Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by clv101, Jan 18, 2006.
back at college and university mate
>| Raoh |<
Yes mililtary adverts and recruiting campaigns very much sell the image of heroism and bravery etc. Not many include pictures of dead soldiers for obvious reasons!
Nice straw man you are fighting there. Nobody has ever said that as far as I recall.
But here we are talking specifically about people who have died due to the illegal wars, not previous sanctions, Saddam brutality etc. All deaths are bad obviously, but deaths for the wrong reasons are worse, and our allied forces have caused plenty of those.
So yes, everybody looks after their own first - it's human nature - but I think it's wrong to ignore the bad things "we" do and blame it all on the other side.
no they havent said that i said they make out it was like that...
it was not an illegal war, if you in fact want to be perfectly honest 1441 did actually allow the allied forces to declare war should Saddam be in breach of it, which in actual fact he was i.e. undeclared weapons (Al-Samoud 2 being one example) Our allied forces have caused plenty of deaths yes... we've still got a long way to go to hit Saddams 250,000.
It isnt our troops planting roadside bombs to go off an hour later, regardless of who is around when it goes off, at least with our bombs we try to hit strategic targets (Shock & Awe 8million pounds of explosives and only 3 civilians killed, not bad precision that)
>| Raoh |<
Nope, not really, I've never heard anybody say or make out that Saddam was a saint that did no wrong.
The UN have declared it illegal, but regardless of the technicalities of whether it was illegal or not it was certainly unjust - given that oil (directly or indirectly) was a large reason behind it, and no matter what anybody thinks of Saddam, killing the Iraqi people for oil/money is obviously wrong.
That is often used as an excuse but it's irrelevant really. Murder is murder, whether it's "collateral damage" or not. If you drop bombs on a city you are responsible for the people that are killed. Also, I very much doubt that shock and awe only killed 3 people, civilians or otherwise!
re-read my post i said that people make out that Iraq was some sort of paradise before America came in and wrecked it.
The UN also passed 1441 which allowed declaration of war, the UN also decides to refuse the 300,000 deaths in Sudan genocide.
find evidence that said thousands were or even hundreds killed when America dropped 8million pounds of explosives...
>| Raoh |<
Iraq is very quickly heading to a Vietnam type situation.
The notion of firebases does not work. They merely isolate troops into compounds.
You have a native guerilla force that has enough support from the local population. Unless you win the hearts and minds you will never beat the insurgents. In order to win hearts and minds you need to be open and honest and improve their situation.
We lied about why we went to war. Don't bother quoting resolutions otherwise we would have declared war on Israel.
This war to my mind is firmly about the control of oil and furthering Americas interests. At least if they had been honest about it the Iraqi's could trust them.
As it is you will end up with an ever increasing hostile guerilla force which will never be defeated. At best a mutually agreeable ceasefire and suspention of activity will be achieved.
Thats all fine and well but how many Iraqi military / insurgent personnel did that kill?
The insurgents have not used anywhere near that much explosives and how many allied personnel have they killed?
I have a feeling the cost:kill ratio is far better for the insurgents than the Allied forces. If it is how do you justify the money wasted on 8m lds of explosives?
But Israel at least are starting to make efforts, and no we wouldnt have declared war on Israel because it would have had people from Islamic states coming to fight, just so they can say i fought against the Jews.
I'm not going to disagree with you about oil, however i will say i think securing Iraqi oil is something America have done to at least help them in the very long term, as we all know America only attains around 6% of its oil from the ME
I know what you mean, when you cut the head of the snake (Zarqawi for example) there are 10 more just as extreme to fill his shoes
>| Raoh |<
Its nothing of the sort...the losses are still minute.
Besides, the US didnt lose in Vietnam :dunno: They thrashed the crap out of their enemy...
they are combatants, i was talking about civilian loss of life. If you're holding a gun you are prepared to kill. Military / Insurgent are the enemy and are therefore lawful combatants
They've killed more than the Americans have, but as i've stated many times now America strike at strategic targets to hit high level figures or militant bases/safe houses, they dont go about bombing market places (awaits for the report on Day 3 iirc of shock and awe and Ali (armless boy) to come hailing in ))
America by using these explosives effectively destroyed the communications, gun batteries and escape routes of many of Iraqs Military control, why you'd rather they just drop that 8million lbs onto Baghdads Streets at 11am?
>| Raoh |<
Ive been out of the loop for a while...dont get much access to news these days...When did this happen? Do you have a link at all?
losses are minute when considering the amount of people and attacks yes. But still too many for 3years imo
the US didnt win in Vietnam lets just say that much, in fact military chiefs estimated that to get the head of one senior Vietnamese Commander they had to bomb over 120,000 acres or something like that.
Unfortunately figures of the VC will always be speculation.
>| Raoh |<
Quotes work well for disagreements like this, so quote me (or anybody!) happy
Huge page of figures here from numerous sources (being a wiki)
So people can make their own minds up.
Common sense tells me though that if you drop massive bombs all over a populated city, you are going to get a damn sight more than 3 casualties, given that a typical small car bomb kills often more than that!
2500 dead is too many for 3 years? Why? How many would be acceptable?
They won every single military confrontation above platoon level :dunno: They certainly won it militarily...
*slaps hand on head*
I said that people make out America have wrecked Iraq as per quote
if you referring to me as saying it was you who said it. No i said 'people' make out its America that have ruined Iraq. Point agreed?
OK its more than 3 but i remember hearing BBC announce during the second night (i happened to watch them all for hours on end) that Iraqi authorities had reported 3deaths on one of the nights, here is the other which iirc is the death toll 12days after the invasion began Iraq S&A that puts it at 62
>| Raoh |<
They won the battles but lost the war.
I know which one I would rather win.
its not three years yet thats still nearly 1000people every year, i'm not saying how many would be acceptable but given that most of these are from suicide bombs and roadside bombs rather than firefights then it is unacceptable.
Right now at this point, i'll say... yes america won militarily, there was only really the Soviets who could have really challenged America in terms of military power. America lost 46 B-52's during the conflict. Putting this into contrast i dont think America has lost a B-52 in a war it has fought since Nam. It certainly wasnt a walk in the park and at 13years in lenth 50,000+deaths that works out to nearly 5,000 a year, its estimated Iraq will take 20years to sort out properly.
>| Raoh |<
FTM said "the country is being held back and will never improve". How is that anything like the same as "Iraq was a paradise before America invaded"?
FTM is correct. The country is being held back by the invasion and subsequent troubles. Nobody could deny that.
So yes, America has ruined Iraq, in this war and the previous war. Saddam has helped too admittedly. But it's western interference in the middle east in general (for it's oil obviously) that has caused the major troubles over there.
As for Shock and Awe, ok, we can dispute the figures on the actual night but it's not really important, given that thousands were obviously killed in the major allied invasion, by Bush's own admission 30,000. How many were killed on day one is not really important in the grand scheme of things.
Good website that you linked by the way, the CommonDreams one. Very anti the American government and all the better for it
I hope we also all know that since oil is a fungible commodity that 6% figure is totally irrelevant.
I'm suppressed by the lack of comment on the fact that the death rate is increasing not decreasing - that's the main point in my opinion.
Fallujah was a ruthless massacre by anybody's standards. We can tell how bad it was by the fact that despite the massive and brutal death toll virtually no pictures or reports made it out to the mainstream media. Reports exist in other sources and they don't make pleasant reading. So no, they don't just send high precision bombs to military-only targets, much as they'd like you to believe that.
Separate names with a comma.