Export of Democracy to Iraq

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

werd.

[binTravkin]

I just watched it..

[Zedd]

Thanks for the great post DRoseDARs and mart7x5,

The use of the phospherous rounds and morters is definately something we should all pay attention to. US troops getting better and better at doing thier job, protecting themselves, us, YOU, and even the ingrates of the world that thrive off our economy and protection but can't find anything better to do than ***** about it.

Us troops do NOT fire blindly on city's, but those of you still using quill pens and washing your underoo's on a rock wouldn't understand things like "coordinates" and "scouted shots". But don't worry, all the phospherous burns up so all the (edited for political correctness) "armed fundamentalist civillian jihad recruits" that were KILLED don't have to worry about cancer.


The whole world has horrible history of war, persecution and "war crimes" and no country has the distinction oof being "pure". The only reason people complain about it when a civillian dies in iraq is becouse it was America.

Check out france, bosnia, "palestine", egypt, iran, pakistan, saudi arabia, turkey, china, japan, russia, germany, etc., etc. All persecute, kill, discriminate, and abuse RIGHT NOW people in thier country!

So when the whole world *****es about the US having civillian casualties I say worry about your damn self.

[Kuciwalker]

Markos, can we remove the link to the OT from the main forum page for a while, so all the annoying newbies don't jump in?

[Cyclotron]

Will somebody please explain to me what the difference is between accidentally killing with white phosphorous and accidently killing with a standard bomb? I mean, either way, they are dead, yes?

It's always a tradgedy when innocent lives are lost. The idea that the US is somehow worse or more barbaric because of their choice of one lethal weapon over another, however, is relevant only for the purposes of propagandizing.

When some US citizens get killed - it is terrorism
when civilians in other countries get killed - it is colateral damage.

You're an idiot.

[binTravkin]

Markos, can we remove the link to the OT from the main forum page for a while, so all the annoying newbies don't jump in?

Will somebody please explain to me what the difference is between accidentally killing with white phosphorous and accidently killing with a standard bomb? I mean, either way, they are dead, yes?

True.

It's always a tradgedy when innocent lives are lost. The idea that the US is somehow worse or more barbaric because of their choice of one lethal weapon over another, however, is relevant only for the purposes of propagandizing.

No, US is not worse than other past war criminals (Hitler, Stalin and even Saddam Hussein himself), but you should note it's also no better, meaning that while most past 'war crimes' have been done either with little public appeal (read Hussein, Stalin) or within light of uber-rascistic fanatism (read Hitler), US is doing it with approval of nation.
I don't say that every last US citizen wants Iraqis to be phosphorised, I don't even say they want them killed.

I am saying that they do not care what their wonderful government is doing as long as they can eat McDonalds' food, drink CocaCola drinks and do other 'americanistic' stuff which they're trying so hard to export as a 'culture' and 'democracy' to other countries.

Ignorance is bliss.


Think of it as fighting someone who was supposed to have WMD but didn't with WMD and babbling something about 'exporting democracy' (not even mentioning all the other lie).


I for one would better import police state or something if the democracy looks like this.

You're an idiot.

If you call him so because he dared to post such an obvious thing, I fully agree with you!

And this 'collateral damage' is always several orders of magnitude higher than the 'terrorism'..


After the fall of USSR US looks like a child who's left alone in the sandbox, so he can have all sand he wants, and play whatever game he wants..

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mart7x5
Do not call it propaganda

Take a closer look what the thing is about.

When some US citizens get killed - it is terrorism
when civilians in other countries get killed - it is colateral damage.

When Muslims fly aircraft into buildings, bomb mosques just as prayers are over, set off car bombs in Karbala during their religious festivals, murder civilians simply because of their ethnicity or religion etc. it is terrorism.

When insurgents kill thousands by indiscriminate (and sometimes purposeful) use of explosives close to innocent civilians (though aimed directly at regime or foreign forces) it is walking the edge between legitimate warfare and war crimes.

When the U.S. risks the lives of its own soldiers to limit civilian casualties it is called the honorable thing to do. And your beef is with the U.S.? Not on the basis of what you've provided here. You must have some other problem with the U.S.

Originally posted by mart7x5
Stop being brainwashed and see things as they are

I get it. Irony, right?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by binTravkin
No, US is not worse than other past war criminals (Hitler, Stalin and even Saddam Hussein himself), but you should note it's also no better, meaning that while most past 'war crimes' have been done either with little public appeal (read Hussein, Stalin) or within light of uber-rascistic fanatism (read Hitler), US is doing it with approval of nation.
I don't say that every last US citizen wants Iraqis to be phosphorised, I don't even say they want them killed.

I am saying that they do not care what their wonderful government is doing as long as they can eat McDonalds' food, drink CocaCola drinks and do other 'americanistic' stuff which they're trying so hard to export as a 'culture' and 'democracy' to other countries.

Whooo, you missed the ball on that one.

Rants about American culture aside, the point is that you cannot engage in an armed action without accidentally killing civilians. That's how it goes. Collateral damage, if you will, is not a war crime. The army uses the weapons it does because they are effective, and for no other reason - they have no interest in using white phosphorous because it's 'mean' or some crazy crap like that.

If you call him so because he dared to post such an obvious thing, I fully agree with you!

And this 'collateral damage' is always several orders of magnitude higher than the 'terrorism'..

After the fall of USSR US looks like a child who's left alone in the sandbox, so he can have all sand he wants, and play whatever game he wants..

Nobody could possibly be this dense, so I'll write that off to a failure to comprehend the English language.

Terrorism is purposeful. Collateral damage is accidental. That is only one of the basic differences between them. This is obvious. Well, to most people, anyways.

Jesus.

[Gangerolf]

that video is awesome if you like to watch melted children

[binTravkin]

The army uses the weapons it does because they are effective, and for no other reason - they have no interest in using white phosphorous because it's 'mean' or some crazy crap like that.

So why not drop a nuke?
Okay, that would kill the oil, but an atomic waste bomb, neutron/heat bomb?

Nobody could possibly be this dense, so I'll write that off to a failure to comprehend the English language.

Terrorism is purposeful. Collateral damage is accidental. That is only one of the basic differences between them. This is obvious. Well, to most people, anyways.

Jesus

Heh, talk about density and obviousity..


Use of non-conventional weaponry = accidental.
Mass slaughter of inhabitants knowing more than half of them are not warriors = accidental.
Killing Italian operative while attempting to kill indepentant journalist = accidental.

So much accidents in this war. Maybe the war itself too?!
No wonder those accidents kill more people than purposeful attacks..

[Drake Tungsten]

So why not drop a nuke?

That would make us worse than the Nazis. We prefer to stay neck and neck with them.

[binTravkin]

That would make us worse than the Nazis. We prefer to stay neck and neck with them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Heh, talk about density and obviousity..

Use of non-conventional weaponry = accidental.
Mass slaughter of inhabitants knowing more than half of them are not warriors = accidental.
Killing Italian operative while attempting to kill indepentant journalist = accidental.

ROFL.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by binTravkin
So why not drop a nuke?
Okay, that would kill the oil, but an atomic waste bomb, neutron/heat bomb?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

What, do you imagine, is the aim of the Iraq invasion? Would that aim be best served by dropping nuclear weapons?

Heh, talk about density and obviousity..

Indeed.

Use of non-conventional weaponry = accidental.

No. The weaponry you use is irrelevant to whether it is accidental or not.

Mass slaughter of inhabitants knowing more than half of them are not warriors = accidental.

Targets are generally chosen because it is believed they are legitimate. Certainly civilian deaths are not planned - but when the tactical situation consists of the enemy hiding in civilian areas, it becomes difficult to attack the target with no collateral damage whatsover.

Killing Italian operative while attempting to kill indepentant journalist = accidental.

Dunno. I don't know enough about the incident. Are you entirely sure that the troops were trying to kill a specific civilian journalist?

So much accidents in this war. Maybe the war itself too?!
No wonder those accidents kill more people than purposeful attacks..

Well, Captain Obvious, war causes death, and we have yet to invent a war that does not kill civilians as well. The European track record, I might add, is no better. While I'm sure you've figured me by now as some staunch republican, I'm not for the war either - it was a bad idea then and it still is. Your accusation of war crimes, however, is totally without merit, and the idea that terrorism equates to collateral damage and vice versa indicates a colossal lack of understanding on your part.

[binTravkin]

Your accusation of war crimes, however, is totally without merit, and the idea that terrorism equates to collateral damage and vice versa indicates a colossal lack of understanding on your part.

The idea that I said so indicates a total lack of reading skills on your part.

What I was trying to say that if to kill terrorism takes orders of magnitude higher losses than the terrorism itself, than the entire way of 'fighting the terrorism' pretty much loses sense.
Moreso if the high losses involved are marked 'collateral damage'.

It is very much a way of saying 'we are ready to kill the entire [other] world with any means available to us to protect ourselves'.

Terrorists are everywhere, they do not have any particular hidingplace.

Why you don't just kill the entire [other] world to ensure that there is no terrorist threat?

That would be pretty much a new way of 'obtaining a living space' or Lebensraum if you wish..