Iraq na Phobia

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Pick up a book on the Holocaust if you wanna see war crimes and crimes against humanity. Read up on the Bataan death march and what the Japs did to Americans. You'll see real war crimes there, not you're silly make believe war crimes.

I don't think GWB is out looking to round up and slaughter random civilians. Please show me the proof of where GWB ORDERED the murder and exececution of innocent people? And innocents killed during battle is not a war crime you know. I want you to show me proof of when GWB ordered the murder and slaughter of random innocents just becasue he could.

The 7 people who voted to charge Bush with war crimes in this stupid poll are freakin idiots. You guys are clueless! Read some history and you'll see what war crimes truly are.

How about Shock and Awe Skip..... get your head out of Patriotic Drivel and look around... you never suprise me with your deeply slanted perspective.... wake up kid.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

How about Shock and Awe Skip..... get your head out of Patriotic Drivel and look around... you never suprise me with your deeply slanted perspective.... wake up kid.

All this from a guy who refers to Democracy as Demonocracy.

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

All this from a guy who refers to Democracy as Demonocracy.

Only when we try to force feed it into a country that has no interest in it.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

How about Shock and Awe Skip..... get your head out of Patriotic Drivel and look around... you never suprise me with your deeply slanted perspective.... wake up kid.

Wow you must be privy to some real secret stuff because this is the first time I've heard of civilians being targeted by America in Iraq including the shock and awe campaign which targeted strictly Government and Military Targets. That probably bums you out huh?

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Wow you must be privy to some real secret stuff because this is the first time I've heard of civilians being targeted by America in Iraq including the shock and awe campaign which targeted strictly Government and Military Targets. That probably bums you out huh?

If you believe that because we targeted only military sites that no civilians were killed in the massive bombings then good for you but you are wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

If you believe that because we targeted only military sites that no civilians were killed in the massive bombings then good for you but you are wrong.

Well, I think we've killed on the low end many tens of thousands to on the high end several hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's.

Any way you cut it it's a lot of death.

If I remember correctly, International law does provide for a "reasonable" number of civilian deaths as acceptable in times of war.

But considering the context...

The the ratio of civilians to hostiles isn't very productive.

That most of the world (including America) doesn't buy the justification.

That it's clear the war was planned and executed at the top in a most incompetent manner.

So given all of that, it's really not all that difficult for a Muslim in some far off country to think the local Imam might just be preaching the truth when he calls for Jihad against the West who's waging a crusade aginst Islam.

Please think

Bing! because in that time another few young men or women joined the dark side.

Get it?

-spence

[JohnR]

I would not consider war crimes just or practical. Certainly to the military - just doesn't fly for me. I wouldn't mind seeing some investigations at the very top...


Interesting read from Iraq - I'm about 1/2 way through but my eyes are burnt out...

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20061026.pdf

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, I think we've killed on the low end many tens of thousands to on the high end several hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's.

So given all of that, it's really not all that difficult for a Muslim in some far off country to think the local Imam might just be preaching the truth when he calls for Jihad against the West who's waging a crusade aginst Islam.

Please think

Bing! because in that time another few young men or women joined the dark side.

Get it?

-spence

You make it sound like Terrorism was born as a result of the Iraq invasion.......It simply isn't true.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

You make it sound like Terrorism was born as a result of the Iraq invasion.......It simply isn't true.

Not at all, I only cited recent examples that are having tremendous impact. There's plenty to pick from in the past half century. Granted you or I might not agree with an alternate assessment, but that simply is the way it is...

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by spence

Not at all, I only cited recent examples that are having tremendous impact. There's plenty to pick from in the past half century. Granted you or I might not agree with an alternate assessment, but that simply is the way it is...

-spence

You say Toma toe they say Tahmahto

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

If you believe that because we targeted only military sites that no civilians were killed in the massive bombings then good for you but you are wrong.

No one ever stated that no civilians were killed during shock and awe, they certainly werent targeted though, we have the most precise bombs ever known to man, but civilians will always be killed by accident. We went after military targets of importance, but civilians were killed because they were around those targets, but they werent the intended targets. You know this, quit playing your stupid war crimes bull %$%$%$%$. But you seem to believe that any civilian killed by accident means that Bush is Guilty of a war crime. Thats just insane! If he was ordering bombs dropped on civilians to kill them, then i'd be outraged too! But we both know this is NOT the case. I know you'd like to believe we are targeting civilians, but it aint the case buddy!

Wake up, and stop with this Bush is going out of his way to kill civilians bull %$%$%$%$. Of course civilians were killed during shock and awe, but they were NOT the intended targets. God you need to get a clue

[JohnR]

I don't think Bush is going out of his way to get civillians killed - kinda rediculous. Sure, he has ranged from stupid to less than brilliant on many things but trying to kill civilians is as foolish as him being behind 9/11.

The rules of engagement by the US military are probably more inline with minimizing civilian casualties than any military in the past 100 years.

Shock and Awe was just that. Precision munitions and missiles that destroy what they are aiming at 85% of the time.

From a military standpoint to be able to take out a single target now means that one aircraft can often destroy today, in 2006, what probably would have taken a squadron of B17s in WW2. Two smart weapons from one aircraft hitting the intended target instead of a fleet of aircraft indiscriminently unloading hundreds of bombs for the same target. Even in Vietnam there was often several attempts at a target with "dumb" bombs that were within a few years hit with the early versions of laser guided weapons.

Using the unguided weapons caused far more civilian deaths and the deaths of our military (takes a lot more planes to hit a target means a lot more planes can get shot down).

Add to the top of it that these people on the other side put THEIR civilians in harm's way. Mosques, schools, hospitals.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't think Bush is going out of his way to get civillians killed - kinda rediculous. Sure, he has ranged from stupid to less than brilliant on many things but trying to kill civilians is as foolish as him being behind 9/11.

The rules of engagement by the US military are probably more inline with minimizing civilian casualties than any military in the past 100 years.

Shock and Awe was just that. Precision munitions and missiles that destroy what they are aiming at 85% of the time.

From a military standpoint to be able to take out a single target now means that one aircraft can often destroy today, in 2006, what probably would have taken a squadron of B17s in WW2. Two smart weapons from one aircraft hitting the intended target instead of a fleet of aircraft indiscriminently unloading hundreds of bombs for the same target. Even in Vietnam there was often several attempts at a target with "dumb" bombs that were within a few years hit with the early versions of laser guided weapons.

Using the unguided weapons caused far more civilian deaths and the deaths of our military (takes a lot more planes to hit a target means a lot more planes can get shot down).

Add to the top of it that these people on the other side put THEIR civilians in harm's way. Mosques, schools, hospitals.

Good post, right on the money!

But Skitterpop thinks we are bunch of dummies for thinking this way!

[spence]

STOP

You guys are missing the point.

Nobody has said Bush targets civilians, and the fact that terrorists might do it is moot unless you care to stoop to their level.

The simply fact is that many tens of thousands of civilians are being killed for a variety of reasons and this is adding kerosene to the already blazing fire. Regardless if it's a US bomb, insurgent or terrorist attack...the Iraqi finger points back at the USA as we're supposed to be providing protection.

More Iraqis pushed into the insurgency for nationalistic reasons means even more pushed into sectarian violence and more into Jihad.

We're in a very bad place right now. I hope everyone has a lot of tuna stocked under the bed.

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Good post, right on the money!

But Skitterpop thinks we are bunch of dummies for thinking this way!

No I don`t Skip....but nice try at the cover....I make one very brief statement which you add names and much content to which I never mention....you make up all this crap I never said to fit your war on you being right about everything you comment on.....its funny

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skip N

No one ever stated that no civilians were killed during shock and awe, they certainly werent targeted though, we have the most precise bombs ever known to man, but civilians will always be killed by accident. We went after military targets of importance, but civilians were killed because they were around those targets, but they werent the intended targets. You know this, quit playing your stupid war crimes bull %$%$%$%$. But you seem to believe that any civilian killed by accident means that Bush is Guilty of a war crime. Thats just insane! If he was ordering bombs dropped on civilians to kill them, then i'd be outraged too! But we both know this is NOT the case. I know you'd like to believe we are targeting civilians, but it aint the case buddy!

Wake up, and stop with this Bush is going out of his way to kill civilians bull %$%$%$%$. Of course civilians were killed during shock and awe, but they were NOT the intended targets. God you need to get a clue

Skip....are you really this dumb?

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

If you believe that because we targeted only military sites that no civilians were killed in the massive bombings then good for you but you are wrong.

Here it is..... nice gymnastics TRYING to make it something else

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Here it is..... nice gymnastics TRYING to make it something else

Then we can assume that the Bombing of the Balkins was a war crime for the same reasons and those responsible should stand trial?

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Then we can assume that the Bombing of the Balkins was a war crime for the same reasons and those responsible should stand trial?

Skip? Is that you? You can continue to assume as much as you want as that is your forte.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Skip? Is that you? You can continue to assume as much as you want as that is your forte.

Cute. Now answer the question please.

[Swimmer]

Spence, entering the mosques and killing Sadr is my stated opinon, not that of anyone else, yet anyways. We've been told we cannot enter mosques for any reasons. Only Iwaqi soldiers and stupid dumb rabbits can. My only point here is that is an assinine policy. Most of the murderers in Iraq hide there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Spence, entering the mosques and killing Sadr is my stated opinon, not that of anyone else, yet anyways. We've been told we cannot enter mosques for any reasons. Only Iwaqi soldiers and stupid dumb rabbits can. My only point here is that is an assinine policy. Most of the murderers in Iraq hide there.

It's simply not feasable most of the time. This isn't political correctness as much as pragmatic strategy. There are so many negatives they outweight the benefit. I'm speaking both locally (revolt) and Globally as it would be a PR boon for Jihadists.

We may have had an opportunity to nail Sadr a few years ago, but his position is so strong now that to directly go after him would be very difficult. It would appear to be US hegemony rather than democratic process.

We do need to find a way to minimize his influence in the Iraqi government. This certainly looks to be a long tent pole.

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

How about Shock and Awe Skip..... get your head out of Patriotic Drivel and look around... you never suprise me with your deeply slanted perspective.... wake up kid.

Just for the record Skitter, this was your response to my post when i described what i believed real war crimes were, holocaust, bataan death march etc.

So you respond to that post with your above comments, basiclly implying that shock and awe should be considered with the real war crimes i mentioned.

So how am i twisting your statements again?? Its pretty clear what you were implying, that sock and awe should be considered a war crime.

How am i misquoting you again!?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Just for the record Skitter, this was your response to my post when i described what i believed real war crimes were, holocaust, bataan death march etc.

Skipper-lou,

A war crime is any violation of the laws of war. It's not just the really big stuff...

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by spence

Skipper-lou,

A war crime is any violation of the laws of war. It's not just the really big stuff...

-spence

Perhaps, but that's not the point here. Skitter clearly implied that shock and awe should be in the war crimes category. How was shock and awe a war crime? I'm waiting for his reply....

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Just for the record Skitter, this was your response to my post when i described what i believed real war crimes were, holocaust, bataan death march etc.

So you respond to that post with your above comments, basiclly implying that shock and awe should be considered with the real war crimes i mentioned.

So how am i twisting your statements again?? Its pretty clear what you were implying, that sock and awe should be considered a war crime.

How am i misquoting you again!?

Implying that civilians were killed is not saying Bush should be charged with war crimes....my war crimes comment was in general about all wars,no matter what country is doing the killing.... all wars bring death and destruction..... and its not sock and awe

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Implying that civilians were killed is not saying Bush should be charged with war crimes....my war crimes comment was in general about all wars,no matter what country is doing the killing.... all wars bring death and destruction..... and its not sock and awe

Then end this drivle and say "I dont think Bush is guilty of war crimes"..........and if that doesn't work for you say: "I dont think Bush is any more guilty than his predecessor is of commiting war crimes".

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Then end this drivle and say "I dont think Bush is guilty of war crimes"..........and if that doesn't work for you say: "I dont think Bush is any more guilty than his predecessor is of commiting war crimes".

Ok, that's no trying to lead the witness

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Then end this drivle and say "I dont think Bush is guilty of war crimes"..........and if that doesn't work for you say: "I dont think Bush is any more guilty than his predecessor is of commiting war crimes".

Are you wearing a leather mask?


Control freaks are generally people who realize that they have no control but carry on none the less.

We are who we are and i refuse to be DEVOURED by any little big bad wolf of intellect imagined.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Are you wearing a leather mask?


Control freaks are generally people who realize that they have no control but carry on none the less.

We are who we are and i refuse to be DEVOURED by any little big bad wolf of intellect imagined.

He asked a simple question. Do you believe president Bush is a war criminal? Yes or No

And if yes please explain why. With facts to back up your answer of course.

We're just trying to figure out what the hell your position is!