Guest Trivia247 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Posted March 24, 2003 This war is a Nice fluffy innocent bystander friendly war.... But come on, its not gonna get it done. Especially when you are fighting people who don't give two shits to Some moldy Geneva Convention Guidelines on Warfare and POWs. We are holding back the Fully automatic's the Carpet bombings, the Just overwhemlimg Massacring Humiliating ASS WHOPPING that we can truly do because we don't wanna look like the bad guy to the Arab people.... Its too late folks, we been the Great Satan for 20 years. No matter how friendly we try to be....take the weapons away and tell them to go home they come back with newer A-K's to shoot at the Tanks. We may as well Live up to being the Great SUper Power of the World.... Perhaps at some point someone should Inject the Blood of General Sherman into the Military...and just Obiliterate the Iraqi Armies and towns just Eliminate it all and make War so Terrible in the eyes of the Arab people who harbor terrorists that Future Generations will Not think of making War again on the United States... 200 + years ago Continental army to Avoid having a Large Native american contingent join the British Army, Sent in a Army to the one nearly Modern for its time Native American Confederation in the Ohio Valley and Annilhilated them utterly Massacre genocide. 130 + years ago Americans slaughtered each other to the tune of 601,000 dead that was 2 % of the Population, Sherman Went on his march through Georgia and up the Carolina's leaving Few Houses Standing... Thats what we done to our own people. 20 Century history We were the only ones...the ONLY Ones too Drop a Atomic Bomb.... twice! and its baby hewey compared to the Trident ICBM's we got now This is the Resume of what we have done....and Its certainly not all the capabilities and our past history of what we done... If we gone Total War..... None of them at least not governmentally or Militarally would ever step up against us. and Im anti War for this one heh
Guest EQ Posted March 24, 2003 Report Posted March 24, 2003 I see your point, but at the same time, the US really doesn't need the backlash that could potentially arise if we get the rest of the world pissed. I know they're already pissed, but still.
Guest Trivia247 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Posted March 24, 2003 I see your point, but at the same time, the US really doesn't need the backlash that could potentially arise if we get the rest of the world pissed. I know they're already pissed, but still. Rest of the World is already pissed...we are everyone's asshole evidently. we aren't coming out of it Smelling like a Rose.....
Guest EQ Posted March 24, 2003 Report Posted March 24, 2003 Nah, I know... but what I mean is that if we go hardcore and kick their asses, the rest of the world might decide to step in.
Guest Trivia247 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Posted March 24, 2003 At this point does it matter? Too many countries are in need of the US anyway. we are the big Bad Motha that everyone always call for when they are in trouble but generally dislike when we are not needed. we wouldn't be lining people up and shooting them in the street, but we could turn Baghdad truly into a Big Flamign Hole.
Guest DrTom Posted March 25, 2003 Report Posted March 25, 2003 So because everyone hates us, we should just blast Iraq into oblvion so they have a real reason for that hate? You really ought to stick to making harmless little trivia threads in the WWE folder.
Guest Flyboy Posted March 25, 2003 Report Posted March 25, 2003 So because everyone hates us, we should just blast Iraq into oblvion so they have a real reason for that hate? You really ought to stick to making harmless little trivia threads in the WWE folder. Oh.... .... .... .... .... tag. *leaves thread*
Guest MrRant Posted March 25, 2003 Report Posted March 25, 2003 That wasn't a tag... that was a back-handed bitch slap right across the face.
Guest Trivia247 Posted March 25, 2003 Report Posted March 25, 2003 So because everyone hates us, we should just blast Iraq into oblvion so they have a real reason for that hate? You really ought to stick to making harmless little trivia threads in the WWE folder. Heh I said we have it in us we got the capability to Really put the fear of God in whomever we face playing this Politically correct War of only hitting certain targets and oops not waiting to seem like we are oppressing anyone so we let the prisoners go home, only for them to come back with more Guns is a Stupid way to run and win a war. You want to get Arab Public opinion on your side, it won't happen as long as Iraqi State run News and the Arab World's Al jezerra Only shows their version of the war. What im doing is just throwing out the Possibilities and asking the question at What point do you believe that the gloves would come off... Personally I think its when we get hit by the chemical/Bio weapons if we do at all... Or some kind of Reprisal or Terrorism in Iraqi name in America. Until then we probably won't go into Baghdad but just wait outside it in a nice Siege around it and let special forces and or Airstrikes to hit targets.Sooner or later though Targets, "Command and control Elements" will start moving into the residental areas...be amongst the people.
Guest nikowwf Posted March 28, 2003 Report Posted March 28, 2003 The gloves should never come off against civilians because thats not what we do. If we indiscriminately attack civilians, id be the first in the street fighting the war. That should NEVER NEVER occur.
Guest alkeiper Posted March 29, 2003 Report Posted March 29, 2003 Never never never. Total war during WWII took a far worse toll on human life then the holocaust ever did. It should never happen again.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 29, 2003 Report Posted March 29, 2003 The gloves should never come off against civilians because thats not what we do. If we indiscriminately attack civilians, id be the first in the street fighting the war. That should NEVER NEVER occur. Civilians should never be targeted, I fully agree. Fortunately for us, one side in this war IS targeting civilians --- and that side isn't us. But, "non-military targets" should be fair game in certain situations. This is something I worry about. Let's say, for example, that the Republican Guard holes up in a hospital or a school. It's not exactly out of the realm of the possible, now is it? We need to have the courage to say that the MOMENT Iraqi military attacks from a "non-military target" that that building immediately becomes a military target. We need to have the courage to take the backlash that levelling a school might engender if the Iraqi military (which they will probably end up doing) decides to unleash attacks from buildings that are currently "off-limits". -=Mike
Guest SP-1 Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 I disagree. I'd rather storm the school or use snipers or something to disarm that situation. Never, ever bomb a hospital or a school. That's just way wrong. And who the hell is going to send their kid to school when there's a war raging next door?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 I disagree. I'd rather storm the school or use snipers or something to disarm that situation. Never, ever bomb a hospital or a school. That's just way wrong. And who the hell is going to send their kid to school when there's a war raging next door? Agreed 110%, SP. Snipe and storm the school with spec ops troops.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 I disagree. I'd rather storm the school or use snipers or something to disarm that situation. Never, ever bomb a hospital or a school. That's just way wrong. And who the hell is going to send their kid to school when there's a war raging next door? And I disagree. The moment the military takes over a school --- it no longer IS a school. It is a barracks. It's no different than here. My alma mater, U.S.C, was basically a Confederate hospital during the Civil War. While it still shouldn't have been a target due to it being a hospital, in my opinion, it CEASED being an educational instiution the moment soldiers got housed there. Saddam is going to use human shields. We need to try and minimize casualties, but innocents WILL die no matter WHAT we do. He's going to plant his military in hospitals and schools. The moment he does so, they should quickly be put on the "target" list. If a school IS a school, then no, it shouldn't be targeted. If a school is just a glorified army barracks with the word "school" in the title, then it is fair game. This is urban guerilla warfare. Our TOP priority has to be the safety of OUR fighting forces. If Saddam is willing to put his people in harm's way --- which history indicates he is MORE than willing to do --- then the fault lies with HIM, not us. After all, if a hospital is ALSO producing anthrax, at what point do we take action to stop it? -=Mike
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 So since it's HIS fault, we have carte blanche to slaughter innocent children, and we shouldn't try to minimize the casualties of those innocent children. Cute.
Guest Midnight Express83 Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 This isn't a war with Canada, France, England, Germany, ect. ect. ect. This is a war with a man that only cares about his own life. Everyone in his country can die and he wouldn't care. Sometimes a little blood needs to be shed to put an end to a problem. If Iraqi troops take over a school and start firing out of it, the school has to go. Why send special ops into a no win zone? Just blast the shit because those kids would be killed either way. Iraqi troops would shoot them, they would get in the crossfire, or they would be used as shields. It stops being a school with troops are using a place a barrack. Call me old school but when total war is being faught on one side, you blast everything that is involved with it.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 I'm glad you can have it on your conscience that you're killing innocent children. ::rolls eyes:: We ARE the good guys, aren't we?
Guest WukenBloodstar Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 The killing of innocent children is something that should be avoided, now if those same children were holding weapons and they were going to fire upon you, would you still not kill them? Would you shoot back or get shot by a child? I'm not saying I want children to die, but if they're hiding something in that school that could be deadly against our armed forces..then do what must be done.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 "Innocent children" Does "Firing a gun at me" sound innocent? Probably not. Does bombing the fuck out of a school building *because it happens to have a troop of Saddam's Republican Guard in it* sound more appeasing to you? Are thoes kids taking up arms with the Repub Guard? Probably not, they're at school to... well, learn. Why firebomb them to hell? Take the Repub guard out with snipers and spec forces, it's truly not that difficult.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 The killing of innocent children is something that should be avoided, now if those same children were holding weapons and they were going to fire upon you, would you still not kill them? Would you shoot back or get shot by a child? I'm not saying I want children to die, but if they're hiding something in that school that could be deadly against our armed forces..then do what must be done. What people aren't realizing is that if the military takes over a school, the children will be killed regardless. They're already forcing civilians --- including children --- to arm themselves. Thing is, even IF the children were armed and firing, they'd be termed "innocent". Nobody is saying kill children. What I am saying is that the MOMENT the military takes over a school --- it ceases to BE a school. Not exactly rocket science. =Mike
Guest B-X Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 What people aren't realizing is that if the military takes over a school, the children will be killed regardless. They're already forcing civilians --- including children --- to arm themselves. I have NEVER heard of that shit happening.
Guest WukenBloodstar Posted March 30, 2003 Report Posted March 30, 2003 The killing of innocent children is something that should be avoided, now if those same children were holding weapons and they were going to fire upon you, would you still not kill them? Would you shoot back or get shot by a child? I'm not saying I want children to die, but if they're hiding something in that school that could be deadly against our armed forces..then do what must be done. What people aren't realizing is that if the military takes over a school, the children will be killed regardless. They're already forcing civilians --- including children --- to arm themselves. Thing is, even IF the children were armed and firing, they'd be termed "innocent". Nobody is saying kill children. What I am saying is that the MOMENT the military takes over a school --- it ceases to BE a school. Not exactly rocket science. =Mike I see your point, but if we started to drop bombs on that school and killed children, some who are armed, maybe some who weren't, wouldn't we been seen as the bad guys in the eyes of the world? Lord knows we're not liked already for going to war, I guess they fail to see what Iraq is doing to it's people, it's cruel and must be stopped, if children must die for the greater cause of peace and freedom for those people, so be it. If the soliders don't shoot those who are armed with weapons, what's the point? To keep from shooting an "innocent" child who's going to try and kill you? If I saw some kid pointing a weapon at me, I would shoot them, seeing as how I wouldn't have a choice left.
Guest DrTom Posted March 31, 2003 Report Posted March 31, 2003 Why firebomb them to hell? Take the Repub guard out with snipers and spec forces, it's truly not that difficult. And if it becomes difficult, what then? What if they send a few frightened kids running toward the American soldiers who are trying t rescue them, but the kids happen to have bombs in their bookbags? What if they manage to booby-trap the place and set up ambushes? I think we should TRY the snipers and special forces first, but if they run into a major snag, I think you have to cut the losses and take the building out. I certainly don't envy whoever would have to make that decision, though.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now