posted
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!
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We also could have had this war anytime in the past twelve years, but it only just started. Same reason, I expect.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Cause, y'know...Baghdad's NEVER been leveled to the ground before.
I blame everything in the world on its original sacking.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
"...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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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".
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
