Why?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't?

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?[/QUOTE]You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man. [/QUOTE]I remember reading an unsubstantiated report that upwards of 30,000 Taliban were killed because of bombs in the U.S. air campaign in Afganistan.

Regardless, I think you are SERIOUSLY downplaying the devestation of bombs. As I recall one stray bomb during the gulf war killed hundreds of Iraqi as they hid in a shelter.

Also clusterbombs have a long lasting residual effects on population, although the EU and UN have called for a moritorum on these weapons, the U.S. still uses them.

Bombs don't just kill a few people, especially when hundreds of bombs are falling day in and day out.

I think you may benifit from some perspective as well.[/QUOTE]That wasn't a stray bomb it was aimed at that target, a comand and control bunker, a legitamite target under any and all rules of war(an oxmoron if there ever was one ) If anybody is going to get pissed about that then get pissed at the right people responsible for it. The idiots that allowed their families into a comand and control bunker, the Iraqi military.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: I oppose what "you" do because it was unnecessary. If the US hadn't been involved in Middle Eastern affairs from day one, where they had no business being, then this wouldn't be an issue right now. Ask yourself why the terrorist acts against the US, over the last dozen years, took place.

It's not the US in particular, but the West in general that has cause all these problems in the Middle East. The US didn't create Israel.

Animal, I know you are a good guy, and I'm not hitting you for your beliefs. I just disagree. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Animal: The bombing of Afghanistan was pretty much futile. They never got their hands on Osama, which was the whole point, right? I'm sure if the tables were reversed and a foreign power was threatining US soil, you wouldn't want to surrender, either.

You bet your sweet pippy we would So would Everybody else what's the point?

Sure they dethroned the Taliban, but Afghanistan is no better off now then when they were under the rule of the Taliban. If you look back in history, the US where the ones who put the Taliban in power in the first place! They supplied weapons to the Taliban in an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Nothing personal but check your history, the USA supplied the Ahfgan fighters yes, that war ended in 1989 or 1990. The Taliban came into power YEARS later out of Pakistan.
If you are going to take that logic where do we stop? It could be argued that the British are responsible because they could keep their colonists under control in the new world, or better yet they are responsible because they sent settlers over here in the first place. But wait you also get Rome is responsible because they conquered the British Isles and Rome is the foundation of all western socities and laws. But wait if you order now you also get every civilization known to man through out the history of man all the way back to Eve because she ate the apple first. Yes this logic can be yours for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling, please make checks payable to John D. Harris, sorry No COD's or Credit cards. Logic will be shipped to you after your check has cleared the bank.

As far as I can see the whole bombing of Afghanistan was useless and accomplished nothing. Sooner or later the entire Middle East is going to fly apart at the seams. I say get the hell out now, stand back, let them kill each other and let God sort them out. [/QUOTE]
What the "Hale" are they going to kill each other with? If we sell them the weapons to do it somebody will complain about it They have been killing each other for 1,000's of years Eygptians, Libians, Hitties, Persans (SP?), Babloynians, Medes(SP?), Syriains, Assyriains etc.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: I oppose what "you" do because it was unnecessary. If the US hadn't been involved in Middle Eastern affairs from day one, where they had no business being, then this wouldn't be an issue right now. Ask yourself why the terrorist acts against the US, over the last dozen years, took place.

It's not the US in particular, but the West in general that has cause all these problems in the Middle East. The US didn't create Israel.

Animal, I know you are a good guy, and I'm not hitting you for your beliefs. I just disagree. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Yes, I agree with that. It seems that the term US is a generalisation for the democratic world as a whole. Problem is, some people don't want that kind of life, yet we still try to force it on them.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Also what about *gasp* ground forces.

Are you suggesting sending in ground troops for the enemy to kill? Would that make it more.. fair?

It's bizarre to me that you think a reasonable answer to civilian deaths caused by war is to send in ground troops earlier when they are sure to take MORE causalities.

Do lives count if they are wearing uniforms?

Can you provide a link that proves (hell, one that even says) sending in **gasp** ground troops would cause less civilian casualties during a military action? I'd be amazed if you could. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Huh? You have read way to much into my little statement about ground forces. As far as I am concerned, nothing about war will ever make it fair.

I question the honor in killing thousands of soldiers and/or innocents in massive attacks over a long time, like what womd do. Cluster bombs kill in mass over a long time, hence the term weapons of mass destruction. Dig the logic?

Ground forces may take and make greater casulaties on bothsides, but my remark about them was irony geared towards the Bush administrations hesitance to use U.S. ground troops in key operations in Afganistan. I was suggesting the use of ground forces to do it Right. Some speculations and opinions agree hasty action and the reliance on the Northern Alliance as ground troops may have resulted in the failure to capture key al queda and Talibon leaders that we are just starting to catch now, over a year and half later. Though it did result in the liberation of Afganistan and the scattering of the terrorists across the region. Regardless, that's the history of where we are at today.

I find your insinuating remark about whether lives count in uniform degrading. I value an American's life no more or no less than I do any other human. If were up to me there would be no war and no casulties on eitherside, but that is not the reality of world right now.

One of the lessons learned from America's last great unpopular conflict, Vietnam, is that a soldier, a U.S. soldier, is following the orders of the President. If the President conducts the country on an erronerous course, it will be revealed in the polls and in the history books, but you do not dis-value a soldier's life or his honor because he is following orders from the President to defend America, even if the threat is more percieved than it is real.

Sticking to the off-topic point, militarily, there are options other than clusterbombs. They all vary in effectiveness and casulty ratio, but they do exist.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: One of the lessons learned from America's last great unpopular conflict, Vietnam, is that a soldier, a U.S. soldier, is following the orders of the President. If the President conducts the country on an erronerous course, it will be revealed in the polls and in the history books, but you do not dis-value a soldier's life or his honor because he is following orders from the President to defend America, even if the threat is more percieved than it is real.

I can appreciate this sentiment, since all human lives are valuable, but this particular line of reasoning is a little faulty. "I was only following orders" was the standard defense of those on trial at Nuremberg after World War II. A very bad precedent upon which to stand.... However, the question of "should a soldier disobey an immoral order?" will not be answered here (another topic for another day).

The original topic title is "Why?" Why attack Iraq, a year and a half after the events of 9/11/2001? Based on the collected intelligence reports, the main Al Queda stronghold was in Afghanistan. Since the evidence pointed to Al Queda being the culprits, go after them where they are hiding. Thus, when intelligence reports show strong links between Iraq and Al Queda, then Iraq finds itself of the list of pending targets.
Is it not the right of a country to defend itself reasonably (yes, I said "reasonably", not "nuke 'em till they glow") against an enemy who has attacked? As soon as the news about Pearl Harbor got to Washington, Congress assembled and passed a declaration of war the next day. There was no talking, no diplomacy, no "cooling off period", no chants of "give peace a chance". No, there was action.
I think those who oppose this proposed military action (since there is no "war" currently in progress) seem to be missing the point that there have been plenty of talks, diplomatic meetings, weapons inspector reports, etc. giving Hussein more than enough time to 1) distance himself from Al Queda and 2) comply with the UN sanctions mandated back in 1991 (sanctions to which he initially agreed). Hussein has had more than a decade to clean up his act. How much more time should he be given?

Were America to be as warmongering a nation as I have heard some suggest, then would we not have already invaded Iraq? Would there not already be an American flag flying over Baghdad?

Is America perfect? No! Yes, we used chemical weapons back in the Vietnam War. Yes, we have used cluster bombs and incendiary devices in our military actions. Yes, we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on another nation. So what? A nation is like a person--you make mistakes and face difficult choices when you are growing up, but you live and grow and learn.

Protest if you must. Chant. Burn some flags. Hate Bush and America. None of that will matter, though, because when Hussein is gone we will have one less rabid enemy and the Iraqi people will be able to choose their own fate instead of having one handed to them whether they like it or not.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by John D Harris: That wasn't a stray bomb it was aimed at that target, a comand and control bunker, a legitamite target under any and all rules of war(an oxmoron if there ever was one ) If anybody is going to get pissed about that then get pissed at the right people responsible for it. The idiots that allowed their families into a comand and control bunker, the Iraqi military.

No - the US military intelligence (another oxymoron ) claimed is was a military bunker. The same intelligence that apparently mistook the Chinese embassy in Belgrade for a government building.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: Quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: That wasn't a stray bomb it was aimed at that target, a comand and control bunker, a legitamite target under any and all rules of war(an oxmoron if there ever was one ) If anybody is going to get pissed about that then get pissed at the right people responsible for it. The idiots that allowed their families into a comand and control bunker, the Iraqi military.

No - the US military intelligence (another oxymoron ) claimed is was a military bunker. The same intelligence that apparently mistook the Chinese embassy in Belgrade for a government building.[/QUOTE]Well any military Intelligence in an oxmoron
I guess I could see how that could be believed, after all a country that tries to hold diplomates hostage as human shields, remember the little British boy that Sodamn Insane held in his lap. Preached constantly about protecting their military targets with human shields, "Hale" even ask or read about the current wave of people that left to be human shields in Iraq. Where did the Iraqi government want them to be Human shield at? Was it schools? Or prehaps Hospitals? No I believe it was by the words of the human shield volunteers themselves legitamate military targets. If such a country claimed the bunker was not a target then they must be believed. Because they certainly wouldn't use human shields at any of their miltary tagets. Sorry Ar-Curin but the logic just doesn't hold water for me, now if it does for you then that's fine by me.

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: No - the US military intelligence (another oxymoron I don't suppose you could be a bit more specific with this can you? Was it DIA, DIS, NSG, DCA, NSA....what "Military Intelligence" are you talking about? I keep hearing people say "Military Intelligence" said this or that....when what it really means is that some political boob who doesnt have all the facts is leaking things to the press. It really irks me that a dozen or more agencies get whitewashed into one title "Military Intelligence". There is no such thing as the "Department of Military Intelligence" there is just lazy inacurate reporting. sorry I went on a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] but people, please at least try to be accurate. Ar-Cunin....I know you are just quoting some article and are not to blame....this really wasn't aimed at you specificly.

[ 03-06-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: I oppose what "you" do because it was unnecessary. If the US hadn't been involved in Middle Eastern affairs from day one, where they had no business being, Says who? Where do you get off making such a pronouncement? What makes you the authority on who has any business where? I think it is pretty arrogant of you to say such a thing especially since it wasnt the US that originally was involved in the Middle east. The US didn't get really involved there untill certain nations nationalized US owned property in those areas....property that was legally bought and paid for. This all happened before you (or I for that matter) were even born. Not trying to be combative but this statement by itself is so simplistic as to be really useless.

[/QUOTE]I don't see how having an opinion could be considered arrogant. It's quite apparent that you don't agree with my opinions, and I have no problem with that, it is after all one of the privilidges of freedom, however, I do have a problem with being personally attacked for voicing such opinions.