Iraq training children to soldiers

[Sonic]

Chegitz, admit it at last. USA/UK/USSR also killed innocent people in WW2. How would bombarding of Dresden damage German ability to make war? The only military object, barracks, there left intact but instead whole city center was destroyed. Something about the same was with Hiroshima. So if Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction on USA it would be no difference then.

For all civilian deaths, it doesn't depends who started the war, the responsible side is one who killed these people. It's obvious in examples I've given before. BTW, Hitler and Stalin there still equally responsible for war in Europe, while Japan responsible for war in pacific (neither Germany, neither USSR had nothing to do with Pearl Harbour). But yet again, Japan is not responsible that USA dropped nuclear bomb, and fiurthermore Germany is also not responsible. BTW, in my opinion WW2 could be splitted in two wars actually - European and Pacific, which had hardly any contact between each other. Even if there would be no war in Europe I believe Japan would still had attacked USA.

[Japher]

For all civilian deaths, it doesn't depends who started the war, the responsible side is one who killed these people.

But who killed these people is the debate! One side did it directly the other brought it about. It takes to two tango, and two to fight. Both sides know that in war civilian life is at risk. So, both sides are responsible. War is a silly, silly thing. Period.

[Panag]

hi ,

in all wars civilians tend to be the victims , allways , no matter what , ....

have a nice day

[Sava]

Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day.

Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

[Sonic]

Panag, this is very true. But however, bombarding of Dresden was designed to specially target civilians. About the same with Hiroshima. There is a bit difference from missions designed to kill civilians and missions, which are designed to destroy military buildings/infrastructure and civilians are just incidentally killed.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sonic
Panag, this is very true. But however, bombarding of Dresden was designed to specially target civilians. About the same with Hiroshima. There is a bit difference from missions designed to kill civilians and missions, which are designed to destroy military buildings/infrastructure and civilians are just incidentally killed.

hi ,

no-one tends to do an effort to keep that difference , ....

during a war , .....

aldo the US has kept a very good track record , together with Israel , we always try to minimize such events , but unfortunatly sometimes the other side takes advantage of it , ..... with devastating results , ....

have a nice day

[Jaakko]

The claims of liberating Iraq from the evils of Saddam would ring much less hollow if anyone could point me to an actual plan by the Bush admin on the proper handling of the aftermath, to ensure it's not going to be a cluster**** that'll only result in more misery and dictators.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Sava
Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day.

Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

agreed 100%
this should explain why the us goverment doesn´t stop affirming that they have clear evidences about Iraq having WMDs and why they´re not willing to spread these evidences.

concerning the topic: if the alliance attacks Iraq they have to realize that hundreds if not thousands of children will be killed, no matter if they carry a weapon or not. essentially this is the reason why this war is a mistake.
(and btw. I´m 99% sure that saddam will survive it)

[Sonic]

Panag, well, that difference is ussually being kept... Look to how many reaction each time USA kills many innocent civilians in it's wars causes. It couldn't be compared to reaction to destruction of some bridge or military building. BTW, you'd see difference yourself if somebody attacked Israeli military base and killed all soldiers there and if somebody attacked supermarket and killed all people, including children there. And the third case it is if somebody would just nuke Tel Aviv (like Hiroshima), wich is obviously much different from previous.

Also, USA maybe tries to minimize civilian victims, but Israel frequently attacks civilians on purpose. Not targetting to take life I mean (which also happens), but bulldozing homes. Purposelly attacks on civilians, ordered by government, should never happen in an advanced country.

[Ramo]

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?

I agree that it'd be absolutely great if Saddam were gone; he's a mass-murdering bastard. But the US gov't doesn't have the balls to do the right thing afterwards, as indicated by its dealings with Iraqi Kurds during the past decade. If we go to war, the liberty of Iraqis would ultimately decrease not increase.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming


Gee, what a stupid and ignorant response

If you had bothered to read my response instead of just doing your typical non thinking knee jerk reaction, you would see that the point was that are other threads where you can specifically talk about whether the war is right or not. And that this thread is about a different subject.

So next time... read

Your point is pointless, then. In the very first post, Pekka was saying that Saddam's training of children was cause for war. I disagreed, and stated why. Where is the problem here?

Are you drunk again?

[chequita guevara]

Sonic, while I agree that the Allies murdered the civilians of Dresden, you must also be aware that had Hitler not started the war, there would have been no bombing. Thus Hitler bears responsibility for what happened to the German people. If the Japanese hadn't attacked the US, we never would have dropped the atomic bomb upon them. Ultimately the aggressor is responsible for every death in a war, even if the other side committs attrocities.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pekka


This is what I think too. I think letting Saddam stay is higher price for these Iraqi children in the long run. Sure, Saddam won't live decades, but looks like his son is next in line, ready to continue. It won't end, until someone puts an end to it. The sooner the better.

But there should be every effort taken that these kids wouldn't get butchered. I believe like MTG said, they'll run the first chance they get, or at least surrender.

See? If we go about our business building up our forces, but not actually invading, eventually Saddam is going to do something to trigger international outrage.

[ranskaldan]

Pekka:

First of all, I DO agree that this is all very revolting. Kids should be in school and playing with each other. Hell, adults should be at work, or at golf, too.

But what exactly did you expect? ANY COUNTRY, ruled by ANY POLITICIAN, would be doing this if they were being threatened by a far superior force. This is regardless of how evil Saddam Hussein is, since any politician who has fought his entire life for the power that he has would be doing whatever he possibly can to stay in power. This is a simple fact of human nature. Call this evil or whatever. I'm not surprised. If America were threatened by a force of similar superiority, the same thing would be happening. 12-year-old kids and old men and women would be on the front lines, as CG has said.

Incidentally, the Rohan of LOTR put every and any male member of their race who can hold a weapon onto the frontlines. I know this is ridiculous and makes little strategic sense, but for a cornered, surrounded nation, this is what is done: whatever it can to delay the invasion and hope for a miracle.

(Well, as for whether Iraq should be invaded: that's a different matter. If we consider the preservation of the Pax Americana, then yes, the invasion should take place.)

And while we're at it, let's bring up the emotionality a little bit:

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day.

Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

Sava, Even assuming the WoMD are stamped in "Made in the USA," what would you suggest we do with our former puppet who has somehow gotten off the leash and has gotten into the habit of invading his neighbors, torturing his foes and using nerve gas on the Kurds?