Before you start handing out more sympath for the "poor" Iraqis...

[Ferret]

Let's take a look at some of the things the "defenseless" iraqi gov't has been doing lately:

Dressing up elite soldiers in Civilian atire and flagging down coalition troops for help - when troops stop their vehicles, the soldiers pull out their weapons and murder the coalition troops.

Iraqi soldiers are using women and children as human shields to block bullets from hitting them.

The Iraqi military are placing gun batteries in civilian-filled areas so that when we attempt to remove the batteries we hit inocent people.

These people are led by a "president" who fights w/o honour. They deserve any painful deaths they receive. The world has no place for people like this...

-Ferret

"...we may be invaders, but at least we're honest invaders..."

 

[DÛke]

...

You do realize that any ape could have wrote what you just did, correct? Where are your resources?

Without further ado...shall we predict that your resources are all American-ized?

I dare you watch CNN or BBC, and then turn to almost any Arabian, or, for your shock, any European or Asian news sources - you will see the "slight" difference. All media is biased, that is a given...but let us not overlook the fact that the entire world is on one side, both news-wise and war-opinion wise, and that the U.S. and Britian are on the opposite side...

I am an Iraqi. You do not speak for me or my family, my friends, or the thousands of Iraqis I personally know that still live in Iraq: we rather die under Saddam than be "liberated" by your Bush...alright? If I were there, I would be fighting against your hysterical, will-less soldiers - and that, I have heard from everyone I know, in and out of Iraq...

You are not talking about zoo-animals, lack-of-all-principles "American" culture, you are talking about a people and a culture that goes back thousands of years old, with an elgant foundation, a basis. Let me offend your ears with something you have not heard: we have something called...dignity and thick blood, or if using your terms, we have honor. We don't feel that just because something is "justified" that it is right, like you have done...

You have your Kit-Kat and Love-Seats, we have our experience with pain, sanctions, psychological abuse from both Saddam, the U.S., and from the entire world. As one of my Iraqi friends put it: "we don't need the world to cry for us now, when they ignored us for so many years..."

You're honest invaders? You realize that any non-American will laugh at that, especially when an American uses the word "honest" to defend his country. Or have you not heard: in this war, to be an "honest American" is a contradiction. Now you know...

Honest would be to say "we are going there for the oil, not to liberate the people, but we will liberate the people as we take their oil. And it is not really the weapons that Saddam might have that bothers us, it is the fact that our econmy is screwed, Bush has lost the war on terrorism, and now needs a new distraction...and ta da! Iraq is a great target, as an unproven ally with terrorism, 'Axis of Evil,' an oil mine, and a distraction from what is a failing here inside the states...so it is like shooting 4 birds with one stone!!!"

That would be honesty.

But when you say:

"We are there to liberate the Iraqi people, and that's all!"

Does that not sound suspicios to you, at all?

And you call that honesty?

I am not surprised. But I am not surprised that you are not surprised of yourself...

And besides, what the Iraqi "troops" are doing...the world calls that "genius." Americans have no war tactics other than their little toys, so they call hand-to-hand combat and war tactics "terrorism," "cowardly," "lack of honor." I smile, and I call it: intelligent. What do you expect? -- you don't tell me that Iraq was easy to overtake, did you? There is much lack of technology and toys there, but where machines ebb, brains flood...

 

[train]

Iraq would be extremely easy to overtake if we weren't holding back so many of our toys...

Taking a week to drop a bunker-buster... please - we've gone easy on them...

As for hand to hand - there hasn't been any... just close armed combat...

As for why we're there - I don't care as long as Hussein is removed... hopefully from sharing my air...

As for how long... that depends on us and when we decide to use the real toys... A-10's haven't seen much combat yet... one of them can take out 30 tanks alone... and the apaches just performed their first "deep" Iraqi combat mission...

As for the Republican Guard... I'm glad the U.S. is pounding division by division... and I'm glad those being pounded are stupid enough to stay put...

you are talking about a people and a culture that goes back thousands of years old, - Duke

A culture cowardly enough to place it's own women and children elsewhere while they use the hospital as an armory, or to hide weapons in schools... and to even force it's own civillians at gunpoint... to fight for a cause they'd rather see demolished... such a culture, if proud, would have gotten rid of Saddam long ago... He drained marshlands and made Iraq even more desert... how stupid is that?...

 

[DÛke]

...

train:

A culture cowardly enough to place it's own women and children elsewhere while they use the hospital as an armory, or to hide weapons in schools... and to even force it's own civillians at gunpoint... to fight for a cause they'd rather see demolished... such a culture, if proud, would have gotten rid of Saddam long ago... He drained marshlands and made Iraq even more desert... how stupid is that?...

Well, did you suggest that they throw away all their weapons? Of course, they do that. Or do you want to easily go there and take the land whenever you like, without resistence at all, not even normal weapons? How many times should I say this: of course they do that! You call it war, and you want no resistence...who is cowardly?

You are probably the first empire on Earth to ever ask another president to "exile." Seriously, how cowardly are you?

Iraq would be easy if you are not "holding back." You see, you are holding back because you said something about..."liberating the Iraqi people," so you do not want to use something "nasty," or what, was that a lie too? <laugh> Eventually, you might use them...the Iraqis are too much to handle by weak men...

 

[train]

Seriously, how cowardly are you?

Not as cowardly as Saddam... he won't even show his face... And not as cowardly as many of the Iraqis being forced to fight because they aren't proud enough to say no... Die with pride, and not out of fear... that's their first problem...

the Iraqis are too much to handle by weak men...

That's exactly why the French aren't involved... and Iraq will still be pummeled

 

[Zhaneel]

Dressing up elite soldiers in Civilian atire and flagging down coalition troops for help - when troops stop their vehicles, the soldiers pull out their weapons and murder the coalition troops.

Iraqi soldiers are using women and children as human shields to block bullets from hitting them.

The Iraqi military are placing gun batteries in civilian-filled areas so that when we attempt to remove the batteries we hit inocent people.

And what would you do if we were invaded? You would fight back, no? I don't agree with their using civilians as targets. That's wrong. But for the first part... it's war, and they're doing what they can. They don't have the advanced technology we do, so they have to fight any way they can. And for some, Saddam is the lesser of two evils.

And my sympathy goes out to the Iraqi civilians. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Mazzak]

Not as cowardly as Saddam... he won't even show his face...

Bush would crap his pants and run crying to his mama if he and Saddam reversed their roles. He's only acting tough because he's got bombs and, oh yeah, he's NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE ACTUAL FIGHTING. Why exactly has the U.S. set up all manner of secret underground bunkers for its top officials again? Well, of COURSE they are too BRAVE to hide in times of war when they may be KILLED, right? The Americans just face danger with such amazing courage, don't they? That's why at the slightest suspicion of a threat, they carpet-bomb another country. That's why Dick Cheney is almost always in an "undisclosed location". That's why the airlines only stop short of making all passengers trim their fingernails short before boarding. Oh yes, those Americans sure are COURAGEOUS.

I pretty much agree with DUke here, what the Iraqis are doing is called Tactics, and it may be cruel but it isn't cowardice. If I was leading them, I'd be directing them to do just what they are doing now, because how else are they to hold off the bomb-happy American cowards? If the U.S. had their way, all enemies would have to stand, looking threatening but not actually doing anything, on big red X's on the ground for easy aiming because anything else would be cowardice...

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Say there were communists invading this country, to set us free from the capitalist pigs &c &c &c. (I am not condoning communism, nor invasion of the United States. This parenthetical message is aimed at anyone who should read this post thanks to a search engine or something like that.)
Say the rest of the world was against this government (although that isn't the case for the government I'm referring to in the real war we're having, but it only heightens my example), but we were proud of it (as most Americans are of our government).
Say we were not a superpower, but still the ideologically strong nation we are politically.
Say there was a leader with a strong approval rating in power.
Say there was a perception, all around the world, one which I consider correct but apparently you don't, that the people invading this country were doing so not for an ideal but for some kind of resources. They were willing to send some people to obliterate (a few letters away from liberate) our government for some ________________________.

Would you ask our government not to fight as hard as possible?

In the Revolutionary War we won against a super power with "cowardly," "dishonorable" tactics (certainly what the British would have thought), although perhaps they were backed up with slightly justified indignation at the control of that superpower over our lives. (I'd remind you that there was not a large majority of colonists then in support of the war, although it would draw skepticism to question that war now.)
These tactics involved fighting as few battles as possible on battlefields, running away and then attacking when we could, &c. Guerrilla tactics essentially.

Now we, a superpower, are decrying the cowardly, dishonorable tactics of a nation with at least enough people who are horrified at the situation to form an army.

There is more than one way to be horrified at this situation; I'm not going around shooting Americans, for example. Still there are analogies between this situation and the one in the 1770s (and the one in the 1970s in Vietnam).

What I do find a truly unfortunate factor in all this (but still worth considering) is that people have consistently become desensitized to cowardly and dishonorable tactics, so future generations of people delve further into the insane to take recourse for their actions.

Of course, that cycle would slow or maybe even stop if we supported peace. Work towards peace with diplomatic efforts being all but the last resort and the horrible realpolitik of a sinking-ship state will not be necessary. (But try telling that to the Bush shogunate. Oh wait, you wouldn't anyway. Sorry for taking up your time.)


If the Iraqi government is as bad as you say and the people are as much against the government as you think, realize that in no way should the civilians be punished for what the Iraqi SOLDIERS are doing.


(CIVILIAN != SOLDIER.

That is what everyone on the planet should remember for the future (although it's not new with this war). There are some people who try to blur the line, but when they do it, we shouldn't respond by blurring the line further, but by maintaining that there is a difference.)


However, if a substantial portion (or a majority as DÛke would have it) of the Iraqi population is in support of Saddam Hussein, or at least more in favor of him than of Bush, maybe we should let them decide themselves what sort of government they want, for the love of whatever ideals this country used to stand for.

Your inevitable disagreement with this conclusion (and the way you seemed to say that they all deserve whatever death they get for what some of them did) shows exactly the rift between the American and Iraqi cultures, and the fact that people in each one, but definitely at least ours, don't understand the other culture very well either. That sort of thing causes nationalism.
That nationalism is, at least, related to the nationalism that is causing the Iraqi soldiers to do what they do. Be thankful the situation is one way and not the other...

EDIT: I just noticed I forgot to finish one sentence, I'll just go back and do that.

 

[Ferret]

You know, Duke when you argue w/ me and Train it's just a matter of one man's patriotism against two other people's patriotrism.

No matter what you say, all I can see is the Iraqi flag flying over you while a choir of women sing the Iraqi national anthem. So, you live in Iraq and you're sick of all of the crap that's hapening in your home country? Good for you. Play the patriot. Sing the praises of your homeland and badmouth anyone that isn't you or doesn't have your opinion. After all, you're always right and we horrible evil Americans will always be wrong because we live in such a decadent society. I mean we have the nerve to allow our women to have actual rights and be treated w/ equality. How dare we! We allow freedom of religion. When you can tell us how there is only One True Religion and all others that don't believe are infidel dogs and God will strike them down - or someone else will in His name.

I may be a product of a decadent society, but I believe that everyone deserves the chance to grow up in such a society and CHOOSE their own path - not have it chosen for them by their "President."

-Ferret

"...did you vote for him? Are you willing to admit it if you didn't?"

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

I see 3 or 4 vs. 2.
Well, Ok, Spiderman maybe, so 3 or 4 vs. 3.

 

[DÛke]

Dear Ferret, insofar, you have shown yourself to be a fool. Really, you are a fool. Firstly, I do not live in Iraq, but rather, in the United States. Second, all that you have said about me and my nationalistic spirit - you are wrong. Maybe you should ask Shiro about my "nationalistic" spirit (he has seen my arguments and how they tend to be...super-anti-nations)...maybe you have not heard me preach against Muslims and against the Arab world - against all walking-dead everything-religious and patriotic like yourself? Maybe you have not seen me denounce everything that has to do with culture, tradition, and morals? Maybe you have not heard me say "burn all religions, anything that pertains to religions, and all flags and everything that pertains to 'nations'"! You only have to talk to Multani or Aku Necromancer to understand how much beyond the image you would so like to see me with. I believe you need to look at your description of me, friend, and see how much it reflects you more than it ever speaks about me...

I dislike Saddam. I dislike Bush. I will fight alongside Saddam any day, if only because I have principles. You think I am being nationalistic? Why? Because I spoke the truth? That the Iraqi culture goes back farther than the American culture? That pain makes one wise, and so Iraqis are much wiser than Americans? This is not nationalistic - you seem to be confused. This is truth agreed by the entire world. BASIC truths...

You, you are a product. A tool. A living-dead. The only freedom about you is that you have an opinion of things - too many opinions of things you do not know, things that you have not experienced, things that you would avoid should they present themselves to you. You read too much, you digest and swallow to much…because you yourself lack much. But let me give you an advice: that is not intellectuality! To feed your lack of thought, your lack of deepness, your lack of passion…to feed those…that is not intelligent, I tell you what it is: it is shallow. You are a child: you want to offend the world with your lack of substance...

You are mostly offended by yourself.

You know what is the latest joke I have heard? People who say that the world would not be the same without them! How...funny! (They don't realize that the world would be a much more intelligent place without their kind.)

Are you really a founder I should respect? Really now, let's be serious!

“…Are you willing to admit what your most profound thought is? Even if it is not profound at all?”

 

[Svenmonkey]

The idea of "rules of war" is hilarious nonsense. I mean, some nation with a load of long-ranged weapons and a huge air force expects that a nation with a lot of assault rifles and like 2 planes will completely throw away tactics just because of some pitiful "rules" that some superpowers set forth so they could win more easily?

"Uh-oh! Those Iraqis are using tactics that might let them kill a few of us! They can't do that! Killing Americans is against the rules!"

 

[Zhaneel]

haha...


"Sing the praises of your homeland and badmouth anyone that isn't you or doesn't have your opinion."

Um, wait, Ferret, are you talking about yourself or DUke?

 

[Ferret]

For the record, I'm not the biggest fan of America. I think that it's the worst country on the planet - next to all the other ones. We're decadent, filled w/ idiots that don't like to think for themselves and most citizens are nothing more than slaves to huge corporations...but that doesn't take away from the fact that in other countries there are massive problems and horrible governments that would love to see people more opressed than our own mega-corporations.

If what I'm saying sounds like hypocracy, it might just be from your point of view. I stand by all of my opinions and I don't care who doesn't agree w/ them...

I think that invading a country is wrong, but liberating an opressed people from an evil dictator is right. I believe ordirnary citizens have the right to fight against "enemies" of their country, but I'm against the native armed forces using unwilling citizens from acting as human shields. I'm against other countries using their weapons to harass other countries, but I have no problem w/ our country acting to prevent it. So many contradictions. Isn't it wonderful? But, they're my contradictions.

I'm not agreeing w/ the war because everyone else is - I'm agreeing w/ it because *I* want to.

-Ferret

"Bash away. I don't mind arguing. It's my favourite hobby."

 

[Apollo]

I believe that everyone deserves the chance to grow up in such a society and CHOOSE their own path - not have it chosen for them by their "President."

Nah, instead they can have someone else's president decide it for them. Right?

At any rate, I think Saddam's a jerk, and I don't like his tactics, but they really don't have much of a choice. We're invading, we're "using our weapons to harass other countries," and if they don't use some nasty tactics they're not gonna have a chance. I hope we win quickly, but don't blame the Iraqis for doing the only things they can.

For the record, I also think that we're the worst country on the planet--next to all the other ones. But that doesn't give us the right to invade them and try to make them just as "not-so-bad" as us.

 

[Ferret]

This reminds me a lot of pre-Pearl Harbor USA during WWII. Most of the country wanted to remain neutral and we could just ignore the whole war. Countries exchange hands all the time and why should we care. Unfortunately, the Japanese had other ideas - and, of course, our President at the time wanted us to have something to give us an economic boost.

Now, let's fast forward 60 years and here we are again. A country that would rather stay out of international politics (as a people - not talking about the politicians) and suddenly two of the tallest building in our country are a smoldering crater. This leads to our government getting paranoid and wanting to fight whoever we think might do it again. Call it crazy, but it's how this country generaly handles international politics. Ignore first, act second, think later. So far it's worked out pretty well for us...

-Ferret

"...either way, I'm glad to see things get shaken up occasionaly - I get bored easily - I just wish civilians didn't have to die to make the point..."

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Thallid Ice Cream Man
I see 3 or 4 vs. 2.
Well, Ok, Spiderman maybe, so 3 or 4 vs. 3.

So am I on the against side?

I think using car bombs is in fact tactically advantage when you're outclassed by the other side. Using unwilling civilian shields is NOT okay. I don't recall that happening the Revolutionary War. Creating death squads to shoot your own troops in case they desert is also deplorable, but that actually might have happened in the US' past (not on a widescale but more like a "get back to your post" individual deal).

"Rules of War" is just to make something uncivilized a bit more so. Face it, unless aggresion is bred out of the human race, there is always going to be war. Might as well put some constraints on what you can do to POWs and how you expect your POWs in return to be treated.

 

[train]

I really have only one thing to mention... and it's just food for thought... not directed at anyone...

If you aren't enjoying the rights you're using everyday... leave the country... if you have a problem with what we've done to keep those rights - don't use them... and if you don't like what we're doing now, to actually better the world... no one is keeping you here...

That's just how I view things everyday...

It was something my F-i-L reminded me of... and since then I don't forget it...

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by train
I really have only one thing to mention... and it's just food for thought... not directed at anyone...

If you aren't enjoying the rights you're using everyday... leave the country... if you have a problem with what we've done to keep those rights - don't use them... and if you don't like what we're doing now, to actually better the world... no one is keeping you here...

That's just how I view things everyday...

It was something my F-i-L reminded me of... and since then I don't forget it...

If you would actually understand the rights you're speaking of, you wouldn't write things like that.

But of course you have the right to write such nonsense .

BTW, it's hard for me to leave your country

 

[EricBess]

This has been compared to the Revolutionary war and I agree with the comparisons. But I'll second what Spidey said (he beat me to the punch). Using your intelligence and your resourses to gain a tactical advantage is tactics. Human shields is not.

The difference here is obvious. The revolutionary war was about fighting for freedom. The freedom of the people. If the Iraqi tactics were about fighting for the freedom of the people, they wouldn't be so disrespectful of the lives of their own people.

For example, dressing as civilians and acting like they need help so they can kill our troops? They know that we are trying to avoid injuring civilians and are taking advantage of it, but they have to know that it's crying wolf and that more civilians will be killed in the long run because of it. Of course, at that point, we will look like hypocrits, so they will have accomplished their goal.

From what I've seen, the Iraqi military and government know the concerns of the American people and they are structuring their tactics to split the country.

This isn't a war of power, it is a war of dedication of a people. An underlying cold war that is being fought on American soil and I'm not convinced we are winning. But the Iraqis are waging this war at the expense of their own people. They aren't trying to defend a freedom.