1
   

Soldiers in Iraq know they are fighting and dying for a lie

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 03:59 pm
oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
How d'ya figure that? All reports are that we used Napalm in Iraq, so how do you figure we "adhered" to the convention?


All our aircraft-delivered napalm was against Iraqi Army outposts guarding bridges we wanted to cross (at least according to the news articles).

I am presuming that there were not large concentrations of civilians near these outposts, especially since everyone knew the US military was approaching.


But - (leaving aside your presumption about who got fried) the convention was against the use of the weapon. NOT the use of the weapon against civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 04:12 pm
snood wrote:
But - (leaving aside your presumption about who got fried) the convention was against the use of the weapon. NOT the use of the weapon against civilians.


That is incorrect. The convention did not ban napalm. It merely set restrictions on how it could be used, to reduce the probability of collateral damage.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 04:28 pm
isn't 'collateral damage' a wonderful expression .
it's so smooth and comforting .

someone knocking on the golden gates demanding admittance .
st. peter : 'why are you here ?'
'i'm here because i'm collateral damage'
st. peter : ' come on in , there are already a few hundred-thousand of your kind here'

(makes me shiver) hbg
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:03 pm
Yep.


Like it matters a **** to fried civilians (or anyone else for that matter...the use of napalm is unspeakable) if they were intended targets, or burned horribly by "error"....like civilians are not gonna die in such activities.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:09 pm
I remember this time some dude came up to me and said "Hey boy, watcha fighting for?" I told him right off "I'm fighting to stop the communists from completing their domino takeover of western civilization" that's what I told him, I did. Then I shot him in the knees.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:42 pm
dlowan wrote:
Yep.


Like it matters a **** to fried civilians (or anyone else for that matter...the use of napalm is unspeakable) if they were intended targets, or burned horribly by "error"....like civilians are not gonna die in such activities.


I think it unlikely that there were many civilians hanging around Iraqi Army bridge outposts as the US military was approaching.

I see no reason to believe that any civilians died.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:44 pm
You think it unlikely, huh? Well, shoot - what the hell is the problem, then?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:56 pm
snood wrote:
You think it unlikely, huh? Well, shoot - what the hell is the problem, then?


The problem is this: "Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous."

I question the validity of any poll that would ask such a misleading question.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 05:57 pm
oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
You think it unlikely, huh? Well, shoot - what the hell is the problem, then?


The problem is this: "Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous."

I question the validity of any poll that would ask such a question.


Well I question the validity of your presumptions. So everybody's got questions, I guess.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:05 pm
snood wrote:
Well I question the validity of your presumptions. So everybody's got questions, I guess.


The only presumption I made was that there were unlikely to be any civilians in the area.

You think there were lots of civilians hanging out next to Iraqi Army positions as the US military approached???
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:10 pm
oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
Well I question the validity of your presumptions. So everybody's got questions, I guess.


The only presumption I made was that there were unlikely to be any civilians in the area.

You think there were lots of civilians hanging out next to Iraqi Army positions as the US military approached???


I could engage in this, but that's going around the milky way to get from Trenton to Albany.

I think we need the hell out of Iraq, as quickly as possible. I think more and more people are coming to that very reasonable conclusion.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:16 pm
snood wrote:
I think we need the hell out of Iraq, as quickly as possible. I think more and more people are coming to that very reasonable conclusion.


That could be.


If we decide to leave before the Iraqi government stabilizes, we should make sure the country splits into three parts to ensure that a dictator doesn't arise to oppress the other ethnic groups of Iraq.

We might want to stay in Kurdistan in such a case though, to protect the Kurds from Turkey.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:24 pm
...or, we might not be able to "fix" anything there, at all...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:29 pm
snood wrote:
...or, we might not be able to "fix" anything there, at all...


Maybe.

All we can do is try.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:32 pm
oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
...or, we might not be able to "fix" anything there, at all...


Maybe.

All we can do is try.


Yeah, one has to "try", and one has to know when to stop, as well.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:34 pm
Maybe we can pull out and leave our schmuck president behind and let the three factions decide what to do with him.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 06:50 pm
Last year, there were 3 Iraqi battalions who were trained to provide security. Now there are zero!!! We are going backwards!

Anyone who can't see this is a losing proposition is delusional.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 07:59 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I remember this time some dude came up to me and said "Hey boy, watcha fighting for?" I told him right off "I'm fighting to stop the communists from completing their domino takeover of western civilization" that's what I told him, I did. Then I shot him in the knees.


Why?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:25 pm
As soon as the Iraqi government stabalizes? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
mans
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:27 pm
oh, you Americans are so lucky! you can kick off Pres. Bush after three terms, whereas i'm stuck with Johnny for who knows how long. Sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Soldiers in Iraq know they are fighting and dying for a lie
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:36:36
▲ ▼