One question

If you can answer this question with a good sensible answer I will shut up about the evils of this war:
Why is it ok to kill civilians in the name of liberation?

 

it isnt in my opinion...but some would say that the end justifies the means

 

Well, according to the un-precident:

"When we talk about war, we're really talkin' about peace..."


-Fucking Dumbass

I can't stand him, or war.

 

But if those were "liberating" are dead... what is the end? Like the Anti-Flag lyric says "To save you we may have to kill you"

 

I, in no way, condone the killing of innocent civilians. I think that when it happens, it's atrocious.
But during the midst of this war, like in all wars, civilian casualties are un-avoidable. We have killed as few as we could, never meaning to in the first place. We do not purposely hunt down civilians as I have said before. Because, as I have noted prior, these are our own fathers, brothers, etc, that are fighting, they are human beings, not mindless machines.
Also, as I have said before, the civilian dead count is getting outrageous, as it is obviously(to the intellegent) exagerrated, as civilians are non-combatants and are not in the battlefield, where the fighting is going on. I realize that we are fighting in cities, but we do all we can to prevent the casualties, we give warnings through loud-speakers for civilians to stay inside as we are about to comense fighting. We have destroyed mosques to eliminate these terrorists and resistance fighters. I have seen video-tapes of marines fighting inside of houses against militants, but the homes were abandoned, and there were no civilian casualties to posess the homes.
Another thing most refuse or fail to realize, are that the civilians are not killed by American soldiers alone, but are casualties of the war in it's entirety. We try not to harm any at all, while the enemy disreguards all life in order to kill us. This is evident at the recent execution of Berg, and hostage taking.
This brings another point. We would not be fighting if there were not terrorists to resist our forces. They can, at any time, surrender, as they have in the past, and many times during this war. If they really cared about saving the lives of their fellow Iraqi's they would give up. They would embrace the change. They would allow the new government complete sovereignty over Iraq. But since there is still fighting going on, the fact that they are ruthless animals still shows clearly.
I have seen the photos of dead Iraqi's. But again, as a result of the fighting, which is only present because of the terrorist resistance.
Call me wrong, call me evil, fascist, use the same old rhetoric; but that's what I have to offer, and that's what I feel is right. I feel it could have gone better, but I also feel that it was a great success none-the-less. That is my explaination.

 

Exactly!!!!!!!!

 

The civilian dead count is insane but for some sick reason, Bush has ordered that the dead Iraqi civilians are not counted. When we push our ocupation further and further and the "terrorists" open fire to hold their ground, WE are placing these civilians at risk. Its very easy to sweep it all away with "Oh the terrorists are killing civi's too" but if the deaths are from terrorist action, why is Bush not letting these dead be counted?

 

Anybody that wants to count them can count them. Lots of people are.

The point here is that by your logic (and lyrics), America is an evil nation that bombed the innocent French children it was trying to save in WW2. So could Hitler have called us hypocrites?

If America can bring peace and democracy to Iraq at a cost of 10,000 lives, is this a fair price to pay compared to life under Saddam, where 100,000 civilians could be deliberately rounded up and murdered in a single campaign against ethnic minorities? And given that we could expect more of the same for the rest of his life, at which point Uday or Qusay would take up the office of murderer in chief?

 

Like I said man, they can surrender. They choose to fight.

 

If someone invaded America and threatened your way of life Mav, would you surrender or take up arms and defend yourself. I'm not supporting them I'm just trying to show you a different angle. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and one mans soldier is anothers murdering fuck, would you not agree. Getting on a bullhorn and telling people to leave their homes... Ok where do they go? Wander around and wait to get picked up for looking suspicious? I don't see how our reign of tyranical rule is much better then Sadams and a lot of Iraqi's are beginning to feel the same. Pointbreak have you ever thought that a lot of the argument against Sadam has been in hypothetical form? He could bomb us all to hell, he might have WMD, there could serrin, he could have hidden all those weapons, he may have killed 100,000. Sadam = Evil. No argument. But I just think that sliding a puppet goverment in there isn't much better.

 

There is nothing hypothetical about Saddam killing 100,000 Kurds. He did kill 100,000 Kurds, and that was in a single year, and only one of the many campaigns he led against his own people, in addition to attacking four other countries in the region.

Was the "puppet" government in Germany in 1946 not better than the Nazi regime? How about "puppet" governments in post-war Japan, or Kosovo, or Bosnia?
So why can't a "puppet" government be better in Iraq?

 

If we were invaded, we would save our own people, unlike them.

The American Militray says to stay inside, not to leave their homes. The Iraqi's choose to leave themselves.

You are sadly mistaken, as many Iraqi's love what the USA has done. It sure beats being rounded up and killed for nothing, which is what Saddam did.

 

Can we get a Little Justice for the 4 million People Carpet Bombed in North Vietnam and Cambodia By the U.S. Warmachine Since we're talking Figure's Here...In no way can you Justify 10,000 Lives for the liberation of a Country ,If You Seen your Family Blown apart infront of Your eye's and then where asked to "accept" it in the name of Liberation you'd have a very hard time swallowing it....No?

 

But if fuckin ended the war.

 

Am I? A recent poll of the Iraqi people showed that 3 of 5 believe that they're no better off then before and 4 out of 5 want us gone. (Study reported on National Public Radio last month... I guess these are just liberal lies though huh Mav?)

 

Maverick - Wake up!! Where do you get your news from. The EXACT same tactics are used in Iraq right now as Hiroshima just on a smaller scale in villages that harbor 'insurgents'. The number of Iraqi civilian casualties is being grossly underestimated by the western media. These casualties are partly for the blame of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but at the same time they have the desired affect of fear, such that Iraqi's who are sitting on the fence about whether or not to join a militant group choose not to.


Off the subject - HAVE SOME FUCKING RESPECT - and lose the WTC picture, some people like myself, lost their best friend in the Tragedy and don't need to be reminded of it in that way. I remember matt everyday - I don't need to see a body falling from a burning building to remember the tragedy.

 

with regards to hiroshima and nagasaki..the real question is..What possible reason could there have been NOT to do it? Now regard the way the allies fought the war. We leveled dresden, we bobmed the shit out of tokyo killing around 1 million people, we bombed berlin to hell and back. So, we now have a super bomb, and we should all of a sudden stop bombing cities? 2 bombs to end the war. 200k people died, how many would have died if we had to invade the country? Countless.