Iraq training children to soldiers

[Pekka]

cheg, yes, but this is still avoidable. Saddam could just step down, and he is dictator after all. Besides, the US is not going to conquer Iraq. So they would continue to be Iraq, it's not about survival in this case.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
In and ideal world, the US wouldn't need to invade Iraq

True.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
cheg, yes, but this is still avoidable. Saddam could just step down, and he is dictator after all. Besides, the US is not going to conquer Iraq. So they would continue to be Iraq, it's not about survival in this case.

Even if Hussein stepped down, the US would still be doing what it's doing. This is about global hegemony, not Iraq. Iraq is going to be attacked, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of chaos in the US.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I guarantee you, were the U.S. in the same situation, we'd be preparing everyone who could to defend the country.

Keep in mind, he's preparing for a defense of the country from an unjust attack. That's a far cry from preparing them to partake in an offensive war. While I don't like any forced military service, this doesn't strike me as anything worth attacking over, since we're the ones provoking it.

Same situation? Our 12 year olds already have guns in their hands. I've had a gun since I was 6.

Oh, wait, not all of you are from the Oklahoma-Texas area are you?

[Pekka]

cheg, could be, but he could give it a shot. And my point is, this is not about the survival of Iraqi people. If it were, let's say the US would say 'we will kill you all, put you under oppressing rule, more than it is now!', then sure put everything in the way. But I don't think this is the case here.

[Az]

In an ideal war, neither would exist.

[walruskkkch]

NO 12 year old ever won a war dying for his country. He made some other poor dumb 12 year old die for his country.

[Pekka]

Hey come on, how do I post a pic?

Besides, why don't they do like we did in WWII? I bet there were few younger boys as well, volunteer. But kids were sent to Sweden. My grandmother was also sent to Sweden, I bet someone would take them, well better refugees than dead in trenches. Those under aged troops are not going to make any difference, only bigger body count.

[walruskkkch]

doesn't [img] url (/img] work here?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
cheg, could be, but he could give it a shot. And my point is, this is not about the survival of Iraqi people. If it were, let's say the US would say 'we will kill you all, put you under oppressing rule, more than it is now!', then sure put everything in the way. But I don't think this is the case here.

The Iraqi people are irrelevent. They are just in the way.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the US were facing an invasion of overwhelming odds, that we had no chance of winning, anyone who was capable of holding a gun and aiming would be trained to do so while we still had time. As inneffective as twelve year old children are, there are times when you sacrifice everything. We'd do it. I see no reason to excoriate the Iraqis for doing the same.

In an ideal world, children would never be soldiers. In an ideal world, the US wouldn't be preparing to invade Iraq.

In an ideal world, murdering thug dictators like Hussein wouldn't exist.

As far as whether "we" would train kids, "we" have legislative procedures for that, and without that authority, there'd be no training. The simple thing is these kids are nothing more than cannon fodder, and wouldn't add a thing to Iraq's combat capability.

If we were facing an invasion where we had no chance of winning, we'd likely be trying to negotiate a deal.

Refusing to condemn Iraq for an actual human rights violation, on the grounds of an unsupportable opinion that *if* we were in a similar situation, we'd do the same is a cop-out.

What next, finding an excuse for genocide, because "if we were in the same situation, we'd do it too?"

It's also a bit disingenuous to say "there are times when you sacrifice anything" when it's really "there are times when Saddam will sacrifice anything else." Given the enthusiasm for surrender of most Iraqi conscripts in the last war, they clearly weren't out there fighting for the glory of greater Iraq. In fact, they were fighting (until they had a chance to surrender) out of fear of the Iraqi security forces and of retribution against their families.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Even if Hussein stepped down, the US would still be doing what it's doing. This is about global hegemony, not Iraq. Iraq is going to be attacked, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of chaos in the US.

If it was about global hegemony (I like imperialism better, it flows ), why would we pick a relatively useless chunk of real estate like Iraq, when we could simply take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and install "democracies" of our choosing there?

[Sonic]

Well, you can train people of whatever age. I can say that a country must at least try to defend itself whatever it takes. To die heroically is better than to live in chains. Probably Iraq has no chances to stand against, but it is worth to try. It is worth to implode all infrastructure, oil rigs and facilities just before the end of war, so the occupants (werether military or their puppet government) would have to at least pay much money to get something from that country. It is better to die as a martyr for your state than to see it annexed and it's resources exploited. What is it worth to live without your country, or country ruled by other nations or it's government? It is no more worth than to live without eyes, ears, arms and feet... Any independence is better than any occupation...

[Az]

It's also a bit disingenuous to say "there are times when you sacrifice anything" when it's really "there are times when Saddam will sacrifice anything else." Given the enthusiasm for surrender of most Iraqi conscripts in the last war, they clearly weren't out there fighting for the glory of greater Iraq. In fact, they were fighting (until they had a chance to surrender) out of fear of the Iraqi security forces and of retribution against their families.

MtG

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by Sonic
Well, you can train people of whatever age. I can say that a country must at least try to defend itself whatever it takes. To die heroically is better than to live in chains. Probably Iraq has no chances to stand against, but it is worth to try. It is worth to implode all infrastructure, oil rigs and facilities just before the end of war, so the occupants (werether military or their puppet government) would have to at least pay much money to get something from that country. It is better to die as a martyr for your state than to see it annexed and it's resources exploited. What is it worth to live without your country, or country ruled by other nations or it's government? It is no more worth than to live without eyes, ears, arms and feet... Any independence is better than any occupation...

Just ask the Germans or Japanese after WWII.