starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly The US would never fight that way..Unfortunately these animals and inhuman scum will. you also said this..Now I ask are you retracting these statements? If not which one is it? Where do you stand? Please make up your mind.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by starvingartist you also said this..Now I ask are you retracting these statements? If not which one is it? Where do you stand? Please make up your mind.. i think you need to stop worrying about where *I* stand, that has been very evident in anything that i have posted. Leave that up to me.. you or no one else on here will change my opinions or anything that i have to say no matter what, I respect what you have to say but back to the main point of this whole thing and what i said I feel they are animals.. I gave my reasons this thread has been butchered to death.. next.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by girly i think you need to stop worrying about where *I* stand, that has been very evident in anything that i have posted. Leave that up to me.. you or no one else on here will change my opinions or anything that i have to say no matter what, I respect what you have to say but back to the main point of this whole thing and what i said I feel they are animals.. I gave my reasons this thread has been butchered to death.. next.. Again you choose to mask your own sentiments by accusing me of something like "worrying". Apparently you seem to care what I think otherwise you wouldnt spend your time replying with no relevant information ont he topic or something interesting to add to the overall opinion, but a weak reply on me trying to do something. That is rather elementary. I think its pass your bed time kiddie. So go to bed and let the adults continue with a real conversation. Because your points offer no mental stimulation. I feel debate leads to progress. At situations like this, I come to think we come so far in some respects (as the level of maturity and intelligence of this board display), but at moments someone or something opens their mouth and makes me realize there is still much more to be done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by chrishaolin 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. I sincerely respect yours as well. If it werent for open discussions on current events, one's perspective would be one sided for the most part. I guess the bottom line is I think its wrong to make value judgements in general. Even more so during a war. And like I said previously I am for war, becaues of this I dont consider actions during war, offensive or defensive as animalistic. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djxeno Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 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.. They did not join because they did not want to be punished for war crimes. They do not care for civilians, did you forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I know that is the best but shit doesn't change....Also, we do not know how many Iraqi civilians are being killed in this war cuz the media has failed to report it. and lets not forget the sanctions, which is still causing 5000 Iraqi CIVILIAN casualties every month, mostly children, thanks to the Good Old U.S of A.Lemme give you another example, in the previous Gulf war, General Swortzkoff stated that the patriot missles that they were using were 95 percent accurate in hitting their targets. Later it was found out to be a complete lie, when in actuality the patriot missle has an accuracy measure of about 30% or below. More civilian deaths...In Afghanistan, a war which i supported, they bombed the shit out of that country, which was nothing to begin with. You know afghanistan has no army, no nothing, just a bunch of middle aged men with machine guns fighting on camels. If they really cared about civilians they would have used ground troops in that war.-XeNo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by djxeno They did not join because they did not want to be punished for war crimes. They do not care for civilians, did you forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I know that is the best but shit doesn't change....Also, we do not know how many Iraqi civilians are being killed in this war cuz the media has failed to report it. and lets not forget the sanctions, which is still causing 5000 Iraqi CIVILIAN casualties every month, mostly children, thanks to the Good Old U.S of A.Lemme give you another example, in the previous Gulf war, General Swortzkoff stated that the patriot missles that they were using were 95 percent accurate in hitting their targets. Later it was found out to be a complete lie, when in actuality the patriot missle has an accuracy measure of about 30% or below. More civilian deaths...In Afghanistan, a war which i supported, they bombed the shit out of that country, which was nothing to begin with. You know afghanistan has no army, no nothing, just a bunch of middle aged men with machine guns fighting on camels. If they really cared about civilians they would have used ground troops in that war.-XeNo- They did use ground troops Troops are still there and civilians who didn't want to fight mostly left before the bombing they did care abotu civilians they let the taliban know they were coming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 besides What ever anyone did in the past has no bearing on the merrit of the actions right now. and right now the US is not using fucked up techniques and tactics that go against the geneva convention the iraqis are end of story !!! Im so tired of people trying to discredit the choices of the current leadership, with the actions of the leadership of 30 years ago. Its a baseless poor argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djxeno Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone besides What ever anyone did in the past has no bearing on the merrit of the actions right now. and right now the US is not using fucked up techniques and tactics that go against the geneva convention the iraqis are end of story !!! Im so tired of people trying to discredit the choices of the current leadership, with the actions of the leadership of 30 years ago. Its a baseless poor argument. Oh wait i forgot to rule out fuckin Rumsfield's statement "We won't rule out the use of a nuclear weapon during the war."um....yeah.....I think civilians will be okay with that.-XeNo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by djxeno Oh wait i forgot to rule out fuckin Rumsfield's statement "We won't rule out the use of a nuclear weapon during the war."um....yeah.....I think civilians will be okay with that.-XeNo- that's policy and it hasn't happened and the weapons he was talking about were low yeild nuclear weapons to be used under ground to destroy bunkers. when a nuclear weapon is detonated underground there is no fallout. but it will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djxeno Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone that's policy and it hasn't happened and the weapons he was talking about were low yeild nuclear weapons to be used under ground to destroy bunkers. when a nuclear weapon is detonated underground there is no fallout. but it will never happen. Are u serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by djxeno Are u serious? what thats just fact personally I don't think they need to be used at all. the real damage would be environmental not civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by dnice35 Here we go again with the Imperialistic America theory..... seriously.. we're in America. we're all americans. you enjoy freedoms that most of the world doesn't. be fuckin proud!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by djxeno Oh wait i forgot to rule out fuckin Rumsfield's statement "We won't rule out the use of a nuclear weapon during the war."um....yeah.....I think civilians will be okay with that.-XeNo- its called a "tactical nuke"... its not the "blow the country off the face of the map" nuclear attack that you're thinking of.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by chrishaolin 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. I never said that we're over there just to kill people. I said war is about killing, thus all bets are off. When, you're fighting for survival, you're not gonna be following any "laws" set by someone else. 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. You just validated my point. Civilian casualties are avoided only if they can, ie, if its convenient. If there is a tactical advantage to be gained by implementing a particular strategy, even though it would result in a great number of civilian deaths, then I am sure the govt would not hesitate to initiate it. That, IMO, is also barbaric. However, I am anti-war, so the whole thing is barbaric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone besides What ever anyone did in the past has no bearing on the merrit of the actions right now. and right now the US is not using fucked up techniques and tactics that go against the geneva convention the iraqis are end of story !!! Im so tired of people trying to discredit the choices of the current leadership, with the actions of the leadership of 30 years ago. Its a baseless poor argument. Actually, it is far from baseless argument. One can only judge and predict the actions of a country by the pattern developed by its previous deeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by raver_mania I never said that we're over there just to kill people. I said war is about killing, thus all bets are off. When, you're fighting for survival, you're not gonna be following any "laws" set by someone else. You just validated my point. Civilian casualties are avoided only if they can, ie, if its convenient. If there is a tactical advantage to be gained by implementing a particular strategy, even though it would result in a great number of civilian deaths, then I am sure the govt would not hesitate to initiate it. That, IMO, is also barbaric. However, I am anti-war, so the whole thing is barbaric. war isn't about killing it's the last means to solving a dire problem first of all. if it was about killing the war would be over right now. and we don't avoid civilian casualties when it's convenient we avoid them when it's possible because right now the way the war is going we aqre being greatly inconvenienced by our extra sensitive policy of super low civilian casualties. this has also cause the perception of the war to be soured because of the length if time and effort we are taking to minimize civilian casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone besides What ever anyone did in the past has no bearing on the merrit of the actions right now. and right now the US is not using fucked up techniques and tactics that go against the geneva convention the iraqis are end of story !!! Im so tired of people trying to discredit the choices of the current leadership, with the actions of the leadership of 30 years ago. Its a baseless poor argument. The entire invasion is against the Geneva Convention. Bush set the tone, End of story!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by raver_mania Actually, it is far from baseless argument. One can only judge and predict the actions of a country by the pattern developed by its previous deeds. uhm.. ok, so do we assume that Germany and/or Japan are going to attempt to take over the world again? Or how about France, under Napoleon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone war isn't about killing it's the last means to solving a dire problem first of all. if it was about killing the war would be over right now. and we don't avoid civilian casualties when it's convenient we avoid them when it's possible because right now the way the war is going we aqre being greatly inconvenienced by our extra sensitive policy of super low civilian casualties. this has also cause the perception of the war to be soured because of the length if time and effort we are taking to minimize civilian casualties. Your entire statement is wrong. Right now we are not trying to minimize civilian casualities even one bit. Dont go by my statements just read any that our own Government has made in the last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by chrishaolin uhm.. ok, so do we assume that Germany and/or Japan are going to attempt to take over the world again? Or how about France, under Napoleon? Lol. Actually that wouldnt be a bad idea, jk. Seriously though I think what he was trying to infer is that, In the past U.S. tactics that were against "fair" war regulations were not uncovered till after the war. Meaning we can not possibly say as of right now whether or not the U.S. is behaving as just as they are trying to appear. In the past, such information was not known till after. Therefore we should use this knowledge from our own history books, not to jump to any conclusions as of right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by chrishaolin uhm.. ok, so do we assume that Germany and/or Japan are going to attempt to take over the world again? Or how about France, under Napoleon? OK, now you're trying to get funny with me.Past: US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.Present: Present policy does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the new defense doctrine has even OK'd the "first strike" policy against another nuclear power. You're right - they're not the same administrations, but the governmental system in place now is the same as it was 50 years ago. The train of thought is the same...Germany and Japan now are nothing like they were 50 years ago.Napolean - I won't even waste my time answering that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by starvingartist The entire invasion is against the Geneva Convention. Bush set the tone, End of story!!! actually it's not. why don't you read the geneva convention it's The rules of engagement not the rules for engagement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by starvingartist Your entire statement is wrong. Right now we are not trying to minimize civilian casualities even one bit. Dont go by my statements just read any that our own Government has made in the last week. you can't be sierious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by starvingartist Lol. Actually that wouldnt be a bad idea, jk. Seriously though I think what he was trying to infer is that, In the past U.S. tactics that were against "fair" war regulations were not uncovered till after the war. Meaning we can not possibly say as of right now whether or not the U.S. is behaving as just as they are trying to appear. In the past, such information was not known till after. Therefore we should use this knowledge from our own history books, not to jump to any conclusions as of right now. Thank you! Like I said before, you have a much more eloquent way of saying things than me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Originally posted by siceone actually it's not. why don't you read the geneva convention it's The rules of engagement not the rules for engagement. That is what I am talking about. I think you should go read it. 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.