Home Politics and Debate

Iraqi soldiers operate from a hospital.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
US soldiers found 3,000 suits that protect soldiers against gas attacks and 170 Iraqi soldiers operating from an empy hospital that was clearly marked as a hospital. I hope the US rethinks it's focus on worrying about innocent civilians. And does whatever it has to do and use whatever weapon it has to to protect the troops of the Coalition.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.nasiriya.hospital/index.html
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't suprise me, I think the coalition has done brilliantly to limit civillian deaths so far considering the disgusting tactics employed by the Iraqi's.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But Ebb, do you think we should still fight that way?

    Or focus on wiping Saddam's people out? In other words, I fear by holding back on capabilities we could be putting Coalition soldiers at risk. Not that I want us to just bomb any target.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    But Ebb, do you think we should still fight that way?

    Or focus on wiping Saddam's people out? In other words, I fear by holding back on capabilities we could be putting Coalition soldiers at risk. Not that I want us to just bomb any target.

    At present I think we should do everything in our power to limit civillian deaths, but the time will come when my opinion changes. Sky News have just been reporting that crack pot tv channel Al jazzera or whatever its called has been broadcasting pictures of two dead troops, possibly British. If they have, and they are British, well then my opinons will take aturn for the worse I'm afarid, the time will come when we have to say fcuk em, if the war is to be fought in that manner than so be it :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is a shame but it does not call for a change in tactics. Why do you put the value ofthe lives of coalition soldiers so far above those of iraqi civillians?

    Pj, I thought you cared about the civillians?

    I am also certain that you would not be so disgusted if it were our troops sheltering in a hospital.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    That is a shame but it does not call for a change in tactics. Why do you put the value ofthe lives of coalition soldiers so far above those of iraqi civillians?


    I know all human lives are equal, I've always tried to stand by that basic principal in the past and would hope I do so in the future. But, I consider those British troops and to a much lesser extent American troops to be representing me, they are fighting on my behalf and so my loyalties must lie with them.

    Its the Iraqis who are going out of their way to make this an unfair war, they clearly place little value of the lives of their own civilians and that makes me question whether I should. I've heard talk of human shields etc........ Well, if such tactics compromise the dafety of our troops now or in the future of this conflict well then I have to begrudgingly take a stance which places less concern for the civillians and people of Iraq. Sorry, but thats the way it seems the Iraqis want to play it, from what I can tell the coalition has gone to great lengths to keep casulaties to a minimum, the amount of bombing and fighting that has been done has yielded a relatively low number of civillian deaths and causalties so far nad little credit has been directed to them with that in mind. But the point must come wher enough is enough, we're out there to do a job as effectively as possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ebb, Al Jazzeera (sp?) broadcasting news of dead Allies soldiers would indeed be a disgrace, but you cannot blame Iraq or want to change war tactics because of what this channel broadcasts. They are not under Iraqi control anyway and Iraq has no say of its contents.

    If you are complaining of Iraq allowing Al Jazzeera to film dead soldiers you would have a point. But the Allies are doing exactly the same with Iraqi casualties. Just today I made the mistake of checking out certain website and it was plastered with images of dead Iraqi soldiers that could have only been filmed by the 'embedded' journos moving with the Allies.

    The truth is both sides will use such images for their advantage, to get a reaction- and support- from people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Iraqis making the war unfair? :crazyeyes

    This war is one of the most unfair ever, the difference in technology is huge..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg, beyond American and UK tactics, no civilized country uses clearly marked hospitals...red crescent and red cross on it, to deploy their troops from.

    I don't want random civilian deaths. I'm just saying the UK and US are obligated to protect their troops regardless of what extra bombings will do to public opinion. Therefore, if Iraq is going to put missle launchers in or near mosques...bomb the mosques. If they're going to hide weapons and use hospitals for their troops...bomb the hospitals.

    In a way, some of Iraq's troops are like something from Nazi Germany. The boys were taken away from their families at an early age and taught that Saddam was like some Muslim God. It's crazy and it's even more crazy to recognize there guys aren't going to follow the Geneva convention.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Iraqis making the war unfair? :crazyeyes

    This war is one of the most unfair ever, the difference in technology is huge..

    hehe thats one thing that never fails to amuse me...Many Americans ive spoken to are harping on about the evil iraqis dressing as US troops and tricking the American soldiers and also playing many other dirty tricks..

    Of course they forget to mention that they did the exact same things during their revolutionary war...Many times they dressed up as redcoats to try and ambush the British.. Dont hear em mention that too much though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    they are fighting on my behalf

    Sorry to burst your bubble ebb, but whilst you have been lead to believe they fight for you, and whilst they might believe they are fighting for the folks back home, the truth of modern (or shall we say Cold-war, post-Cold War) warfare is that it is fought for the furtherance of elitest corporate interests, not for freedom or democracy or any of the other sentimental drivel the media wishes to feed a gullible public.

    One need look at who makes out most from war to see that it is a windfall for energy (oil, gas, electricity producers), Military contractors, and civil engineering contractors along with private consulting firms (of which the key winners are often firms headed by members of or advisors to a given administration).

    As pointed out in another thread, just look how what the Bush administration claims to be the enforcement of international mandate has become a cornered market exclusively for US companies like Haliburton and the Seattle based SSA which was the most recent, but by no means the last, US company to gain rights to enter the commercial fray.

    Those who wish to close their eyes to the glaring confirmations of long running claims about the real intents of the Bush admin in this regard will soon have to swallow their rhetoric when the long awaited oil contracts are handed out. I for one wont be surprised to see only US and the token British firm monopolising the plunder.
    Its the Iraqis who are going out of their way to make this an unfair war

    Id be very interested to see how you, or especially my own countrymen, would fight after having been subject to 12 years of systematic elimination and destruction of military response capability, continual unprovoked bombing campaigns, and rampant starvation and general deprivation from sanctions only to face a technologically superior horde invading either of our countries.

    I can be quite certain that most US citizens, myself included, would fight much the same way, we already did in a much less sophisticated sense during the American Revolution. Youd do well to read up on how unprepared for guerilla tactics the then British military, having been accustomed to what they deemed honorable battle line combat, was when faced with pockets of resistance anywhere militia could be found.

    It is the absolute height of hypocrisy that we not only have the gall to thumb our noses at the international community's will for a peaceful resolution to this crisis, but that we demonstrate further arrogance by presuming that fighting back in defense against unprovoked aggression by any means left to them is dirty.

    And yet so many of my countrymen cannot seem to fathom why we are increasingly hated around the world. Go figure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    ebb, Al Jazzeera (sp?) broadcasting news of dead Allies soldiers would indeed be a disgrace, but you cannot blame Iraq or want to change war tactics because of what this channel broadcasts. They are not under Iraqi control anyway and Iraq has no say of its contents.

    If you are complaining of Iraq allowing Al Jazzeera to film dead soldiers you would have a point. But the Allies are doing exactly the same with Iraqi casualties. Just today I made the mistake of checking out certain website and it was plastered with images of dead Iraqi soldiers that could have only been filmed by the 'embedded' journos moving with the Allies.

    The truth is both sides will use such images for their advantage, to get a reaction- and support- from people.

    I understand that :) The problem I forsee coming in a personal sense is this war becoming an 'us' gainst 'them' scenario. Al Jazzerra may not be linked to the Iraqis, but it displys an attitude I don't like one little bit, I'm fierecly patriotic, something I acknowledge to be a disruptive influence in times like this. But when I see British troops, dead, broadcast as they may well of been it ignites a desire to lash out, it places me directly behind our troops and my support for Iraqis is somewhat diminished.

    Few things have given me much more pride than seeing the odd handful of Iraqis here and there greeting 'invading' troops with open arms and celebrations, whatever the opinions of everyone about this war, its those solitary moments which must be viewed with a sense of pride and achievemnent. For me that is the ultimate objective of this war, I know others disagree, its subjective.

    But like I say, when I see elsehwere other troops treated with such complete disrespect I begin to question where my loyalties lie. I sincerely hope incidents like this are limited, keeping troops in hospitals, is abusing the stance taken by the coalition in this war with reagrds to civillian deaths and so I'm afraid to say when civillian deaths come about I will be less sympathetic.

    There are three parties in this war, the enemy, us and the innocent people of Iraq. Saddams mob seem to feel it appropriate to use the innocents as human shields, they couldn't care less about them. If our policiy of caring about then begins to jepordise our troops then for me its time to reconsider that caring stance, but certainly not yet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Iraqis making the war unfair? :crazyeyes

    This war is one of the most unfair ever, the difference in technology is huge..

    Still, we don't have the technology to make a bullet pass through a civillian been used as a human sheild that will kill the enemy soilder on the other side......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    May i point out that one of the main objectives has been to cut lines of communication and confuse and disorientate the enemy. We are also repeatedly told that the regular army are badly trained and have low morale. Possibly a reson for entering the hospital?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine


    Sorry to burst your bubble ebb, but whilst you have been lead to believe they fight for you, and whilst they might believe they are fighten for the folks back home, the truth of modern (or shall we say Cold-war, post-Cold War) warfare is that it is fought for the furtherance of elitest corporate interests, not for freedom or democracy or any of the other sentimental drivel the media wishes to feed a gullible public.

    One need look at who makes out most from war to see that it is a windfall for energy (oil, gas, electricity producers), Military contractors, and civil engineering contractors along with private consulting firms (of which the key winners are often firms headed by members of or advisors to a given administration).

    As pointed out in another thread, just look how what the Bush administration claims to be the enforcement of international mandate has become a cornered market exclusively for US companies like Haliburton and the Seattle based SSA which was the most recent, but by no means the last, US company to gain rights to enter the commercial fray.

    Those who wish to close their eyes to the glaring confirmations of long running claims about the real intents of the Bush admin in this regard will soon have to swallow their rhetoric when the long awaited oil contracts are handed out. I for one wont be surprised to see only US and the token British firm monopolising the plunder.


    For me the reasons behind the war are irrelevant, we all have opinions as to why this war is taking place, its a seperate issue. The fact is there are British troops in the middle east risking their lives right now (inclusive of some friends) after directions to do so by our democratically elected governemnt. The majority of Brits are now supportive of Mr Blair in addition to that and so as far as I'm concerned those troops are fighting for our country after directions by their country to do so. So they're fighting on my behalf, they signed up to the forces undertaning that would be the case, you can't devalue their commitment to me or our country by trying to claim an invalid war.
    Originally posted by Clandestine





    Id be very interested to see how you, or especially my own countrymen, would fight after having been subject to 12 years of systematic elimination and destruction of military response capability, continual unprovoked bombing campaigns, and rampant starvation and general deprivation from sanctions only to face a technologically superior horde invading either of our countries.

    I can be quite certain that most US citizens, myself included, would fight much the same way, we already did in a much less sophisticated sense during the American Revolution. Youd do well to read up on how unprepared for guerilla tactics the then British military, having been accustomed to what they deemed honorable battle line combat, was when faced with pockets of resistance anywhere militia could be found.

    It is the absolute height of hypocrisy that we not only have the gall to thumb our noses at the international community's will for a peaceful resolution to this crisis, but that we demonstrate further arrogance by presuming that fighting back in defense against unprovoked aggression by any means left to them is dirty.

    And yet so many of my countrymen cannot seem to fathom why we are increasingly hated around the world. Go figure.

    If you were an American solider, would you put a bullet through a civillian to protect yourself ?

    You comments echo an 'all is fair in love and war' sentiment, good job the coalition haven't taken an approach of that nature isn't it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    May i point out that one of the main objectives has been to cut lines of communication and confuse and disorientate the enemy. We are also repeatedly told that the regular army are badly trained and have low morale. Possibly a reson for entering the hospital?

    Maybe, but if a stray missile hits a hospital in the coming weeks the Iraqis can have little ground for complaints. Its a Peter and the wolf situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even wars have rules... true. But it is also true that losing a war has far more serious consequences for the losing side than losing a game of tennis. Therefore if one of the contenders is infinitely inferior to the other it is not surprising they will try to bend the rules a little.

    I'm sure if the Iraqis had a defence budget of 100 billion Dollars per year and state-of-the-art stealth aircraft and weapons systems they'd be more than happy to meet the Allies in the desert and 'sort it out' there. But they don't, and they have to make up for the piss-poor equipment and means of fighting with such tactics. I'm not condoning such behaviour but I'm positive any army in the world that is in such clear military disadvantage would employ similar tactics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's some truth in Clandestine's and Aladdin's perspective. But I don't believe this war is all about oil. The US was already getting from Iraq through Syria oil that was below market price. Also, the first 3 quarters of last year the US economy grew so fast - at 4%- they were going to have to slow it down with interest rates until the war was announced...and stocks slid etc.


    It's about a difference of opinion and fear. Conservatives in the Bush administration believe there are 62 countries in the world that are harboring or enabling Al Qaeda. The directive is for them to get Al Qaeda...or we'll get them. Many in the Bush administration believe Saddam enables Al Qaeda or would enable Al Qaeda even though Osama hates Saddam. The only link I saw at all was there was some combatant in Afghanistan who was treated at a Baghdad hospital, went up to the Al Qaeda group in Northern Iraq - not under Saddam's control - went to the UK and was picked up with Ricin. And that Al Qaeda group had used ricin to kill someone. Neither Bush nor Blair want to be the leader who allowed another 911 to happen. So they're doing everything to prevent it. It's as simple as does Saddam hate us? Yes. Would he pass on chemical or biological weapons? Yes. Let's get him first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The sort of "patriotism" you allude to, ebb, by claiming to be "fiercely patriotic", especially within the context of a wartime footing, is precisely the kind of patriotism that is both mind-numbing and lacking in any capacity for self scrutiny. This is not the sort of love of one's own nation that seeks to correct the wrongs of that society to avoid giving rise to such crises in the future, but the more narrow minded arrogant posturing that only exacerbates the inherent problems of our societies and seeks to vent its frustration through militant aggression.

    By that token, ebb, you should put yourself in the shoes of any average Iraqi, or in a wider context, in the shoes of any average Arab throughout the Middle East who have witnessed US backed destruction and agression too many times to count. Then take the sentiments you expressed in your post above and youll find that an increasing number of Arab youth are adopting just the same view as you toward our soldiers and civilians our of their own sense of the aforementioned "patriotism".

    In this context do you truly think that your "fierce patriotism" is part of the solution or more likely part of the problem that is being manipulated by our corrupt elitest leaders to further their own geo-political and economic interests at any cost?

    Given some deep consideration away from the daily spin and rhetoric, you might indeed start to comprehend that true patriotism concerns itself with the condition of one's nation and people, it does not willingly sign on in support of flagrant acts of unprovoked aggression even by its own leaders.

    I would hope that you have the sense to see just how greatly the elites have perverted the notion of patriotism so as to maintain a ready and willing mercenary force to help them take resources they cannot gain access to legitimately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Even wars have rules... true. But it is also true that losing a war has far more serious consequences for the losing side than losing a game of tennis. Therefore if one of the contenders is infinitely inferior to the other it is not surprising they will try to bend the rules a little.


    True, although quite what Saddam has to lose which justifies fighting dirty is questionable, certainly dubious.
    Originally posted by Aladdin

    I'm sure if the Iraqis had a defence budget of 100 billion Dollars per year and state-of-the-art stealth aircraft and weapons systems they'd be more than happy to meet the Allies in the desert and 'sort it out' there. But they don't, and they have to make up for the piss-poor equipment and means of fighting with such tactics. I'm not condoning such behaviour but I'm positive any army in the world that is in such clear military disadvantage would employ similar tactics.

    Very true, but it annoys me in relation to the way we are trying to fight this war, when one side is trying to limit civillian casualities and the other is throwing them in front of bullets, then you get the resulting critisim of the coalition for civillian deaths :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Given some deep consideration away from the daily spin and rhetoric, you might indeed start to comprehend that true patriotism concerns itself with the condition of one's nation and people

    Quite.

    My concern is for the people fighting in the middle east from this country, patriotic be your own admission.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see why people who are old enough to have experienced war...even via t.v....might turn into peace people. If not for 911 ...I'm just afraid to take the chance on not going after our enemies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As said before, perhaps you should blame the arrogance of our leaders for launching an unprovoked invasion in the first place. If we were working in solidarity with the international community the way we should be instead of presuming to set ourselves as judge and jury of the world in total contravention of the UN charter, we wouldnt have to deal with such guerilla tactics.

    Not that any of this should be surprising. Heck, we faced dirty tactics when we wrongly invaded Vietnam too. Only difference here is that there is no jungle cover to fade into for the Iraqis, so we wont likely face the added embarassment of having failed to conquer our objective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Patriotic indeed if you are willing to argue that our boys have no business being there in the first place and would be safe if our leaders ceased the unprovoked aggression and brought them home where they belong.

    But as things stand, our boys are on someone else's soil, killing their people for elitest self interest, not defending our homelands from a clear and viable outside agression. So in that much the patriotism to which you allude is completely misconstrued and will only fuel the rightful anger and hatred of those who perceive our forces and more importantly our leaders as the aggressors.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    unprovoked invasion

    I thought the idea was to avoid provokation in the first place ?

    Either way, we've all heard both sides of the story a million times, no need to start all over again here :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Patriotic indeed if you are willing to argue that our boys have no business being there in the first place and would be safe if our leaders ceased the unprovoked aggression and brought them home where they belong.

    You have grievences with the reasons why they're out there, I can understand that fully, but they're out there on orders, as I said before the reasons are irrelevant with reagrds to supporting the troops and feeling patriotic regarding them. I could never say 'I couldn't care less about our troops because this war is wrong'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avoid provocation by provoking first? that is flawed thinking which is understandable from morons like Bush and his short sighted, narrow minded advisors, but i would hope you would see how self defeating this policy is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Avoid provocation by provoking first? that is flawed thinking which is understandable from morons like Bush and his short sighted, narrow minded advisors, but i would hope you would see how self defeating this policy is.

    Not neccessarily, many, many uneccessary deaths and full scale wars could of been avoided in history by going after people before they did damage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree, you just would have given rise to other forms of reprisals far sooner than 9/11. What goes around comes around and the Bush doctrine will do more to isolate the US, divide the planet, and inspire increased hatred and violence toward many more who have nothing to do with the decision making process than ever before.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    I disagree

    We'll never know either way, nobody can see into the future and what Saddam may or may not of done.

    I'm think Chamberlin / Hitler / Churchill though, like I say sometimes it is better to act sooner rather than later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Different time, different political context entirely. No comparison between the two.
Sign In or Register to comment.