MORE U.S. atrocities (Congress, radical, elect, support)

[sindey]

OZ isn't the military objective here to install a free and democratic system and unify the country?
That is an oxymoron.
Because you can't install a democratic regime.
Best case scenario is to prevent Turkey from invading northern Iraq.

[oz in SC]

Ummm,perhaps you missed it,there IS a deomcratic government in Iraq.

By providing military power, the USA and it's allies allowed democracy to grow.

If it will stay that way who knows although to our way of thinking it is the best form of government.

To me, the best scenario is to support pro democracy movements and leave it at that.

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

You miss the point,it is illegal to have your forces positioned among civilians, those to blame are those who placed their forces there.

It has always been that way.

If you admit Al Qaeda is not an army then the laws of war would not apply to them correct?

IMO the rules of war should apply to all human beings but that's beside the point.

Those rules should certainly apply to innocent civilians. And we should at least have the humanity to find the death of innocent people tragic without having to play the blame game as to whom put the first foot wrong, Al Qaeda or us.

I don't understand how we can not even feel any pain watching innocent people die. Have we fallen so low ?

I would like to think that not all Iraqis would rejoice watching innocent American or British people die. As I know they wouldn't.

If we are better than the nutters and barbarians who blow people up then we are doing a really poor show of humanity by just "accepting" "collateral damage" as a given.

I wonder how well collateral damage would go down here in the so called civilised world if it was inflicted on innocent American, British, etc.. kids, elderly people , totally innocent people. Not so good I suspect even if we had been the "bad guys" to begin with.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

I wonder how well collateral damage would go down here in the so called civilised world if it was inflicted on innocent American, British, etc.. kids, elderly people , totally innocent people. Not so good I suspect even if we had been the "bad guys" to begin with.

I don't know maybe you should ask someone who lived in London during the '40's????

[oz in SC]

The purpose of the laws of war ARE to limit civilian deaths.

That is why positioning military forces among civilians is illegal.

Collateral damage IS a given when one side flouts the laws and puts civilians in harms way.

It seems to happen a lot in the middle east,Hezbollah does it in Lebanon,Hamas does it in Gaza,Al Qaeda does it in Iraq.

Until these groups stop it you will continue to see civilian deaths.

[sindey]

Well Oz,
Hamas was democratically elected and so was the president of Iran.
Should we support them?

Those regimes are a reaction to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Those people are now afraid. Can we force them to be unafraid?

Is the word diplomacy irrelavent? It seems it is now. When talking is done with a gun, expect a reply with the same.

[Who?Me?!]

Originally Posted by my54ford

I am always amazed how Americans and the free world in general seem to forget their own history, and how much our beliefs and atitudes can change in a relativity short period of time. In 60 short years we have gone from willingly bombing hundreds of thousands "innocent" women and kids to what we have now. Would you look at your father or grand father in the eye and call him a mudering SOB??? But you'll do easy enough to todays military. I bet if you ask the Kurds they'll tell you it's better today then getting gassed by Saddam...............

Oh, don't you segue into saying that anyone who doesn't support the war doesn't support the troops. !!!!!!!

The TROOPS had NOTHING to do with what is happening...it's on the shoulders of the bush administration.


For the gazillionth time.....you can support the troops and still not support the administration !

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by sindey

Well Oz,
Hamas was democratically elected and so was the president of Iran.
Should we support them?

Those regimes are a reaction to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Those people are now afraid. Can we force them to be unafraid?

Is the word diplomacy irrelavent? It seems it is now. When talking is done with a gun, expect a reply with the same.

No, there is nothign to gain from supporting them.

I do not believe they were a reaction, I think it is how people over there think.

Diplomacy with an enemy who calls for your death on a daily basis is foolishness,diplomacy led to WWII.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

For the gazillionth time.....you can support the troops and still not support the administration !

It wasn't the administration, it was almost ALL of the current candidates running....

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by my54ford

I don't know maybe you should ask someone who lived in London during the '40's????

So we should behave like the Nazis I take it ? Well that settles it then. Let's all embrace barbarism and call it acceptable .

I think the victims of the London Blitz might have been a little distressed and offended at being called collateral damage rather than innocent victims.