25-01-2003 03:43									#91
	Suffering from ads?

Chegitz, admit it at last. USA/UK/USSR also killed innocent people in WW2. How would bombarding of Dresden damage German ability to make war? The only military object, barracks, there left intact but instead whole city center was destroyed. Something about the same was with Hiroshima. So if Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction on USA it would be no difference then.

For all civilian deaths, it doesn't depends who started the war, the responsible side is one who killed these people. It's obvious in examples I've given before. BTW, Hitler and Stalin there still equally responsible for war in Europe, while Japan responsible for war in pacific (neither Germany, neither USSR had nothing to do with Pearl Harbour). But yet again, Japan is not responsible that USA dropped nuclear bomb, and fiurthermore Germany is also not responsible. BTW, in my opinion WW2 could be splitted in two wars actually - European and Pacific, which had hardly any contact between each other. Even if there would be no war in Europe I believe Japan would still had attacked USA.

	25-01-2003 03:50									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: For all civilian deaths, it doesn't depends who started the war, the responsible side is one who killed these people.

But who killed these people is the debate! One side did it directly the other brought it about. It takes to two tango, and two to fight. Both sides know that in war civilian life is at risk. So, both sides are responsible. War is a silly, silly thing. Period.

	25-01-2003 03:54									#93
	Tired of ads?

hi ,

in all wars civilians tend to be the victims , allways , no matter what , ....

have a nice day

	25-01-2003 03:57									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day.

Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

	25-01-2003 04:16									#95
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Panag, this is very true. But however, bombarding of Dresden was designed to specially target civilians. About the same with Hiroshima. There is a bit difference from missions designed to kill civilians and missions, which are designed to destroy military buildings/infrastructure and civilians are just incidentally killed.

	25-01-2003 04:31									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sonic Panag, this is very true. But however, bombarding of Dresden was designed to specially target civilians. About the same with Hiroshima. There is a bit difference from missions designed to kill civilians and missions, which are designed to destroy military buildings/infrastructure and civilians are just incidentally killed.

hi ,

no-one tends to do an effort to keep that difference , ....

during a war , .....

aldo the US has kept a very good track record , together with Israel , we always try to minimize such events , but unfortunatly sometimes the other side takes advantage of it , ..... with devastating results , ....

have a nice day

	25-01-2003 04:31									#97
	Remove this text

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.

	25-01-2003 04:40									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sava Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day. Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

agreed 100%
this should explain why the us goverment doesn´t stop affirming that they have clear evidences about Iraq having WMDs and why they´re not willing to spread these evidences.

concerning the topic: if the alliance attacks Iraq they have to realize that hundreds if not thousands of children will be killed, no matter if they carry a weapon or not. essentially this is the reason why this war is a mistake.
(and btw. I´m 99% sure that saddam will survive it)

	25-01-2003 05:13									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	25-01-2003 07:20									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Ramo, well, isn't that against international laws? Doesn't it show the nature of their leader, making it more obvious he should be removed?

I agree that it'd be absolutely great if Saddam were gone; he's a mass-murdering bastard. But the US gov't doesn't have the balls to do the right thing afterwards, as indicated by its dealings with Iraqi Kurds during the past decade. If we go to war, the liberty of Iraqis would ultimately decrease not increase.

	25-01-2003 08:39									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ming Gee, what a stupid and ignorant response If you had bothered to read my response instead of just doing your typical non thinking knee jerk reaction, you would see that the point was that are other threads where you can specifically talk about whether the war is right or not. And that this thread is about a different subject. So next time... read

Your point is pointless, then. In the very first post, Pekka was saying that Saddam's training of children was cause for war. I disagreed, and stated why. Where is the problem here?

Are you drunk again?

	25-01-2003 09:16									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sonic, while I agree that the Allies murdered the civilians of Dresden, you must also be aware that had Hitler not started the war, there would have been no bombing. Thus Hitler bears responsibility for what happened to the German people. If the Japanese hadn't attacked the US, we never would have dropped the atomic bomb upon them. Ultimately the aggressor is responsible for every death in a war, even if the other side committs attrocities.

	25-01-2003 09:18									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Pekka This is what I think too. I think letting Saddam stay is higher price for these Iraqi children in the long run. Sure, Saddam won't live decades, but looks like his son is next in line, ready to continue. It won't end, until someone puts an end to it. The sooner the better. But there should be every effort taken that these kids wouldn't get butchered. I believe like MTG said, they'll run the first chance they get, or at least surrender.

See? If we go about our business building up our forces, but not actually invading, eventually Saddam is going to do something to trigger international outrage.

	25-01-2003 09:33									#104
	Remove this text

Pekka:

First of all, I DO agree that this is all very revolting. Kids should be in school and playing with each other. Hell, adults should be at work, or at golf, too.

But what exactly did you expect? ANY COUNTRY, ruled by ANY POLITICIAN, would be doing this if they were being threatened by a far superior force. This is regardless of how evil Saddam Hussein is, since any politician who has fought his entire life for the power that he has would be doing whatever he possibly can to stay in power. This is a simple fact of human nature. Call this evil or whatever. I'm not surprised. If America were threatened by a force of similar superiority, the same thing would be happening. 12-year-old kids and old men and women would be on the front lines, as CG has said.

Incidentally, the Rohan of LOTR put every and any male member of their race who can hold a weapon onto the frontlines. I know this is ridiculous and makes little strategic sense, but for a cornered, surrounded nation, this is what is done: whatever it can to delay the invasion and hope for a miracle.

(Well, as for whether Iraq should be invaded: that's a different matter. If we consider the preservation of the Pax Americana, then yes, the invasion should take place.)

And while we're at it, let's bring up the emotionality a little bit:

	25-01-2003 09:53									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sava Saddam is getting backed up into a corner, and if he's got any WMD's, that's not a good thing. War in Iraq is a bad thing. It's a bit of a conundrum. Saddam is in power greatly because of the US, so there's no doubt that Saddam is the US's problem. Methinks the reason Bush isn't presenting any evidence of Saddam's possible WMD's is because they are all stamped "Made in the USA" and god forbid the truth come out that a Reagan controlled US was selling arms to Saddam back in the day. Frankly, the whole Iraq situation requires a smart solution... and war isn't the right course of action. But when we have a dumb president, it's no surprise that war is his answer.

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?

	25-01-2003 10:08									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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 Shites 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 Shites 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.

	25-01-2003 13:45									#107
	Tired of ads?

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.

	25-01-2003 13:56									#108
	Tired of ads?

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

in an ideal world israel wouldnt exsist

	25-01-2003 19:16									#109
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

true.

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

	25-01-2003 19:41									#110
	Suffering from ads?

they just didnt care

	25-01-2003 23:26									#111
	Got spare money?

quote: 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

	25-01-2003 23:39									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

	26-01-2003 00:39									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

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

	26-01-2003 01:08									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	26-01-2003 03:01									#115
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	26-01-2003 06:12									#116
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	26-01-2003 07:16									#117
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	26-01-2003 08:41									#118
	Inflate your Upload Space

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

See below...

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.)

quote: 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.

	26-01-2003 08:51									#119
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	26-01-2003 18:40									#120
	Got spare money?

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.