Originally posted by Agent Elrond
Saddam killed more ppl in a week than we have so far. Civilian death are invetiable. There's no such thing as a perfect war. How can we fight an enemy that blends in with the crowd? I say we need to be more agressive. It's the only way to root out the insurgents. Yes, it is bad that we will kill innocent people, but that's war. We're so worried about the Iraqi ppl that we're putting them above our troops. Our troops are getting killed because they can't get the proper air support because innocent people might be killed.
um... no... if that's true, how come only 805 of our troops have been killed, but several thousand civilians have been killed? Listen, I didn't ask you about Saddam. Just because he killed more people than we have doesn't make what we're doing ok. Also, you can't say "that's war"--it isn't true. Sure, in every war there are going to be innocent people killed, but not this many. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but there are no WMD's, and there are very few, if any terrorists there. What a tremendous waste of both American and Iraqi lives.
Finally, you ask, "how can you fight an enemy that blends in with the crowd"? That's a tough one, but the solution sure as hell shouldn't be to go grabbing random guys out of their houses.
Oh, and also, there are a lot of other violent, oppressive dictators in the world that we actually SUPPORT. Yeah, it's great that we got Saddam out of power. Yeah, he was a terrible person. But he hated Al-Qaeda, so even if we did do a good thing for at least some of the Iraqi people, we're not accomplishing what we were supposedly there in the first place for. Let's face it, Michale Moore said it best: you can't win a war against a noun.
Here it is:
Pearl Harbor Was Not a Surprise Attack
President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshall, General Leonard T. Gerow, Admiral Harold R. Stark, and Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner received several messages warning them of the attack.
* Three days before the attack the Australian Intelligence service sent a message to the US military that the Japanese fleet had been spotted en route to Hawaii.
* A British double agent working in Germany sent numerous messages warning of the attack.
* 24 hours before the attack, the US Navy intercepted and decoded a message from Tokyo to the Japanese Embassy in Washington. It made explicitly clear what would happen on December 7th.
2. The Attack Was Not Unprovoked.
In October of 1940 Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum wrote a memo to FDR that began, "The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act". The memo described an eight step plan for provoking Japan into attacking The United States. The steps mostly constituted the building of bases that would encroach on Japan's borders and making alliances with the Chinese to help fight Japanese expansion. Each step on the list was undertaken by FDR and in 1941 the last and most provocative of the eight steps was instituted. An embargo, cutting Japan off from all supplies of rubber, jute, tin, oil and iron was instituted. When FDR tried to pass this embargo Congress warned him that he would surely provoke an attack from Japan. A few weeks later they were proven right.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
um... no... if that's true, how come only 805 of our troops have been killed, but several thousand civilians have been killed? Listen, I didn't ask you about Saddam. Just because he killed more people than we have doesn't make what we're doing ok. Also, you can't say "that's war"--it isn't true. Sure, in every war there are going to be innocent people killed, but not this many. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but there are no WMD's, and there are very few, if any terrorists there. What a tremendous waste of both American and Iraqi lives.
Finally, you ask, "how can you fight an enemy that blends in with the crowd"? That's a tough one, but the solution sure as hell shouldn't be to go grabbing random guys out of their houses.Oh, and also, there are a lot of other violent, oppressive dictators in the world that we actually SUPPORT. Yeah, it's great that we got Saddam out of power. Yeah, he was a terrible person. But he hated Al-Qaeda, so even if we did do a good thing for at least some of the Iraqi people, we're not accomplishing what we were supposedly there in the first place for. Let's face it, Michale Moore said it best: you can't win a war against a noun.
Very few terrorists? Iraq's full of them. Serrin was detected in a warshell. The difference between us killing civilians and Saddam was we kill them by accident.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
What makes you think Iraq is full of terrorists? And we don't always kill civilians by accident. Like I said, we drag them off the streets randomly and interrogate them. Well, that's not technically killing them, but it certainly isn't very nice, and it is intentional...
All the car bomings, killings, assassinations are signs of terrorists.
Tell me, how would you root out insurgents in Iraq while minimizing US deaths. And, what would u do in this situation: YOur unit is under fired from a fortified positons w/ civilians inside. You have just lost 3 men, some are wounded. Would u order an artillery strike against that building?
Fair trials my ass. Most of the time, yes, courtrooms are relatively fair, but not always. There have been cases where the judge literally ordered the jury to find somebod guilty.
Agent Elrond: I don't know, you tell me. I didn't support the war in the first place for that very reason, it's a huge mess. Why should I stand up? I don't have to pledge allegience to any flag.