Iraq training children to soldiers

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
As opposed to let them be oppressed indefinitely by Hussein and whatever successor (Uday, Quinsay, or whoever) he chooses?

Leaving a sovereign country to its own is preferable to attacking it and killing its people, yes.

These kids won't fight - they'd hide, or break and run, or surrender at first opportunity.

You don't know this. Wasn't one of the main justifications for a-bombing Japan that every man, woman and child would fight a land invasion? Didn't our troops have to fight kids on Okinawa as young as 10?

Young kids can fight tenaciously if they want. And if it's in defense of their country, I bet they will.

And just because some murderous bastard uses kids and others as human shields to perpetuate his own grip on power doesn't mean we have to let him remain in power.

So long as he isn't acting aggressively towards us, yes we do. That goes back to the whole thing about what right we have to invade sovereign nations thingy.

[Ramo]

Yes, we should let Hussein's use of 12 year olds as forced cannon fodder dictate that he remain in power unhindered. That makes perfect sense.

I didn't say that. The premise of this thread is "gee Iraq is conscripting 12 year olds, we have to stop them!" Which is an absurd argument for war.

[Pekka]

MtG, Yes, they're only kids, they'll get so afraid when the real deal starts. They don't know what's going on for sure, and freeze up and cry. Maybe some of them grows to be brave warriors, but majority of them are just too afraid to think anything else.

What happens after this? Every nations starts to put their kids to arms? It can not be used as a weapon.

[Pekka]

Ramo, well, isn't that against international laws? Doesn't it show the nature of their leader, making it more obvious he should be removed?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So long as he isn't acting aggressively towards us, yes we do. That goes back to the whole thing about what right we have to invade sovereign nations thingy.

He gave up his sovereign right when he backed out of agreements HE made. But that's a whole different argument, and I'm sure you can find other threads that discuss that topic... there are many of them

[Az]

Leaving a sovereign country to its own is preferable to attacking it and killing its people, yes.

you sound like David Floyd.

say, are taxes theft?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel

you sound like David Floyd.

Sometimes Floyd is right. What's your point?

I'll continue on that track with Ming's statement: Ming, he made those agreements under duress, so I don't think that's good enough reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'll continue on that track with Ming's statement: Ming, he made those agreements under duress,

Why is that relevent? Or do you believe that the UK is still at war with Germany & Italy?

[Ming]

He just want's to turn every thread into a war protest thread... He just seems to support all of Saddams actions, even when Saddam wants to hide behind children

[Az]

Ban hum!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Leaving a sovereign country to its own is preferable to attacking it and killing its people, yes.

Since when is Iraq a sovereign country? Historically, there's been a Caliphate of Baghdad, and it's been somebody or another's turf in one empire after another, but the modern Iraqi state was an arbitrary administrative creation of the British empire, handed over to an impotent "King" who was murdered by a dictator who was murdered by Hussein.

Even if we decide Iraq is somehow "sovereign," since the Iraqi people have no choice as to their ruler or his policies, why should we give a rat's ass about him and his "government?"

You don't know this. Wasn't one of the main justifications for a-bombing Japan that every man, woman and child would fight a land invasion? Didn't our troops have to fight kids on Okinawa as young as 10?

There's a huge cultural difference, backed by centuries of Japanese history, compared to the record of Iraq's prior wars.

Young kids can fight tenaciously if they want. And if it's in defense of their country, I bet they will.

It's not in "defense of their country" - it's in defense of a feared and loathed *******. And Iraqi adults were quite happy to surrender at first opportunity, so I'm sure they'll lead the way for these kids, too.

Besides, there's no such thing as being "tenacious" with an AK-47 against an M1-A2 Abrams.

So long as he isn't acting aggressively towards us, yes we do. That goes back to the whole thing about what right we have to invade sovereign nations thingy.

We have whatever right we choose to have. The whole "sovereign nations thingy" is a matter of arbitrary judgment.

[Pekka]

Yeah, I can definitely see your point Boris.
I just disagree that this move by Saddam is acceptable.
And to ask if we would do the same in that situation is like ask if we would eat each other if there was no food.
US is not after genocide of Iraqi people, so there is no reason to put children fight for a rotten dictator.

I ask again, why Saddam won't just send these kid to a safe place. If no one wants them, then ask for help from red cross, anyone to put up a site, refugee camp that allows only kids and women, to some remote location in Iraq, and it would be protected, and not attacked. It's clear that these kids won't do anything good to Iraqi defense. So why not just save them? It is possible. Put up a refugee camp himself and send the kids there. The US wouldn't bomb them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ban hum!

No! Hums must stay!

And Ming, what an asinine comment...this is a thread specifically about the war, so why shouldn't I express my opinion that I don't support the war? Duuuuuhhhhh!

And not wanting a war isn't supporting Saddam's actions. Or maybe I can say you support Mugabe's actions because you're not calling for war on him?

[Pekka]

Boris, don't worry, I for one don't consider you as pro-Saddam for not wanting the war. And I do agree that we need to go after Mugabe and other 'leaders' as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

One dictatorial ******* at a time.

Although, maybe could detach a company of Marines and an Airborne company to take care of the Zimbabwean "army" while we're in the general neighborhood.