So I heard that mechanized divisions this afternoon crossed the southern border of Iraq and tomarrow paratroopers are dropping into the north.
Hey, who wants to bet that the laws of war will be overlooked in the face of completing an objective and the whole city of baghdad will be leveled flat, meanwhile thousands, perhaps more innocent civilians will be killed because its just easier or look the other way, plug your ears, and scream "I'm yankee doodle-daaaaandy!" while the "patriot" rockets launch and another infant loses a mother?
I love Freedom! Yay! Death and destruction! The U.S. needs entertainment, kill somebody without provocation!
COCKGOBLERS!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Don't insult the noble cockgobbler.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
More likely, the iraqi forces will bottle themselves up in the city core, fight a slow, stagnant trenchwar for three months. The allies will continue to send in special forces and choppers, public opinion back in the world will sway, the US and UK will pull back their forces, Saddam will crawl out from whatever cave he hid in and reclaim Iraq, track down and and execute all deserters and defectors in fantastically cruel ways.
Saddam will then live another 20 years before dying from cholesterolic food.
But I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You're both silly. Even if there were enough troops to defend Baghdad for any length of time, they wouldn't be able to hold out for three months, or anything near it. Guerrila warfare, maybe, but not organized defense.
And as for Baghdad being leveled, well, we could have done that any time we wanted for the past four decades. Why would we?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
We also could have had this war anytime in the past twelve years, but it only just started. Same reason, I expect.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, but this war, or at least the goal thereof, is a Good Thing, whereas leveling Baghdad could accomplish nothing good. Unless, of course, you care to define "Baghdad" as that region of Baghdad where the government resides, and not the civilian centers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Besides, the US would never level a city. Its like....believing they would nuke a city simply to reduce their own casualties. Totally morally unprecedented. And if you're one of those anti-American communist flag-burning bastards that think it has, it would never happen again. The US would never nuke more than one city.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
nuking a city full of people actively training to fight != nuking a city full of people who are more likely to welcome you than shoot you
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Cause, y'know...Baghdad's NEVER been leveled to the ground before.
I blame everything in the world on its original sacking.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...a city full of people actively training to fight..."
The babies had guns! Of course!
The way you can bend you mind at complete right angles to reality in order to justify complete amorality is really fucking scary at times.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The babies didn't, but anyone that could hold one did. It's the concept of collateral damage: do you kill some people who could never harm you, to save tens of thousands of other lives? To which the only possible answer is "Yes".
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
YOUR lifes, fuckwit. For which you slaughtered ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND others. But hey, it saved a handful of your soldiers, which were vastly more valuable than a bunch of stupid Japanese civilians, so it all evens out.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Handful? "The US would never nuke more than one city."? WORLD WAR II? All aboard the Yesterday Train.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: YOUR lifes, fuckwit. For which you slaughtered ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND others. But hey, it saved a handful of your soldiers, which were vastly more valuable than a bunch of stupid Japanese civilians, so it all evens out.
Yeah. better grab a history book: THOUSANDS of allied troops were lost in the Pacific theatre during WWII. Civillians died and that sucks hard. The rationale is that the Japanese were fighting with everything they had and we would have potentially lost a lot more allied lives trying to occupy the Japanese islands. I agree that from a historical perspective, Nagasaki may have been overkill, but the japanese leadership would not surrender ( they wanted to discuss terms of a cease fire) until we went and destroyed Nagasaki. None of us will ever be in the position to make the kind of call that would cost thousands of lives to stop a war that had already cost millions, so I say don't judge: some decisions are too big to fully grasp, even for those living in that era.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"The rationale is that the Japanese were fighting with everything they had and we would have potentially lost a lot more allied lives trying to occupy the Japanese islands."
I know. Ultimately, the argument comes down to this:
The first statement is fact. The second... an opinion. Alas, none of us have had the luxury to witness Alternate History in the making.
"None of us will ever be in the position to make the kind of call that would cost thousands of lives to stop a war that had already cost millions, so I say don't judge: some decisions are too big to fully grasp, even for those living in that era."
That's true. I just have a hard time NOT condemning indiscriminate killing, or those who favor it with a resounding YES, like Omega.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."
Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"
Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food.
A man identifying himself only as Abdullah welcomed the arrival of the U.S. troops: "Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."
An old woman shrouded in black � one of the very few women outside � knelt toward the feet of Americans, embracing an American woman. A younger man with her pulled her away, giving her a warning sign by sliding his finger across his throat.
They wanna like us, but they're afraid we'll leave with Saddam still in power, like we did the last time. Can't blame 'em.
A little bit about one of the people that the peacies say Bush is worse than, and want to leave in power to take over Iraq in a few years. Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Uday better than Bush? Yikes. Who said that?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There have been a lot of "bigger threats to peace" and "who's the worse terrorist" threads bandied about the internet. I'm sure you've seen them somewhere.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:IRAQI conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando�s Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them. Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts� only way out.
quote:�But as soon as I saw their faces I knew they were genuine. They actually looked very relieved they didn�t have to fight any more. And they became very pleased to see us when they realised we weren�t going to do them any harm.�
The dawn light appeared to have provoked an exodus.
Small groups of dishevelled Iraqis were standing up all around us with their hands in the air, or with a dirty white T-shirt tied to a stick waving above them. Every time you turned around, a new trickle of silhouettes emerged from the horizon walking slowly towards us. One Marine joked: �Oh no. They�re surrendering at us from all sides.�
quote:A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
quote:The official and private views of some ranking Jordanian officials appear to be diametrically opposed. Officially, they condemn the war and say they are "deeply troubled" about the repercussions of the war on the region, and describe the situation as "critical."
Privately, and not for attribution, they say the United States is developing a new opportunity for the Middle East. Said one former prime minister, "If the U.S. can get a new Iraq to recognize Israel as a quid pro quo for a final Palestinian settlement, others will fall into place -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. Iran would then have to pull back its military support for Hezbollah."
Another prominent Jordanian voice said that while Iraq has created a rift between America and its allies, and in Europe itself, the Palestine question -- provided President Bush is serious about a settlement roadmap, without either side allowed to nickel and dime it to oblivion -- could be a reconciling factor.
Didn't I already say that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, from my post downward...I can't tell who's being sarcastic anymore. Yesterday train indeed.