The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing part deux
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 14:42
VIEWED: 6194
PAGE 2 of 5
Geezer- the difference between our ethnic cleansing and theirs is that we use bombs, tanks, and artillery while they use IEDs, RPGs and small arms. We target whole cities while they target key roads or neighborhoods. We target hospitals and clinics and all males between the ages of 15-55 while they target security forces and contractors... both sides claiming that its done because they "might" be on the other side. Oh yeah, we are MUCH better than they are! We're so much more effective.
If you didn't get the point, I'll make it more explicit: You can hardly excuse every single American atrocity that was every comitted with the blanket phrase "good tactics". I COULD say the same thing about the insurgents... after all, are they not following good tactics? But seeing as I don't intend to excuse our actions, I won't excuse theirs either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The difference is that they (the terrorists, aka insurgents) knowingly and purposefully target innocent people and often seek to intentionally use the most painful and inhuman methods as policy. The US does not. In fact, the US seeks to avoid the targeting of innocent people even when such avoidance places American soldiers at risks.
They (the former Iraqi government under Sadam Hussein) practiced the killing of unfavored ethnicities as a policy, which is by definition ethnic cleansing. Once again, something the US does not do, and in fact, has fought repeatedly in several arenas to specifically prevent ethnic cleansing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An amazingly informative thread, thanks Browncoats. I knew I could count on you guys for Geneva knowhow.
As for all of us just pulling out and leaving it to Iraq to sort it out? BAD IDEA. WE started this mess. We made mistakes all the way through. First, we jumped the gun on sanctions and the UN and preemptively declared war on a sovereign nation under false or sadly mishappen pretenses. Then we decided to send half the manpower we actually would have needed to do the thing right. We pissed off all our friends who had people and supplies we could have used in the fight. We really pissed off all of the Muslim nations out there who saw us preemptively attacking a foreign nation whose populace is Muslim and who, by the way, have a lot of oil.
But we're there. We created the chaos that's reigning now, and we're responsible for the way things are over there. And it's getting better, I hope, slowly. (That's if you listen to the optimists, so for now, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.) But if we pull out now, if we just cut and run, we'll be creating the most dangerous situation yet, politically, for the Iraqi people but also for us. Can you say power vaccuum?
No, now that we're there, we're in it for the long haul, Baby, and if we're smart, we'll try to make nice with the UN and see if we can gradually turn most of our duties over to them, thus dramatically reducing the number of our people over there while simoultaneously reducing our image as invading hordes of infidels who are just in it for the oil.
I am ill and must to bed!
There is no such thing as a weed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah Finn... THEY knowingly target "innocent civilians" WE just assume every male between the ages of 15 and 45 is guilty - ergo we're clean!! YAY for the good guys!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remind me. How many of those males between the ages of 15 and 45 did we behead?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, our "hands" are clean, which gives us moral superiority. We just corral them into a city and then bomb/ mortar/ shell/ shoot/ interdict (medical help)/ starve/ dehydrate them.
You seem to think that physical distance= moral distance.
Idiot.
F*cking, heartless, b*astard idiot.
You should see the part of "Hearts and Minds" where the pilot talks about the flowers of fire; the 30,000 ft physical distance that gives him emotional insulation from the death he's dispensing.
Idiot. Mindless. immoral idiot who buries his head in a cloud of fables, tales, lies, and excuses.
Obviously has NEVER confronted the harsh reality of war. Which is death by ANY means.
Go put on blue gloves. It suits you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- the difference between our ethnic cleansing and theirs is that we use bombs, tanks, and artillery while they use IEDs, RPGs and small arms.
IEDs are usually bombs or artillery shells. And it doesn't matter what's used; it's intent. Shooting 15 bound teenagers in the back of the head because they were looking for work only takes 15 bullets, but it's still a war crime.
Quote:
We target whole cities while they target key roads or neighborhoods.
We give everyone in a city months of warning to get out before we do anything, where as the insurgents look for crowds to attack. We also use the much more dangerous house-to-house method of securing areas, rather than just leveling it all from a distance, to reduce civilian casualties.
Quote:
We target hospitals and clinics and all males between the ages of 15-55 while they target security forces and contractors...
During the Fallujah offensive we captured one hospital without any casualties, and let them go about their business after identity checks. One clinic in the city may have been bombed. Insurgents have conducted several suicide bomb attacks on hospitals, and have removed and executed patients from others.
After months of warning to get out, we turned back men of military age in Fallujah only after the actual combat operations had begun. If they heeded our warning and stayed under cover, they had a good chance. Anyone captured by the insurgents is executed.
Quote:
If you didn't get the point, I'll make it more explicit: You can hardly excuse every single American atrocity that was every comitted with the blanket phrase "good tactics". I COULD say the same thing about the insurgents... after all, are they not following good tactics? But seeing as I don't intend to excuse our actions, I won't excuse theirs either.
Relating to Fallujah, I do consider most Coalition actions there good tactics.
The fact that you consider everything the Americans do an "atrocity" pretty much lets me know that your mind won't change. But let's consider what happens in actual atrocity situations. American soldiers are charged by their own service with the crimes, and some go to jail when convicted. Any insurgents being tried by their peers for killing Margaret Hassam?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words, none of them.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, our "hands" are clean, which gives us moral superiority.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The fact that you consider everything the Americans do an "atrocity" pretty much lets me know that your mind won't change. But let's consider what happens in actual atrocity situations.
Geezer, you are seriously putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that "everyhting" we did was an atrocity. I DID say that we have committed atrocities, the greatest of which is invading a country for no good reason and then killing thousands of civilians for no good reason. Even your favorite site, the IBC, says that the USA is responsible for far more civilian deaths than the insurgents and even more than Saddam in the last three years of his tyranny. So despite all our hand-wringing and hand-washing, as far as I can tell we're still the number one killer in Iraq.
YOu see, even dictators have justifications for the "necessity" of their actions. In the end, you just gotta strip away the BS and look at the results.
And as far as the "good tactics" is concerned, let me ask you: Are the insurgents then following "bad tactics"? If so, how? In other words, how do we differentitate what "we" do from what "they" do on that basis?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Possibly. If Saddam's tyranny were actually limited to only the last three years, then you might actually have a point. Unfortunately for your point, Saddam’s tyranny actually extends a little further back. In fact, according to the UN, it extends as much as 1.5 million Iraqi deaths back, just to get to the last gulf war. And then you've got a couple more decades still to go.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: Even your favorite site, the IBC, says that the USA is responsible for far more civilian deaths than the insurgents and even more than Saddam in the last three years of his tyranny. So despite all our hand-wringing and hand-washing, as far as I can tell we're still the number one killer in Iraq.
The US was the aggressor in World War II, if you ignore everything that happened prior to 1942.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME