My whole point was that the Uniteds States will not be taken down by the muslim world or any other peoples that make the attempt without using everything in our arsenal in an effort to prevent that from happening.

I am not over estimating anything. Do you seriously think the muslim world is going to unite and act against us as, proposed by another poster, and sacrifice several hundred millions of their lives in an attempt to topple the USA? Even if you do think this we will send several hundred million people to see Allah before we fall.

"...not used to shit" If I am not mistaken the USA has engaged in more military conflicts in the past 200 plus years than any country on the earth and we have only grown in power.

Go through with what?

What different approach would that be?

Well...actually I have engaged Musilms in combat. I served with the 82nd Airborne in the first gulf war and as a result my 12 years of service was brougt to an end.

So, the whole process of inspectors, the address of Powell to the UN, the terror alert level , all that is bullshit ( or Bushit).

Decision was made many months ago.... So even if you have no proof or if proff was given that they have no WMD, it doesn't really matter: the mighty USA has made its mind and will invade, just like Hitler or Sadam Hussein did....

I liked a lot the US, and even more its people, but with comments and actions like yours, I like rthem lesss and less. I know King you don't give a shit, because you need nobody...

But just think if a white middle-aged capitalist christian starts to think like that, how many non-white, non-christian will be your ennemies.

Your country will be the training fields of terrorists, and for what???? To remove a head of State you don't like????
If the US or so right in their thinking and process, if they possess so advance thechnology, whow come they semnd innocent americans to death row ( in brother Bush home state: Florida).

If you make a such mistakes, can you accecpt that you could be doing a mistake now.

BTW, it is very pretentious to quote yourself.... but on yt=the other hands it shows that you are closed to any more reflexions: lets go kill those ragheads!!!!

That is what Hitler tought about Jews! Welcome the the Facist US!

Why wouldn't Iraq or North Korea have the same "logic"?

Not so much bullshit as a futile exercise in diplomacy.

I suspect that if Saddam were to present undeniable proof that the chemical, biological materials and missiles/artillary that contained chemicals he still had on hand in 1998 were in fact destroyed, or if he presented the chemical, biological materials and missiles/artillary that contained chemicals to the inspectors to oversee the destruction of same, and in addition he stepped down from office and went into exile, then we would not invade.

I guess I missed that report. What innocent Americans are on death row in Florida?

I am satisfied that they do.

Hitler thought Jews were dumb????

Damnit. I hate tansparent photos.

My whole point was that the Uniteds States will not be taken down by the muslim world or any other peoples that make the attempt without using everything in our arsenal in an effort to prevent that from happening.

Oh, I believe that, and I believe America will do everything in it's power to fight back. But why not just avoid that? Do you really want this clash of civilzations so bad? This is all so saddening, the world took billions of years to evolve, and mankind took another few millions to come into being and to build this entire civilization.. This long and hard process that millions have given their lives up to to reach is now under the possibility of being ruined in the biggest war mankind has ever seen. Wouldn't we want to do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent that?

You say, but how will we handle Saddam? What's the alternative?

One of my personal basic rules in evaluation is that a bad thing (war) can only be used if the outcome does more good than harm. In the current climate, it will do more good than harm. Terrorism will rise and the clash of civilizations is brought another step closer. WE CANNOT RISK THIS! It's simply not worth it, and common sense tells us that a small benefit (removing Saddam) is not desirable if it means a greater evil will be created as a result.

I am not over estimating anything. Do you seriously think the muslim world is going to unite and act against us as, proposed by another poster, and sacrifice several hundred millions of their lives in an attempt to topple the USA? Even if you do think this we will send several hundred million people to see Allah before we fall.

Yes I seriously think that. Once they feel that their entire community, religion, and family are at stake, they will have nothing to loose. They don't care if they die because they want to die. Most Muslims are in an inferior position at the moment anyways, why not opt for heaven and 72 virgins? They do not think like us. When we see that a couple thousands of "our boys" are killed, we mourn for them and we critize the gov. When they see a couple thousand killed, they praise them and they admire and look up to them. Add to that the increased hate for the enemy and you will see an exponential increase of violence against us from them. The more we kill them, the more opposition we will face - and Western politics have never understood this. We have always responded with "we need to send them a clear signal, a clear message". They don't interpret that message the same! It only makes the situation worse!!

What different approach would that be?

Well why not wait. Why not correctly handle the Afghani situation first. Get involved there, build up what we destroyed. We killed tens of thousands of people there, why not express sorrow for that. Why not show our compassions for these deaths by doing everything we can to build a strong country there, to remove dangers such as landmines, to introduce schools and to show respect for the local customs. Why not show the world a different side?

Once we have re-gained trust and co-operation with the Muslim world it'll be easy as fuck getting rid of Saddam. We have made them hate us more than they hate Saddam! This is exactly the opposite of what we should've done. If we have good relations with the Muslim world, they will aid us in removing the evil from among themselves... But as long as they see us a greater danger than their own evil leaders, then we have taken the wrong approach and we will only make things worse for both parties.

here is the CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/25/death.rowrelease.ap/


If you would read other information than " Battle Field" and " Combat", you would be aware that near 100 death row inmates have been innocented mainly after DNA testing and evidence of proof fabrication by the authorities. ... abit like the " Brithish report" cited by Powell as "reliable " ....

And in case you still have a canned response, here is more on Bush's brother Florida State track record. BTW, Governor Bush wants to dissolve tye commitee reviewing the death row convictions, under pretense that " it takes too many good lawyers away from defending innocent people...".

Seems they all have the same genes....

http://www.deathrow.at/rick/florida.html

I am aware of Barry Shecks innocence project and I am aware that DNA testing has caused the release of well over 100 people from death row and not just in Florida. I am not a proponent of the death penality. By the way I have never read "Combat" or "Battle Field" and do not know what they are, books or magazines?

We have waited since 1991 for Saddam to comply with the terms he agreed to when his military forces were defeated on the field of battle. We have waited since 1991 for him to comply with 16 (now 17) UN resolutions, and he has not complied with the 17th resolution (1441) up to this point in time. The list goes on but I will not list them all again. I would say that the UN and the US which is the primary enforcer of most, if not all, UN resolutions have been abundantly patient and now his non-compliance is going to be enforced. Checkmate...game over.

What you described in the way of assisting Afghanistan is exactly what is happening and will continue for years to come.

It is a given that the long term consequences of taking control of Iraq are not totally predictable, but this really applies to most conflicts. The Administration has decided to take the risk. More importantly the Congress has decided to take the risk as several months ago they gave the power to the President to proceed. The Congress can halt this whenever they choose too using several different methods and a major one is simply to vote to cut off funding for a military invasion of Iraq. The Congress used this power during the Vietnam era and that is why President Nixon and Ford could not keep the promise that was made to South Vietnam when we withdrew our troops from Vietnam. The agreement made by Nixon to South Vietnam was that if the North did not abide by the treaty and tried to take control of the South we would use our Air Power to bomb the North into submission once again. Congress cut the President off at his knees and voted to cut all funding for any military endeavors in Vietnam. Thus niether Nixon or Ford could keep the promise made to South Vietnam. The citizens of America could halt an invasion of Iraq simply by flooding their Congressmen and Senators with a request to put a stop to it, but the citizens are not doing this. The President is not acting and cannot act in a vaccum.

No more reponses. No more put downs. Where are the haters?

cool so you support Al-Quaeda's actions on 9/11 then? in the "real world" it was legitimate to kill those 3000 people because they were supporting the american government through taxes and providing the ability to wage war. ok. as long as we know where you stand. Innocent civs are legitimate targets because of the action of their governments.
So in this "terrorism war" it's ok to kill innocent Iraqis and innocent Americans.... in the REAL world.

So how many thousand innocent Iraqi civilians have to die in order for them to be liberated and have freedom from Saddam's oppression to rot away slowly in unmarked graves? Im sure they will be thankful to have a new regime 6 feet above them.

this is such a bad idea from terrorist creation aspect. The more civilians are killed, the more groups like Al-Quaeda will swell with members who have lost brothers, fathers, babies, mothers... We'll get locked into an Israeli situation.

I still think there should be tactical strikes on Saddam's palaces and military bases to decimate his control (and hopefully kill him)followed by a well funded local uprising. They're looking to install a few guys that aren't so bad yet.. that should solve the problem for another 20 years till they turn on us again.

nicely done

:)

I would not use the word support, but yes in the real world our civilians are no more sacrosanct then any other civilian populace when it comes to "military" targeting. I will point out that the big deal made about targeting civilians is really just rhetorical BS. If the terrorists would have flown all four hijacked aircraft into barracks, HQ buildings etc., at my old home base Ft. Bragg NC, and would have killed 3 thousand uniformed soldiers the outrage from our government and our people would not have been any less. The same school yard name calling by some government officials and our cilvian poplulace would have been the same name calling that was applied when the civilians were killed. Names such as "cowards", "evil" etc. Those that enable their military are as much the enemy as those that wear uniforms. In the real world an enemy, is an enemy, is an enemy. If you study the history of wars it has always been this way. But there are those that are idealistic and do not want to accept how the world really is, then there are pragmatists, such as I, that know and live with reality.

Since, in my opinion, leaving Saddam to his own devices is not an option, I have personally considered many options other than a full blown invasion of Iraq, but ultimately all of the options I thought of I discarded because it would prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people (and in the long run would probably cost as many lives) and would not cause any less hatred towards the USA and would not reduce any possible future attacks against US citizens either here or around the world. I have decided for my own reasons that a take over of Iraq is the best route to take for the Iraqi people (in the long run it will save Iraqi lives) and will not cause any greater hatred of the USA than other various options and in fact will eliminate a regime that is a sworn enemy of the USA. Bottom line, there are not any good choices.

All the choices definately are bad. I just favour a messy scalpel approach with dissident Iraqi hands at least helping to guide the excision after the cut has been made rather than blasting the body and picking up the pieces.
I would argue strongly that the amount of anti-american/anti-western resentment will be in direct proportion to iraqi bodybags. And given the terrorist stimulous.. the fewer bodybags the better.. I believe I am taking a very practical approach.

800 missiles in the first two days and urban warfare means the thing that eventually comes back to bite us in the ass will have more teeth.

Also i'd really like to re-visit this a year after the fact to see the trade implications of this act and see which countries gained and which lost out and to what order.

Quote:
Those that enable their military are as much the enemy as those that wear uniforms. In the real world an enemy, is an enemy, is an enemy. If you study the history of wars it has always been this way.
---------------

Actually not true. The second world war was the first war in which there were huge civilian losses. Before that armies basically met up in a field outside of town to fight, even during WWI.

Actually is true. Study the history of war.

"Tell me one operation of war which is moral...Sticking a bayonet into a man's belly, is that moral? Then they say. well, of course strategic bombing involved civiians. Civilians are always involved in major wars. After all, previous wars ended up in the besieging of major cities, and in besieging a city what was the idea? To cut off all supplies, and the city held out if it could until they'd eaten the last dog, cat, and sewer rat and were all starving, and meanwhile the besieging forces lobbed every missile they could lay their hands on into the city, more or less regardless of where those missiles landed, as and added incentive to surrender.

There is no significant difference between what Shalmaneser III did to Arzashku in 858 B.C. and what British Bomber Command and the United States 8th Air Force did to Dresden in 1945. Shalmaneser, being Assyrian, unquestionably took more pleasure in it, and the means of execution seem rather more exotic to us, but the ultimate consequences for the the victims were identical."

"No human beings can escape the category of potential enemy. Over 90 percent of all states that have ever existed have been destroyed and often their people with them."

Just a couple of excerpts taken from one book that speaks about the history of war and there are hundreds of books, if not thousands, about the history of war.

You trying to justify the fact that you get off on people being killed?

If you would read what is posted you should be able to see that it is in response to.

I do not have to justify aything that I say on this board and certainly do not have to justify anything I say to a stupid prick such as yourself.

Before the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians.

In World War 2 more than 50% of those who died were civilians.

By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians.
-------------

Well, at least you tried to back it up this time. Figures above are correct at the time of going to press :) (Source: BBC).

The conclusion drawn is that prior to the 20th century, civilians were mostly considered an asset. You occupied the invaded country, taxed them, conscripted them in your army. Nowadays the majority of wars do not aim to 'occupy' countries the same way as in the past (or simply do not succeed in that), therefore civilians are expendable.

Another reason is the power of todays weapons. If you siege a city and lob spears inside, well, that's not gonna kill as many as a few thousand cruise missiles.

I was never speaking of numbers of civilians killed and I still am not. My point was, and is, that civilians have been targets since the very beginning of recorded major conflicts and history is abundantly clear about this. Entire peoples were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child and land was salted so that nothing could be grown. Did this happen in every conflict, no is history abundant with non combatants being intentionally killed, yes.

No, sounds more like you are trying to justify it to yourself to clear your own conscience.

You seem to enjoy calling names to others on here, kinda nice when you're hiding behind a keyboard. Anytime you would like to call me a 'stupid prick' face to face you just let me know.

:1orglaugh Another keyboard warrior. How old are you kid?

That is because your insight is as lacking as your gray matter kid.

Shows what a man you are. You think you can hurt me by bringing up the fact my 7 month old son is dead? You are a worthless piece of shit and I thank God my kid will never see the trash in this world such as you. I really would like to meet you.

Are you delusional? I have never said anything about your kid.

for want of a comma a king....

its all good!

I didn't have to duck. This went right over my head.

How many thousand innocent French, German, Dutch, Czech etc...civilians had to die in order for them to be liberated from Nazis? Civilians were targeted during WW2. German, Russian, English, US, Canadian planes all bombed cities killing civilians.

Those wanted to be liberated. Have you consulted the Iraqi population on the matter lately?

punkworld I didnt know that germans wanted to be liberated and asked the world to bomb them, but thanks for letting me know