Betrayed by the United States of America

Acriku · March 29, 2003

Dust Scout, they weren't really "his" civilians, they were Kurds that never wanted Hussein to begin with. And to say that because they are "his" then he can do anything he wants to them is proposterous. I don't even think you meant it, it's so absurd.

It isn't sound military action, it is cowardice. Using human shields is cowardice. Going in and out of uniform, using civilian vehicles, dressing in US uniforms is cowardice. The US doesn't do any of this, and we are one of the most, if not the most, powerful military in the world.

More troops killed by US is because of friendly fire, sandstorms that leave little visilibility, and lack of communication.

So instead of spewing out anti-American garbage without knowledge of the most important facts, try researching for a while.

Low, I won't even respond directly to your post.

lowzeewee · March 29, 2003

then what will happens to the oilfields that DICK CHENEY wants to get his hands over.Its reported in singapore news,never will they report something sounding anti-US on BBC/CNN.

I just dont trust CNN on War On Iraq.

If we are supposed just to be chanting "US,US,US",then what is this board for?Spreading MORE US propaganda?Its to share our views

Dante · March 29, 2003

Cowardice? Since when? He knows that it will deter attacks, so he puts the things he doesn't want attacked there. Seems sensible. And all the other stuff? Guerilla warfare. If not that then it's helping him to win. Nothing in warfare is cowardice except surrender. And even that can have strategic advantages.

Yes, it is friendly fire. That doesn't make it any better.

And I did say, by your own words. If they are his then they are his. If I ran a country I'd use every advantage I'd got. Especially against "the most powerful military in the world."

lowzeewee · March 29, 2003

I agree with Dustie.If he use them as shields,they cant attack them.Smart?Yes?No?Dumb?Spell DUMB

D

U

M

B

Yay!You got it!

lowzeewee · March 29, 2003

But in the end,USA will crush the army together with the human shields and UN will stand by and watch as usual and 'acknowledge the damage done by Iraq to the world'.

Anathema · March 29, 2003

Ordos, I never said that the US was responsible for the Iraqi deaths, I merely said that the UN wasn't responsible for those deaths, as some people *cough emprwrom cough* claim.

I was about to reply to Aces arguments, but then noticed he hasn't provided any.

Acriku · March 29, 2003

Cowardice, since rules have been established. Since the times when putting your children in front of you to protect yourself from a drive-by was cowardice. Since the times when war was fought between the military, and civilians were not used for protection nor fighting. When the NVA put a grenade in the little children and told them to run toward the bad men, and hearing the blast and the inevitable drop of the baby body, was cowardice.

If you ran a dictatorship, and told the families that their children and friends were going to be used to soak up the bullets, I'd find you disgusting and dispicable.

ordos45 · March 29, 2003

then what will happens to the oilfields that DICK CHENEY wants to get his hands over.Its reported in singapore news,never will they report something sounding anti-US on BBC/CNN.
I just dont trust CNN on War On Iraq.
If we are supposed just to be chanting "US,US,US",then what is this board for?Spreading MORE US propaganda?Its to share our views

First off on the colored people comment, the politically correct term is African Americans. The common term used by your so called "colored people" is black, and that is also the term most others in the US use as well. Apparently Singapore needs to teach the US is no longer segragated. ::) Amazing how if we look down on "colored people" that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have jobs that high in government, isn't it?

Second, I see anti-US stuff on CNN all the time. Protests, groups they talk to from other countries that point out the US in a bad light, who think we're infidels to be exterminated.

As for good old, in the bunker Cheney...the oil companies he has interest in were banned from the reconstruction effort once the war is over.

Acriku · March 29, 2003

Lowzeewee you are the epitome of all the ignorant, blind, naive minds out there.

SurlyPIG · March 29, 2003

Well law dee daw, I'm sure if you have no objection to other people being used as human shields you shouldn't mind being one yourself, lowzeewee. How'd you like to take bullets for someone you hate?

I was about to reply to Aces arguments, but then noticed he hasn't provided any.

Maybe you missed it, I'll put it in bold face this time.

Exactly when and how did Bush Sr. give them (Iraqi rebels) the impression that the US would back up any revolutionary attempt? You can't possibly mean that one quote, Earthnuker, do you really think Iraqis even heard Bush say that let alone assume he meant he'd send in reinforcements?

Dude_Doc · March 29, 2003

Btw, are the "shields" still there? Never hear from them... and would they shield the Reichtag if Hitler was alive today too?

ordos45 · March 30, 2003

Human Shields? The willing ones? Some are still in Baghdad. Here's a link to Diary of a Human Shield, updated daily from Baghdad.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/122/story_12232_1.html&storyID=12232&boardID=53015

For some reason you have to paste whole thing into url bar, it doesn't show the whole thing as a link on this board.

Acriku · March 30, 2003

The url code doesn't recognize it as a link if it includes such characters not common in links such as : the period, comma, question mark, etc. PHP urls generally do not work. Putting the [.url=link location][./url] will make the entire link hypered, though.

Dante · March 30, 2003

Cowardice, since rules have been established. Since the times when putting your children in front of you to protect yourself from a drive-by was cowardice. Since the times when war was fought between the military, and civilians were not used for protection nor fighting. When the NVA put a grenade in the little children and told them to run toward the bad men, and hearing the blast and the inevitable drop of the baby body, was cowardice.
If you ran a dictatorship, and told the families that their children and friends were going to be used to soak up the bullets, I'd find you disgusting and dispicable.

Breaking rules isn't cowardice, it's grasping an oppertunity. Rules in warfare are for those who can afford to keep them. Those who have enough power so that it doesn't matter, they'll win anyway. They invent rules in warfare to restrict both parties, knowing that the stronger will not be effected as much as the weaker. I.e. The USA can afford to keep rules because of being big and strong and powerful and rich. Iraq is none of these things and thus these rules hurt them more. The sensible thing to do is cheat because that's one of very few advantages they have.

There is no such thing as cowardice unless you run away. Surrender can be used, and cowardice in the form of running away can be used (to fight another day). Therefore anything you do is legitimate, if not acceptable.

And If I ran a dictatorship I'd keep my rules. Just because they aren't anybody else's doesn't mean that they're wrong. Better to send a child at the enemy with a grenade than let it be slaughtered later. It's sensible warfare. Not good, I know that. But sensible.

Acriku · March 30, 2003

Are you going to refute my argument or just be picky?

The children would not have been killed, although that could not possibly be known, but the NVA gave them a grenade and sent them to enemy troops. If you can't find this despicable, or disgusting, I'd hope to all planes that you do not become a soldier - or worse yet, a political leader.

It isn't cowardice to run away, it's following instinct. Run today to live and fight tomorrow. Retreating isn't cowardice, it's sensible. But using citizens in a military war, is disgusting, and should never be done. Exception would be reporters, of course.

hilamobster13 · March 30, 2003

this is the way it allways goes. the U.S. twitches, and someone from every other nation in the world is ready to bitch about it.

you complain and complain and complain about what were doing in iraq now. a few years before the war you heard nothing but how unfairly people in other sections of the world were being treated. when the US come to make things right in parts of the world, do they rejoice? no, they find a new reason to hate the US and its citizens. whether or not anyone anywhere else wants to think it, no, to BELEIVE it, the US is the policeman of the world. it has allways been that way since after ww2, and that is inevitably the way it will be. not even by choice, but that's the ass groove we got to sit in.

nemafakei · March 30, 2003

Your definition of policeman differs from mine...

Dante · March 30, 2003

What argument do you want me to refute exactly?

I see no problem with using whatever tactics are available to win. ESPECIALLY against an enemy so much stronger than you are. I don't see anything wrong with using what you've got. Since when are children so special anyway? Times were when everyone over six was expected to carry a knife...

Alright, so running away isn't so bad. It's a tactical technique. As is surrender. And any other form of action on a battlefield. Any. Self-protection is also an instinct, as well as self-preservation. So doing anything with citizens to protect youself is instinct. Not only that, it's pretty sensible.

And the US shouldn't be world 'policemen.' (Meaning something other than 'guardian of the law.') Hopefully this little battle will show those of us who haven't seen that the truth.

Acriku · March 30, 2003

Using all advantages? The Iraqi soldiers aren't even using chemical warfare, nor Hussein using his billions of dollars to finance the war. And yet they use those tactics...disgusting.

Tell me why it isn't disgusting, or despicable, and that they are justified in doing anything in war.

Against the NVA, the US troops has serious disadvantages, but did they resort to including citizens into the fret? No. In defending wars, did the US soldiers resort to using human shields against the British, or Canadian? No. Fighting dirty in a rule-sanctioned war is wrong.

Children are special in that they aren't willing to die, or even fathom dying, and they are civilians, all of whom the soldiers exploited to their advantage.

Useless and unnecessary civilian deaths is not sensible, it is not instinct, it is an atrocity.

The US should be the 'world policemen' - if not them, then who? No one can fight a big war, and have enough money to go in there and set up a better country. We did that in Germany after WWII. We did that in Japan after WWII. We are doing that in Afghanistan, we are going to do that in Iraq.

Dante · March 30, 2003

How about we don't have any world policemen? Let each country do it's own thing.

And I'm tired of repeating myself so lets just leave it here, shall we?

I say that rules in war are made only when it benifits you. If it doesn't they are there to be broken. Including any refering to children, citizens, positioning of resources, weapons and tactics.

You disagree. Ok?

Acriku · March 30, 2003

And I say that wars should only include direct action by military, not civilians.

hilamobster13 · March 30, 2003

How about we don't have any world policemen? Let each country do it's own thing.
And I'm tired of repeating myself so lets just leave it here, shall we?
I say that rules in war are made only when it benifits you. If it doesn't they are there to be broken. Including any refering to children, citizens, positioning of resources, weapons and tactics.
You disagree. Ok?

yo dude, where along your life did the lines between RTS games and real life blur so badly for you? these are LITTLE KIDS, WOMEN, OLD GEEZERS!! NOTHING BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE TRYING TO STAY ALIVE!!! REAL PEOPLE, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!. not some little avatar and useless 1's and 0's, this is an actual human life. people like you should be forced to live over there and provide soem scumbag a human shield before you go and say this stupid shit.

and did i ever say that we wanted to be policemen as a nation? hell no, but we don't have a choice. we took responsibility, unlike some other countries, and this is what we get for it.

Egeides · March 30, 2003

Y, the thing is maybe believe that even if the population thinks it is bringing justice, many believe that the system that will be instaured after will give advantages to US industries, take petroleum, impose to Iraqis a given regime, and bring war's destruction meanwhile.

hilamobster13 · March 30, 2003

hey, ya know what? I don't deny one bit that we would put in a puppet governor to help us. I don't think that's the reason we did it, is all. we'd have to be total idiots not to try and gain the oil advantage though, wouldnt we? there's nothing wrong with it. Now if what we do when we get our little oil gain set up hurts the people, then that's wrong. but i strongly feel that the result of this will be a benifit for both sides; the people or iraq dont have to deal with sadamm's sadism, and the immense poverty, and we dont have to deal with sadamm and we get oil. i think the understanded setup for the future is we get cheap oil, and all the money goes to humanitarian aid for the iraqis.:P

nemafakei · March 31, 2003

Understood by whom?

Sign In

Betrayed by the United States of America

Recommended Posts

Acriku

lowzeewee

Dante

lowzeewee

lowzeewee

Anathema

Acriku

ordos45

Acriku

SurlyPIG

Dude_Doc

ordos45

Acriku

Dante

Acriku

hilamobster13

nemafakei

Dante

Acriku

Dante

Acriku

hilamobster13

Egeides

hilamobster13

nemafakei

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information