 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The Turkish parlement voted to send 12,000 troops to Iraq but the Iraqi Nation Council (specifically the Kurdish members of the INC) blocked the deployment and refused to allow Turkey to send their troops. The Turks actually wanted to send their troops into northern Iraq so they could restore order and hunt for Kurdish rebels in their spare time.
|
Under huge pressure from the military regime (and the US no doubt). However the people were in their crushing majority against it and actually the government breathed a sight of relief that it could use the Kurds as an "excuse" to do what it and the people always wanted. For once Kurds and the turkish government worked for eachother. Obviously other governments like the S. Korea one didn't have such opportunities.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Oerdin - that's exactly the point. If you put most American 16-17 year olds into the same kind of one stupid stunt and you're dead envirionment, I would expect to see alot of dead kids. In fact, we do anyway with our own domestic stupidity, let alone if we added in the kind of instant lethality that a combat zone entails. What is sad it that soldiers do have to shoot, you succinct description of the risks of operating a check point in a car bomb envirionment are totally correct.
quote:
Oerdin said: ...have every right to send that worthless sack of **** to see Satan |
If that was your, or my, family member we might regret that the young fool didn't survive to live past the stupid phase. But no kid is a WORTHLESS SACK OF **** just for being a dumb teenager. That attitude, whether it's by an Isreali soldier on the West Bank, or a GI at a roadblock, is what causes guerilla conflicts to escalate. Thankfully, and there have been many cases of this, the GI's at the roadblocks are heartbroken and upset when they see the car that they had to shoot at instead had children in it. They have tried time and again to save those kids, and that is what makes me proud to be American, not the actions of the idiots in the Bush administration. To those soldiers, no kid is a worthless sack of ****. They never should be, to anyone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
If that was your, or my, family member we might regret that the young fool didn't survive to live past the stupid phase. But no kid is a WORTHLESS SACK OF **** just for being a dumb teenager. That attitude, whether it's by an Isreali soldier on the West Bank, or a GI at a roadblock, is what causes guerilla conflicts to escalate. Thankfully, and there have been many cases of this, the GI's at the roadblocks are heartbroken and upset when they see the car that they had to shoot at instead had children in it. They have tried time and again to save those kids, and that is what makes me proud to be American, not the actions of the idiots in the Bush administration. To those soldiers, no kid is a worthless sack of ****. They never should be, to anyone. |
It is tragic if you kill some hot head instead of a terrorist but how do I tell the difference between the homicide bomber and the macho testosterone junky who's out to prove he's a man? Remember the conciquence for not making the right choice is that you and your whole squad may die. In 1982 a gate guard in Beruit didn't open fire and 250+ Marines died because of it.
The costs of making a mistake are just to high. You have to treat each case as if it's a car bomber running the check point. I would rather be wrong and shoot some smuggler or some idiot then to be responsible for having my whole squad wiped out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The UN gave the US the authority to US force and to disarm Iraq in 1990 and that resolution has not been recended. It was deliberately written so as not to have an experation date and it is 100% legal and in force. |
Bullshit, but can we take that issue to an international law seminar?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Oh I really stopped caring after the hand waving theatrics you did earlier. But if you feel like answering with more than an "IT's not worth it to go into detail"-type reply, here it is. |
I didn't consider that a serious question. But if you want: What's the benefit? It shows that the US troops have overwhelming firepower. Now that's really not new.
Downside, those killed belong to a family, a larger family, a clan. And their relatives will hate you for killing them, and that they attacked US troops in the most stupid way won't change one iota with that. Also, depending on secular or islamist inclination, stupid people usually get some kind of martyr status.
The battle of Iraq is not a military one, it's a political one. And the US is losing it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I didn't consider that a serious question. But if you want: What's the benefit? It shows that the US troops have overwhelming firepower. Now that's really not new.
|
No, but in light of their recent successful ops, this one will have a psychological effect and reduce their arrogance a bit.
quote:
Downside, those killed belong to a family, a larger family, a clan. And their relatives will hate you for killing them, and that they attacked US troops in the most stupid way won't change one iota with that.
|
They're mostly Tikriti, and many were Saddam Fedayeen, so it's not like they or their families ever liked us, or ever will. We don't frankly give a ****, because they're a small (and fervently hated) tribal and clan minority within the country as a whole. One with a lot more Iraqi blood on their hands than we'll ever have, and one with whom a lot of people have scores they'd like to settle.
quote:
The battle of Iraq is not a military one, it's a political one. And the US is losing it. |
That really has yet to be seen, although the brainless optimism of the neo-cons is pretty well repudiated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Damn, are you stupid? |
No.
quote:
I get my news from as many different news sources as possible so that I can get the widest possible view point on events. You should try it to instead of always sticking to just one source which always tells you what you want to hear. Of course that would require effort and an open mind so I'm not usre you'd be up to the challenge.  |
I'm sure you get a very broad media spectrum. Which is why you can call a dead Iraqi teenager a "sack of ***". Or did I misquote you?
quote:
Look buddy the quote key is really easy to use so stop trying to lie and misrepresent what I said. Just quote the passage without any more of your interpritation or artistic editing, ok? |
I'm sorry. Did I misrepresent your meaning? What DID you mean by those words?
quote:
quote: You're really something, Ace. What gives the US the right to invade another country on false evidence, and then kill anyone that doesn't follow (or understand) their instructions? :quote
The UN gave the US the authority to US force and to disarm Iraq in 1990 and that resolution has not been recended. It was deliberately written so as not to have an experation date and it is 100% legal and in force. BTW all orders at check points are given in both Arabic and English but I'm sure you don't know that because that would require you to educate yourself and learn a bit about what really goes on in Iraq. |
Is that why the US and Britain sought another resolution from the Security Council to disarm Iraq and when it was denied, invaded anyway? Oh, and the disarm Iraq bit? That was about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the UN had inspectors in Iraq, looking for them. They weren't too happy about not being able to finish looking, either.
But the US was understandably impatient, and just knew that if they invaded, THEY would be able to find them. The fact that they still haven't found them is undoubtably irrelevant to the resolution you mention, and the fact that Bush administration lawyers have used it for a "legal" justification for the war. Too bad most countries (and the Security Council) don't agree with the Bush interpretation which you have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Oerdin, you seem to be reacting rather than reading. I agree with how the check points have to be run. I haven't disagreed once.
It's the worthless statement that you seem to be justifying. The men who authorized and carried out the gassing of an entire Kurdish town. They qualify as a worthless piece of ****. A stupid teenager doesn't.
You don't even respond to my, and other posters, comments about the actual civilian casualties at the check points. Instead you stick to you straw man examples, hotheaded teenagers and macho testosterone junkies (which I tried to use, hoping you would see the point). Most of the dead are individuals who just didn't understand the rules, or how they worked, or just panicked. Often children are passengers in those cars, and just as often they are casualties. You don't address that issue at all.
Once you start seeing the unintended, and unfortunately inevitable, casualties at those checkpoints as a worthless piece of ****, your occupying force is on the way to losing.
Fortunely, the American GI's don't see these casualties as you do. That's what makes me proud. They are emotionally torn up, often in tears, as they have tried to mend the broken bodies that they have no choice (see, I still agree with you on how these check points need to be run) in making. I can't remember, somebody took a photo of a GI with one of those kids, I caught the interview. If that GI could talk to you, after holding the mangled kid in his arms, I have a suspicion he wouldn't be quite so, shall we so, reasonable in his disagreement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If it's a real issue, then why doesn't some principled entity raise it as a formal issue of international law in whatever forum is appropriate? |
And what is the appropriate forum?
The Axis of Reason should have made a clear statement by leaving NATO and closing all US bases. But our chickenshits didn't do this. Maybe next time.
As for the Tikritis and Fedayeen, I do not believe they are a large part of the Iraqi resistance. Do you really beleive the "baathist remnants" tale?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The resolution from the first Gulf War... authorized by the UN without any new resolutions. |
You don't really expect me to correct all the errors inbetween?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2003 13:00
No one said Iraq was a smashing success! Where do you et this crap? I suspect you are doing selective reading instead of actually reading what people are writting. What I did do was point out that Iraq hasn't been the total failure which the doom and gloom, I can't think for myself, crowd has been saying it is. 
|