24-01-2003 22:42									#1
	Iraq training children to soldiers Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I read about this today, or yesterday. I even have a picture of it, but I don't know how to post a picture.

What do you think of this? These kids were 12 years old. Now, this is NOT a sign to NOT attack. This is sign to attack fast! What kind of a leader puts its own children to front lines? A leader who needs to be changed, pronto.

	24-01-2003 22:46									#2
	Tired of ads?

Also don't cry here 'baby killers' and stuff like that. Saddam is forcing these children. Now, what kind of a man fights with children? If he doesn't have enough men to fight for him, then he needs to submit by default, before US attacks, and not get his children killed too!

I can see their propaganda already 'look at what US troops did to our children'.. well who was the maniac who 'trained' and put them fighting. They don't stand a chance against grown men, and it's unfair. I say let's take Saddam to the back of the sauna. Bullet in the neck.

edit: this alone proves that he is not fit for being a leader.

	24-01-2003 22:48									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Pekka

	24-01-2003 22:49									#4
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Pekka If he doesn't have enough men to fight for him, then he needs to submit by default, before US attacks, and not get his children killed too! .

Why should Iraq submit to the U.S. if they believe the U.S. is being an aggressor?

If the U.S. was in the desperate military straits Iraq is in now and facing an imminent invasion from a far-superior country, you can bet every person who could hold a gun--man, woman, child--would be preparing to resist with armed force.

	24-01-2003 22:57									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Boris, Not with 12 year old kids.. I could accept 16 year old kids if _properly_ trained and if they did indeed volunteer themselves. Sure no one wants to loose, but forcing kids to fight for their dictatorship should not be tolerated, this move alone is a reason to attack.

	24-01-2003 23:02									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Pekka Boris, Not with 12 year old kids.. I could accept 16 year old kids if _properly_ trained and if they did indeed volunteer themselves. Sure no one wants to loose, but forcing kids to fight for their dictatorship should not be tolerated, this move alone is a reason to attack.

I guarantee you, were the U.S. in the same situation, we'd be preparing everyone who could to defend the country.

Keep in mind, he's preparing for a defense of the country from an unjust attack. That's a far cry from preparing them to partake in an offensive war. While I don't like any forced military service, this doesn't strike me as anything worth attacking over, since we're the ones provoking it.

	24-01-2003 23:05									#7
	Remove this text

I understand your point of view. But as I think this could be avoided if Saddam would just step down and give up.. why won't he just do that?

	24-01-2003 23:06									#8
	Suffering from ads?

yes, of course, Boris, he's defending the nation, not himself.

	24-01-2003 23:08									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Generally Boris, in case of Iraq, what does that change? I mean, not only these 12 years old children, if this is indeed the case, are worth far less than grown men in military terms, still, Iraq stands no chance of beating US. Sure, it won't be as easy as the war against Taliban who used obsolete weapons, but still, there's no way how USA could possibly fail to achieve what it wants with military - like destruction of all Iraqi weapons and Saddam himself.

	24-01-2003 23:10									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I mean this is the situation to not think about personal pride. He KNOWS they're going to loose, children or no children. He could just step down, cry for mercy, lay down all the weapons with promise from the US to not attack. Full co-operation. Man for the people would even kill himself if it came to that, think about the people and the kids, and not himself.

	24-01-2003 23:11									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

So the question is not what can he do to defend himself against the US, but how many people is he going to take with him. If he has any decency left, he'd go alone, or take as few as possible and not the whole nation.

	24-01-2003 23:14									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the US were facing an invasion of overwhelming odds, that we had no chance of winning, anyone who was capable of holding a gun and aiming would be trained to do so while we still had time. As inneffective as twelve year old children are, there are times when you sacrifice everything. We'd do it. I see no reason to excoriate the Iraqis for doing the same.

In an ideal world, children would never be soldiers. In an ideal world, the US wouldn't be preparing to invade Iraq.

	24-01-2003 23:14									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Full cooperation would not be possible, because of how many fanatic supporters are there in Iraq who actually want Saddam to fight.

But he shouldn't be making statements that he will beat the crap out of US military, etc.

	24-01-2003 23:15									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

how do I post a picture?

	24-01-2003 23:17									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In an ideal world, children would never be soldiers. In an ideal world, the US wouldn't be preparing to invade Iraq.

In and ideal world, the US wouldn't need to invade Iraq

	24-01-2003 23:18									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

cheg, yes, but this is still avoidable. Saddam could just step down, and he is dictator after all. Besides, the US is not going to conquer Iraq. So they would continue to be Iraq, it's not about survival in this case.

	24-01-2003 23:18									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ming In and ideal world, the US wouldn't need to invade Iraq

True.

	24-01-2003 23:20									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Pekka cheg, yes, but this is still avoidable. Saddam could just step down, and he is dictator after all. Besides, the US is not going to conquer Iraq. So they would continue to be Iraq, it's not about survival in this case.

Even if Hussein stepped down, the US would still be doing what it's doing. This is about global hegemony, not Iraq. Iraq is going to be attacked, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of chaos in the US.

	24-01-2003 23:21									#19
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I guarantee you, were the U.S. in the same situation, we'd be preparing everyone who could to defend the country. Keep in mind, he's preparing for a defense of the country from an unjust attack. That's a far cry from preparing them to partake in an offensive war. While I don't like any forced military service, this doesn't strike me as anything worth attacking over, since we're the ones provoking it.

Same situation? Our 12 year olds already have guns in their hands. I've had a gun since I was 6.

Oh, wait, not all of you are from the Oklahoma-Texas area are you?

	24-01-2003 23:22									#20
	Remove this text

cheg, could be, but he could give it a shot. And my point is, this is not about the survival of Iraqi people. If it were, let's say the US would say 'we will kill you all, put you under oppressing rule, more than it is now!', then sure put everything in the way. But I don't think this is the case here.

	24-01-2003 23:23									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In an ideal war, neither would exist.

	24-01-2003 23:23									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

NO 12 year old ever won a war dying for his country. He made some other poor dumb 12 year old die for his country.

	24-01-2003 23:25									#23
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Hey come on, how do I post a pic?

Besides, why don't they do like we did in WWII? I bet there were few younger boys as well, volunteer. But kids were sent to Sweden. My grandmother was also sent to Sweden, I bet someone would take them, well better refugees than dead in trenches. Those under aged troops are not going to make any difference, only bigger body count.

	24-01-2003 23:26									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

doesn't [img] url (/img] work here?

	24-01-2003 23:26									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Pekka cheg, could be, but he could give it a shot. And my point is, this is not about the survival of Iraqi people. If it were, let's say the US would say 'we will kill you all, put you under oppressing rule, more than it is now!', then sure put everything in the way. But I don't think this is the case here.

The Iraqi people are irrelevent. They are just in the way.

	24-01-2003 23:27									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If the US were facing an invasion of overwhelming odds, that we had no chance of winning, anyone who was capable of holding a gun and aiming would be trained to do so while we still had time. As inneffective as twelve year old children are, there are times when you sacrifice everything. We'd do it. I see no reason to excoriate the Iraqis for doing the same. In an ideal world, children would never be soldiers. In an ideal world, the US wouldn't be preparing to invade Iraq.

In an ideal world, murdering thug dictators like Hussein wouldn't exist.

As far as whether "we" would train kids, "we" have legislative procedures for that, and without that authority, there'd be no training. The simple thing is these kids are nothing more than cannon fodder, and wouldn't add a thing to Iraq's combat capability.

If we were facing an invasion where we had no chance of winning, we'd likely be trying to negotiate a deal.

Refusing to condemn Iraq for an actual human rights violation, on the grounds of an unsupportable opinion that *if* we were in a similar situation, we'd do the same is a cop-out.

What next, finding an excuse for genocide, because "if we were in the same situation, we'd do it too?"

It's also a bit disingenuous to say "there are times when you sacrifice anything" when it's really "there are times when Saddam will sacrifice anything else." Given the enthusiasm for surrender of most Iraqi conscripts in the last war, they clearly weren't out there fighting for the glory of greater Iraq. In fact, they were fighting (until they had a chance to surrender) out of fear of the Iraqi security forces and of retribution against their families.

	24-01-2003 23:30									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Even if Hussein stepped down, the US would still be doing what it's doing. This is about global hegemony, not Iraq. Iraq is going to be attacked, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of chaos in the US.

If it was about global hegemony (I like imperialism better, it flows ), why would we pick a relatively useless chunk of real estate like Iraq, when we could simply take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and install "democracies" of our choosing there?

	24-01-2003 23:33									#28
	Suffering from ads?

Well, you can train people of whatever age. I can say that a country must at least try to defend itself whatever it takes. To die heroically is better than to live in chains. Probably Iraq has no chances to stand against, but it is worth to try. It is worth to implode all infrastructure, oil rigs and facilities just before the end of war, so the occupants (werether military or their puppet government) would have to at least pay much money to get something from that country. It is better to die as a martyr for your state than to see it annexed and it's resources exploited. What is it worth to live without your country, or country ruled by other nations or it's government? It is no more worth than to live without eyes, ears, arms and feet... Any independence is better than any occupation...

	24-01-2003 23:33									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: It's also a bit disingenuous to say "there are times when you sacrifice anything" when it's really "there are times when Saddam will sacrifice anything else." Given the enthusiasm for surrender of most Iraqi conscripts in the last war, they clearly weren't out there fighting for the glory of greater Iraq. In fact, they were fighting (until they had a chance to surrender) out of fear of the Iraqi security forces and of retribution against their families.

MtG

	24-01-2003 23:35									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sonic Well, you can train people of whatever age. I can say that a country must at least try to defend itself whatever it takes. To die heroically is better than to live in chains. Probably Iraq has no chances to stand against, but it is worth to try. It is worth to implode all infrastructure, oil rigs and facilities just before the end of war, so the occupants (werether military or their puppet government) would have to at least pay much money to get something from that country. It is better to die as a martyr for your state than to see it annexed and it's resources exploited. What is it worth to live without your country, or country ruled by other nations or it's government? It is no more worth than to live without eyes, ears, arms and feet... Any independence is better than any occupation...

Just ask the Germans or Japanese after WWII.