This idea began as a joke on the Don Imus show, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. All we do is tell him we are sorry about killing his sons, and point out that he would have had to kill them anyway. Then we tell him no gassing people, no invading other countries, otherwise run things the way he used to, and keep selling us cheap oil. Tell him if he doesnt we will come back. Then we rebuild that statue we tore town, and give Iraq back to him and get the hell out.

Great Idea! Let's give him the country back so it can be business as usual for him :






"Investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s. The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said."


Give it back to him so he can pick up right where he left off! :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

Saddam kills Iraqi civilians...

US Troops kill Iraqi civilians...

The poor sods are fucked either way.

Maybe we should give Iraq to someone who won't kill its civilians... that excludes the dictator Saddam and trigger-happy GI Joes.

UN?

Dr.-

Trigger Happy GI Joes, (another shot at America and it's military, but that seems to be your way lately) didn't go in there with any intention to mass murder 10's of thousands of people. Saddam INTENTIONLLY went out for the last 20 years and murdered 10's of thousands of people. SO don't put the GI Joes in the same category as Saddam.

We are at war in there and yes, unfortunately during a war people die, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but unfortunately that's what happens in a war.

Saddam was NOT at war when he blatently murdered thousands of babies and people in general.

Your comparison is an unfair one, and to be very frank with you, and ignorant one.


Don Cardi

Dr. is it safe to assume that you live in Iraq right now and are viewing with your own eyes the American soldiers walking up to innocent civilians and blowing their brains out?

Nothing wrong with taking shots at America if you disagree with American policies, IMO, but in this case TDWFL, I think you're a bit off base.

As DC points out, civilian casualties are an unfortunate result in war.

And while I'm against the war in Iraq, I don't believe that the deaths of Iraqi civilians are being caused deliberately by American soldiers.

Are there some isolated cases of American soldiers being "trigger happy"? Probably. But I doubt very much if that characterization applies to anything more than a very small minority.

I think a main problem with US troop involvement is the lack of soldiers who speak the language.

Yelling at a person in English and expecting that person to understand is ridiculous. Many times civilians have been shot because they didn't understand what was going on.

One of the biggest mistakes was disbanding the Iraqi army, not paying them and letting them keep their small arms. The other is paying $200 for people to turn in their AK’s, when they can buy them for $50. Those two things don’t make sense.

Didn't you once say that the only reason Bush went in there was for oil?

Now you want us to put Saddam back and make a deal for oil?


DS

A very good point from the last poster.

Its like that scene in Sam Mendes' JARHEAD, with the American troops trying to talk to that roaming group of civilians, where one advises another to not wave with their left hand "...its considered an insult, because they use it to wipe their asses with".

Ever killed a man, DC? Ever fought in a war? You can't say things like that until you've had the experience so can it until you do.

No-one who has had such experience is so flippant.

Ever killed a man, DC? Ever fought in a war? You can't say things like that until you've had the experience so can it until you do.

No-one who has had such experience is so flippant. [/b][/quote]First off how do you know if I've ever killed someone or not?

But that aside, both past history and common sense tell us that their are bound to be innocent casualties in a place where a war is being fought.

If anything, I think that one of the main problems in this war is that the United States and The GI Joes have been TOO careful not to attack innocents during this war. On many occassions the terrorists have fired upon us from within Mosques and Historical Buildings, and the U.S. Soldiers, who would have every right to bomb those buildings, have NOT fired back on those types of structures due to the respect that they have tried to show to the Iraqi civilians towards their places of worship and history. And this practice by American Soldiers has probably cost us the lives of many troops.

The Brave Soldiers have fallen victim to numerous roadside bombings, checkpoint bombings, etc.. You know why? Because rather than shoot first and ask questions later, they have been mindful enough to give those passing through the benefit of the doubt that they were innocent Iraqi civilians. And their mindfulness and worry about possibly killing Iraqi civilians in these kinds of scenerios has worked against them. Because on numerous occasions the people that they treated as innocent civilians turned out to be strapped with bombs and killed our troops. Imagine having to take those kinds of risk on a daily basis and make those kinds of split second decisions which could mean life or death?

For you to accuse MY country and it's military of intentionally killing innocent civilians on purpose shows me that you have absolutely no clue what you are saying and that you don't consider these things because if you did, you would not make these cowardly accusations and remarks against the troops.


Don Cardi

Yes,Saddam Hussein is a madman that killed thousands of his own people. Does 27-30,0000 civilians dead make it right?

If this war is against the regime of Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people, why are we still there?

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place.

Bush gave us 2 reasons for entering Iraq:

1.) Get the WMDs outta there.
2.) Get Saddam outta there.

Saddam's out, but he lied about the WMDs. We'll never find them. We have no reason to stay there. We're more worried about rebuilding Baghdad than New Orleans.

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place. [/b][/quote]Don't change the issue Plaw! Having the right to be there or not is a totally different issue. We are there so get over it. Now the soldiers have to fight a war.

Are you saying that a soldier does not have the right to defend himself and fire back at an enemy when he is being attacked?


Do you deny that choosing to fight a "politically correct" war in certain instances has not cost us the lives of our soldiers?


Don Cardi

Give me a break Saladbar. You know damn well that after we had taken down Saddam and his regime, if we had turned around and went home, you and the rest of your buddys here would be screaming and yelling that the United States left the Iraqi people in a mess without sticking around to help them clean it up.


Don Cardi

I love the fact that alot of people desire for a living under a dictature. Try it! Go to Syria and experience thos whole thing. Im sure You are going to enjoy it, dt :rolleyes:

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place. [/b][/quote]Don't change the issue Plaw! Having the right to be there or not is a totally different issue. We are there so get over it. Now the soldiers have to fight a war.

Are you saying that a soldier does not have the right to defend himself and fire back at an enemy when he is being attacked?

Do you deny that choosing to fight a "politically correct" war in certain instances has not cost us the lives of our soldiers?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]How about you save the "get over it" comments. They add nothing to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm not changing the issue at all.

The issue is "Do our soldiers have the right to bomb buildings to defend themselves?"

Your argument that they do is fallacious because it is based on a fallacy: The fallacy being the assumption that we have the right to be in Iraq the first place. Period.

The two issues are intertwined. You cannot separate one from the other by saying what we do now is OK because we're there already, so get over it.

We have no right to be there in the first place, IMO, so therefore we have no right to be killing Iraqis, bombing buildings, etc.

IMO, you cannot justify subsequent actions as being correct when the original action that percipitated them was wrong.

That's like saying if an armed robber enters a grocery store with the intention of robbing it, and the storekeeper pulls out a gun, the robber has the right to shoot the storekeeper to defend himself.

Of course he should shoot the storekeeper. He has to defend himself. He's certainly not about to let the storekeeper shoot him. I would, you would, we'd have to defend ourselves too (Yeah, I know you're gonna argue that we're not criminals, but some would argue that President Bush is for invading Iraq), but the bottom line is that the situation never should have occurred because the armed robber never should have been there to rob the store in the first place.

Now, should our soldiers have the right to defend themselves?

Our soldiers should not be there in the first place. They should not be in the position of having to defend themselves. But since they are there, then yes, they should defend themselves.

What else can they do. I certainly don't expect them not to.

A politically correct war?

If trying to minimize casualties among innocent civilians means that we are fighting a politically correct war, then so be it.

Are the lives of our soldiers more important than the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians? And if so, why?

OK....I'll admit it. I'd rather see a dead innocent Iraqi civilian than a dead American soldier, but that's because I'm an American.

That doesn't really justify it in the big picture, does it?

You believe in God. Would God value the life of an American soldier over that of an innocent Iraqi civilian? I'd think not.

Anyway, none of this changes my original point:

That your argument about soldiers having the right to defend themselves is based on a fallacy.

Well obviously we will differ on if my arguement is based on a fallacy or not.

You don't believe that we should be there in the forst place, so it is a fallacy in your view.

I on the other hand supported the war from the begining, so in my view my arguement is not based on a fallacy.

Therefore, based on my view, I believe that the soldiers have every right to bomb ANY facility that they are fired upon from. So because of our different opinions from the onset of this war, it is now almost impossible for us to agree on this issue itself.


And I don't trivialize the loss of any life, so please don't even imply that or accuse me of that. I think that you know me much better than that!

As for your God question, well of course from a religious point of view, God views every life the same. But we are not God.

I as a human being have no problem when our military wipes out a terrorist group. Their lives are worthless in my eyes.


Don Cardi

Well, if you think we have the "right" to be in Iraq, then your argument, in your opinion, is not based on a fallacy, although I really can't understand how anyone can say we have the "right" to be there.

That said, I have no problem with wiping out terrorists either.

But that wasn't the issue. The question was one of the political correctness of the war, your implication being that we are fighting a politically correct war in order to minimize the loss of innocent civilian life, am I correct?

I mean, why else would we fight a war that was "politically correct?"

And my response was "If that's the case, so be it. Although I'd prefer to see a dead innocent Iraqi civilian than a dead American soldier, in the big picture I really can't justify that feeling and I know that it's wrong.".

Politically correct in the sense that our troops were given STRICT orders NOT to fire back at Mosques or Historic Buildings. And that order, coming down from the politicians in Washington, IMO, renders a soldier impotent in that if a terrorist is using a Mosque as a war room and fires upon our soldiers from that Mosque, our soldiers are not allowed to fire back on that terrorist because he is in the Mosque. And because of this many of our soldiers have lost thier lives. If memory serves me correctly, several months onto this war Zarquawi was in a Mosque that was firing upon our troops. Our soldiers had strict orders not to bomb that Mosque. Had they been allowed to fight a war the way that the generals saw fit, it is very possible that Zarquwi would be dead, and many troops would still be alive. Speculation? yes, but a strong possibility.

The obvious reason for Washington to give an order like that is because the government does not want to look like bad guys to the middle eastern people. They still want to keep some kind of Political relations in tact. They were afraid of being accused of trying to destroy the holy places. And this falls under being politically correct with the middle eastern nations and the Muslim religion.

IMO you just cannot fight a war that way. As I said I was all for going into Iraq for many reasons, and I still believe that had Saddam been left in power, that he would have eventually taken some kind of action gainst our nation and American interests, fully knowing that Al Qaeda and company had already succeeded in attacking our Nation and other American interests. But that's not my point.

My point is that even though I was for going into Iraq, it doesn't mean that I agree with the way things are being done or some of the decisions that have been made by our Political leaders in Washington.

The political leaders, including our President, have put our soldiers lives at higher risk and have probably cost lives because of their inserting their politicaly motivated decisions into the strategy of fighting the war.

It is my opinion that Presidents and Senators should run the country and make decisions that effect the well being and protection of our Nation and it's people. And once the President and the Senate decides that we must go to war, for whatever reason, then they must step back and let the GENERALS run the war the way they see fit. They've done their jobs and now it's time to let the Generals, who are trained in warfare, do theirs.

I would hope that an army goes to war with the intention of winning it. And when politicians start worrying about offending people and keeping places of worship in tact, places of worship that are used as hiding places and strongholds for our enemies, those kinds of decisions make it very very hard to win that war.

But again, the original intent of this and the other point that I made way above was to point out to The Dr. Who's Anti-American that our American troops were trying thier best NOT to kill innocents at places like check points. Their giving the benefit of the doubt in those situations has probably cost us many many lives.

His cliams that American Soldiers were intentionally going in there to kill innocents, calling them trigger happy GI Joes, is just plain outrageous! It's the same exact rhetoric that the terrorists have been feeding the muslim people in that region of the world.


Don Cardi

America is a very hated country around the world, and there are some Anti-Americans on this board. It shouldn't come as a surprise. Even the stupid comments that American Soldiers are going out and murdering Iraqi civillians on purpose.

Give me a break Saladbar. You know damn well that after we had taken down Saddam and his regime, if we had turned around and went home, you and the rest of your buddys here would be screaming and yelling that the United States left the Iraqi people in a mess without sticking around to help them clean it up.
[/b][/quote]Don't get all grumpy.

You have no idea what I would have said. I am not predictable that way.

Who do you mean by that? I just want to know if you count me in...

I KNEW you were gonna say that! :p

I don't think that American troops are killing Iraqi civilians on purpose.

I do think that certain people, of Don Cardi and Don Andrew's ilk, do not really care very much about the effect of American occupation of Iraq on Iraqis.

I do think that American troops are killing Iraqi civilians and their own allies through being trigger-happy and not very intelligent.

They are mostly hot-blooded young men recruited from deprived backgrounds with frustrated ambitions and lots of anger. It's a recipe for disaster that the troops are not responible for but are very much a part of.

Did anyone catch that article in Newsweek a couple weeks ago about how its unsafe for people to date now? How religious groups are attacking young couples?

Really, is Iraq a safer, better, more productive place as a result of the invasion, or is it falling apart?

The entire world has been under the thumb of oppression at some point. The USSR was no better off than Russia under the Tsars. Many Muslim nations have been under a kind religious rule for centuries. Trying to break a system suddenly will never work.

Gradual change is always needed.

The argument raging here is a matter of perspective. People Americans view as "terrorists" view Americans as "evil." Instead of bombing the hell out of a nation, why not try and talk it out? Why result to acting like children over some issue? Now instead of plastic swords and sticks, people are using guns and incendiary bombs.

The British bombed a city using incendiaries. They didn’t break any international laws because of a technicality in the chemical composition in the bombs. They didn’t use napalm, but something damn close. Oh well, I guess that’s justified too in a narrow minded world.

Amen

Just wondering, (perhaps if I lived in the U.S or had more fixed views about this war I could answer this myself, but however) what did Saddam ever do to the U.S directly? Why do you hate HIM so much?

Just asking...