CAnadians arent safe any more
IRONMIKE @ Thu May 22, 2003 5:30 am
Anonymous Anonymous:
quote
'I assume when you say the civilians will defend themselves you mean they will pick up a weapon and fight. The second a civilians picks up a weapon to fight he/she is no longer a civilian.'
end quote
Again, not true. Anybody has a right to defend their own property. If a soldier from a foreign country enters your property, defending it is neither a military act nor an act of terrorism.
'I assume when you say the civilians will defend themselves you mean they will pick up a weapon and fight. The second a civilians picks up a weapon to fight he/she is no longer a civilian.'
end quote
Again, not true. Anybody has a right to defend their own property. If a soldier from a foreign country enters your property, defending it is neither a military act nor an act of terrorism.
Wrong- Check out the Geneva Convention
IRONMIKE @ Thu May 22, 2003 5:44 am
Anonymous Anonymous:
Quote:
You forgot to mention that this weaker country was a known supporter and financer of terrorists. Besides just because your the weaker party does not atomaticly make you right. Iraq was given 12 years to change her ways. As for the Coalition entering Iraq illeglally, the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was never offically ended. There was a ceasefire agreement which Saddam violated on numerous occasions. Thus the Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War as well as the "War on Terror". The Coalition had all the legal justification to invade Iraq after Saddam broke the ceasefire the first time or any time after that. Why did the Americans bomb areas where they knew civilians would be? Could it be because St. Saddam had hidden his troops in those areas. According to the Geneva Conventions responsibility for civilian casulties lies with the side who hides it's combatants among civilians, in this case Saddam.
end quote
Just exactly what did those students or any of those civilians do that was connected to financing terrorism, acts of terrorism, the Gulf War or the so called 12 years as you like to call it? Is there any connection at all to the fact that they are dead and the fact that they were living in their own country? As for the Geneva Conventions, there is no allowance for hitting known civilian targets.
quote
'The Americans had no wish to kill civilians, but they knew it would be unavoidable.'
end quote
They sure did know it. Even Bush knew it so they are not going to get away playing innoncent under the blanket of democracy and freedom. They, like anyone else, have to face up to their reponsiblities.
quote
Here's hopen that a democracy can emerge.
end quote
So democracy may not emerge? Why is that? Maybe because they are different culture that both sides can't fully grasp? That sure makes me feel better about those civilian deaths.
Quote:
Soldiers are trained to use guns to kill enemy SOLDIERS not civilians. Yes sometimes civilians get caught in the crossfire but that is unavoidable especially in battle. al-Qaeda and Saddam intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Let me say this I do not consider the bombing of the USS Cole an act of terrorism. That was an act of war by al-Qaeda. The Cole was a military target, same with the Marine Barricks in Beirut. The WTC, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh and Casablanca among others where all civilian targets. Hell most of the people killed where even Americans or Jews (the two groups that al-Qaeda says it's fighting against).
end quote
Soldiers are trained to killed enemy soldiers yes but that doesn't mean they won't kill anyone else. It's not a mathematical standard. One obvious problem is that civilians, not knowing who is the good guys and bad buys, make and often do, defend themselves. Another problem is that civilians are often threatened of forced to fight. Hell, I would go as high as 70% of those so called POWs in Cuba were not Al-Queda fighters or terrorists or Taliban, whatever, they were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You forgot to mention that this weaker country was a known supporter and financer of terrorists. Besides just because your the weaker party does not atomaticly make you right. Iraq was given 12 years to change her ways. As for the Coalition entering Iraq illeglally, the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was never offically ended. There was a ceasefire agreement which Saddam violated on numerous occasions. Thus the Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War as well as the "War on Terror". The Coalition had all the legal justification to invade Iraq after Saddam broke the ceasefire the first time or any time after that. Why did the Americans bomb areas where they knew civilians would be? Could it be because St. Saddam had hidden his troops in those areas. According to the Geneva Conventions responsibility for civilian casulties lies with the side who hides it's combatants among civilians, in this case Saddam.
end quote
Just exactly what did those students or any of those civilians do that was connected to financing terrorism, acts of terrorism, the Gulf War or the so called 12 years as you like to call it? Is there any connection at all to the fact that they are dead and the fact that they were living in their own country? As for the Geneva Conventions, there is no allowance for hitting known civilian targets.
quote
'The Americans had no wish to kill civilians, but they knew it would be unavoidable.'
end quote
They sure did know it. Even Bush knew it so they are not going to get away playing innoncent under the blanket of democracy and freedom. They, like anyone else, have to face up to their reponsiblities.
quote
Here's hopen that a democracy can emerge.
end quote
So democracy may not emerge? Why is that? Maybe because they are different culture that both sides can't fully grasp? That sure makes me feel better about those civilian deaths.
Quote:
Soldiers are trained to use guns to kill enemy SOLDIERS not civilians. Yes sometimes civilians get caught in the crossfire but that is unavoidable especially in battle. al-Qaeda and Saddam intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Let me say this I do not consider the bombing of the USS Cole an act of terrorism. That was an act of war by al-Qaeda. The Cole was a military target, same with the Marine Barricks in Beirut. The WTC, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh and Casablanca among others where all civilian targets. Hell most of the people killed where even Americans or Jews (the two groups that al-Qaeda says it's fighting against).
end quote
Soldiers are trained to killed enemy soldiers yes but that doesn't mean they won't kill anyone else. It's not a mathematical standard. One obvious problem is that civilians, not knowing who is the good guys and bad buys, make and often do, defend themselves. Another problem is that civilians are often threatened of forced to fight. Hell, I would go as high as 70% of those so called POWs in Cuba were not Al-Queda fighters or terrorists or Taliban, whatever, they were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Lets look at Iraq and US with the same pair of moral glasses shall we?
Just exactly what did those students or any of those civilians do that was connected to financing terrorism, acts of terrorism, the Gulf War or the so called 12 years as you like to call it? Is there any connection at all to the fact that they are dead and the fact that they were living in their own country? As for the Geneva Conventions, there is no allowance for hitting known civilian targets.
They sure did know it. Even Bush(Change Bush with "the Iraqi people") knew it so they are not going to get away playing innoncent under the blanket of democracy and freedom (insert ignorance for democracy and freedom). They, like anyone else, have to face up to their reponsiblities
My friend, the Iraqi people did support the acts and finance of terrorism both at home and abroad because they supported Saddam. Ask the Germans if they were held responsible for Hitler or why you believe the soldiers are guilty if they only work for Bush. If your going to argue use the same morale standard for both sides or so you do that because " Maybe because they are different culture that both sides can't fully grasp? "
If your going to hate me because I am an American you will never be happy. Don't rely on America to make your life happy.
BTW please sign up and join the forums
Thanks
IronMike
Rican @ Thu May 22, 2003 7:43 am
I agree with IRONMIKE. The Iraqi people knew what was going on. You can't plead ignorance forever. They knew about Saddam using chemical weapons against the Kurds, they knew of atrocities against the Iranians and Kuwaities. If they didn't, explain how all the sudden civilian "starting finding" all of these mass graves after the US came in. I doubt it was the US at all. They knew where they were. But when the big rally came to watch Saddam come and shoot rifles off the balcony they all came. They cried and cheered and kissed pictures of him. I know, I know, someone is gonna say, "well rican, they were forced to go to those rallies. If they didn't they'd die" That's exactly my point. Is a government that threatens your life or that of your family for not going to a political rally a good government at all?
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 5:39 pm
'My friend, the Iraqi people did support the acts and finance of terrorism both at home and abroad because they supported Saddam. '
Two simple questions that connects to all three previous posts: Can you account for EACH, EVERY, ALL Iraqui citizens with the use of the word 'support'? Can you also exclude ALL and ANY foreign intervention in this? If you can, no problem. If not, it won't work.
Rican @ Thu May 22, 2003 6:20 pm
I disagree. You cannot use the logic "did each and every citizen" when describing the actions of a large group of people. Of course there will be people that do not agree or who do not go along with the group. That's like saying the American people did not put George Bush in office because not EACH AND EVERY American citizen wanted him there. Get real......
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 7:12 pm
'I disagree. You cannot use the logic "did each and every citizen" when describing the actions of a large group of people. '
Then what exactly are you going to do? If you're arguing support either way, what to hell are you going to do? It is either raining or it isn't. Agreed, there are various degrees but it is or it isn't.
polemarch1 @ Thu May 22, 2003 8:16 pm
Ether way. If the Iraqi people supported Saddam then they are just as guilty as him for the crimes he commited against the Kurds, and Swamp Muslims. If this is the case invading Iraq was much the same as invading Nazi Germany. If the Iraqi people did not supporte Saddam then the Americans have liberated them. Ether way the Coalition was right in doing what it did.
BTW, when you gonna tell us where you got that 70% from?
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 9:13 pm
I give up. Everything you've said has been absolutely 100% proven correct. The invasion of Iraq completely stopped terrorism and solved every problem related to it. Everything was done accurately, fairly and absolutely no part of it was wrong. The world is now stable and happy. Good job!!
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 9:15 pm
'BTW, when you gonna tell us where you got that 70% from?'
I've already dealt with that. If you don't understand it, that's not my problem.
polemarch1 @ Thu May 22, 2003 9:29 pm
$1:
I give up. Everything you've said has been absolutely 100% proven correct. The invasion of Iraq completely stopped terrorism and solved every problem related to it. Everything was done accurately, fairly and absolutely no part of it was wrong. The world is now stable and happy. Good job!!
Obviously the invasion of Iraq hasn't completly stopped terrorism but it has denied the terrorists sanctuary bases and a source of funding. The war will go on for years but we are safer now then before. al-Qaeda's hurting but their not done yet. We must defeat them and the ideology that drives them.
$1:
I've already dealt with that. If you don't understand it, that's not my problem.
No you haven't but I do understand. You are just making up numbers that sound good but have no bases in reality.
Spitzer @ Thu May 22, 2003 9:59 pm
polemarch1 polemarch1:
$1:
The war will go on for years but we are safer now then before.
Pole, if you think we're safer now because of the US led invasion of Iraq, you are sorely mislead.
The War with Iraq was a Reveille call to would be terrorists. The recruiting lines are probably twice as long now, then before. As more people worldwide are against american imperialism. The hatred is running deeper every year.
I'm afraid this is going to get worse yet, as far as terrorist attacks go. The war with Iraq had little to do with stopping Al Queda or terrorism.
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 10:56 pm
'Are you still made that the Red Army has collapsed?'
What to hell does the Red Army have to do with Iraq? Is this similar to your point about those students being killed because of the Gulf War? Or is is the same as how the war in Iraq started because of fall of the Shah in Iran?
'No you haven't but I do understand. You are just making up numbers that sound good but have no bases in reality.'
I'm sure I said as high as 70%. What part of this confuses you?
Guest @ Thu May 22, 2003 11:58 pm
'If your going to hate me because I am an American you will never be happy. Don't rely on America to make your life happy.'
How did this get turned into a philosphical discussion about happiness? But for the record, I don't even know you so how could I hate you? I do hate hints or stronger justfications that nobody should be responsible for military victims of war.
Guest @ Fri May 23, 2003 12:24 am
'How was this taken out of context? If your going to spout percentages be prepared to back it up. '
It was obviously used to show a clear majority. It does not have to be quoted because it was not used in that context. dammit, didn't you go to school.
polemarch1 @ Fri May 23, 2003 6:14 am
I disagree Spitzer. These last two attacks where in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Two areas where al-Qaeda has been active for a long time. The attack in Saudi Arabia is especially important as the Saudi's have known, tolerated and supported extremist muslims for a long time. They had an informal arrangement, the Saudi's would let them operate in the Kingdom as long as no attacks there where carried out. al-Qaeda needed to hit a target so that people would know they where still in business but currently no longer has the ability to strike at North America. So they hit where they could. There own backyard.
$1:
What to hell does the Red Army have to do with Iraq? Is this similar to your point about those students being killed because of the Gulf War? Or is is the same as how the war in Iraq started because of fall of the Shah in Iran?
Red Army? I said Red Empire as in the Soviets. The only reason Saddam was tolerated was because the US had bigger fish to fry. As for the Gulf War connection I was commenting on the fact that the war was still technically and legally on and that with Saddams violations of the ceasefire the fighting never stopped. Also these violations are all that is needed to make the invasion of Iraq legal. The only reason I mentioned the Soviets is because the only reason I can see for your hatred of the Americans is that you are still bitter that the Communists lost the Cold War.
$1:
How did this get turned into a philosphical discussion about happiness? But for the record, I don't even know you so how could I hate you? I do hate hints or stronger justfications that nobody should be responsible for military victims of war.
We are not saying that nobody is responsable for the victims of war we are saying that the responsability lays with Saddam for this one.
$1:
I'm sure I said as high as 70%. What part of this confuses you?
$1:
It was obviously used to show a clear majority. It does not have to be quoted because it was not used in that context. dammit, didn't you go to school.
If you ment to show a clear majority then you should have said you felt a majority of the prisoners in Cuba where innocent. Still I'll ask you to back that up. What makes you think that most of the prisoners in Cuba are innocent?