Jump to content

Iraq Issues

Gobalopper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

And it was perfectly justified in the context of the titanic struggle for life and death that was the WW2 Eastern Front. It would be justified to use that tactic against modern terrorists too, if they had any tanks...

Hmm. Theoretical question for discussion:

Would it be acceptable for terrorists (or freedom fighters) in Iraq to be using this dog method of running up to tanks or say footpatrol?

Of course Western country citizens would say no (because terrorists are the new Nazis).

But in the context of Iraqi people who feel that they were invaded by a foreign country, and will do whatever necessary to get them out of their country, would it be acceptable for them to use this means to attack the enemy? Especially since it is impossible for them to create a standing army to somehow attack the occupying force and guerrilla warfare is the only successful tactic they have.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Hmm. Theoretical question for discussion:

Would it be acceptable for terrorists (or freedom fighters) in Iraq to be using this dog method of running up to tanks or say footpatrol?

Yes, it's a legitimate tactic of war. Any method designed to strike military targets is a legitimate method of war, and using dogs or other animals is justifiable if you are desperate enough.

The only illegitimate forms of warfare are those that intentionally target civilians or prisoners of war.

Of course Western country citizens would say no (because terrorists are the new Nazis).

Which is stupid, of course. You can say the terrorists are evil if they kill civilians, but killing soldiers is kind of the whole point of war in the first place. If you're fighting in a war, it's not really reasonable to complain that the enemy is trying to kill you... it wouldn't be a war otherwise.

But in the context of Iraqi people who feel that they were invaded by a foreign country, and will do whatever necessary to get them out of their country, would it be acceptable for them to use this means to attack the enemy?

Yes, naturally. Like I said, anything designed to destroy military targets is fair game.

The 9/11 attacks were illegitimate because they targeted innocent civilians and buildings with absolutely no military or strategic value whatsoever. If al-Qaeda had crashed empty planes into military bases, that would have been a perfectly legitimate act of war.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

The 9/11 attack just seemed silly. It all got the Taliban was a visit from America that removed Afghanistan from their (official at least) control. People go on about how they survived but damage was done regardless. Of course, one might say that the media effect of the 9/11 attack somehow stirred up support for them or something, but I'd say it just turned the majority of the civilized world against them and made said civilized world ''wake up'' about terrorism and take it much more seriously. The best the act could have done was perhaps inspire other terrorists or something by how climactic it was.

''The only illegitimate forms of warfare are those that intentionally target civilians or prisoners of war.''

But also those that intentionally force you're enemy to target civilians or prisoners of war yes?. Imagine 1 side loading up their tanks with civilians and pows. The other side obviously must defend themselves against these tanks or lose, so of course they will be forced to kill these civilians along with military personnel. The other side, or any side for that matter, can then not complain to about the destroyer of the tanks for killing civilians. Instead the blame should be placed on the tank utilizer. Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but if we look at typical terrorist tactics they rely on the opponents benefit of the doubt which is reliant on how ''nice'' they are and how much they care about PR. Sometimes letting that terrorist inflict some physical damage is better than taking out the ambulance he's in and suffering a PR barrage.  An example of such a tactic would be a situation in Israel where the guards would not let ambulances pass by without delaying inspection regardless of the dwindling time left to save some of their passengers. They obviously did this because some terrorists decided to use such ambulances as bomb delivery devices. Whether they thought ambulances would be more suspect or they knew how this would put the Israelis into a ''benefit of the doubt gamble'' type situation or both is not known, though it's probably the latter. In a serious conflict it seems reasonable to kill the enemy using civilians as a shield even at the expense of said civilians as the fault would generally lie with said enemy and not you. In a non-serious conflict though, where you're opponent has no hope of victory, then the decision that leads to the greater good (whatever you define that to be, and if you are interested in being ''good'') should be made. Eg: a terrorist equipped with a bomb capable of killing 5 soldiers is running towards you amongst a crowd of 40 (innocent, who have no knowledge of terrorists amongst them) civilians who for some reason (hypothetical situation) you can be assured will flee at the last moment. You're soldiers only weapon is a thermal detonator that will kill everyone in the crowd. It seems more reasonable to let you're soldiers take the fall. It may be a war, but their power is unnecessary as the enemy is virtually powerless compared to you're forces.

When it comes to ''good'' it is generally a question of the greater good. If killing 20 civilians will somehow stop an evil overlord who will kill 1000000 civilians from coming to power, then it seems like it's justifiable. But situations such as this arise rarely in war, and killing civilians usually does little (positive) change to the greater good or to the progress against you're enemy.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

"Yup, it saved American lives"

What Edric said, plus the fact that American soldiers not being in Iraq would save those same American lives and probably even more. Not to mention Iraqi lives. You know, the ones the US/UK are now claiming they're there to protect?

gunner154

gunner154

Posted
Posted

What would you do if a robber had gotten an innocent person as a hostage and the only way to resolve the situation would be to attack the robber and let him kill the hostage? Unfortunately, on the ground, the situation is often a lot more complicated than that. Like Edric O had said, the soldiers aren't exactly mentally stable thanks to the situation in Iraq. A right and wrong answer cannot be easily deduced from such a scenario.

But since you seem so concerned about American lives, let's just replace the hostage with... President Bush. Disregarding the general feeling of animosity towards the man, would knowing who the innocent person change the scenario? It doesn't do your nation much good when you clearly value the lives of people of a different nationality above yours.

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

The 9/11 attack just seemed silly. It all got the Taliban was a visit from America that removed Afghanistan from their (official at least) control.

Taleban =/= Al'Quaeda.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is who is less humane, the Coalition troops on the ground, or the Iraqi insurgents, and judging by the actions, the Coalition troops are more humane on the whole, so they have the moral high ground.  Sure you can say they're an invasion force, but the whole Iraqi community is not against them being there and have not taken up arms.  I think a lot of you forget the massacre of the Marsh Arabs after NATO kicked Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.  We have a morale obligation to make sure that doesn't happen again, and that's why we're still there.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

COMPARISON.

soldier_kitten.jpg

Yes, I know it's an old image. I just felt that, what with the dog thing, that some contrast might be beneficial.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Actually pets on base are not allowed. One person said that they had "adopted" a pet dog, but then all the animals had to be killed when some new army people came (or a new policy). I believe they were shot to death.

I heard this in a fark.com thread, and it was not a troll, but actually someone who had served in Iraq and had a pet dog there, where it was killed because of policy.

At least those 1000 people in the mass grave were free when they were killed. Am I right?

Tatar Khan

Tatar Khan

Posted
Posted

Pets are not allowed on the base to prevent epidemics that could be started through the animals being exposed to decomposing bodies of the dead. Other animals. Rabies in hot countries rages wild and so you will find that in Near and Middle East the dogs are not favorite pet animal due to the fear of rabbies. The fact is that if I ever wanted to get back at the foreign force occupying my country I would try to poison them. Using animal carrier to spread disease is just another way to poison.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

I don't see the relevance of my quote in you're post Dunenewt. Seems pretty random. Not that I mind.

''What it comes down to, in my opinion, is who is less humane, the Coalition troops on the ground, or the Iraqi insurgents, and judging by the actions, the Coalition troops are more humane on the whole, so they have the moral high ground''

Thats probably true. The coalition are probably more humane than the terrorists. Not saying much though. The terrorists are probably humane compared to Hitler and his cronies that helped him bring about the holocaust. Regardless, none of the above mentioned groups are particularly humane. Well, I'm not sure about the coalition as a whole. Obviously the soldiers who apparently killed and troubled civilians for little reason could not be called humane though.

''We have a morale obligation to make sure that doesn't happen again, and that's why we're still there.''

That is true as well. I haven't concluded my thought on that matter, but right now I'd say that this is probably something the US can be commended on. They could have pulled out and left Iraq to the dogs but they didn't. They did have the threat of yet more bad PR and FR (foreign) though. However, that never stopped them before.

What is this about mass graves? I know you provided a link but thats to a BBC news article which implies that the article will be filled with much unneccesary nonsense to read through before coming upon the hard info that I seek. If you feel that I'm being lazy and should just read through the article thats understandable though. Just say so and I guess I'll go read it.

''COMPARISON.

Yes, I know it's an old image. I just felt that, what with the dog thing, that some contrast might be beneficial.''

I see not the image nor any evidence of it. Was it deleted for being to horrid or something? As I don't see a link or anything, just bare space.

If dogs are not popular in the Middle East then there shouldn't be enough of them for their cullings (not the best word maybe?) to be such an issue right. I guess the media know how to over-blow issues though.

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

''What it comes down to, in my opinion, is who is less humane, the Coalition troops on the ground, or the Iraqi insurgents, and judging by the actions, the Coalition troops are more humane on the whole, so they have the moral high ground''

Thats probably true. The coalition are probably more humane than the terrorists. Not saying much though. The terrorists are probably humane compared to Hitler and his cronies that helped him bring about the holocaust. Regardless, none of the above mentioned groups are particularly humane. Well, I'm not sure about the coalition as a whole. Obviously the soldiers who apparently killed and troubled civilians for little reason could not be called humane though.

''We have a morale obligation to make sure that doesn't happen again, and that's why we're still there.''

That is true as well. I haven't concluded my thought on that matter, but right now I'd say that this is probably something the US can be commended on. They could have pulled out and left Iraq to the dogs but they didn't. They did have the threat of yet more bad PR and FR (foreign) though. However, that never stopped them before.

What is this about mass graves? I know you provided a link but thats to a BBC news article which implies that the article will be filled with much unneccesary nonsense to read through before coming upon the hard info that I seek. If you feel that I'm being lazy and should just read through the article thats understandable though. Just say so and I guess I'll go read it.

I've always found the BBC to be one of the most reliable sources on the web, aside from the fact they go out  of their way to be politically correct.

Anyway, here's another BBC News article, this time about the Iranian leader's visit to Iraq.  As you understandably don't like looking through a whole web page to find relevant information, I'll just post one part that made me smile.

The Iranian president said he was "truly happy" to be visiting an Iraq "without the dictator" Saddam Hussein. He did not acknowledge America's role in his removal.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

Well not that I think BBC is unreliable, just don't want to go through a whole page for a few tid bits of actual info. It's not that I suspect bias or anything, it's just that news reports are written somewhat for entertainment so they are not short list of facts.

Thanks for understanding. :)

''I see not the image nor any evidence of it. Was it deleted for being to horrid or something?''

''The image is working. A soldier kneeling and stroking a cat on its head.''

Lol.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
Being happy to see Saddam out of the country, and yet trying to avoid crediting the US for it.

Shhh, don't say that out loud. The fact that the US invasion of Iraq actually strengthened Iran, giving them a foothold in the Shia lands of southern Iraq and removing Iran's greatest enemy from power, is Ahmadinejad's little secret. He can't admit it, of course, because that would ruin his reputation as a heroic opponent of the big bad US's invasion of poor, cuddly Iraq. Only Iran should be allowed to invade Iraq, dammit! ::)

Tatar Khan

Tatar Khan

Posted
Posted

RUSSIA WRITES OFF $12 BILLION IRAQI DEBT

RUSSIA/IRAQ

Talabani: Russia's decision is a historic turning point.

Russia agreed in February to write off $12 billion of Iraqi debt in an apparent effort to help Russian companies including Lukoil to win contracts in Iraq. The debt was taken on by the regime of former leader Saddam Hussein to purchase military equipment and supplies. Russia opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, a country with the potential to produce more than 5 million barrels of crude oil a day.

Iraqi president Jalal Talabani described the Russian decision to write off the majority of Iraq

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

Iraq forces battle Basra militias

Heavy fighting has been raging in Basra as thousands of Iraqi troops battle Shia militias in the southern city.

At least 30 people have died in the operation, which is being overseen in Basra by Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki, a day after he vowed to "re-impose law".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7312078.stm

It's good to see the Iraqi Army actually taking control of situations.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.