A Time for Support, NOT Condemnation

No matter your thoughts or feelings on the coming deadline given to Iraq, now is, in my mind, a time for prayers of support for all troops who may well find themselves in the honorable profession of enforcing the political decisions of this country's leaders and the leaders of their respective coalition governments.

No matter your race, creed, religion, or political affiliation, every single one of you have representatives in the US, British, Austrailian or other coalition Armed Forces. They deserve our support as people, doing a job that few others have the desire or the will to accomplish.

It will soon be beyond rhetoric,...beyond "resolutions" and cries for peace. One man now has the fate of possibly millions in his hands, and his true colors will be seen by the world, whatever step he decides to take.

Again, please say a quick prayer, whether you are religious or not, for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from around the world about to embark on a journey to free a people of a dictator, and the world of a murderous tyrant. They at least deserve that from the people they have sworn to protect.

Witness
US Army

[Starbucks]

People dying sucks

hope they send in snipers if anything

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
No matter your thoughts or feelings on the coming deadline given to Iraq, now is, in my mind, a time for prayers of support for all troops who may well find themselves in the honorable profession of enforcing the political decisions of this country's leaders and the leaders of their respective coalition governments.


Witness
US Army

Shouldn't we pray for the Iraqi soldiers too?

PS: Are you Tom DeLay by any chance?

[CrashTester]

Originally posted by acropolis
Shouldn't we pray for the Iraqi soldiers too?

Nah, no need - Iraqi soldiers dont have souls.

[Radical Edward]

what is all this about prayer? prayer never solved anything. It just wastes time when you can be making intelligent argument heard, or important actions undertaken.

I've heard Blair speak in the house of commons newly, via CNN. There is no turning back. The forces are there, the ultimatum given; France has claimed it will use veto whatever the new resolution would be, in effect drawing it's support to 1441 back. I think this is only the beginning of something. UK won't and can't stop supporting USA now. As far as I can tell, there are only more poeple joining the cause. France cannot do anything, bar watching their influence throughout the world slip, or chose to support it and lose face.

The UN has outplayed it's part. Now is time for action.

Saddam has claimed there will be a blodbath. This might be worse than we suspected, or it can be fake. Who knows. I will follow the news.

[Pyr0 MK III]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
what is all this about prayer? prayer never solved anything. It just wastes time when you can be making intelligent argument heard, or important actions undertaken.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Mistar Bataur


UK won't and can't stop supporting USA now.

It can if Parliament votes against the motion tabled by the government... that would be interesting to see, and would most likely result in Blair's resignation.

however afaik the Prime Minister still has the power to declare war on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Starbucks]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
however afaik the Prime Minister still has the power to declare war on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

and her majesty the queen has the power to override Blair, and force his resignation

interesting times indeed

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Starbucks
and her majesty the queen has the power to override Blair, and force his resignation

interesting times indeed

It would be fascinating, however I can't see the motion not passing, unfortunately.

[Amoruso]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
It would be fascinating, however I can't see the motion not passing, unfortunately.

Not when labour are increasing the minimum wage by 14% to 4.80 and hour !


Tony Blair is a hero, hurrah !

[Emperorn]

The conscript Iraqi soldiers, who are fighting a desperate defensive war against an overwhelming foe, differ very little from civilians as they do not have any say in whether to be there or not and have as tiny a chance to defend themselves from american bombs as any civilian. The body count amongst the defenders will propably be counted in tens of thousands.

They need your prayers alot more than the gung-ho, vastly superiour attacking party.

[Radical Edward]

the conscripts will undoubtedly surrender and run away from any machinery and or facilties. the only people who will stick around are probably the republican guard. There will be deaths, but I doubt it will be the slaughter that some people say it will.

Originally posted by acropolis
Shouldn't we pray for the Iraqi soldiers too?

PS: Are you Tom DeLay by any chance?

No, and you have a very good point. Most of those soldiers have no idea why they are about to be engaged, nor do they realize WHAT they are about to encounter. God have mercy on their souls.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Emperorn
The conscript Iraqi soldiers, who are fighting a desperate defensive war against an overwhelming foe, differ very little from civilians as they do not have any say in whether to be there or not and have as tiny a chance to defend themselves from american bombs as any civilian. The body count amongst the defenders will propably be counted in tens of thousands.

The conscript Iraqi soldiers will most likely run away or surrender in droves--as they did in 1991. The only troops who will do much fighting are the Republican Guard units, which are not made up of conscripts.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
the conscripts will undoubtedly surrender and run away from any machinery and or facilties. the only people who will stick around are probably the republican guard. There will be deaths, but I doubt it will be the slaughter that some people say it will.

Oh please, it was a slaughter back in -91, I do not believe the US is going to go easier on them this time. Have you any idea how many Iraqi's died 12 years ago?

[Aryn]

if it comes to it.. i pray that a nuclear bomb will drop close enough to me that i die instantly.. rather than suffer years of radiation poisoning

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Oh please, it was a slaughter back in -91, I do not believe the US is going to go easier on them this time. Have you any idea how many Iraqi's died 12 years ago?

about 10,000. definitely not the plural form that you suggest. considering how much weaker they are and how much stronger the US is now, they are more than likely to surrender. as I said, that may not be the case for the republican guard though.

Originally posted by Aryn
if it comes to it.. i pray that a nuclear bomb will drop close enough to me that i die instantly.. rather than suffer years of radiation poisoning

I pray that peoples' imagination does not run riot like this.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
all troops who may well find themselves in the honorable profession of enforcing the political decisions of this country's leaders

I cant tell if this thread is a joke or not, but if it is then its top class trolling.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Oh please, it was a slaughter back in -91, I do not believe the US is going to go easier on them this time. Have you any idea how many Iraqi's died 12 years ago?

There is a difference tho imho.

Back then the iraqi soldiers had just fought a war and won (against kuwait). They figured their leadership was good, and they were being put in a war they could win if they fought hard enough.

Now they know better. They know they are going to lose, and they know that the harder they fight the more likely they will die.

Anyway, I will pray for all the soldiers. I think both sides have been betrayed by their political leadership, and I am just hoping for minimum casualties (not cause I'm a whiny liberal type, but because every casualty is going to add to the hatred that this will create:/).

[Radical Edward]

incidentally, does anyone know if the US plans on using those rather fabulous and safe depleted uranium shells again?

Originally posted by Nodrog
I cant tell if this thread is a joke or not, but if it is then its top class trolling.

It's not a joke. Put aside your petty little attitude and think of people beyond yourself for a change.

[Scoot951]

I fail to see how someone who just said "Screw the Iraqis" can act so high and mighty.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Bush's speech was fantastic. It was like listening to the ProWar lot on here.

ps. As nod pointed out earlier, BUSH IS A COMMUNIST

[Rommel]

u just know that saddam is going to be views as a martyr in the middle east and as a result of the chimpanzee in power in america the situations gonna get worse :/

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Bush's speech was fantastic. It was like listening to the ProWar lot on here.

ps. As nod pointed out earlier, BUSH IS A COMMUNIST

Actually, Bush's speach was worse. Many on these forums are way more litterate than him, and this considering he didn't even write the damn thing himself.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
about 10,000. definitely not the plural form that you suggest. considering how much weaker they are and how much stronger the US is now, they are more than likely to surrender. as I said, that may not be the case for the republican guard though.

It is definitively the plural form i suggest, I dare say your number is wrong. These numbers are from the CNN anno 2001:

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

As it says in the quote, the number is disputed. According to he book "War and Public Health", published in 2000 by the American Public Health Association, there were between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. Even the most modest estimates put the number between 20.000 and 35.000 killed. In any case it is a staggering amount and the number taken prisoner (60.000) is not very big in comparison, no matter which numbers you choose to believe.

Acropolis: I grant there are differences, you could also have added that the Iraqi army is smaller today than 12 years ago. But the war in itself is different, now the Iraqi soldiers are fighting an alltogether defensive war with nowhere to run, whereas the last time they were only thrown out of Kuwait. It it difficult to judge their fighting spirit in advance.

/edit. A history professor here in Finland pointed all this out in a published letter to the editor. He commented on when asking someone about the casualties of Desert Storm, the answer received is usually along the lines of "oh hardly any, a couple of hundred". Very few seem to care about the Iraqi casualties. He also maintained that only a country without a conscript tradition like the US can draw such a big distinction between civilian and army casualties.

[Starbucks]

Aryn

Thats not whats gonna happen

They are not gonna let you canucks off lightly


.....they are going to kill all hockey players

Originally posted by Scoot951
I fail to see how someone who just said "Screw the Iraqis" can act so high and mighty.

There's a great deal you "fail to see".

The Iraqi soldiers who wish to defend Saddam and his regime will surely be killed unless they hee the messages being broadcast and dropped over Iraqi positions as we speak to lay down their arms and surrender.

If they don't, they will be engaged with the full might of the coalition forces.

If Saddam would do as asked, no blood need be shed, on EITHER side.

Like I said, it is in HIS hands now.

No more talk.

Saddam has had more than 12 years to comply with something that should have taken a a year at best. It is obvious he gives a damn about the UN and its resolutions, why should we hamstring ourselves?

We have played by the rules, and we are STILL within our rights to use aggression, according to the ineffectual and wholly superfluous UN and the joke of a security council.

You people want it both ways,...but that's impossible.. The US is blamed for the UN NOT doing something about Israel, but DOING something about Saddam Hussein.

The major difference here is the threat level. The Israelis could have flattened any middle-eastern country it so desired, but hasn't. When hit by Scud missiles during the first Gulf War, they could have unleashe their wrath on Iraq, yet they didn't. Saddam Hussein had a minor problem with a fgroup he didn't like, so he gassed a whole town,...women, children, everybody.

THAT is the major difference in this matter. The Jews have what's called "rational restraint",...Saddam Husseign has a "God Complex".

Who would YOU trust with ANYTHING more than a slingshot?

I just read updated news. Iraqi milita will deflect coalition force missiles with shotguns.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sub]

I hope every single American soldier (and UK soldier) dies in a bloodbath. It would be even more ironic if it was from chemical weapons.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
THAT is the major difference in this matter. The Jews have what's called "rational restraint",...Saddam Husseign has a "God Complex".

If Israel an example of "rational restraint", then Atilla the Hun is one of the most restrained people in history.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Iniluki
This doesnt mean the English Squadies don't have my whole support. They do, they are just following orders.

Bush said that following orders was no excuse!

(Although war crimes tribunals say that's only so for Crimes against Humanity)

[Nondescript Human]

Hope casualties are minimised on both sides.

However, more people will probably die in Africa etc from poverty, hunger and disease than from the war during each day of the Iraq conflict (/speculation).

[JonnyBGood]

I'm laughing too hard to either support or condemn properly. Instead I'll offer my condolences to the American and Iraqi people for having a pair of right idiots running their respective governments.

[Dante Hicks]

I do not support this war, therefore I do not support the soldiers fighting our side of it.

In an ideal world, both sides armies would mutiny and refuse to fight, but that ain't going to happen.

If the "allied" forces sustain any serious casualties (unlikely), they'll not have my sympathy.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'm laughing too hard to either support or condemn properly. Instead I'll offer my condolences to the American and Iraqi people for having a pair of right idiots running their respective governments.

The iraqis have an excuse, the Americans dont.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I do not support this war, therefore I do not support the soldiers fighting our side of it.

In an ideal world, both sides armies would mutiny and refuse to fight, but that ain't going to happen.

If the "allied" forces sustain any serious casualties (unlikely), they'll not have my sympathy.

The fact that youre too scared to go over there and honorably enforce the political decisions of your country's leaders does not give you the right to critisize those who do.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The iraqis have an excuse, the Americans dont.

Actually, they do. Bush didn't win the election (and certainly not the popular vote).

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I do not support this war, therefore I do not support the soldiers fighting our side of it.

In an ideal world, both sides armies would mutiny and refuse to fight, but that ain't going to happen.

If the "allied" forces sustain any serious casualties (unlikely), they'll not have my sympathy.

I have a lot of friends over there though:/

And we need a military. And we need a military that does what it is told. A soldier that is unwilling to risk his life to follow orders is a useless soldier. A soldier that is willing to risk his life to follow orders is also a soldier that is willing to risk other people's lives to follow orders too.

Someone getting a splinter while on a mission to napalm a preschool would get my sympathy. They hurt. The officers and politicians involved completely disgust me though.

Oh well.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Actually, they do. Bush didn't win the election (and certainly not the popular vote).

Whereas the Iraqis voted 100% for Saddam, and deserve whatever they get!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
IAnd we need a military. And we need a military that does what it is told.

Yes, because militarys that "do what they are told" have had such a great effect on humanity throughout history. How many times does a system have to fail before people admit it is broken?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yes, because militarys that "do what they are told" have had such a great effect on humanity throughout history. How many times does a system have to fail before people admit it is broken?

People admit systems are broken?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yes, because militarys that "do what they are told" have had such a great effect on humanity throughout history. How many times does a system have to fail before people admit it is broken?

Eh.

I would put officers as responsible for actions they order. The enlisted types usually aren't given enough information to know what they are doing anyway.

And plenty of atrocities have come from military disobedience as well, coups that lead to massive oppression and dictatorships.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
I have a lot of friends over there though:/

And we need a military. And we need a military that does what it is told. A soldier that is unwilling to risk his life to follow orders is a useless soldier. A soldier that is willing to risk his life to follow orders is also a soldier that is willing to risk other people's lives to follow orders too.

In countries where there is apalling educational or social standards I might "allow" the fact people enlist without really knowing what's going on.

In the United States, you have libraries. You have schools. You even have a free press and access to fairly wide range of sources. If someone still chooses to make their job the army then fair enough. But if they go along with orders like these, they lose all sympathy from me.

The politicians are obviously worse, but they'd be useless without an army to order around.

I have no time for people who turn off their moral compass. They are moral agents, just like you and I. They still know what's right and wrong. Or at least they should.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I have no time for people who turn off their moral compass. They are moral agents, just like you and I. They still know what's right and wrong. Or at least they should.

In any reduced circumstance, the morality of the situation can be disconnected from the morality of the greater action.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
..the honorable profession of enforcing the political decisions of this country's leaders and the leaders of their respective coalition governments...

.......................................................


fvck off and die.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
In any reduced circumstance, the morality of the situation can be disconnected from the morality of the greater action.

It's not like one needs some sort of gift to see the consequences of the greater action. They are not (Afaik) denied newspapers for instance.

They may be going along for (micro) moral reasons - e.g. so they don't let down their mates, but it's still fundamentally immoral, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
It's not like one needs some sort of gift to see the consequences of the greater action. They are not (Afaik) denied newspapers for instance.

They may be going along for (micro) moral reasons - e.g. so they don't let down their mates, but it's still fundamentally immoral, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that.

You can't say that. What if they're just bringing along their weapons to carry some flowers on?!?!?!

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
In countries where there is apalling educational or social standards I might "allow" the fact people enlist without really knowing what's going on.

In the United States, you have libraries. You have schools. You even have a free press and access to fairly wide range of sources. If someone still chooses to make their job the army then fair enough. But if they go along with orders like these, they lose all sympathy from me.

The politicians are obviously worse, but they'd be useless without an army to order around.

I have no time for people who turn off their moral compass. They are moral agents, just like you and I. They still know what's right and wrong. Or at least they should.

Thanks to our plentiful media, we know for absolute sure that we have no clue if this war has just cause. Tough to even say anymore what would be 'just cause.'

A true soldier is a gun. He is pointed, and fired, as needed. The gun that questions when it's trigger is pulled is the gun that is useless (as I said); moral compass being something that needs to be surgically removed. I'm all in favor of war crimes (ICC still seems silly to me) to be brought against whoever pulls the trigger (the officers), or whoever requested the 'hit' (the politicians).

Obviously if the soldier is ordered to torture or rape then he should say no. But far more often we have orders to paint building X with a laser or press the red button at such and such a time. Perhaps pressing that button will prevent the soldier's family from being killed by terrorists, perhaps it will just kill innocents He has no way of knowing.

So of course you come to argue in favor of 'gun control.' A world without militaries. And I'll be the first person to favor it the day it is an option.