chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Yes, but you said I made no sense and then used my comments on a subject that i was not commenting on. Thats all. Explain to me how calling one side of a war animals = an anti-war stance. To me, that makes no sense at all. Just my .02 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin Explain to me how calling one side of a war animals = an anti-war stance. To me, that makes no sense at all. Just my .02 though. thats not exactly what I said or meant. You cant take one sentence out from a paragraph and then ask for its meaning. Well since you asked I will have to go to through the entire train of thought again. I believe it is wrong to call one side animals if you are pro war becaues of their military actions. In doing so you should be prepared to accept the fact that both sides should be considered animals. you are ultimately saying that during war somehow one side is acting similarly but should be spared the label of "animal". now this is false in my opinion. We have bombed and killed civilians thus far. you can not fight a war without acting in ways that are not considered civil or how many people on this board liek to say, "animal-like". Therefore it is is hypocritical to call one side an animal and clean your hands from all responsibility and actions your side has taken as well. So in order to free your statements from being hypocritical; if you believe these actions are viewed as animalistic then you should also believe all actions of war as being animalistic and wrong. If this is true well then your are not pro war. you are anti war and pro american bombing the shit out of another country and not having anything done in retaliation. Point being pro war means expecting, not necessarily agreeing with the fact that retaliation exists, it is WAR. and it cannot be fought with only one side attacking. Does that make sense now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly you understood the subject matter completely.. This thread covered all areas and the main area I was talking about was the iraqi soldiers pretending to be civilians and then firing upon US troops.. I called them animals, and starvingartist went back and forth on that, but now shes telling you that you are speaking on the wrong subject matter:confused: This person just can't take hearing anyone elses opinion obiviously..and the point of this thread is gone now How so? If I couldnt take hearing someone else's opinion then I wouldnt respond or read them. Actually there are a few opinions on ehre that I do respect. Yours for one is definitely not one of them. And you seem to enjoy accusing me of certain thoughts, etc. Now I ask you this, am I the one who cant hear others opinions or are you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist thats not exactly what I said or meant. You cant take one sentence out from a paragraph and then ask for its meaning. Well since you asked I will have to go to through the entire train of thought again. I believe it is wrong to call one side animals if you are pro war becaues of their military actions. In doing so you should be prepared to accept the fact that both sides should be considered animals. you are ultimately saying that during war somehow one side is acting similarly but should be spared the label of "animal". now this is false in my opinion. We have bombed and killed civilians thus far. you can not fight a war without acting in ways that are not considered civil or how many people on this board liek to say, "animal-like". Therefore it is is hypocritical to call one side an animal and clean your hands from all responsibility and actions your side has taken as well. So in order to free your statements from being hypocritical; if you believe these actions are viewed as animalistic then you should also believe all actions of war as being animalistic and wrong. If this is true well then your are not pro war. you are anti war and pro american bombing the shit out of another country and not having anything done in retaliation. Point being pro war means expecting, not necessarily agreeing with the fact that retaliation exists, it is WAR. and it cannot be fought with only one side attacking. Does that make sense now? I see your point, war is not pleasant at all, and all action in war may seem animalistic, but you do understand that there is something known as "lawful war", right? My point is that Iraqi soldiers are not undertaking this war justly, which IMO, would make them "animals". It seems like our disagreement on this stems from our different views on term "animals". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 The US should do whatever it takes to win this war. I just can't believe all the dissention and arguments against winning by this or that method. The Iraqis will do whatever it takes to defeat us, why can't we do the same?Confusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by spragga25 The US should do whatever it takes to win this war. I just can't believe all the dissention and arguments against winning by this or that method. The Iraqis will do whatever it takes to defeat us, why can't we do the same?Confusing... I feel the same exact way.. but theres a right way and a wrong way of doing things.. even war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin I see your point, war is not pleasant at all, and all action in war may seem animalistic, but you do understand that there is something known as "lawful war", right? My point is that Iraqi soldiers are not undertaking this war justly, which IMO, would make them "animals". It seems like our disagreement on this stems from our different views on term "animals". Yes agreed. I for one dont think humans are animals, hehe. Seriously though I do know of what you speak in fighting a "lawful" war. But unless you are everwhere all the time it is hard to say who is breaking laws and who is not. I just find it amusing how one can be pro war and in a sense pro killing but then call the other side animals, that makes no sense to me? Plus indirectly or directly if you are living at the very site of a ground war attack, your life is being threatened. To then call the attacked animals, and the attackers "kind" well that also makes no sense to me. Yes the people we are attacking are acting in ways we dont think are just in some sense. but bombing villages is somewhat better? I just dont see these differences that people use to label one an animal and another a savior?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin I feel the same exact way.. but theres a right way and a wrong way of doing things.. even war. But if one side is clearly doing the wrong things (pretending to surrender, etc.) and putting our troops in danger, we should be able to, at that point, eliminate them by any and every means necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Yes agreed. I for one dont think humans are animals, hehe. Seriously though I do know of what you speak in fighting a "lawful" war. But unless you are everwhere all the time it is hard to say who is breaking laws and who is not. I just find it amusing how one can be pro war and in a sense pro killing but then call the other side animals, that makes no sense to me? Plus indirectly or directly if you are living at the very site of a ground war attack, your life is being threatened. To then call the attacked animals, and the attackers "kind" well that also makes no sense to me. Yes the people we are attacking are acting in ways we dont think are just in some sense. but bombing villages is somewhat better? I just dont see these differences that people use to label one an animal and another a savior?? Believe me, I complete understand what you're saying. If you break down into the simplest terms, we really are all animals, attempting to preserve ourselves. But it is not so much that I am pro-killing, I believe that we, as a country, have the God-given right to protect ourselves (limited by the laws of war). If going into this country and ridding it of a dictator like Saddam is going to make this country and the world a safer place for my son, then I'm behind it. I understand what you're saying about calling the attacked the "animals" and the attackers "kind", although I wouldn't go so far as to call them kind, I would rather say we are doing what we have to do in order to protect our own, again, our actions limited by the laws of war. It boggles my mind that there are even "laws of war". But like everything else, war needs to be regulated, and the laws are derived from the laws of nature. But I sincerely respect your opinion and your views, and enjoy beign able to go back and forth like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by spragga25 The US should do whatever it takes to win this war. I just can't believe all the dissention and arguments against winning by this or that method. The Iraqis will do whatever it takes to defeat us, why can't we do the same?Confusing... thats what the dessert rats are saying.....the british force wants to let all force out, get the job done, secure the area, and be done with it....they feel the war has too much of a surgical strategy..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaligirl Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Those people?Their own?During war, your either a friend or an enemy. The only animal I see is you. Sadam has no problem killing his own people. Did we forget that today the 26th is the 15 year anniversary of when Sadam used a biologial weapon on his own people, killing thousands?? So to agree with girly, yes Sadam and anyone following his orders are animals!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pookie23 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by kaligirl Sadam has no problem killing his own people. Did we forget that today the 26th is the 15 year anniversary of when Sadam used a biologial weapon on his own people, killing thousands?? So to agree with girly, yes Sadam and anyone following his orders are animals!! Savages is a more fitting term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 OK, this is getting out of hand, and I don't have the time to answer each person individually, hence this post. First of all, war is a dirty dirty thing. War is about killing - and IMO when it comes to killing, there is no such thing as "lawful" killing. A person, when faced with their own mortality will resort to adopting Darwinian tactics (someone else mentioned this, underwater?),ie survival of the fittest. As such, a person or army will resort to any means necessary to survive. I agree this is animalistic by nature, but will NOT stop at calling just one side animalistic. The US army, in the past, has committed great atrocities because they were pushed to it. At the present, they probably are not committing similar barbaric acts just because, and I reiterate, just because they have the luxury of superior firepower, and also because it would defeat what they are trying to achieve. If strategic use of your resources (eg, sniper attacks, trickery, etc) is what you're going to use to fight this war, then so be it - it is a new form of guerilla warfare. I cannot call this barbaric, no more than I can the bombing of a market in Baghdad, or the bombing of a civilian TV station (which by the way also violates the Geneva conventions), or the bombing twice, of a shelter housing innocents. Intelligence failure? If so, then slow the bombing campaign. But, which US army official was it that said, that civilian life lost was regretful but it would NOT stop the progress of the bombing. So, in essence, the US army is willing to sacrifice civilian life for the benefit of the war. NOte: Remember the American revolutionaries were considered barbaric for adopting guerilla warfare techniques, and not adhering to old-fashioned column fighting(??). Any group that is forced to fight a much stronger power WILL adapt its technique, otherwise, in order to avoid annhilation.No-one really knows what goes on in the battlefield except through the propaganda we're fed through the media. True, this propaganda might not compare to the stuff spewing out of Iraqi television, but I believe it to be propaganda nonetheless. Underwater - yes, the army is 100% voluntary right now, but are you going to guarantee that what happened in Vietnam will not happen again. In other words, if there is a draft, are you going to tell me that this will still be a 100% volunatary army. Let me ask you a question - if the tables are turned, and it was an invading army attacking the US...are you just going to lay aside and let yourself be killed, or are you going to fight back with all you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by kaligirl Sadam has no problem killing his own people. Did we forget that today the 26th is the 15 year anniversary of when Sadam used a biologial weapon on his own people, killing thousands?? So to agree with girly, yes Sadam and anyone following his orders are animals!! And did you also forget that when Saddam first used chemical weapons the US was on his side, and stayed on his side even after? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania OK, this is getting out of hand, and I don't have the time to answer each person individually, hence this post. First of all, war is a dirty dirty thing. War is about killing - and IMO when it comes to killing, there is no such thing as "lawful" killing. A person, when faced with their own mortality will resort to adopting Darwinian tactics (someone else mentioned this, underwater?),ie survival of the fittest. As such, a person or army will resort to any means necessary to survive. I agree this is animalistic by nature, but will NOT stop at calling just one side animalistic. The US army, in the past, has committed great atrocities because they were pushed to it. At the present, they probably are not committing similar barbaric acts just because, and I reiterate, just because they have the luxury of superior firepower, and also because it would defeat what they are trying to achieve. If strategic use of your resources (eg, sniper attacks, trickery, etc) is what you're going to use to fight this war, then so be it - it is a new form of guerilla warfare. I cannot call this barbaric, no more than I can the bombing of a market in Baghdad, or the bombing of a civilian TV station (which by the way also violates the Geneva conventions), or the bombing twice, of a shelter housing innocents. Intelligence failure? If so, then slow the bombing campaign. But, which US army official was it that said, that civilian life lost was regretful but it would NOT stop the progress of the bombing. So, in essence, the US army is willing to sacrifice civilian life for the benefit of the war. NOte: Remember the American revolutionaries were considered barbaric for adopting guerilla warfare techniques, and not adhering to old-fashioned column fighting(??). Any group that is forced to fight a much stronger power WILL adapt its technique, otherwise, in order to avoid annhilation.No-one really knows what goes on in the battlefield except through the propaganda we're fed through the media. True, this propaganda might not compare to the stuff spewing out of Iraqi television, but I believe it to be propaganda nonetheless. Underwater - yes, the army is 100% voluntary right now, but are you going to guarantee that what happened in Vietnam will not happen again. In other words, if there is a draft, are you going to tell me that this will still be a 100% volunatary army. Let me ask you a question - if the tables are turned, and it was an invading army attacking the US...are you just going to lay aside and let yourself be killed, or are you going to fight back with all you have? Ok, so if war is just about killing, then we are just over there fighting in Iraq "just to kill people?". Get real, bro. We are over there for a number of reasons, I'm sure, but not to just kill people. Of course war is a bad thing, but if its in the best interest of our country's national security, then its the right thing to do. Like I said, war has to be regulated and laws have to be made for it, just like everything else, to limit the actions allowable during war-time. I'm not saying this is a perfect set of rules, and I'm sure they have changed and will be amended a million times over, but they have to be in place. But, which US army official was it that said, that civilian life lost was regretful but it would NOT stop the progress of the bombing. So, in essence, the US army is willing to sacrifice civilian life for the benefit of the war. ? I'm sure the loss of civilian life was not purposeful. It is a sad loss, but I bet that there were many factors at stake that would not allow the bombing or the entire campain to be slowed down or stopped. Slowing down or even stopping the operation would more than likely put our own troops in alot more immediate danger for one, and would also result in the operation lasting that much longer, which would result in our troops being in harms way for that much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 iraq-iran war, most of those chemicals were US made or manufactured with US green dollar bills generously paid for by your tax dollars. anyone believes in karma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaligirl Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania And did you also forget that when Saddam first used chemical weapons the US was on his side, and stayed on his side even after? I admit I do not know all the particulars of this incident. Can you give me some facts please?? If it was reversed I don't think the US would ever use any type of chemical weapon on our own people the way Sadam did. Do you?? He really has no regard for the people of his country and has no problem putting innocent people to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaligirl Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by vicman iraq-iran war, most of those chemicals were US made or manufactured with US green dollar bills generously paid for by your tax dollars. anyone believes in karma? At that time Iran was a big threat. I don't think that the US forsaw he would use them on his own people, or against us in the future. Really who knows. None of us do. Thats all top secret shit we will never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by kaligirl He really has no regard for the people of his country and has no problem putting innocent people to death. thank you, this was really the only point i was trying to make when referring to saddam and his peers as animals.. they have no regard for any human life whatsoever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djxeno 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? girly, let me ask you a question. If the U.S. does not use fucked up tactics, then how come the U.S. was the only country not to join the International War Crimes Court?-XeNo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by djxeno girly, let me ask you a question. If the U.S. does not use fucked up tactics, then how come the U.S. was the only country not to join the International War Crimes Court?-XeNo- I never said that they don't use fucked up tactics i said they are trying not to kill civilians and taking measures to reduce civilian death and that is showing SOME regard for human life unlike the opposition.. boy you peeps got a way with twisting words.As far as not joining the international crimes court goes.well explain why because of this that you think the U.S uses fucked up tactics as the ones discussed in this thread? That doesn't by any means mean that they kill civilians by using such tactics as we are talking about here.. i am only a little knowleagable on the international war crimes court so I am reading a little on it now but i never said they didn't use fucked up tactics.. I said regarding this war that they are taking measures to reduce civilian casualties unlike the Iraqis who are killing basically anyone.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by kaligirl At that time Iran was a big threat. I don't think that the US forsaw he would use them on his own people, or against us in the future. Really who knows. None of us do. Thats all top secret shit we will never know. there is a lot of top secret shit that we dont know, and i am suprised many times at how some people accept things at face value. the CIA did the same thing in Panama by getting rid of Torrijos, he who signed the Torrijos-Carter treaty with Jimmy Carter by which the Canal Zone would be returned to Panama on the 1/1/00. to replace him Noriega was placed in front of Panamanian Army, he who in time, eventually became a dictator there and the US had to go in and remove in 1991. same in Chile where they removed a civilian elected president in Salvador Allende and put some guy named Augusto Pinochet to serve their own needs.we should inform ourselves on both sides of the story, then we would see that even the "good guys" aren't so "good" after all. the US led coalition has its own set of interest beyond removing Saddam in this invasion, only thing is that you wouldnt know of them unless you are willing to dig deep enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 hell with it, the US should invade each and every country where there are violations of human rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Here we go again with the Imperialistic America theory..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly I never said that they don't use fucked up tactics i said they are trying not to kill civilians and taking measures to reduce civilian death and that is showing SOME regard for human life unlike the opposition.. boy you peeps got a way with twisting words.As far as not joining the international crimes court goes.well explain why because of this that you think the U.S uses fucked up tactics as the ones discussed in this thread? That doesn't by any means mean that they kill civilians by using such tactics as we are talking about here.. i am only a little knowleagable on the international war crimes court so I am reading a little on it now but i never said they didn't use fucked up tactics.. I said regarding this war that they are taking measures to reduce civilian casualties unlike the Iraqis who are killing basically anyone.. I dont see any twisting of words do youthis is what you said: i am calling the iraqi soldiers animals.. look at the treatment the US troops are giving the iraqi POWS.. feeding them, performing surgery on them and treating them human. shit they are probably getting better treatment now more then ever.Those ANIMALS continue to not follow rules of war, yeah it is war but there are rules..The US would not have to use those kind of tactics but anyway they are showing some type of regard for human life..Those animals will kill anyone regardless of anything even their own people.. 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.