US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 44 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Jafo
Reply #862 Monday, March 24, 2003 7:45 PM
Reply #862 Monday, March 24, 2003 7:45 PM
Here was me thinking that Bush only got elected due to a convenient polling error thanks to his brother...
I've always despised preferential voting as so often it's 'minority rules'....good-old branch-stacking, swaying of self-interest factions with false-promises, puppeteered by extremists behind the scenes...often not 'far' behind...etc, ad nauseum.
God I hate politics and politicians. They are almost NEVER interested in the betterment of the common man, but only if it concurs with the agendas of the puppeteers.
It has always been a fact of life that if wars were fought by politicians and NOT by the gullible youth whose training I'm sure doesn't encompass the concept of 'cannon fodder', there would be FAR FEWER of them...[both wars, AND politicians].
And that would be a 'good thing' [tm].
BTW....interesting [eye-opening] fact....Australia is operating under different rules of engagement than the US....we are NOT going to be using or making use of Anti Personnel Mines. [history has shown their ultimate 'target' is entirely civilian].
Food for thought...
I've always despised preferential voting as so often it's 'minority rules'....good-old branch-stacking, swaying of self-interest factions with false-promises, puppeteered by extremists behind the scenes...often not 'far' behind...etc, ad nauseum.
God I hate politics and politicians. They are almost NEVER interested in the betterment of the common man, but only if it concurs with the agendas of the puppeteers.
It has always been a fact of life that if wars were fought by politicians and NOT by the gullible youth whose training I'm sure doesn't encompass the concept of 'cannon fodder', there would be FAR FEWER of them...[both wars, AND politicians].
And that would be a 'good thing' [tm].
BTW....interesting [eye-opening] fact....Australia is operating under different rules of engagement than the US....we are NOT going to be using or making use of Anti Personnel Mines. [history has shown their ultimate 'target' is entirely civilian].
Food for thought...
wombat_1
Reply #863 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:00 PM
Reply #863 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:00 PM
Nothing like a great stream of uninformed invective about 'Warfare' by 'Civilians' .... and what moron dubbed the Iraqi troops who have surrendered or been captured "EPOW"s???
A "Prisoner of War" is just that, no distinction on either side.
One point to consider, Australian forces have very strict guide lines on ROE .... far stronger than the US.
David K and paxx, stick to your beliefs, I'm not necessarily with you or against you, but the 'Gung-Ho' types need to be countered by reasonable argument.
A "Prisoner of War" is just that, no distinction on either side.
One point to consider, Australian forces have very strict guide lines on ROE .... far stronger than the US.
David K and paxx, stick to your beliefs, I'm not necessarily with you or against you, but the 'Gung-Ho' types need to be countered by reasonable argument.
IPlural
Reply #865 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:29 PM
Reply #865 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:29 PM
One thing that everyone on this planet has to understand if nothing else. The manner in which the USA is fighting this war, right or wrong as it may be, is it is attempting to keep innocents from dying at colition hands. Otherwise it would be close to being over and there would be untold numbers of dead Iraqis, both military and civilian alike...
war sucks, it really really does...
I wish the UN had a back bone for the dirty work, it is nice to be able to hand out food, medical supplys, water, etc, and be considered such a good positive body of leaders. But it really is a load of crap that they can never seem to follow through on the dirty stuff.
Maybe there should be two world bodies including the UN which could handle the humanitarian needs, and such. Election oversight, heloing to (re)construct governmnet bodies where needed, education, health, argiculture, economic stability and how to build a solid economy in developing nations, natural resource monitoring so no one ends up being ripped off blind.
Another to deal specifically with the dirty stuff... One that everyone knows without question when they show up it is time to quit screwing around because they are going to do it better and harder. They ARE the dogs of war, they are not police, they are not missionaries, they are not going to hold anyones hands and they are not going to take sides, what they are going to do is remove the ability to wage war, oppress with arms, and control by force, from anyone who figures they are going to go about things in those manners...
If the UN can not deal with it, then the Dogs WILL do it...
Maybe that is a means to end war as we know it?
war sucks, it really really does...
I wish the UN had a back bone for the dirty work, it is nice to be able to hand out food, medical supplys, water, etc, and be considered such a good positive body of leaders. But it really is a load of crap that they can never seem to follow through on the dirty stuff.
Maybe there should be two world bodies including the UN which could handle the humanitarian needs, and such. Election oversight, heloing to (re)construct governmnet bodies where needed, education, health, argiculture, economic stability and how to build a solid economy in developing nations, natural resource monitoring so no one ends up being ripped off blind.
Another to deal specifically with the dirty stuff... One that everyone knows without question when they show up it is time to quit screwing around because they are going to do it better and harder. They ARE the dogs of war, they are not police, they are not missionaries, they are not going to hold anyones hands and they are not going to take sides, what they are going to do is remove the ability to wage war, oppress with arms, and control by force, from anyone who figures they are going to go about things in those manners...
If the UN can not deal with it, then the Dogs WILL do it...
Maybe that is a means to end war as we know it?
bakerstreet
Reply #866 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:32 PM
Reply #866 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:32 PM
Isn't it odd that the election was a virtual tie, but nobody seems to have wanted Bush to be president? I have seen several ignorant man-on-the-street interviews throughout the world who posed their opinion of the war as "Oh, well, he wasn't elected anyway, so he is no different than Saddam Hussein."
A couple thousand votes were iffy out of the over 50 million he got. If a few blue-haired voters were disenfranchised in Florida, the vast majority of people who voted for Bush have been ignored and alienated by the propaganda since. World opinion of the 2000 election is ill-informed if it supposes the US has been suffering a president that was forced on us.
The people who voted the other way have more reason to be vocal, that's all. When Gore whines about it periodically he faces almost universal derision. Some people would have you think that we are all patiently waiting for the next election, hopeing won't break anything in the meantime.
If you *really* knew a lot of the opinions in America; not the televised, Times Square interviews, but the fly-over America, diner, Redneck opinion, you'd have an even harder time sleeping. I'm *liberal* to a many people here. There are people who would happily have this war over in a blinding flash, and find it 12 years overdue. Ain't it great that we don't vote on everything?
A couple thousand votes were iffy out of the over 50 million he got. If a few blue-haired voters were disenfranchised in Florida, the vast majority of people who voted for Bush have been ignored and alienated by the propaganda since. World opinion of the 2000 election is ill-informed if it supposes the US has been suffering a president that was forced on us.
The people who voted the other way have more reason to be vocal, that's all. When Gore whines about it periodically he faces almost universal derision. Some people would have you think that we are all patiently waiting for the next election, hopeing won't break anything in the meantime.
If you *really* knew a lot of the opinions in America; not the televised, Times Square interviews, but the fly-over America, diner, Redneck opinion, you'd have an even harder time sleeping. I'm *liberal* to a many people here. There are people who would happily have this war over in a blinding flash, and find it 12 years overdue. Ain't it great that we don't vote on everything?
bakerstreet
Reply #867 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:39 PM
Reply #867 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:39 PM
P.S. I saw yesterday that Ralph Nader was calling G.B. a dictator. Laughable coming from the guy who *knew* he was gonna lose. He was probably most responsible for preventing Gore an outright victory by splitting off far-left, greenish voters, and was happy enough with that eventuality to run anyway. Thanks Ralph!
sig101
Reply #868 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:53 PM
Reply #868 Monday, March 24, 2003 8:53 PM
Wombat, evidently some morons in the military use "EPOW." It's not something just invented for current use. Here's something dated 1999 from the US Marines, for example. See 4C: http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/mccsss/los/Lessons/Blssc/LS205.pdf
Bangkokboy
Reply #869 Monday, March 24, 2003 10:21 PM
Reply #869 Monday, March 24, 2003 10:21 PM
learn something new every day. 
oops, that looks like a non Air Force pub so i'm required to do an immediate core dump. 
oops, that looks like a non Air Force pub so i'm required to do an immediate core dump. 
sig101
Reply #870 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:52 AM
Reply #870 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:52 AM
Yeah, BKB, there's some weird stuff out there on the net. 
And back to the disposition of POW's just because I've seen different things in the press but can't find them all again to reference. Don't know if it's just for propaganda value or some planners' dreams, but there have been statements in the press (supposedly from military officials) stating that POW's who surrender without combat would be treated differently from the other POW's who do engage in combat. Various things as detaining, processing and perhaps sending them home before hostilities cease; restricting them to their barracks and letting officers retain their small arms; and/or enlisting them in a "Free Iraq" type military, such as in this article from the UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/23/wirq323.xml
Another article is this one from the Times (London) discussing using "noncombat" POW's as laborers in reconstruction and to constitute the "new army of Iraq": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html
And back to the disposition of POW's just because I've seen different things in the press but can't find them all again to reference. Don't know if it's just for propaganda value or some planners' dreams, but there have been statements in the press (supposedly from military officials) stating that POW's who surrender without combat would be treated differently from the other POW's who do engage in combat. Various things as detaining, processing and perhaps sending them home before hostilities cease; restricting them to their barracks and letting officers retain their small arms; and/or enlisting them in a "Free Iraq" type military, such as in this article from the UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/23/wirq323.xml
Another article is this one from the Times (London) discussing using "noncombat" POW's as laborers in reconstruction and to constitute the "new army of Iraq": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html
sig101
Reply #871 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:54 AM
Reply #871 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:54 AM
One more time on the Times link, perhaps it's too long.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html
IPlural
Reply #872 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:03 AM
Reply #872 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:03 AM
I dunno, seems to me if you have a weapon your not giving up...
wombat_1
Reply #873 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:24 AM
Reply #873 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:24 AM
sig 101 .... it's been "POW" around the World for as long as I can remember .... but if some anal retentive dweeb in the USMC with a penchant for acronyms has decided that as of 1999 
the term is "EPOW" then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform .... 
Probably the same type who came up with "Triple A" .... another REALLY clever term.
How long before a "Platoon" becomes a "Posse" ... duh!
the term is "EPOW" then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform .... 
Probably the same type who came up with "Triple A" .... another REALLY clever term.
How long before a "Platoon" becomes a "Posse" ... duh!
sig101
Reply #876 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:14 AM
Reply #876 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:14 AM
ePOW. That's really great, David.
Yeah, Wombat, I read in some Brit newspaper that EPOW was an "Americanism." Although not widely used that I've seen. It apprently predates 1999, though. Maybe it was an invention of the Gulf War.
Yeah, Wombat, I read in some Brit newspaper that EPOW was an "Americanism." Although not widely used that I've seen. It apprently predates 1999, though. Maybe it was an invention of the Gulf War.
bakerstreet
Reply #877 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:32 AM
Reply #877 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:32 AM
I've been needlessly snide. On reflection perhaps it is a matter of what one considers the definition of 'humane' to be that is the source of conflict here. I was raised to believe in a particular set of ethics. Self doubt, reflection, and restraint are qualities to be valued *before* one undertakes something.
Shakespeare said the same thing in Hamlet:
"Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee."
I don't think that there is any room in warfare for self-doubt or restraint; the time for those things were prior to entering into the conflict. Getting in the middle and saying 'whoa, let's think about this' costs lives on both sides. Nothing that is killed hesitantly is killed humanely, imho.
I liken the conflicts we have seen in the past 40 years with shooting someone 30 or 40 times, hoping each time they will decide to wave the white flag. The result is the same in the end, you simply cause more pain and hardship in the meantime.
That is why I feel so strongly about the opinions I see here concerning Hiroshima. It overlooks the millions, military and civilians alike, that would have been killed in a needless invasion. Why do I say needless? Because there was another more humane, if equally distasteful, option.
Shakespeare also said " Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice".
I have to say I am the worst on this board for bloviating and deriding those I think provoke my nation's impending weakness. If the powers that be here in the US allow world opinion to weaken their resolve, so be it, it is their shame to make. I'll try to be more tolerant of opposing positions. I hope though, that others might try and understand that what they claim to be a hard-on for war, or a bloodthirsty streak, is simply my need to have the whole rotten mess over with as abruptly as possible. I simply refuse to see turning my back on the mess as an option.
Shakespeare said the same thing in Hamlet:
"Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee."
I don't think that there is any room in warfare for self-doubt or restraint; the time for those things were prior to entering into the conflict. Getting in the middle and saying 'whoa, let's think about this' costs lives on both sides. Nothing that is killed hesitantly is killed humanely, imho.
I liken the conflicts we have seen in the past 40 years with shooting someone 30 or 40 times, hoping each time they will decide to wave the white flag. The result is the same in the end, you simply cause more pain and hardship in the meantime.
That is why I feel so strongly about the opinions I see here concerning Hiroshima. It overlooks the millions, military and civilians alike, that would have been killed in a needless invasion. Why do I say needless? Because there was another more humane, if equally distasteful, option.
Shakespeare also said " Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice".
I have to say I am the worst on this board for bloviating and deriding those I think provoke my nation's impending weakness. If the powers that be here in the US allow world opinion to weaken their resolve, so be it, it is their shame to make. I'll try to be more tolerant of opposing positions. I hope though, that others might try and understand that what they claim to be a hard-on for war, or a bloodthirsty streak, is simply my need to have the whole rotten mess over with as abruptly as possible. I simply refuse to see turning my back on the mess as an option.
paxx
Reply #879 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:01 AM
Reply #879 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:01 AM
Somebody cares to discuss the after-Saddam now?
I was watching an interesting debate last night; four exiled Iraki (one kurd, one shia, one suni and another one I don't know what he was) were arguing endlessly. I was almost comical. Anyway, one thing all four were agreeing on is that Saddam is a tyran and needs to go. The interesting thing as well is that they were not thankfull to the UK/US, they were saying "They are the ones who put in there in the first place, now it's their responsibility to remove the evil they placed there". One other constant for all of them was thier worry about the after-Saddam. They did not want an American occupation, and they did not want a constitution written by an unelected government. They all said that a true democracy is necessary, and that the future constitution of Irak must be written by a governemnt legally appointed by the Iraki population.
Anyway. I was an interesting debate and it makes you realise that the real challenge will be after. The war part could almost be the easy bit.
I was watching an interesting debate last night; four exiled Iraki (one kurd, one shia, one suni and another one I don't know what he was) were arguing endlessly. I was almost comical. Anyway, one thing all four were agreeing on is that Saddam is a tyran and needs to go. The interesting thing as well is that they were not thankfull to the UK/US, they were saying "They are the ones who put in there in the first place, now it's their responsibility to remove the evil they placed there". One other constant for all of them was thier worry about the after-Saddam. They did not want an American occupation, and they did not want a constitution written by an unelected government. They all said that a true democracy is necessary, and that the future constitution of Irak must be written by a governemnt legally appointed by the Iraki population.
Anyway. I was an interesting debate and it makes you realise that the real challenge will be after. The war part could almost be the easy bit.
IPlural
Reply #880 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:06 AM
Reply #880 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:06 AM
after Saddam comes after US corporations and after DC...
how many billions in US corporate contracts are already in the works?
how many billions in US corporate contracts are already in the works?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 44 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #861 Monday, March 24, 2003 7:19 PM
Since "it's a complete failure of competence to have to kill other human beings", we'll just have to let him. Our only option will be to make asinine, ungrateful comments about the people who finally do come to stop him. Heck, if we are lucky they might just stay home and starve us to death! It is so insanely annoying to sit and listen to you accuse Bush of 'possibly' becoming what Saddam Hussein has been for 3 decades.
I would have more respect for you if I thought you'd raise up in rebellion against your imagined Ming, 'dubya', the Merciless, but I suppose if there were no virginal, pristine answer to the situation, we would have to live with the thousand year reich, huh?
Bush is a good president, though, duly elected according to the constitution, and who will probably be re-elected.
BUT, dave, if elections are suspended, the Constitution is flushed down a fascist commode, and this nation is swept up in an overtly anti-Dave regime, for heaven's sake don't bother dusting off reality. Many of us will be more than happy to risk our lives to save your fragile ethics and our, more deserving, children. We might even listen while you abstain from violence and ponder our methods.