Iraqi, his views on his country seem more reliable then Johnny P. Journalists. True, I could write about the Holocaust being a lie, but considering I have no credibility in that field, it would be rejected. This person does have credibility in this field.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but despite the tumult of the country, the vast majority of Iraqis are glad to be rid of a murdering oppresive dictator.

Also, you're coming off very insulting to those who don't share your views. Can you tone it down a little? I think your views are pretty out there, but I'm not calling you **** stupid for them.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry to burst your bubble, but despite the tumult of the country, the vast majority of Iraqis are glad to be rid of a murdering oppresive dictator.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's true, most Iraqis are glad to see Saddam go. However, a lot of Iraqis also want to see the US out of Iraq:

<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0526-05.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi army officers protest</a>

<a href='http://www.metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-16/reg/iraqis_protest_against.htm' target='_blank'>April</a>

<a href='http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/6192.html' target='_blank'>More here</a>

<a href='http://www.crienglish.com/144/2003-8-11/64@33703.htm' target='_blank'>In Basra as well</a>

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2959015.stm' target='_blank'>More on April</a>

<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/31/1067597155499.html?from=storyrhs' target='_blank'>Protesters and US forces exchange fire</a>

<a href='http://www.tribalmessenger.org/t-global/protests/mid-east.htm' target='_blank'>Some interesting photos</a>

And yes, there have been protests against the violence. Yet saying that a few hundred people protesting represents the views of the entire nation isn't a legitimate statement. I don't claim that all Iraqis want the US out, or even support the violence. But there are two sides to this arguement, and neither can claim to have all the Iraqi people behind them, or even a majority.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's silly. You and dread have been the major proponents of US criticism when it comes to harming civilians, even accidently- why is it ok or justified for them to target civilians specifically?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

We have? I can't speak for Dread, but I'd like a link to where I said that. Regardless, I'll explain.

If the US had wanted to, they could have bombed residential areas or civilian areas, and that would have been all in line with modern warfare. However, the US didn't want to do that, plus when a nation as powerful as the US comes up against such a pathetically weak nation as Iraq, the international view tends to be that the US should be exercising extreme caution and using it's superiour weapons and technology to minimize casualties. This doesn't change the fact that in modern warfare, everything and everyone is a target, and if the US and say, Russia, ever went to war, you'd find out very quickly that phrases like "minimum collateral damage" and "non-combattents" would go straight out the window.

Turning to fighting against an occupation force, you can see that there are virtually no rules. You are fighting against an opponant who is inevitably larger than you, better equipped and more powerful. Fighting them conventionally will be an absolute disaster; you and your forces will be anhilated in the first engagement. Thus, you strike where the occupiers are weakest, eroding their support and demoralising their forces. Sure, it's an ugly way to fight, but then again all war is ugly and when you consider the situation, you really have no choice in the way you fight; simple logic dictates that.

One way the US could fight back would be to firebomb whole towns that had resisters, or kill 10 Iraqis for every US soldier killed. But the US is worried about world opinion, plus they have voters to worry about, and the people of the western world don't like to see things like that happening. The Iraqis fighting the US arn't burdened by such constraints, and as such they do whatever they please. Reverse the situation, and have US guerillas fighting against Iraqi troops occupying the United States, and you'd find that US citizens would blowing up aid stations and assassinating pro-Iraq Americans.

Thats just what happens when you fight a guerilla war against an occupying army.

Spooge · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 14 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And yes, there have been protests against the violence. Yet saying that a few hundred people protesting represents the views of the entire nation isn't a legitimate statement. I don't claim that all Iraqis want the US out, or even support the violence. But there are two sides to this arguement, and neither can claim to have all the Iraqi people behind them, or even a majority.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Actually, the reports I'm seeing say it was more like 10,000 protesters. But, as the reports are few and very far between, I present a <a href='http://reuters.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=109628' target='_blank'>streaming clip from Reuters.</a> Judge the numbers for yourself.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But the US is worried about world opinion,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
clearly not true.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> plus they have voters to worry about, and the people of the western world don't like to see things like that happening.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
true.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reverse the situation, and have US guerillas fighting against Iraqi troops occupying the United States, and you'd find that US citizens would blowing up aid stations and assassinating pro-Iraq Americans.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
while nobody can say for sure, as I am in fact an American, I can say this is not true.

While reading through some of these blogs, I found a particular entry that really hit me in the soft spot. I present it here as a copy and paste. My apologies for the length but I think it's worth it. Here is a link to the site - <a href='http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com' target='_blank'>Iraqthemodel blog.</a>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>Bon Voyage..!</b>

We didn't know what peace and order look like for a long time. It seems that it's our destiny that the whole world use our small country as a battlefield for long successive wars in which no one cared to ask about our opinion.
The Ba'ath party seizes the power at the beginning of the sixties of the last century in a way that took the Iraqis by surprise, but many countries in the world seemed to know about it long before it happened.
The mission was clear. The communist trend was overwhelming at these times in Iraq as in many countries in the world. Revolution was imminent, so there had to be an opposing revolution that claims to have come to solve the problems and there is no need for another one.
The world seemed to have forgot that tyrants do not differentiate between and opposing party and others. The prosecution did not affect only the communists, but all the other parties as well as independent people. Mission successful. At a rate that only dictators can achieve, and the Iraqi citizens paid the price as their opinion was also arrested. After the communist danger had been eliminated, the tyrant demands his fees; to be kept on power, regardless what the people suffered. He had what he wanted.
The world is alarmed once again by the danger of the Iranian revolution. The Islamic wave might sweep the region. Iraqi people: get prepared for another mission. Fight again on behalf of the others. It doesn't matter what the Iraqis want, the mission was a just cause and suited the tyrant's greed and ambition. We had to live between two hells; the one in the front and the oppression on the inside. The tyrant used the war to justify strangling the peoples freedom and tie their tongs to strengthen his control, killing any hope for a peaceful prosperous life, as the war exhausted the Iraqi economy by the enormous amounts of weapons to which the tyrant had a sick lust and to which the world responded so generously.

Why didn't any one even think of another way to stop those dangers? I personally believe that establishing a democratic state was quiet enough to stop the Iranians' march. The Iraqi people at that time would never had accepted a theocracy and most of the polls regarding this matter found that no more than 10% of Iraqis would accept such a regime, even at the days of that primitive democracy we had before 1958, the clergy never managed to achieve anything worth mentioning. We could have been (armed by democracy) a cultural barrier that stops the export of the Iranian revolution but no one cared to ask us, for who needs to ask 12 million people while you have one man who can speak for them. Just tell him what you want, grant him his simple prize (control of Iraq) and he will force these insignificant 12 million to follow him like sheep.
The world had what it demands. Iran has been exhausted; again the price demanded by the tyrant is the blessing of the world on his leadership. Demands granted.
Another war against our will, the world decides that this bird had left the flock, and his (teeth and claws) should be extracted, the dangerous weapons they gave him for his mission are no longer his, and should be returned. The mission was disarming the crazy tyrant who was no longer under control, and again we paid high price for something we never wanted in the first place. However, this time we had a hope, that along with this disarming process there might be also a process to get rid of the mad dictator who had obviously lost balance and became a threat to the region, and probably the world, if left alone. But the world had another opinion that led to another war of a different pattern.
As the world saw no reliable substitute for the tyrant, the decision was to contain him resulting in another suffering.
Saddam uses the ignorance of the world about the nature of his regime to impose a very hard blockage using the UN sanctions as a justification for our day by day deterioration in every scale.
Here again we paid the price without even being asked about our opinion.
Oh.. Pardon me, but you did ask, and we answered, we voted for him, not all of us, but 99.96 % and four years after that, seeing the glorious achievements of (our savior) even those blind 0.04% saw the (truth). So why bother to ask with such hard evidence.
The danger of the WMD's gets greater and so does the danger of terrorism, the decision was that the whole world should watch and learn. I was wondering at that time wasn't it better to focus on the danger of dictatorships as the major source of all these problems. The US and the UK would have had more legitimacy at least among the oppressed nations.
Yes, they did mention it and I was very glad to hear Mr. Blair state that it is the main reason for his choice and the US also named the operation (Iraqi freedom), but both didn't have the courage to name it as the official cause for war. Surely the other powers would never allow it and would consider it as n interference with the internal affairs of a sovereign country.
But after all, they didn't approve of the official reason also and now we can see the result as most of the world starts to object that the war was illegal, since the claimed reasons seem to be faulty until now.
I think that stating that the real danger was the evil intentions of the mad dictators in possessing as lethal weapons as possible and their readiness to actually use these weapons.
Here are the simple facts that we have: a mad man who controls the resources of an entire country- not a wealthy one, yes- but surely enough to buy the technology for WMD's from the numerous greedy governments and companies, and this man never stopped trying even after destroying his projects several times. Besides he remains as the only man who actually used these weapons (after WW2) against the Iranians and his own people.
With all these facts, and the fact that he was surrounded by enemies (he made) from the outside and the inside, one can understand his feverish lust for these technologies.
Given all these facts, the only reasonable conclusion would be not getting rid of all WMD's (quiet difficult at this time) but get rid of the mad dictator and his like anywhere.
Anyway, this time I had a stand with this war in which I saw my, and my people's benefit, on the long term, no matter what losses and sacrifices.
Yet, this time this was not the only difference, as the whole world stands against the US and her allies in this war, and even after their battle was lost they continue to have the same stand. Why this time you're in such a peaceful mood? You who made us go through all these miseries cheering your mad hero as he slaughters us and send us to the flame in thousands.
Your masks can no longer cover your ugly faces. Just now you remembered that wars are evil and bring only disasters! What about those endless wars you dragged us into? What has suddenly turned you from cold-blooded murderers (at least in the second degree) into peaceful pigeons?
The UN evacuate their officials after a terrorists attack, the media declare war on us, showing the terrorists as resistance, the companies refrain from sending their officials to Iraq in fear from terrorist attacks, the peaceful world supports the (resistance).
Yet, you still have the insolence to demand a share of the contracts of Iraq’s reconstruction process. I was glad to hear what the US had decided about this matter.
Yes there're dangers in Iraq, but what about us? Whom terrorism lives next door or block. Yes you can't afford the loss of your men and your money, but Iraqis? Well... they're used to it, death is a daily routine to them. They don't appreciate life as you do. Let me tell you something, you coward hypocrites, this may surprise you, but I love life, and love my family and friends. I can't bare it if something bad happens to them. Yet I don't intend to run away. I and a lot of my friends could get a job any where, with much better income, but I’m not leaving, not because I’m a patriot, as I don't believe in your classification of human beings; Iraqi, Indian, German, black, white, Jewish, Muslim…etc.
I’m a human being, and I feel responsible towards all mankind, and I will fight this battle with all the good men and women on earth. And you keep watching from a distance, and don't even think of coming near, and carrying the risk of smearing your fancy clothes with (our cheap blood). I don't need you, and even if I did, I won't ask your help, we've had enough of it. Go somewhere else, go to Africa, and relieve your conscience by donating some pennies to the poor, starving people there, and don't bother how their dictators will use the money, and don't even bother asking why they are so poor. I will stay here and fight for freedom and democracy with the good and brave Americans (yes..the good and brave.. Eat your hearts), and with all the honest soldiers and people of the coalition.
Bon voyage to Africa...have some conscience.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>clearly not true.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If the US didn't care at all, they never would have tried to get other nations to go along with them. Plus the US is currently trying to gather support for it's forces in Iraq and the reconstruction process, and bombing civilians tends to put other nations off that sort of thing. The US is aware that it must try and get world opinion on it's side, otherwise the cost of the invasion will spiral to levels where the US will be unable, or rather unwilling, to pay.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, the reports I'm seeing say it was more like 10,000 protesters. But, as the reports are few and very far between, I present a streaming clip from Reuters. Judge the numbers for yourself.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well the reports I've read of the April protests to tell the US to leave said there were between 10,000 - 20,000 people, so for either of our arguements, the numbers seem to be fairly even. Getting precise counts in this kind of situation is, unfortunatly, rather difficult.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>while nobody can say for sure, as I am in fact an American, I can say this is not true.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You say that now. Your nation hasn't been invaded in your lifetime, or even in your fathers' or grandfathers' lifetimes. How can you just assume that if your nation was invaded and occupied, that you wouldn't fight the invaders any way you could? The historical records of invasions during the 20th century show that people resist; be it in Russia, Germany, Poland, Norway, France, China, Yugoslavia, Japan etc, and they resist by any means nessessary. What makes you think that American citizens would just sit back and not oppose an invasion or occupation force?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The mission was disarming the crazy tyrant who was no longer under control, and again we paid high price for something we never wanted in the first place. However, this time we had a hope, that along with this disarming process there might be also a process to get rid of the mad dictator who had obviously lost balance and became a threat to the region, and probably the world, if left alone.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yeah there's just one thing missing there: an actual threat. Saddam's army was a joke as proven by the absolute cake-walk the US had in defeating it, and as for the supposed WMD, well we all know that so far a grand total of zero have been found. I'm sorry but until there is actual proof that these weapon existed AND that if they did exist, that Saddam was preparing to use them against the world and/or give them to terrorists (the same terrorists who so far have also failed to show up), that whole section of the arguement for the war in Iraq is debunked. And unfortunatly for the US, that was the only tentative legal ground upon which the invasion stood. If the US from the beginning had said "We're going into Iraq to free the people" the little support that was present would have vanished. Blair would never have been able to drag the UK into the war and the handfull of other small nations who joined in would have sent the diplomatic equivilant of "Thanks but no thanks".

If you want to get into an arguement about whether the war was justified in the first place, then I'm sure we can go over the points one more time. And this is what will happen: Myself, Nemesis and Dread will say: "The US hasn't found any WMD or terrorist groups" and Spooge, Jammer and Forlorn will say "But we liberated the Iraqi people". That's the only place this arguement goes, and it drags on for 10 pages before being inevitably locked. So let's just not go there.

Aegeri · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When asked, "Ahmed" said that he doesn't fight just to kill Americans, he fights to defend his family, his home, and his way of life. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And then he drives a truck full of explosives into unarmed diplomats, aid stations and similar 'soft' targets. Like any terrorist scum in the world they are only fit to be shot through the head and spat on. Sure some of them may be seen as freedom fighters, but considering the Americans aren't actually trying to opress and kill anyone (like Saddam was) I hardly see how they earn the title. Also the Americans are rebuilding the country (largely out of their own pocket), attempting to give power back to the Iraqis (but they have been terribly slow on this) and the like.

Meanwhile the general scum you praised in that first post blow trucks full of explosives into soft and hard targets, but mostly soft targets now, because they get their **** handed back to them if they attack soldiers. Yeah these are 'freedom' fighters alright, like the IRA were too I suppose? I have imagine that you must think the IRA are 'freedom fighters' as well then, of course, to me who <b>has</b> family who were directly attacked and KILLED by those people, I regard them as nothing more than cowards.

To me in some cases 'freedom fighter' is no better than 'coward'.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I specifically mentioned IRAQI RESISTANCE FIGHTERS.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

How does it matter and where is the definition? Do we define a resistance fighter as the kind that get their **** handed to them by the Americans in their usual failed ambushes? Or do we define a resistance fighter as the cowards who use terrorist tactics. Where is the inherent difference? They are probably the same group of scum overall who probably help plan and supply other groups of scum to kill civilians, Americans, Iraqis who support Americans or whoever else. Where is the difference here again?

Surely you must admire the IRA too then. Then again, the Irish had a better excuse than these 'Freedom fighters' ever will, the English tried to wipe them out culturally, then Cromwell massacred more than 100,000 of them (far more than the war in Iraq EVER killed of Iraqi civilians). I can at least somewhat sympathise with the IRA to a degree, their 'invaders' weren't trying to rebuild the country and give them back power. Then again, I remember that is the same IRA that tried to kill members of my family, and I remember they are just scum again.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Meanwhile the general scum you praised in that first post blow trucks full of explosives into soft and hard targets, but mostly soft targets now, because they get their **** handed back to them if they attack soldiers. Yeah these are 'freedom' fighters alright, like the IRA were too I suppose? I have imagine that you must think the IRA are 'freedom fighters' as well then, of course, to me who has family who were directly attacked and KILLED by those people, I regard them as nothing more than cowards.

To me in some cases 'freedom fighter' is no better than 'coward'.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ah, so when the US invaded Iraq, they should have bought a whole bunch of Mig 19s and flew them around instead of high tech modern fighters and bombers. Oh, and forget stealth; they should be out there in the open so the Iraqi anti-aircraft gunners could have a fair shot at killing them. Tanks? Grab some old T-34s from WWII from some Russian warehouse and paint US flags on them, because again, it's really unfair for US soldiers to be cruising around in virtually inpenetrable armour. That should even the playing field nicely.

Calling these people cowards just because they don't do possibly the stupidest thing they could do and directly attack US soldiers with open military force makes absolutly no sense, as you might as well call every US soldier in Iraq a coward for hiding behind all their high tech weaponry. They attack so called "soft targets" for exactly the same reason as a B-2 stealth bomber blows up a power station: it causes larger amounts of damage to the enemy whilst minimising the potential casualities to yourself. That's sound military logic. Why attack a military convoy and maybe kill 3 soldiers, whilst losing 8 fighters yourself, when you can bomb a diplomatic convoy, make headlines around the world, and make the US look like they can't protect anyone? Why fly a squadren of F-14s directly into a storm of anti-aircraft artillery to try and destroy an artillery emplacement when you can use a B-2 stealth bomber to blast the command centre controlling those guns? If you are going to brand the fighters in Iraq as cowards, then you must also condemn every soldier that has fought for the past 100 years.

Aegeri · December 2003

You know, I don't think I'll respond anymore I'm just going to get **** off.

Suffice to say, I hate terrorists (like this lot) with a passion due to my experiences from Northern Ireland. Anyone who chooses to attack civlian targets is a coward by definition, and it really is that simple.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Don't be stupid, you know fully well what I was meaning.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually no I don't; you accuse these people of being cowards because they don't fight fair, so how is a US soldier who hides behind 2 feet of reactive armour not a coward?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How is blowing up an aid station, killing a diplomat, attacking the UN going to help you at all? In fact, your analogy couldn't get more ridiculous. A power plant is of far more strategic importance than attacking an AID station ffs. Not to mention that doing so DOESN'T KILL YOUR OWN CIVILIANS.

Will terrorism force the Americans out? Did the IRA get the British out of Northern Ireland by terrorising them? WAIT THEY DID NOT! Guess it isn't a great tactic huh? How about the palestinians setting up that state-oh wait, they didn't because terrorism DID NOT GET THE ISRAELIS OUT OF ISRAEL.

Great tactics.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, so what do you think they should do huh? Throw themselves at tanks and US outposts? Because that makes perfect sense, attack the US right where they are strongest.

You say the IRA accomplished nothing. Well what they did manage to do was force the British into a situation where peace was the best option, along with large scale withdrawal from Ireland. I would also say that terrorism contributed quite a bit towards the Russian defeat of Germany, or China fighting off the Japanese. Terrorism in Palestine has also forced Israel to largely withdraw from the West Bank and led to the establishment of a Palestinian state. There, terrorism works.

The aim of these fighters is to get the US out of Iraq. SO OF COURSE UNDERMINING US SUPPORT HELPS THEM DO THAT! That's why you blow up the UN, that's why you blow up diplomatic convoys. Not only does it make other nations unwilling to help the US (and the Red Cross and the UN have left Iraq), it adversely affects the morale of the occupying soldiers and reduces support for the war back in the US or UK. You can't fight an occupying force with brute military force; that's why you try and remove the occupiers without actually fighting them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So you are advocating that blowing up the UN, red cross, unarmed diplomats, journalists and the like is the right way to wage a war? That makes SENSE to you?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yep. 100%. Same as firebombing German cities is the right way to fight a war. Same as nuking Japan wins a war. Everything and everyone is a target; you're either helping the occupiers or you're fighting them. To a resistance organisation there is no middle ground.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They are still cowards. Attacking civilian targets DELIBERATELY is cowardly any way you look at it. Of course, you think that blowing up civilians (non armed troops) is a good idea, congradulations, you would of made a BRILLIANT Goering.

Also to reiterate, you think that the IRA was right? How about the attacks in Turkey?

Let me guess, you think the september 11 attacks were right too? What are you going to have, your cake or eating it?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Goring bombing London wasn't a sound military decision because the Nazis lacked sufficient aircraft and industrial power to defeat the RAF when the efforts of the Luftwaffe were concentrated on destroying London. Firebombing Hamburg was a sound military decision because it directly affected the German war effort, and Britian had the required military power.

If you take the view that the terrorist fighters who undertook S-11 believe that they are fighting a war with the US, then of course it was a legitimate course of action. They attacked an economic and a military target, both of which directly affected the capacity of the United States to fight.

I've already stated that what the IRA does has proven to be of some success. Indeed, most of the troubles are largely over, and the people previously fighting the English now have little reason to.

But I think we're getting confused here, or at least you may be taking this the wrong way. When I say that it makes sense for an Iraqi fighter to blow up an aid station, or a British bomber to firebomb a residential neighbourhood, I don't mean that these actions are morally correct, or indeed "right". No, they simply represent some of the best ways to fight against various foes. It would indeed be lovely if soldiers only fought other soldiers, and the rest of the populations of all the countries involved could just get on with their lives, but sadly that is not the case. Once again, I do not claim that these actions are morally correct. They just make logical sense.

Aegeri · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually no I don't; you accuse these people of being cowards because they don't fight fair, so how is a US soldier who hides behind 2 feet of reactive armour not a coward? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So you CAN'T see the difference between attacking civilians and MILITARY targets.

Are you saying that an aid station presents the same level of threat to a military attack that say even an old anti tank gun does?

Quite frankly, if you can't see how immensely stupid your statement is, there is no hope.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh, so what do you think they should do huh? Throw themselves at tanks and US outposts? Because that makes perfect sense, attack the US right where they are strongest. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

They have free speech now, the Iraqi people are not being stopped from expressing anti-American statements and protests are they? I don't remember the last anti-American protest that was viciously beat down in Iraq.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You say the IRA accomplished nothing. Well what they did manage to do was force the British into a situation where peace was the best option, along with large scale withdrawal from Ireland.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No they didn't actually, try reading. The IRA are DIFFERENT from a certain other fellows lot. One struck military targets primarily while the other (the IRA) were known to plant bombs in shopping malls.

One met their goals and the other failed.

Northern Ireland is STILL not a part of Ireland, so in fact they actually failed in what they set out to do.

Incidently, how about we go to N. Ireland and we'll go to Belfast. You can wear an all green suit and walk down Shankle road. I'll have a stopwatch to time how long it takes for you to get so badly beaten up you'll need to go to a hospital. Then we'll talk about how good you think that 'peace' really is.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would also say that terrorism contributed quite a bit towards the Russian defeat of Germany, </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Very little really, except for a few incidents where railway damage crippled German mobility.

Again, you've missed a valuable point: Did those partisans blow up a civilian train to drive out the Germans? OH WAIT, THEY BLEW UP HARD TARGETS DIDN'T THEY?

Thank you for missing the point a SECOND TIME.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Terrorism in Palestine has also forced Israel to largely withdraw from the West Bank </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, that was international pressure that did that. After each war they have taken massive amounts of territory which they then just GAVE back.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>and led to the establishment of a Palestinian state. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Considering there isn't one, I think you're blatantly stuffed in your facts.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That's why you blow up the UN, that's why you blow up diplomatic convoys. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because they're cowards, that simple. You've missed the point every single time here.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(and the Red Cross and the UN have left Iraq), </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Funny, the UN are still there (Not sure on the red cross, I think they are as well though)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>that's why you try and remove the occupiers without actually fighting them. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And the US is still there, guess they failed and proved themselves animals too.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yep. 100%. Same as firebombing German cities is the right way to fight a war.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So the Dresden firestorm was needed? Actually, no it wasn't.

As for that statement, I suppose you've never actually bothered to look at WHY Stalingrad was a disaster. Or for that matter, why the battle of Britain was lost, then you would know how utterly daft that statement is.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Goring bombing London wasn't a sound military decision because the Nazis lacked sufficient aircraft and industrial power to defeat the RAF when the efforts of the Luftwaffe were concentrated on destroying London.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

yet

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Same as firebombing German cities is the right way to fight a war</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yet, you think the opposite for firebombing allied cities O_o (which actually failed dismally).

Incidently, your reasons are actually pretty wrong because they did have the strength to win the difference came from radar. The Brits knew exactly when they were coming and could react appropriately. When they switched targets from bombing the radar stations and bases to london and the like, that is the decision that lost them the battle of Britain. Had they carried on with the first strategy for a while, they could inevitably done what they wanted as they wouldn't have been able to mount as effective a defence.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Firebombing Hamburg was a sound military decision because it directly affected the German war effort, and Britian had the required military power. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not really, by that stage in the war it was irrelevant. The airpower the allies had allowed them to annihilate entire convoys of German tanks and troops on the roads-not to mention take the roads out entirely. This is where the allied air superiority won them the battle (mixed in with a lot of German incompetence).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They attacked an economic and a military target, both of which directly affected the capacity of the United States to fight. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That is a joke right?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I've already stated that what the IRA does has proven to be of some success.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Uh huh, well you're completely wrong, probably based on the fact you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. On the other hand, <b>that is where my family comes from</b> so I actually know first hand a few things.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Indeed, most of the troubles are largely over, and the people previously fighting the English now have little reason to.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You never understood the point of it did you? No I you did.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, they simply represent some of the best ways to fight against various foes. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But they don't.

Riddle me this: <b>Why has total war NEVER been used after world war 2?</b>

Simple answer is because, IT WAS AN UTTER DISASTER AND DIDN'T WORK.

Terrorist tactics, have to my knowledge never really worked very well at all. Attacking civilian targets in wartime has rarely had a positive effect for the attacking side. The switch in the battle of Britian didn't bring the surrender Hitler wanted, it strengthened the British will to fight. The IRA's terrorist tactics just had them booted out on their rear end and they lost their chance to unite Ireland (which is you realise, the entire point of why they attacked). The palestinians are still stateless and are randomly booted out whenever the Israelis feel like it. Bombing Stalingrad to ruins basically made perfect defensive territory for the Russians and severely crippled the Germans mobility making a meat grinder (cemented Russian will to fight as well).

The difference you aren't seeing is that DELIBERATELY attacking a civilian target is cowardly in ANY respect. That is what terrorists, not soldiers, do.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Riddle me this: Why has total war NEVER been used after world war 2?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Nuclear weapons. Major nation conflict has not occured, and as such total war hasn't been used. Simple.

You're never going to accept that a civilian is a legitimate military target and you're never going to convince me otherwise. So let's just leave the whole mess here; it's 11:30pm and I'm tired of argueing.

Aegeri · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nuclear weapons. Major nation conflict has not occured, and as such total war hasn't been used. Simple.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Except they could of done this in both Vietnam and in Korea (though to a limited extent) if they had wanted to. There have been many other wars where striking at civilian cities in an attempt to demoralise the population and force a surrender could have been used, but this has not occured.

The simple answer is (and one that most historians would back me on) is that it failed.

And it did.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're never going to accept that a civilian is a legitimate military target </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Don't worry, you lost before you began <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

You've not got ONE example to back up your statment at all. I have, well, history to prove mine basically. Again, total war did fail dismally in both theory and in practice. Unless you can MAGICALLY make Britain surrender, Stalingrad a success or end World War 2 prematurely then you've got no point.

RyoOhki · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Except they could of done this in both Vietnam and in Korea (though to a limited extent) if they had wanted to. There have been many other wars where striking at civilian cities in an attempt to demoralise the population and force a surrender could have been used, but this has not occured.

The simple answer is (and one that most historians would back me on) is that it failed.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now that's strange. Here's me, 3rd year of studying a double history major at university, with electives in politcal science, and I've never heard any lecturer say that the reason major war hasn't occured is because it was a failure. How exactly was it a failure?

If you look at Vietnam, or Korea, you'll see that indeed the North Vietnamese and North Koreans did mobilise their countries towards total war and carried out attacks against the civilian populations of their enemies. The US in both cases didn't have to mobilise their entire populace towards war because the threat wasn't large enough and conventional US forces could do the job. If the US had adopted a doctrine of total war in Vietnam and firebombed just about the entire nation, yeah they would have won. Their foe was using total war doctrine and managed to win. Likewise in Korea; if the US had blasted the North apart and then nuked the Chinese troops that crossed into the North, the war would have ended much sooner.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Unless you can MAGICALLY make Britain surrender, Stalingrad a success or end World War 2 prematurely then you've got no point</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh that's hilarious. Tell me, how do you think Britian won, or how did the Russians defeat the Germans? Total war; they mobilised their entire nations towards the war effort. Germany did as well, but if your opponant is also using total war then you still need to have a larger industrial force and population to win. You saying that Germany lost despite using total war doctrine COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that Germany's opponants used total war doctrine to WIN.

And by the way, allowing your personal feelings to influence your views in a debate? Bad idea. Really bad idea.

Burncycle · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yep. 100%. Same as firebombing German cities is the right way to fight a war. Same as nuking Japan wins a war. Everything and everyone is a target; you're either helping the occupiers or you're fighting them. To a resistance organisation there is no middle ground. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I disagree personally. While you defend the logic of the extremists, you would get **** if WE started doing this today.

We hold ourselves to a higher standard. That puts us at a disadvantage, but whatever. I find it ironic though that several forum goers would complain about the accidental death of one civilian by western forces (namely america), yet defend the logic and reasoning (essentially justifying) attacking civilian aid stations!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Major nation conflict has not occured, and as such total war hasn't been used. Simple. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

We had major conflicts on at least 4 occasions since WWII.

All of those with the exception of this one were military successes even without indescrimiant targeting of civilians. Without total war.

On the other hand, all were political failures. Korea isn't over yet, it's still officially just a truce. Vietnam was a political boondoggle. 1991 was politically considered a failure to "finish the job". And now this.

Snidely · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 14 2003, 07:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But I think we're getting confused here, or at least you may be taking this the wrong way. When I say that it makes sense for an Iraqi fighter to blow up an aid station, or a British bomber to firebomb a residential neighbourhood, I don't mean that these actions are morally correct, or indeed "right". No, they simply represent some of the best ways to fight against various foes. It would indeed be lovely if soldiers only fought other soldiers, and the rest of the populations of all the countries involved could just get on with their lives, but sadly that is not the case. Once again, I do not claim that these actions are morally correct. They just make logical sense. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So, you can respect people who make decisions which are not "morally correct"? I can't. Even if it did "make sense" - contentious, to say the least, since terrorism usually hardens opposition, not weakens it. But there's no real point in debating it, since you have your opinion, and I have mine.

What really prompted me to post was the fact that you suggested the firebombings (Dresden, I presume) made sense. I mean...Christ.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Ryo and Aeg, stop personally attacking each other, or you will both lose your discussion posting rights. Based on your previous posts, I would suggest not replying in this topic any more, either of you. This is your only warning.

Jammer · December 2003

Those noble freedom fighters struck again in support of their way of life, murdering 17 Iraqis with a car bomb.

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105704,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105704,00.html</a>

Forlorn · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Dec 14 2003, 08:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're never going to accept that a civilian is a legitimate military target </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Don't worry, you lost before you began <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

You've not got ONE example to back up your statment at all. I have, well, history to prove mine basically. Again, total war did fail dismally in both theory and in practice. Unless you can MAGICALLY make Britain surrender, Stalingrad a success or end World War 2 prematurely then you've got no point.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I know total war worked VERY well in the American Civil war. It was one of the ways the North finally crushed the south, because the north just couldn't manage to pull off a military victory after trying for several years.

Of course, there was a lot of rebuilding to do, but hey, the United States remains united to this date.

I know you aren't allowed to respond to this thread Aegeri, so you can just PM me if you feel this is worthwhile.

But basically my oppinion is that total war works well in <b>civil</b> wars, and has helped to win many civil wars. I think you should find history agrees with me.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Dec 14 2003, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Those noble freedom fighters struck again in support of their way of life, murdering 17 Iraqis with a car bomb.

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105704,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105704,00.html</a>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
No one is going to reply Jammer. Being able to admit that you're wrong and out of line is not a characteristic of these discussion forums. Heads in the sand, they'll just let this topic slide away into obscurity instead of acknowleding their naivete.

For what it's worth, good post.

Jamil · December 2003

Where have you been, Jammer? The Iraqi resistance has been killing collaborators since the beginning. But wait, it's not only the resistance that's killing Iraqi police!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Iraqi police officers told the BBC that two police cars, one unmarked, had been chasing a van when one of their colleagues opened fire to try to make the van stop.

The police said that nearby US troops then opened fire, hitting the unmarked police car and killing one of the officers inside.

Another uniformed officer in the car got out with his hands above his head but the police said he, too, was shot.

The driver of the car said he was kicked and beaten by US soldiers.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3141785.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3141785.stm</a>

Oops. Must be some of that human rights in action. And this is not an isolated incident.

So what am I trying to prove here? That my argument is invalid, just as yours is. Resistance kills Iraqi police and so does the US. No distinction about it. Neither side trusts the police because nobody is sure what side they are on.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Uh, you make a rather large mistake here Jamil - the point is that the US does not intentionally kill police. It was clearly an accident, as is described at length in your article. On the other hand, these insurgents have killed 22 policemen and wounded twice as many in the past two days, deliberatly setting off bombs next to police stations. Those two incidents are in no way analogous.

Let's run down a short list of brave freedom fighter attacks, courtesy of <a href='http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=422416&section=news' target='_blank'>Reuters</a>

June 30 - An explosion beside a mosque in Falluja kills nine Iraqis, including an imam.

July 5 - A blast kills seven Iraqi police recruits at their graduation ceremony in Ramadi.

Aug 7 - A truck bomb explodes outside the Jordanian embassy compound in Baghdad, killing 17 people, wounding more than 60.

Aug 16 - Six Iraqis are killed and 59 wounded in a mortar bomb attack on Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Aug 19 - A truck bomb devastates the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people, including top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, in the worst-ever attack on a U.N. civilian complex.

Aug 29 - A car bomb kills at least 83 people, including top Shi'ite Muslim leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, and wounds some 175 at the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf.

Oct 9 - Two suicide bombers kill eight Iraqis at a police station in Sadr City, northeast Baghdad.

Oct 12 - Six Iraqis are killed and dozens wounded in a blast outside the Baghdad hotel on Baghdad's main street.

Oct 27 - Bombers strike four times in Baghdad killing at least 35 people near a Red Cross building and three police stations. Some 230 people are wounded.

Nov 12 - A car bomb kills at least 28 people including 19 Italians and nine Iraqis in Nassiriya.

Nov 22 - Suicide bombers detonate cars packed with explosives outside Baquba's police headquarters and a police station in the nearby town of Khan Bani Saad killing at least 18.

Dec 9 - Forty-one U.S. soldiers are wounded when a car driven by a suicide bomber explodes near their base in Mosul. A car bomb at a Sunni mosque in Baghdad kills three people.

Dec 14 - A car bomb rips through a police station in Khalidiyah in western Iraq, killing at least 17 people and wounding 33.

Dec 15 - Suicide car bombings at two Baghdad area police stations kill nine people.

My, what brave and resourceful freedom fighters! They blow up mosques, red cross workers, policemen, hotel employees, Imans, and other viscious threats.

Pathetic. Defending their actions is like defending the Nazi 'SS Werewolf' raiders that assassinated german civil servants that cooperated with the allied occupiers in the closing days of WW2. They're just trying to keep the people under their boot, like they have for the past 30 years.

tbZBeAst · December 2003

Yeah, I have to say despite my feelings about the origins of the war, I wholeheartedly condemn the "freedom fighters"

If the issue of your freedom is that important, how come you didn't self-detonate when Saddam was in power?

Why haven't you given the US a chance, and actually waited to see what they do for your country - chances are they'll put in place the mechanism for their own removal.

Who exactly are you helping by killing anyone? Even if ideologically you hate the Americans, it doesn't take a "baby milk" reentry module designer to work out that responding to an aggressor with aggression leads to escalation...

Jamil · December 2003

That's great, Monse. Throw a bunch of locations and body counts, but for convenience lets make assumptions as to the perpetrators. For all you know, half of those could be the Mossad or US soldiers. I gave an article that explicitly displayed US brutality against Iraqi police. Your reply doesn't hold a candle to that in terms of credibility.

Muslims, shiite or sunni do not blow up mosques. Islam condemns the targetting of civilians. Police on the other hand are not civilians. They carry guns and they work for the US, earning US currency. It's sad that the US has to use them as cannon fodder, because some of them are my muslim brothers just looking to make a living.

I don't deny that some locals are probably targetting Red Cross workers and civilians, but those are probably just deseperate Baathists. Please don't mix up mujahideen with Saddam's fidayeen. They are seperate groups.

Iraq

Comments