Iraq training children to soldiers

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

I think they have discussed a coalition government with the Kurds, the ****es and the Sunni's. They are arming up to 5000 of this latter as we speak. The Kurds, I understand, can today field 2 Corps against Saddam from within. There are reports that the ****es can put together an equivalent army.

So, the anti-Saddam forces will come to the table with their own armies and the ability to govern without Saddam's military.

As to the longer term, this is where our allies come in - just like in Afghanistan. However, Iraq is not a poor basket case. It is rich in OIL.

This is why, for example, the French will be there in the end so they have an opportunity to help "rebuild" Iraq.

[Pekka]

ranskaldan, I don't believe that is true. Good leader would send kids away if threatened by superior force, if possible. Iraqi people are not facing genocide here.
It's been done before, it can be done here too.
They will not be effective against the US, so using them is not a wise thing to do. If Saddam would care about his people, and their future, he would make every effort to make sure the kids get away with this. And it's not about money, they could put up a cheap refugee camp for kids and mothers, and international organisations could help them with promise from the US to not bomb them. If they're located far enough from the targets, I see no problems. And some US soldiers could also be there to make sure there's nothing fishy going on like making these kids fight anyway or other soldiers hiding there.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Azazel
In an ideal war, neither would exist.

in an ideal world israel wouldnt exsist

[Az]

true.

(it seems noone has noticed that I've placed "war" instead of "world". )

[MRT144]

they just didnt care

[Panag]

Originally posted by 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.

hi ,

sjee that funny , this must happen in a country named Israel on an other planet or so , .....


we never attack civilians on purpose



ever

and you are always welcome to come and see for yourself (!)

have a nice day

[MRT144]

panag, im afraid id get blown to bits by a terrorist...or get bulldozed by a runaway bulldozer!

[Az]

he's just scared that the US government wastes money on Israelis.

go away MRT, we don't like you here.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sonic
Panag, this is very true. But however, bombarding of Dresden was designed to specially target civilians.

The British Firebombed Dresden as a response to the German Firebombing of London. Bomber Command's idea was to inflict an eye for an eye and then maybe both sides would be amazed at the destruction and stop bombing civilians. It didn't work but because the Allies had control of the air the Germans ended up taking it much worse.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


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?

Contain him; try to assassinate him; try to drum up support for a revolution; beyond that I simply don't know. I'm not privy to a lot of inside information that I would need to formulate an effective doctrine to deal with Saddam. From this vantage point, pre-emptive action is just not the right way to go.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Pekka
ranskaldan, I don't believe that is true. Good leader would send kids away if threatened by superior force, if possible.

Pekka: Such leaders are nearly nonexistent. A leader who's that compassionate wouldn't have the ruthlessness to rise to power in the first place.

Democracy softens this somewhat - leaders are then forced to consider the welfare of his voters and their families. For example, if the leader of country A is democratcially elected, he must make sure that he pleases at least 51% of country A, as well as countries B, C, D which have ties to this country A. But if he wants to invade country E and enslave it, he can, as long as he can keep A, B, C, D happy and under-control. In fact, if he wants to enslave, massacre, or rape 49% of country A, he can do so as long as 51% of country A agrees. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, 1933-Germany and Zimbabwe are great examples.

edit:
Actually, I'd say that any leader, not just democratic, needs to please at least a slice of his population (preferrably the wealthiest, more powerful slice) in order to stay in power, through whichever ways possible, from real economic growth to propaganda. But to a leader who's about to lose power any time soon, that no longer matters so much, does it?

Ultimately politics isn't about politicians serving the best interest of their peoples. We devise systems to try to force it so, but these are not perfect systems.

[Pekka]

ranskaldan, again, this is what we did in WWII. It does happen. And we can't talk about all leaders here anyway. Only the ruthless and greed ones. Not ALL leaders today are so inhumane, that they think their position in top is more important than the kids of his own country. If he is this way however, he must be pretty egoistic self-centered, and a waste of the human suit.

and btw, these people are called dictators anyway, and they need to be toppled in order to prevent things like this. I again point out that Iraqi people are not facing total destruction, in which I'd understand this. It's far from it, and most of all these elementary troopers won't contribute to his army one bit, except in bad news and sadness for many years to come. Saddam is using these kids as deterrent. That is not acceptable. It's different thing to play war games with soldiers, and play his own fantasy games with kids and other people, that can't even be considered as combatants.

So no, I do not agree with your view that almost every leader would do the same in THIS particular situation. Facing total destrcution? Yes, but that's a different story all together.
And besides, isn't it better to send the kids away anyway, they can live to fight another day.. some day.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Pekka
ranskaldan, again, this is what we did in WWII. It does happen.

See below...

And we can't talk about all leaders here anyway. Only the ruthless and greed ones. Not ALL leaders today are so inhumane, that they think their position in top is more important than the kids of his own country.

Most leaders would if it bolsters their position and if they can get away with it.

What do you think the American government is doing?
Blasting away a country and its economy, possibly putting it into military occupation and/or civil war for a decade, and inflaming terrorists,
in return for a higher approval rating (-> more votes), a stronger American influence in the M.E., not to mention the oil that the entire region contains (Kuwait, Qatar, etc) which must be kept out of enemy hands.

Of course, there's the talk about "democracy" and "freedom" etc, as if Saddam isn't using words like "patriotism" and "self-defense" to justify his own actions.

Leaders are all the same.

and btw, these people are called dictators anyway, and they need to be toppled in order to prevent things like this. I again point out that Iraqi people are not facing total destruction, in which I'd understand this.

Again, I think you're working from the assumption that leaders care about their people, and that the kids are doing this to defend themselves. Of course they aren't. They're defending the current Iraqi regime.

Any replacement for Saddam would do the same thing if put in the same situation. Of course, under American protection, this successor wouldn't need to. Instead, the nasty little things he does in his own country will never be dug up by CNN.

Saddam is using these kids as deterrent. That is not acceptable. It's different thing to play war games with soldiers, and play his own fantasy games with kids and other people, that can't even be considered as combatants.

Deterrent?

Hey I didn't think of that yet... that's a good point.
If so, Saddam is cleverer than I thought.

Well then, you just destroyed your own point.... Britain didn't use child soldiers because that wouldn't have deterred the Germans one bit. (Of course, I think that if the German tank armies were actually pushing into Manchester, they would have.)

And besides, isn't it better to send the kids away anyway, they can live to fight another day.. some day.

Saddam doesn't care.... Leaders don't really care. Even if they originally did (since normal people do), the fight to get to the top would have stripped them of it a long time ago. Leaders of any country periodically throw away lives to save their own asses. Saddam is no exception.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The British Firebombed Dresden as a response to the German Firebombing of London.

1.) Germany did not firebomb London, as Germany never used incendiary bombs, as they did not possess them.

2) When Dresden was firebombed, it was March of 1945. The war was over, we knew it was over. Also, V-2 attacks on London had tapered off into the sporadic. And we had already, by that point, bombed the bejesus out of other major German cities.

Dresden was firebombed because it was an as yet undamaged city, and it was likely done so out of revenge. There isn't much other reasonable explanation of why a non-strategic city with no manufacturing or war-making abilities which was packed with refugees was subjected to such a gruesome onslaught.

[Pekka]

ranskaldan, and you go with assumption that all leaders are evil and only care about themselves .

And this deterrent is not working. He is looking for nasty headlines, this gives fuel to the anti-war people, and may turn few people to their camp too. It's obvious Saddam just wants to give the biggest possible tragedy he can. He has already revealed his cards. He is going to torch up the oil fields, maybe use chemical weapons, gassing people he don't like, using kids as soldiers, moving the pressure point to Bagdad, making it a fight in the city with all civilians to try to slow down the US bombings, and when the time comes, he will gas his own people in order to make it bigger tragedy. Blame it on Americans, good propaganda and lots of destruction.
This is his tactics. It's pretty good tactics if thinking about him, but it's awfull thinking about the Iraq and its people. And when everything is done, he will flee to another rogue state with his family, or close people, and live like a king.

What ever he is doing, he is not defending Iraq. He thinks if destruction and tragedy is big enough, the US can't afford it and they leave. It's his only choice because he can't match them in the field. So he needs to get the world to see lots of horrors etc.