Reply With Quote
I don't think Yoni was saying all muslims are evil...just the ones that strap bombs to themselves or kids for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. I would agree.
I don't think the people who are putting explosives on disabled children so they may blow themselves and hundreds of countrymen up while they are trying to vote for a new goverment are fighting for their country or their people. Releasing flyers warning everyone who wants to vote that the streets will be filled with their blood is not a very patriotic message if you ask me. The people who are conducting these attacks know they can't survive in a society that is run by choice and governed by fear. They are fighting for the control they are losing to the people they have held down for many years.
This is nothing like WW2. It is different from Viet Nam as well for Iraq lacks the backing from a large well resourced foe. There is no "Northern Iraq" to parallel North Korea. I think the elections prove that a MAJORITY of Iraqi's want to establish their own goverment, which is free and for the people.
I don't think Yoni was saying all muslims are evil...just the ones that strap bombs to themselves or kids for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. I would agree.
What countries do the occupied terretories come come from? Do you punish the people for stupid leadership? If so why aren't we punishing the Iraqi's?
I don't understand why people have such difficulty serperating the plight of the actual palestians from the groups that hijack them? And why doesn't anyone ever talk about the non militant wings of those very groups who are the only ones providing basic services in the occupied lands?
There's nothing I like better than a sad middle aged little man rant about people he tries to hide from. pick one name already.
What do you mean I'm not willing to condem them? I have in this thread!
War is War. I think the situation itself is quite vile, and I don't sit here and try to group the other sides actions as worse to make my country seem more noble.
I don't think Yoni was saying muslims are evil. I also don't think suicide bombers are evil.
Ok, here's a question. How would you have would be suicide bombers fight an effective war?
Yeah, the troops we send are trying to cover the backs of the people voting for freedom. The terrorists are trying to strap bombs to their own disabled people and kill their fellow countrymen for what?
The suicide bombers aren't trying to fight a war. They are trying to fight for power and control. That control is what they are losing when the people they control have their fair say. Should the vast majority not be able to vote because of the few?
Where did I say they were fighting for their people?
Hopefully everyone will read this and understand because I've obviously been making this an unobvious point.
The use of the word "evil" to describe another waring party becasue of their method of fighting is not only one sided, but detrimental.
I've already explained why I feel it's used. In short, I don't think many people think the United States is capable of doing horrible things such as that, and when it does happen it's justified in one way or another.
The use of the word evil prohibits understanding of your enemy. A lack of understanding can only bring about unwanted consequences. Or is it not better to understand the motivations and goals of the people you are fighting?
People keep bringing up the percentage of Iraqi's voting this weekend as a sign that the Iraqi's are happy with the United States actions to date. It's not a black and white question and it's not something that can be declared on a ballot. The feelings torward America in that country can't be defined as "good" or "bad" and I think most of you understand that.
From the begining of the occupation there have been arguments in here over the sentiments of the people there. Some people claim the insurgents signify that the people hate the US, and vice versa. It's never been that simple and blanket election figures don't make it any simpler. Regardless of what the numbers were, people in here would have found a way to spin them in their direction.
The fact is that feelings toward the US vary by geography and other factors greatly. Do you think the people of Fallujah are very happy with the US? By contrast, the people of Kurdistan haven't so much as breathed wrong torwards the US yet.
If you want to argue that the insurgents are led by people who are displaced bathists and simply want the power they lost back, that's fine. I don't pretened to be like NBADan and Yonivore and know the exact makeup of the insurgency, because I don't think anyone does. But, I do think that it's pretty safe to assume that they have recruited large amounts of people who had very little or nothing to do with the bathists. Do I think these people are fighting for the best interests of Iraq? Of course not. Do I think these people believe they are fighting for the best interests of Iraq? Of course! Maybe not the leaders, but I think a good amount of the insurgents actually are.
What exactly are wars again? The goals of the suicide bombers are for power and control? Ok.
What were the goals of the United States when they invaded?
I guess this is where we disagree, but that is part of the fun.I also don't think suicide bombers are evil.
What makes them evil Mike? They don't have smart bombs to avoid targeting civilians.
I remember back when the US didn't have these things, and it firebombed Japan and dropped a couple of nukes on that country as well.
I'm not arguing the validity of those actions, but the fact is that people in a war setting use methods that are very unnappealing. Is that what makes them evil?
To me, and again, just my opinion, I have a problem with someone strapping a bomb on to themselves and knowingly walking into a crowd of people whom they know to be innocent with the purposeful intent of knowingly killing those innocents. I will say this...the exception I have is for this poor child that did not know what he was doing was wrong. I do not think he is evil, nor would I think any child was that didn't know any better. Manny, you and I are going to disagree about this but that is cool. I would not try to insult you by attempting to impose my beliefs on you. I have too much respect for you.
Ummmm...they're not targeting civilians due to their lack of smart bombs. They are targeting civilians on purpose. They are doing it to instill fear and pain into the civilian population, not fight an organized enemy army.
That makes them evil.
And what's wrong with that opinion? Sounds like a pretty damn good one to me.
I'm not trying to impose Mike, I thought we were having a discussion.
Question: If they have the resources of the United States Military, do you think they'd use the same tactics they are using now?
I didn't think you were Manny, I was just giving my point of view. It's all good.
Strawman. Irrelevant.
Instead, the question you should ask is if the "insurgents" are truly after the betterment of their own people, why aren't they limiting their attacks to legitimate military targets?
Specific targeting of civilian populations is evil.
It is NOT irrevlent. It shows EXACTLY what I'm trying to say, and you KNOW they woudn't use the same tactics. However, admitting that might bring into the light that maybe these people aren't evil, wouldn't it?
Why aren't they limiting the attacks to military targets? Because that is not the most effective method of fighting for them!
Once again, in WW2 why didn't the US limit their targeting to miitary targets?
I'm curious Travis, why do you think they commit these acts?
actually its a good question. I think they would use the same tactics but they would have a much deadlier result.
Manny, what WW2 civilian targets are you referring to? As a WW2 history buff, I am curious.
Why do you feel they would use the same tactics vs attacking the military directly?
Well, for starters, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were 2 acts were the intent was to basicaly shock the Japanse government to force them to surrender. Nuclear war is terroriism by defenition, and that was a perfect of example of terrorism working.
I think the US made the right decision, don't get me wrong, but it attacked cities with large civilian populations knowing damn well they were going to take the brunt of the attack.
If you want to go to other situations you can look at the firebombing of japan as well as the carpet bombing in europe as situations were this is semi applicable as well.
It is irrelevant, and what it shows is just how little you know about the US military. It also shows just how little you know about the military mission, the people, the equipment...just about everything.
Tactics is more than just resources. It is also training. It is mindset.
What you are saying with your question is that if the US troops were suddenly cut off, that they would start targeting civilians in order to impose their will. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The US did NOT target specifically civilian areas during WW2. Unfortunately, bomb-dropping technology was Stone Age compared to what it is today. Accuracy was virtually nil.
The fact remains that these terrorists target civilians. Women and children. Non-combatants. This is not a tactic. It is also not something our military would do under any cir stances.
Travis, training, tactics, mindset, and any other variable you want to draw up comes back to what you have at hand to fight with.
I never said the US troops would start targeting civilians, don't put words in my mouth. But it IS something our military has done.
Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
