Planetarion Forums - Looks like the Iraqis are mounted something like a counter-offensive ...

General Geiger · 3 Apr 2003, 09:19

This is the most constructively defensive move they've made so far, moving troops to block the US moves on Baghdad, on top of shooting down a helicopter and a jet in one night, killing at least seven.

Think this is the best they'll be able to do?

ChubbyChecker · 3 Apr 2003, 09:24

I think they'll be able to put up a much better defence once the street fighting starts, if it does start.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 10:07

Save American lives. Nuke the whole god damn middle east. Cost effective aswell.

Apothos · 3 Apr 2003, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Cost effective aswell.

Not really, unless you plan on dumping the clean-up bill on someone else.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 10:13

I don't think they'll be able to push any heavier gear, but if it comes to entering Baghdad, strategy and local knowledge will play a great role. Iraq has the advantage in both areas due it's their home - homeground advantage in street wars is significant.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Apothos
Not really, unless you plan on dumping the clean-up bill on someone else.

Who mentiond cleaning upp?

Just let it dry off a few hundred years..

Embroglio · 3 Apr 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Apothos
Not really, unless you plan on dumping the clean-up bill on someone else.

They would. :/

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Apothos
Not really, unless you plan on dumping the clean-up bill on someone else.

That'll be UN then.

The Americans are going to dump the real clean-up (on humanitary level) bill of the Iraq war to Europe anyways. Who do you believe will take the hordes of refuqees? How many of them are going to go to the US? Oh, lordy, maybe a dozen. The States will help their own inner economy by giving the rebuilding jobs to their own companies, leaving humanitary help to other UN nations.

How funny.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 10:36

But it's so productive for the Americans. After all, money is what turns the wheels. Everyone tries to grab their piece of the cake. Just the Americans doing it so much better.

Your counter americanistic governments has managed to cloud your vision with 'human rights' etc. Without the $ you won't get anywhere.

Judge · 3 Apr 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
That'll be UN then.

The Americans are going to dump the real clean-up (on humanitary level) bill of the Iraq war to Europe anyways. Who do you believe will take the hordes of refuqees? How many of them are going to go to the US? Oh, lordy, maybe a dozen. The States will help their own inner economy by giving the rebuilding jobs to their own companies, leaving humanitary help to other UN nations.

How funny.

Extremely doubtfull.

The US as the Main aggressor are obliged by international law, to pay the cost of the Humanitarian aid for the Iraqi's.

The UK also has the same obligation (proportional).

That obligation cannot be abrogated by anyone, nor can it be taken on board by the UN.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 10:50

Oh Fudge, The USA was denied the right to attack Iraq by the international law.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 10:54

If I'm not entirely mistaken, didn't some fancy smancy mod remove Gayle's sig due to it's non english nature?

Monkehpimp · 3 Apr 2003, 10:58

the Iraqis just need to turn it into as longer war as possible. The americans seem to kill more americans than the iraqis do, so if they hold out long enough the americans will lose the war for them.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
If I'm not entirely mistaken, didn't some fancy smancy mod remove Gayle's sig due to it's non english nature?

Thank you for your totally inrelevant comment, mister Fancypants.

Now, if we'll continue on the subject now that we got there, smartass. Yes, it was removed. So was my sig. Then her sig was returned because Kura considered 'geeky' language approved, rather than Finnish (my sig at that time). Thus, I translated my sig into Quenya (elvish, comparison to gayle's orcish at that moment), and some mod removed it, removing Gayle's sig too. The next day, they decided to allow foreign languages in signatures.

Next time you attempt to be smart with your cunning wits and overwhelming ignorance, don't do it with me. Thank you.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 11:05

Indeed. Why go through the trouble of loosing military personel?

A few B-52's could have done it much cleaner, faster and effective. Who cares about the Iraqi civilians!? They are suffering, but that's not reason enough to liberate them, so why does killing them all, and as a bonus, kill a mad dictator who is a possible future threat, both towards his own and 'democracy', not equally justified?

Radical Edward · 3 Apr 2003, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Indeed. Why go through the trouble of loosing military personel?

A few B-52's could have done it much cleaner, faster and effective. Who cares about the Iraqi civilians!? They are suffering, but that's not reason enough to liberate them, so why does killing them all, and as a bonus, kill a mad dictator who is a possible future threat, both towards his own and 'democracy', not equally justified?

does this make sense?

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 11:15

Yes, of course, nobody cares about the civilians, but the civilians themselves - if we venture deep into human nature, and try be honest.

But it's considered 'correct behavior' by the international community not to massacre the civilian population during the war, or at least try avoid it by all means possible.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes, of course, nobody cares about the civilians, but the civilians themselves - if we venture deep into human nature, and try be honest.

But it's considered 'correct behavior' by the international community not to massacre the civilian population during the war, or at least try avoid it by all means possible.

But we save them from alot of torture. Isn't that a way of liberating them? They are no longer living in terror. I mean, they are dying now anways. If we stop fighting Saddam's regieme now, he would probably do the job himself. Infact, maybee that's a clue in itself.
After 1991, Saddam killed some 100-150k people. As this war has been an invasion attempt, more than an expelling from Kuwait mission he might just kill a few millions.
If your not living in freedom, your not living at all. Your merly beeing used.

Perle · 3 Apr 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
That'll be UN then.

The Americans are going to dump the real clean-up (on humanitary level) bill of the Iraq war to Europe anyways. Who do you believe will take the hordes of refuqees? How many of them are going to go to the US? Oh, lordy, maybe a dozen. The States will help their own inner economy by giving the rebuilding jobs to their own companies, leaving humanitary help to other UN nations.

How funny.

so??

Thats why we are the most powerfull country in the world.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 11:32

Oh, yes.

Killing one is the ultimate way of liberating one.

Wonder if the people you feel like killing feel the same way.

ChubbyChecker · 3 Apr 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes, of course, nobody cares about the civilians, but the civilians themselves - if we venture deep into human nature, and try be honest.

I like the way you assume that everybody is a callous b*st*rd. Though I think you're very wrong.

Think of George Bush for example. He's the guy that started this war, in order for it to start he's the one who had to give permission, him and him alone.
Don't you think he cares about civilian deaths? Not in a looking good way, or not wanting to lose face kind of way, but in a can't sleep at night kind of way? After all, he is directly responsible for their deaths, don't you think he'd rather see 1,000 civilians die than 10,000?

Marilyn Manson · 3 Apr 2003, 11:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Radical Edward
does this make sense?

"Who cares about all those dead civilians, we're freeing up an opressed people from a ruthless, murderous dictator!"

Is borderline paradoxical when you come to mention it, yes.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
"Who cares about all those dead civilians, we're freeing up an opressed people from a ruthless, murderous dictator!"

Is borderline paradoxical when you come to mention it, yes.

It's paradoxal enough yes, but it doesn't make sense. It was irony, altho an intentionally bad attempt at it.

Ste · 3 Apr 2003, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I like the way you assume that everybody is a callous b*st*rd. Though I think you're very wrong.

Think of George Bush for example. He's the guy that started this war, in order for it to start he's the one who had to give permission, him and him alone.
Don't you think he cares about civilian deaths? Not in a looking good way, or not wanting to lose face kind of way, but in a can't sleep at night kind of way? After all, he is directly responsible for their deaths, don't you think he'd rather see 1,000 civilians die than 10,000?

To be honest I don't think he could care less. It's not just a brave face he's putting on, he's grinning all the time because he doesn't really care. Tony Blair, on the other hand, does seem to care and does seem to be having sleepless nights. George Bush not only sleeps peacefully at night but also during his afternoon nap.
I would actually like to know if he has ever met anyone below the poverty line.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I like the way you assume that everybody is a callous b*st*rd. Though I think you're very wrong.

Think of George Bush for example. He's the guy that started this war, in order for it to start he's the one who had to give permission, him and him alone.
Don't you think he cares about civilian deaths? Not in a looking good way, or not wanting to lose face kind of way, but in a can't sleep at night kind of way? After all, he is directly responsible for their deaths, don't you think he'd rather see 1,000 civilians die than 10,000?

I'm only on the Hobbes-way concerning human nature on deeper levels.

Yes, Bush is the bloke who started the war. But I doubt he'll loose his sleep due the fact that there are a few thousand dead civilians, rather because that might pull down his political support. He's more worried about how people react to the fact that there are dead civilians and it's, in a way, 'his fault', that about the actual fact that there is innocent blood spilled all over Baghdad already.

Now, shoot me if I'm very wrong.

Starbucks · 3 Apr 2003, 11:54

when it gets into street warfare, then there will start to be problems

ala black hawk down style (the film if you have seen it)

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbucks
when it gets into street warfare, then there will start to be problems

ala black hawk down style (the film if you have seen it)

Yes, BHD style, aka what happened in Mogadishu Somalia. It'd be devastating on civilians too (I know Somali person who had a grenade thrown into middle of the place they were hiding with his family from war - the grenade was apparently a mistake - his father threw him self on the grenade, got splattered, and the bloke's face got screwed so badly he's had several operations here in Finland and now, after ten years or so, it's starting to look closely normal, thanks to skin transplants and plastic cirurgy).

Mirai · 3 Apr 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes, BHD style, aka what happened in Mogadishu Somalia. It'd be devastating on civilians too (I know Somali person who had a grenade thrown into middle of the place they were hiding with his family from war - the grenade was apparently a mistake - his father threw him self on the grenade, got splattered, and the bloke's face got screwed so badly he's had several operations here in Finland and now, after ten years or so, it's starting to look closely normal, thanks to skin transplants and plastic cirurgy).

See what happened in Somalia we were unprepared for. We had however many servicemen stuck in a battle with thousands of Somalis. This time, we're strolling in, perfectly prepared for what ever the iraqi's will throw at us.

Marilyn Manson · 3 Apr 2003, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
I'm only on the Hobbes-way concerning human nature on deeper levels.

Did Hobbes ever say humans were fundamentally 'bad'?

As far as I remember, he simply said that we would be rationally brutal to each other in a state of nature.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 12:15

Yes, that's what everyone would assume. Of course, one can NEVER be sure, but you might be right, Mirai. But the streets are, nevertheless, dangerous - a potential death trap.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Did Hobbes ever say humans were fundamentally 'bad'?

As far as I remember, he simply said that we would be rationally brutal to each other in a state of nature.

No, he didn't. But that's not what I refered to.

"Bellum omnium contra omen" was my goal at this point.

And not rationally, rationally, Hobbes believes, humans would form states to support their rational activity, merchandise mainly (A deja vu at this point, a ****ing strong one, of this discussion).

At the state of nature, humans are continually in war with each other. They strive for their own benefits, regardless of other's benefits - one can easily kill another just to reach a goal, without even blinking. It's up to everyone to consider if it's bad. Rationally brutal, maybe, but striving for our own goals, ignoring others, or trampling them on our way if required.

Humans form groups and stripe themselves from the freedom of the state of nature, giving the ultimate power to a dictator, who provides, with the state, requirements for rational activity, capitalistic way, shopping (having difficulties searching the right word, but you understand, hey TRADE). A perfect state, The Leviathan, would look something like this.

Rewards and punishments equals knees, elbows **
Wealth equals muscles
People equal soul
Officers (bureocracy*) equal bones

**(joints that move mucles)
*please correct the right form on this one

An ideal state forms of those (I'm not particurily 100% sure, but it's at least close to that description, it's a month or two since I visited a few classes on Hobbes). An ideal state is, fundamentally a human in state of nature, in war with other states. The function of the state I described above. Of course, nowadays nations tend to form pacts (even bigger 'Humans', 'Leviathans').

Hobbes lecture out.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 12:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes, BHD style, aka what happened in Mogadishu Somalia. It'd be devastating on civilians too (I know Somali person who had a grenade thrown into middle of the place they were hiding with his family from war - the grenade was apparently a mistake - his father threw him self on the grenade, got splattered, and the bloke's face got screwed so badly he's had several operations here in Finland and now, after ten years or so, it's starting to look closely normal, thanks to skin transplants and plastic cirurgy).

It's devestating on the civilians because they are not let out of the darn city. Saddam is more guilty of killing them than Bush. Bush even gave Saddam a chance to let his people not suffer from a war at all if he could only get his family and move the out of there.

This is entirly Saddams fault.

Tietäjä · 3 Apr 2003, 12:38

Well well... I always thought "who shoots kills". Of course, Saddam is a vile dictator, but they should've just had a CIA agent go assassinate him. Forget that.

Okay, the war is entirely Saddams fault. It's Saddams fault that he looks to be threatening to the Americans. It's Saddams fault that US have changed their defence policy to this "stop trouble before they attend" style. It's Saddams fault that Americans didn't want to wait for the weapons' inspectors.

It's ALL SADDAMS FAULT. A bit exaggerated, eh?

Of course, you have some facts base too CO, but you are at least as grossly exaggerating as I did above there.

Ditcher · 3 Apr 2003, 13:22

"I wanted to meet stimulating and interesting people of an ancient culture. And kill them"

So whats the estimation of how many republican guards there are in Baghdad? It sure can get messy as it always does in cities.

Cynical Oracle · 3 Apr 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
~*snip*~

The "People don't kill people. Guns kill people." argument is not bringing you anywhere.

Additionally, the premptive defence strategy was implemented some 50ish years ago. It hasn't been drawn this far before tho.

Subatai · 3 Apr 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Oh Fudge, The USA was denied the right to attack Iraq by the international law.

Laws are worthless without the means to enforce them.