siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist well this was your response on how you estimate whether a person, cause, or action are worth it, contradicting the way that I go about it. Now if you weight the action vs the inaction, then would that not be determining an action's worth at the outset? Please explain? I said the outcomes. not the actions or inaction. The course of action may be horrible but resulting from the action can be something great that it gives license to the action after the fact, and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania Starvingartist - great points! Don't have time to answer in detail right now...will do later. However, I agree, war is war...anything goes since one's survival is at stake. To call only one warring side animals, is the epitome of naivity and stupidity. Reason why the coalition forces act out of "kindness" (note the quotes), is because it suits their purpose, but most importantly because they have that luxury. WHo is to say that, if roles were reversed, the Iraqis won't act that way. Pure speculation.Remember the revolutionary war, civil war, and most recently Vietnam. Our wonderful, oh-so-goody, American soldiers were responsible for many atrocities. Thank you. I agree with your points completely, couldnt have said it better myself. (as the previous posts display my weak attempts, hehe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania Starvingartist - great points! Don't have time to answer in detail right now...will do later. However, I agree, war is war...anything goes since one's survival is at stake. To call only one warring side animals, is the epitome of naivity and stupidity. Reason why the coalition forces act out of "kindness" (note the quotes), is because it suits their purpose, but most importantly because they have that luxury. WHo is to say that, if roles were reversed, the Iraqis won't act that way. Pure speculation.Remember the revolutionary war, civil war, and most recently Vietnam. Our wonderful, oh-so-goody, American soldiers were responsible for many atrocities. give me one example of american gov'ts giveing orders to soliders to exectue thier own troops for surrendering, or faking surrender. And the Kindness the american troops are ordered to show may have some alterior motive but you nor I know what it is. which brings us back to the fact that it's Kindness non the less and with out proof of some other motive to dimminsh the quality of the kindness it remains nothing but kindness. so I ask you a question would you rather surrender to american forces or iraqi forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone I said the outcomes. not the actions or inaction. The course of action may be horrible but resulting from the action can be something great that it gives license to the action after the fact, and vice versa. ok you said vice versa. Can you please elaborate? Because from simply reading your statement you say, the action may be horrible but the result may be something great giving license to the action. Now what if the result is not great??Also I hope you do realize that your very statements can be used as an argument to support what the Iraqi soldiers have just recently done. The whole point of your thread. You do see that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone give me one example of american gov'ts giveing orders to soliders to exectue thier own troops for surrendering, or faking surrender. And the Kindness the american troops are ordered to show may have some alterior motive but you nor I know what it is. which brings us back to the fact that it's Kindness non the less and with out proof of some other motive to dimminsh the quality of the kindness it remains nothing but kindness. so I ask you a question would you rather surrender to american forces or iraqi forces? One example! There are millions. Maybe not the same exact tactic employed by the recent Iraqis but similar if not worse have been employed. If you like I will direct you to one source which you may find the most examples. Simply to narrow down your search. Pick up any literature on the Vietnam War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist ok you said vice versa. Can you please elaborate? Because from simply reading your statement you say, the action may be horrible but the result may be something great giving license to the action. Now what if the result is not great??Also I hope you do realize that your very statements can be used as an argument to support what the Iraqi soldiers have just recently done. The whole point of your thread. You do see that right? It could so? it all depends on your point of view like I said.. all Im doing is speculating. oh when I said vice versa I meant that the action could be good but the out come horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist One example! There are millions. Maybe not the same exact tactic employed by the recent Iraqis but similar if not worse have been employed. If you like I will direct you to one source which you may find the most examples. Simply to narrow down your search. Pick up any literature on the Vietnam War. you have proof of orders to kill deserters? and examples of faking surrender? show me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone you have proof of orders to kill deserters? and examples of faking surrender? show me You know this isnt the first time you quote me, but do not read my comment entirely. I said maybe not the same exact tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 well those are the tactics that I feel are animalistic anyone who does things like that are animalistic Including the soldiers in vietnam who executed vietcong after capture. american soldiers have acted like animals in the past as well no denying but are they acting like animals now? that's what matters in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone well those are the tactics that I feel are animalistic anyone who does things like that are animalistic Including the soldiers in vietnam who executed vietcong after capture. american soldiers have acted like animals in the past as well no denying but are they acting like animals now? that's what matters in my opinion. well you have no way of knowing that yet or possibly ever. Also you asked for proof previously. Can you show me proof of Iraqi's killing their own soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone well those are the tactics that I feel are animalistic anyone who does things like that are animalistic Including the soldiers in vietnam who executed vietcong after capture. american soldiers have acted like animals in the past as well no denying but are they acting like animals now? that's what matters in my opinion. I see no point in calling either side "animals", that is what I am saying. I am further stating that if you are pro war and then call one side animals, you are a hypocrite.And you ask if they are acting like that now. Well what is your definition of being an animal? Is killing civilians one of them? For me this is part of war, but if you would like to know what our forces believe, The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said that the risk of civilian casualties in Iraq will increase with aerial bombardments, but added that the risk would not slow down the military campaign. Point being if you call Iraqi soldiers animals you should be anti war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Thank you. I agree with your points completely, couldnt have said it better myself. (as the previous posts display my weak attempts, hehe). haha...so modest! You were able to state your points in a much more eloquent way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania haha...so modest! You were able to state your points in a much more eloquent way. Well you were able to sum up 2 pages worth with one simple reply. Now that is talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone you have proof of orders to kill deserters? and examples of faking surrender? show me Proof of order to kill deserters??!??! Do you know what the penalty for deserting the US army in a time of war is?BTW, this might be just *slightly* off topic, but I wanted to bring this up because there was talk of killing innocent people and such. Who was it that gave the order to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in order to win a war? This was maybe 48 years ago, or so.War is an ugly thing, and calling one side animals for fighting a certain way is, again, extremely naive.BTW, I lean more toward the anti-war movement, though I agree Saddam and sons are evil and need to be dealt with somehow. However, introducing this doctrine of "pre-empetive strike" is ushering us into an extremely dangerous new era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 iraqi soldiers= animals IMO cause of NO regard whatsoever for ANY human life.Oh well I am extremely naive:D Siceone- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly Oh well I am extremely naive:D That you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly iraqi soldiers= animals IMO cause of NO regard whatsoever for ANY human life.Oh well I am extremely naive:D Siceone- Ok let me get this straight. You are saying in order to be considered an animal you must have no regard for human life. But if you have some regard you are not an animal. What is showing some regard anyways? OK now you are saying that Iraqi soldiers are animals because tehy killed soldiers. Now what are you saying of American troops who are killing civilians? Your train of thought is very bias an not one reply you have made has shown any signs of consistency in your viewpoints. You are either ignorant and niave or a very close minded individual. For your own sake I hope it is the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist I see no point in calling either side "animals", that is what I am saying. I am further stating that if you are pro war and then call one side animals, you are a hypocrite.And you ask if they are acting like that now. Well what is your definition of being an animal? Is killing civilians one of them? For me this is part of war, but if you would like to know what our forces believe, The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said that the risk of civilian casualties in Iraq will increase with aerial bombardments, but added that the risk would not slow down the military campaign. Point being if you call Iraqi soldiers animals you should be anti war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist [bNow what are you saying of American troops who are killing civilians?. the difference is they are not loooking to kill civilians and are taking measures to save as many civilian lives as they can.. for example- lets get back to what the point of this post is about.. these iraqi soldiers that are faking civilians and surrendering they are not killing cause they are thinking they are iraqi civialians right? well that to me is showing some type of regard for human life.they don't want to kill innocent people.The iraqi soldiers are killing civilians of both countries, not caring how its done because they have no regrad for human life at all. And for that i am going to call them animals.But as someone else said, thats how these soldiers are going to fight in war..I respect your opinion and what you have to say....I am sorry you don't get my point but don't bother to continue going in circles trying to repeat yourself..Yes, i am closed minded and naive and also really ignorant so on that note why bother responding to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist I see no point in calling either side "animals", that is what I am saying. I am further stating that if you are pro war and then call one side animals, you are a hypocrite.And you ask if they are acting like that now. Well what is your definition of being an animal? Is killing civilians one of them? For me this is part of war, but if you would like to know what our forces believe, The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said that the risk of civilian casualties in Iraq will increase with aerial bombardments, but added that the risk would not slow down the military campaign. Point being if you call Iraqi soldiers animals you should be anti war. Thats your opinion, and I respect it but I think that if you say you're going to do one thing and then you do something else that's dirty. you're still comparing actions that might happen with actions that have already happened. And the intended meanings of actions that have already happened. americans are targeting military installations the fact that they are in civllian area is deplprable in my veiw anyway for starters but the intent of the bombing is not to kill civilians but to cripple the military structure. the iraqi irregulars are intenting to kill iraqi troops who wont fight for saddam by lying to them. they also intend to kill american troops by lying saying that they surrender. This isn't the first time we have seen this tactic either. it happened all the time in the first gulf war. The russian spetznaz also killed troops during world war 2 who didn't want to fight the germans for stalin. so I mean it's nothing new and it's still barbaric.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 war is the lowest form of action that any humans can take against each other.....it lowers all parties involved to the status of an animal.....it enacts darwanism and the strongest will prevail.....IMO there are no "rules" of war, there is only the ability to act in a manor that is consistent with your values......the iraqi regime does not place a high "value" on their civilians.....the US does put a high priority to avoid civilian casualties......we are all still animals with different values and capabilities.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania Proof of order to kill deserters??!??! Do you know what the penalty for deserting the US army in a time of war is?BTW, this might be just *slightly* off topic, but I wanted to bring this up because there was talk of killing innocent people and such. Who was it that gave the order to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in order to win a war? This was maybe 48 years ago, or so.War is an ugly thing, and calling one side animals for fighting a certain way is, again, extremely naive.BTW, I lean more toward the anti-war movement, though I agree Saddam and sons are evil and need to be dealt with somehow. However, introducing this doctrine of "pre-empetive strike" is ushering us into an extremely dangerous new era. Since when is it death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by underwater war is the lowest form of action that any humans can take against each other.....it lowers all parties involved to the status of an animal.....it enacts darwanism and the strongest will prevail.....IMO there are no "rules" of war, there is only the ability to act in a manor that is consistent with your values......the iraqi regime does not place a high "value" on their civilians.....the US does put a high priority to avoid civilian casualties......we are all still animals with different values and capabilities.... At least you are consistent. And I respect your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly the difference is they are not loooking to kill civilians and are taking measures to save as many civilian lives as they can.. for example- lets get back to what the point of this post is about.. these iraqi soldiers that are faking civilians and surrendering they are not killing cause they are thinking they are iraqi civialians right? well that to me is showing some type of regard for human life.they don't want to kill innocent people.The iraqi soldiers are killing civilians of both countries, not caring how its done because they have no regrad for human life at all. And for that i am going to call them animals.But as someone else said, thats how these soldiers are going to fight in war..I respect your opinion and what you have to say....I am sorry you don't get my point but don't bother to continue going in circles trying to repeat yourself..Yes, i am closed minded and naive and also really ignorant so on that note why bother responding to me? Now this is a perfect example of your consistent hypocrisy. That is the only thing you are consistent with actually, hehe. First you are circling and reapeating your own arguements. Must I go back, copy and past what you wrote two posts before. Also you ask why I bother responding to you, well why do you bother responding to me? Not only that but yesterday you said you were done chatting, again you make one statement and then contradict yourself or exemplify that you believe or do otherwise. Please do yourself a favor and take a few minute to think before you type, speak, or even converse with anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist [bPlease do yourself a favor and take a few minute to think before you type, speak, or even converse with anyone. now that is totally not me my dear, oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.