And so it begins...

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Honestly, your country is fucked and you're going to be killed before you can get in any kind of trouble most likely... would YOU care what the Geneva Convention said?

 

Also, I think that this display will help us more than hurt, because now a lot of people are shocked into realizing what I've been trying to tell my family and everyone I run into: THIS WILL NOT BE AN EASY WAR. It'll be at least a month long, folks. Gotta get used to accepting the news of casualties.

[Guest Will Scarlet]

Ah, okay. I get it now. I did not realize the station was government run or that they were executed on the tape. I just saw a few dead soldiers and I was kind of confused about what the big deal was about showing them. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Kinda out of the blue, but the anchor and the Kuwait City correspondent on CNN right now are both quite hot.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Dude this interpretor for FoxNews sounds like he just learned A) Arabic or B) English a few days ago.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He gave an attaboy to a military division that already surrendered.

 

MSNBC is tearing this speech apart. ABC is fucking retarded tho. saying Saddam speech "probably real. Seems recent. Another dark blow for President Bush"

 

This speech was like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" childrens' books gone wrong.

 

"You're giving mad props to your homies in Division 11. Do you holla at General Safid (Go to page 42) or shout out to Lieutenant Colonel Ashir (Go to page 86)?"

[Guest Powerplay]

He gave an attaboy to a military division that already surrendered.

 

MSNBC is tearing this speech apart. ABC is fucking retarded tho. saying Saddam speech "probably real. Seems recent. Another dark blow for President Bush"

 

This speech was like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" childrens' books gone wrong.

 

"You're giving mad props to your homies in Division 11. Do you holla at General Safid (Go to page 42) or shout out to Lieutenant Colonel Ashir (Go to page 86)?"

Bwuahahaha.... Man, that's sig-worthy. Nice one, Jobber .

[Guest Vern Gagne]

People in Jordan thought it was a live video. That doesn't suprise me. Like an NBC analyst said if you wanna believe Hussein is alive you can think that.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Reports from Fox and MSNBC saying that Republican Guard units are forcing regular Army units to fight or be executed.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Listening to Donald Rumsfeld complaining about Geneva convention violations was kind of funny though.

Why?

[Guest Kingpk]

I want to get everyone's opinion on media coverage. IMO, they are treating this like some reality show, with reporters with the troops and "live blow-by-blow" coverage. And when the most obvious thing in war occurs (soldiers die/are injured), analysts are like "ooh, this strategy isn't working out as well as everyone thought it would. Maybe they should have changed things." I mean there have been, what, 50 casualties (incl. injuries)? And forces are 60 miles from Baghdad. I'd say that the military is doing a damn good job.

 

Just my opinion.

[Guest cartman]

If there weren't any reporters at the front lines we would probably be in better shape right now. See there are no "Rules" in War but i'm sure they are being a bit too careful not to do anything that would make American soldiers look bad on TV...for instance killing Civillians...or ya know those military guys that dress like civillians and shoot our troops after they surrender. This war is bullshit in the first place but if ya wanna get things done right throw out the fuckin media and take care of some REAL buisness.

 

BTW i'm still waiting to see these Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Guest phoenixrising]

The problem with the embedded reporters is that they are just reporting on a small portion of the action - that which they can see. As a result everything gets magnified and thrown out of proportion when compared to the big picture. The big picture is that we're nearly outside Baghdad with only 60 casualties - the majority of which were caused by friendly fire, accidents, or cowardly Iraqi acts. We've only had one aircraft shot down by the Iraqis in thousands of sorties. It's still a good job, but the fact is that in these times we demand something for nothing - i.e. we demand Baghdad to fall, Saddam to die and Iraq to be free with zero casualties. The reporters are making it worse by reporting on every little bump in the road as if it was an important moment when in fact it means nothing in the big picture.

[Guest SP-1]

If there weren't any reporters at the front lines we would probably be in better shape right now. See there are no "Rules" in War but i'm sure they are being a bit too careful not to do anything that would make American soldiers look bad on TV...for instance killing Civillians...or ya know those military guys that dress like civillians and shoot our troops after they surrender. This war is bullshit in the first place but if ya wanna get things done right throw out the fuckin media and take care of some REAL buisness.

 

BTW i'm still waiting to see these Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I was wondering when a super-anti-war person was going to show up.

[Guest DrTom]

And when the most obvious thing in war occurs (soldiers die/are injured), analysts are like "ooh, this strategy isn't working out as well as everyone thought it would.

The news, by its very nature, tends to focus on the negative side of things. Our military has done a damn good job so far, and we've sustained very light casualties. It seems a lot of the reporters were under the impression that the entire Iraqi army would just roll over and surrender when we showed up. This is different from Desert Storm: we're invading, and we're trying to take their *country* this time. People will always fight to defend their home. It's surprising that so many reporters fail to realize this.

[Guest DrTom]

BTW i'm still waiting to see these Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Let's hope none of us see them until the war is over.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

OK Cartman I'm going to go ahead and tell myself that I misread your post and you did not just insinuate that American soldiers would be killing Iraqi civilians out of hand if the press was not there. I don't see journalists up close and personal on the Baghdad bombings and do you know how many civilian casualties are being reported by the International Red Cross at the 2 major hospitals in Baghdad? TWO! How many injuries? A total of 34. Our use of precision weapons has shown us to be more concerned with the welfare of Iraqi civilians than Saddam is.

 

And what do the Baath extremists setting up ambushes have to do with embedded journalists? Those guys who open fire after "surrendering" are A) Violating Geneva conventions....again... and B) Declaring themselves as enemy forces and worthy of deserving whatever they get.

 

And those WMD that you're so eager to see? Well Iraqi soldiers are starting to carry around gas masks, as if they're anticipating something (here's a hint, neither the US or the UK use chemcial WMD, only nuclear. And a gas mask ain't going to help that). Also CNN, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all reporting that there is a good possibility that Republican Guard units are under orders to use chemical weapons once our forces get near Baghdad. So you might just get your wish.

[Guest teke184]

OK Cartman I'm going to go ahead and tell myself that I misread your post and you did not just insinuate that American soldiers would be killing Iraqi civilians out of hand if the press was not there. I don't see journalists up close and personal on the Baghdad bombings and do you know how many civilian casualties are being reported by the International Red Cross at the 2 major hospitals in Baghdad? TWO! How many injuries? A total of 34. Our use of precision weapons has shown us to be more concerned with the welfare of Iraqi civilians than Saddam is.

 

And what do the Baath extremists setting up ambushes have to do with embedded journalists? Those guys who open fire after "surrendering" are A) Violating Geneva conventions....again... and B) Declaring themselves as enemy forces and worthy of deserving whatever they get.

 

And those WMD that you're so eager to see? Well Iraqi soldiers are starting to carry around gas masks, as if they're anticipating something (here's a hint, neither the US or the UK use chemcial WMD, only nuclear. And a gas mask ain't going to help that). Also CNN, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all reporting that there is a good possibility that Republican Guard units are under orders to use chemical weapons once our forces get near Baghdad. So you might just get your wish.

Maybe the Iraqis are afraid the US will use riot gas on them... [/uN pussy]

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

What I'm taking issue with is the immediate assumption that Iraqi soldiers have gas masks because they have chemical weapons. Aren't we equipped with them too? Perhaps they have the same fears we have, that being a chemical attack of some kind? I seriously doubt we'd ever do such a thing, but they're convinced we're the Great Satan and all, so why shouldn't they be afraid? Another thing bugging me is when the Defense Department or Bush himself or whatever government official is on the television at the moment is griping about the Iraqis not adhering to international laws or agreements. If that was the reason we invaded them in the first place, why are we acting surprised? Moreover, why are we calling them cowardly for dressing soldiers as civilians? That's brilliant, if you ask me. They're deliberately preying on the fact that we allow ourselves to be bound to some sort of honor system in an arena of the human experience that really has little honor to it. To me, a lot of what we've done so far is almost as bad (okay, it's a slight exaggeration, but the comparison can still be made) as armies of the 18th century lining up across from each other and opening fire because it's the "proper way to wage war."

[Guest cartman]

Thanks Kotz. You are 100% correct.

 

How about THIS report. Just saw on MSNBC that Iraqui officials say they wouldnt be suprised if the Chemical Weapons that WE have will be used in southern Iraq and then blame it on Iraq to "prove" they have WMD and make this war just.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

So what do you suggest Kotz? Shoot anyone that comes across out path, just in CASE they might ambush us? Then we get the thousands of civilian casualties that Hollywood limo liberals were convinced we'd get as well as forever making our country as worse than the terrorists we are purportedly fighting.

 

These pseudo-terrorist attacks by Fedayeen are nothing more than a desperate enemy seeing what he considers a weakness (our concern for the innocents' well being) and seeking to exploit it. Brilliant? More like cowardly but I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[Zorin Industries 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,921192,00.html

 

I don't agree with everything in this article, but I agree that the U.S can't have it both ways with the Geneva Convention

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar -- In a friendly fire incident, an American F-16 fired on a U.S. Patriot missile battery in Iraq after the battery's radar locked on the plane, the U.S. Central Command said Tuesday. No U.S. casualties were reported.

[Guest DrTom]

Moreover, why are we calling them cowardly for dressing soldiers as civilians? That's brilliant, if you ask me. They're deliberately preying on the fact that we allow ourselves to be bound to some sort of honor system in an arena of the human experience that really has little honor to it.

Because armies are supposed to be visually distinct from civilians, for the express purpose of minimizing civilian casualties. Putting one's own civilians in the line of fire just to try and get a few ambushes here and there IS cowardly. But we should be used to this from the Iraqi regime, and apparently, the apologists who fall in love with its "tactics."

[Guest DrTom]

How about THIS report. Just saw on MSNBC that Iraqui officials say they wouldnt be suprised if the Chemical Weapons that WE have will be used in southern Iraq and then blame it on Iraq to "prove" they have WMD and make this war just.

That's one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've heard since this war started. Now we're suddenly carrying chemical weapons around, just to plant them in a few places in Iraq so we can point our fingers and say we were right all along? Please.

 

I can't say I'm surprised, though, considering the sources: Iraqi officials said, MSNBC reported it, and you advocated it, so I expect it to be rubbish.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

The issue with civilian dress is one of determining non-combatants and combatants. It's clever, but it's also disgusting and deplorable. Not to say war is happy-go-lucky, but I do believe that it should be fought by a set of rules. I would posit that condoning civilian dress for active engaging soldiers is not too far off from executing POW's, as far as the morality of war goes. It's a huge violation of the standard protocol of jus in bello, and even though it sounds funny to establish rules for war, I think such limits need to be place to prevent outright slaughter of innocents and unnecessary casualties on both sides.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

On a lighter note, saw this story and found it kinda interesting.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/890520_asp.htm

 

UMM QASR, Iraq, March 25 —  Forget precision bombs, unmanned spy-planes and high-tech weaponry, the U.S. army is about to unveil its most unlikely mine detector — all the way from Florida, the Atlantic Bottle-Nosed Dolphin.

 

At the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, secured by U.S and British forces after days of fighting, soldiers made last-minute reparations on Tuesday for the imminent arrival of a team of specially trained dolphins to help divers ensure the coastline is free of danger before humanitarian aid shipments can dock.

 

U.S. Navy Captain Mike Tillotson told reporters that three or four dolphins would work from Umm Qasr, using their natural sonar abilities to seek out mines or other explosive devices which Iraqi forces may have planted on the seabed.

 

“They were flown over on a military animal transporter in fleece-lined slings,” Tillotson said. “We keep them in a certain amount of water. They travel very well.” 

 

“They will be given restaurant quality food and vitamins, and they will work out of wells which we’ve set up here.”

 

Tillotson said the dolphins were trained not to swim up to mines, but to place a marker a small distance away, minimizing any danger to themselves.

 

Several mines were discovered last week on the back of ships along the Faw peninsula, but teams of divers searching around Umm Qasr port since Monday have not found any embedded mines.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Uh oh now Iraq's finished, we've brought in Flipper! Start running up those French made white flags, guys!

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Listening to Donald Rumsfeld complaining about Geneva convention violations was kind of funny though.

Why?

The article that Zorin Industries posted contains most of it. The ghist of it is this:

 

-Rumsfeld refused to grant Geneva convention rights to Taliban soldiers (note I am refering only to Taliban and not Al Queda) captured in Afghanistan, despite objections from Powell.

 

-The CIA got pissed off because they felt such a policy would put their field operatives in extra danger should they be captured in foreign countries.

 

-Bush stepped in and basically overruled Rumsfeld, declaring that all members of the Taliban (once again, not Al Queda) would get Geneva conventions rights.

[Guest SP-1]

I can't say I'm surprised, though, considering the sources: Iraqi officials said, MSNBC reported it, and you advocated it, so I expect it to be rubbish.

You beat me to it, Tom. Hell, anytime I see, "Iraqi officials said," I automatically turn back around to the computer or click away from the website.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Listening to Donald Rumsfeld complaining about Geneva convention violations was kind of funny though.

Why?

The article that Zorin Industries posted contains most of it. The ghist of it is this:

 

-Rumsfeld refused to grant Geneva convention rights to Taliban soldiers (note I am refering only to Taliban and not Al Queda) captured in Afghanistan, despite objections from Powell.

 

-The CIA got pissed off because they felt such a policy would put their field operatives in extra danger should they be captured in foreign countries.

 

-Bush stepped in and basically overruled Rumsfeld, declaring that all members of the Taliban (once again, not Al Queda) would get Geneva conventions rights.

OK.