Have you been "Shocked and Awed"?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Kramerman


duh

Can I not still insult them for this dishonorable tactic without being accused of naivete?

I'll take that as you conceding the point.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Azazel

Actually, AFAIK, the Geneva convention prohibits both firing at civilian locations, and defending from them. This is obviously pure bull****, since there is no chance that such a thing would ever happen in modern ( or otherwise ) warfare. I've yet to see a conflict where this clause, and many others weren't broken multiple times.

How about article 28,

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

So even if the US didn't already consider the cities as targets for both bombing and ground assault, they couldn't invoke any legality to stop the Iraqis from deploying there.

So, what counts, IMO, is not letting the civilians out, or targeting them.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Calc II
Uber, you got your location wrong, every bomb we drop blows a reminder that calc's huge chunk of his paycheck is blown away.

not really. the money was spent when the built the bomb. it'd be more of a waste not to use it

[Ellestar]

Dissident
that property isn't his. he stole that money from his people.

That's exactly what bush want to do. What's the difference between bush and Hussein in this case?


Lonestar
Chechnya IS another country, at least it was until Putin decided to re-invade it.

Read history plz before posting.

And I find it out a Russian is accusing us of war crimes during WW2. Didn't you people rape 2 million German women after you entered Berlin?

LOL

UberKruX
don't even go there. there is a difference between collateral damage and attacking a civilian building outright.

How possible is collateral damage killing USA citisens? So don't tell me about differences - this is 'double-standarts' for your and not for your actions. Everyone can easily see that.

Imran Siddiqui
So, wait. Since they don't have any choice, it is alright for them to let civilians die to accomplish their goals?

So, wait. Since USA has choices - to attack Iraq or to retreat, it's alright for them to let civilians die to accomplish their goals?

Cool, right? But i think that defending country from agression has higher priority than to attack another country because you want to attack? Well, maybe americans don't think that way, but give me some explanations how you can explain these 2 sentences (your and mine) and tell me how possibly you can be right?

Kramerman
Can I not still insult them for this dishonorable tactic without being accused of naivete?

Well, i too want to insult americans. It's clearly dishonorable to kill Iraq army with napalm and cluster bombs then they are not in cities. This is not war - it's murder. It's dishonorable to attack another country just because you want. So, you, dishonorable americans, don't have moral rights to tell that others are dishonorable because you even don't know true meaning of word 'dishonorable' - you simply think that ANY your action is honorable but most are clearly not.

[DinoDoc]

I'm glad he ignored the posts dealing with Russian war crimes in Chechnya. I won't even bother to bring up the recent vote Moscow rigged.

[Japher]

Ellestar your are welcome to your opinions and thanks for sharing them...

If I were, however, even to begin responding to your post I believe I might have an aneurysm...


All you need to do is ask yourself; "Whose country is it?"

Is it
a) Sadam's
b) Bush's
c) The Iraqi Republic Army
d) The US Army's
e) The American People's
f) The Iraqi People's

Then ask yourself; "Who has it?"

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Isn't a tomahawk worth ~ $1 million?

Last I heard, $1.4 million.

[Ellestar]

DinoDoc
I'm glad he ignored the posts dealing with Russian war crimes in Chechnya.

I'm glad you ignored american crimes too. And you ignored it first. So i'll waiting for your reply.

But anyway, everyone (maybe except U.S.) can see that there is a difference between civil war and agression to another country.

By the way, everyone saw results of Chechen terrorist attacks on Moscow etc. But noone never saw Iraq terrorist attacks. So, tell me plz why USA can say that they are fighting with nonexistant terrorism while they are attacking Iraq, but Russia can't say that while we are really fighting with terrorist groups on territory of our country???

Good enough for you?

Japher
Another smart guy?

Well, (f) The Iraqi People's, isn't it? But wait, (c) The Iraqi Republic Army and (a) Sadam are also The Iraqui People. So, in alphabetical order, (a), (c) and (f).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ellestar
I'm glad you ignored american crimes too.

So far this war there hasn't been anything from the US side to deal with.

But anyway, everyone (maybe except U.S.) can see that there is a difference between civil war and agression to another country.

Everyone can see the difference between minimizing civilian casualties and breaking out vacum bombs on Grozny.

By the way, everyone saw results of Chechen terrorist attacks on Moscow etc.

We've also seen the results of your war as well? Massive human rights abuse by the army, war crimes on the battlefield, etc.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
Those aren't weapons of mass destruction. These are:

"Tragedy struck today in Sector 9 as Rebel terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a group of anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed responsibility for the terrorist act. Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims." - NewsRadio 52

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by St Leo


"Tragedy struck today in Sector 9 as Rebel terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a group of anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed responsibility for the terrorist act. Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims." - NewsRadio 52

nice spin there... really puts reality into perspective... or out of perspective... or... screw it

most anyone can have any perspective on anything and be able to 'justify' it

[Kramerman]

Well, i too want to insult americans. It's clearly dishonorable to kill Iraq army with napalm and cluster bombs then they are not in cities. This is not war - it's murder. It's dishonorable to attack another country just because you want. So, you, dishonorable americans, don't have moral rights to tell that others are dishonorable because you even don't know true meaning of word 'dishonorable' - you simply think that ANY your action is honorable but most are clearly not

yes, killing soldiers using conventional war tatcics is sooo dishonorable.... im not even gonna mention that we dont use napalm anymore... tho we should...

Ellestar,

you are clearly poorly informed and extremely biased against the US. Let me not go into detail the numerous chances the US gives any and every Iraqi military personell to surrender, when, if we were Russians, we would just kill them on sight... and kill our own troops too...
The Iraqis know how soft we are, and have used this against us, feigning surrender only to stab our 'kindness' in the back. You sir have a ****ed up state of mind if you dont think this is dishonorable, or using civilians as human shields.

So please, when you get anything real on american "dishonor' in this war, please let me know.

[Wycoff]

Ellestar-

No regime that has ever existed, including the Nazi regime, was as brutal as the Soviet Union under Stalin. Somewhere between 25,000,000 and 40,000,000 Soviet citizens were killed by the regime. How do you feel about that? Was that an honorable thing to do?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


And the row of dead civilians lying next to them.

Can I say a few things to people who are perhaps too young to remember GW1.

1) Don't believe what officials tell you. Their mission is to give the most favourable impression of events that they can - they will do this with no respect for the truth (it's their job). This means not mentioning civilian casualties and overstating successes. Last time they told us the Patriots were working (they weren't). Then they told us that they'd destroyed SCUDS (they were tanker trucks). Then they told us that collateral damage had been minimalised by "smart" weapons (yeah right?). We didn't see pictures of the masscre on the road out of Kuwait until much later.

2) Don't believe what the news tells you - the fog of war is just that. And the embedded newspeople are effectively controlled by the military.

3) If they aren't talking about something - it's probably not going as well as they hoped.

The "massacre" on the "Highway of immense vehicular damage" doesn't count as collateral damage unless the U.S. airstrikes were actually aiming at civilians and missed by miles, repeatedly. The fact is that collateral damage was minimalized by smart weapons in GW1. Unfortunately it was also ramped up a lot by a very ambitious strategic bombing campaign. But most of the dumb bombs were dropped in massive bombing raids of the Iraqi front lines, airfields, and targets of opportunity along the roads leading south.

In fact what Agathon is saying about the military also applies to the press. Both have their agendas, and both don't know everything that is going on by a longshot. If the government is not saying something it is either going badly, or going well. Information either way is helpful to the enemy, which for professional military people is enough to plunge that information into a deep pool forever rather than see it propogated. Of course there are political ramafications for information as well, though these tend to play themselves out at a higher level in the military, while the press has varying agendas depending on the agency and reporter / commentator.

Sikander

Old enough to remember The Indochina War (Vietnam etc.), 6 Day War, Yom Kippur War, Operation Peace for Galilea, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, The Falklands, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, India - Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia, Angola, Ethiopia, South Africa, Rhodesia, Biafra, Congo, Zaire, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Central African Republic, Chad, Iran - Iraq, Gulf War 1, Cyprus, Afghanistan 1 and 2 and 3, and many many more.

[Kramerman]

now now, lets not gang bang russia... tho it would be so easy. I wanna hear what he has to say about American "brutality" and "dishonor".