When I was in college economic class they said that the defining characteristic of fascism was the state control of industry.
You can refer to me as, “the famous Dr. Richardm”.
[quote=“dearpeter”]BTW, tungsten makes a perfectly good substitute for DU if you really need your anti-tank shells to be the best possible. But tungsten doesn’t combust leaving radioactive dust all over the place for civilians and kids to breathe in.
Open your eyes.[/quote]
Dear dearpeter,
I really don’t want to butt in on your discussion with Tigerman, so please accept the question I would like to ask you in its most limited scope.
Thus:
---- if you you think that the US government is engaged in Iraq in order to personally profit the current members of the administration with ties to oil and defense concerns – fine.
---- if you think that the US government is engaged in Iraq in order to impose American hegemony over the Middle East as part of an egomaniacal American Empire plan – fine.
Suggestions such as these could go on forever, and frankly I don’t think that anyone who is convinced of one position is ever going to be conviced by the other side in a forum discussion. So you and TM can battle that out if you feel like it.
My question for you is far more limited, and relates to your quote above:
Question: Do you honestly believe that the US military is using weapons with the express purpose of killing “civilians and children”?
Note: I’m not asking whether you think “Well, they use those because they are more effective, and they don’t care whether civilians and children die” (which would be a damning enough indictment in itself, if true), but whether the US military is using such weapons with the express goal of murdering innocent civilians and children.
Your quote above made it sound like the latter, and I just wanted to double-check. :s Because the idea that the US was undertaking activities in Iraq not for power, not for ego, not for misguided patriotism, not for oil, not for profit, but just to kill innocent people for the fun of it — well that is is a charge that I have never seen even on the most virulently anti-Bush websites or forums anywhere. 
You honestly think that children and civilians are being specifically targeted because the US troops (or their civilian commanders) get joy out of killing kids? You seriously believe that?
Utter nonsense.
The target in Fallujah were insurgents and terrorists. The civillian population was not targeted. In fact, it was asked to leave.
The terrorists deliberately place themselves in positions so that innocent civillians are likely to be injured in an attack… and doing so contravenes the Geneva Convention.
Why not? Its a whole lot better than not telling them.
Moreover, the Geneva Convention prefers that civilians be moved out of harms way whenever possible:
[quote=“Protocol II - Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977”]Art. 17. Prohibition of forced movement of civilians
The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
[/quote]
Open your mind.
Opening up Fallujah to journalists to see for themselves might aid the mind-opening process about what really happened there. Fallujah has been off-limits to journalists since the U.S. cleaned it out a year-and-a-half ago.
What do you think really happened there?
The US asked the civilians to leave. It gave the civilians a period of time to evacuate the city. In doing so, it also gave the insurgents and terrorists time to dig in and to collect civilian hostages.
The insurgents and terrorists placed themselves among innocent civilians and terrorized those civilians and conducted military operations from their base among innocent civilians.
The US was justified in going after those terrorists and insurgents dug in at Fallujah among innocent civilians.
The US took steps to minimize civilian casualties. The insurgents and terrorists took measures to maximize civilian casualties.
So, what do you think the journalists would fing in Fallujah? Or, what do you think they would look for in Fallujah? Would they look for the unfortunate civilians kept in the city by the insurgents and terrorists and tell the awful story of their terrible and pathetic fates? Will they then report that as the “real” story of Fallujah?
I know what I think.
More evidence of the Evil American Presence…
More Terrorized Children In Iraq !
What do you think really happened there?
The US asked the civilians to leave. It gave the civilians a period of time to evacuate the city. In doing so, it also gave the insurgents and terrorists time to dig in and to collect civilian hostages.
The insurgents and terrorists placed themselves among innocent civilians and terrorized those civilians and conducted military operations from their base among innocent civilians.
The US was justified in going after those terrorists and insurgents dug in at Fallujah among innocent civilians.
The US took steps to minimize civilian casualties. The insurgents and terrorists took measures to maximize civilian casualties.
So, what do you think the journalists would fing in Fallujah? Or, what do you think they would look for in Fallujah? Would they look for the unfortunate civilians kept in the city by the insurgents and terrorists and tell the awful story of their terrible and pathetic fates? Will they then report that as the “real” story of Fallujah?
I know what I think.[/quote]
Tigerman,
All I know is that journalists and aid workers have been barred from entering Fallujah since the last U.S. assault in November 2004. How do you come by detailed knowledge as to what actually happened there during the fighting?
Isn’t fear of journalists and what they may report a hallmark of a totalitarian mindset? Is the only thing stopping the Bush administration and its supporters from muzzling all journalists everywhere simply the fact that they lack the power to do it and not because they believe it would be wrong, anti-democratic?
And another voice…
[quote]CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment
by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims’ civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims. “We are similar to a Muslim NAACP,” says its communications director, Ibrahim Hooper.[1] Its official mission
There was at least one embedded reporter in the battle. Darrin Mortenson provided first-hand accounts for the North County News, a San Diego newspaper.
He reported on the use of WP.
I believe that the use of WP is lawful, if not targeted at civilians.
Nonetheless, we know that the media made a big deal regarding the US’ lawful use of WP at the battle of Fallujah.
How long did that fuss last? about 12 months. The media harped and pestered about the US military’s use of WP until it was finally shown that the use was indeed lawful. Amazing, isn’t it, that nobody from the media was able to do a simple Internet search to ascertain that the US use of WP was lawful, under the terms of the Geneva Convention… Amazing.
The media would prefer to look at any story in a way that shines a most unfavorable light on the US.
I ask you again… what is it that you think happened at Fallujah?
There was at least one embedded reporter in the battle. Darrin Mortenson provided first-hand accounts for the North County News, a San Diego newspaper.
[/quote]
I know of one other reporter, Ahmed Mansur, an Al Jazeera correspondent, who was onsite and actually in Fallujah during the siege. Democracy Now interviewed him, if anyone’s interested in that perspective.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
I ask you again… what is it that you think happened at Fallujah?[/quote]
I don’t know. All I know is journalists and aid workers have been barred from entering Fallujah since November, 2004 and reporting on the situation there.
Uhhh…no. Al Jezeera does appear to have a bit of an Anti-Coalition Forces slant. But thanks for posting the link.
He was not in Fallujah for the November 2004 battle (the last battle). He was there in April 2004.
[quote=“Hobbes”]
I’m not asking whether you think “Well, they use those because they are more effective, and they don’t care whether civilians and children die” (which would be a damning enough indictment in itself, if true), but whether the US military is using such weapons with the express goal of murdering innocent civilians and children.
Your quote above made it sound like the latter, and I just wanted to double-check. Confused Because the idea that the US was undertaking activities in Iraq not for power, not for ego, not for misguided patriotism, not for oil, not for profit, but just to kill innocent people for the fun of it — well that is is a charge that I have never seen even on the most virulently anti-Bush websites or forums anywhere.[/quote]
Well, no. I never thought of it that way. But your comment reminds me that it certainly is possible. If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Chris Hedges, who was the NYTimes Middle East Bureau Chief. Here is what he wrote in Harpers about what he saw in Ramallah. Now this doesn’t prove the US military decided to kill kids for fun, but if a whole patrol of Israeli soldiers can do it, why shouldn’t we accept that it is possible some US military officials could do it.
[quote][size=75]I sit in the shade of palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi’s bring me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice.
Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias
[quote=“dearpeter”]One final thing. Tigerman, I simply cannot defeat your logic:
Sure. Whatever you say. I’m sure they wouldn’t lie about it. “They were justified.” I know you really believe that, and I can never change your mind. But you believe it on faith.[/quote]
Huh? On WTF do you base any of your idiotic assertions? You believe that Israeli soldiers massacred a number of innocent Palestinians and thus you are certain that US soldiers do the same. Show me the evidence of deliberate attacks targeting civilians in Iraq or STFU.
Do you deny that the terroists/insurgents position themselves in mosques and among civilian populations? Do you realize that doing so is a violation of the Geneva Conventions?
That statement is so stupid… I really don’t know how to respond.
Huh? WTF are you talking about?
What exactly are you complaining about? What specific act are you complaining about?
Your statement above illustrates an appalling ignorance. How do you simply discount the vast majority of Iraqis who do want to build a functioning Iraqi state? How do you so casually totally discount the millions of ordinary Iraqis who braved death threats and attempts to vote in free elections?
Do you even have a clue as to who it is setting up roadside bombs and killing innocent Iraqi civilians as a matter of objective?
He was not in Fallujah for the November 2004 battle (the last battle). He was there in April 2004.[/quote] Yes, that’s correct.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Uhhh…no. Al Jezeera does appear to have a bit of an Anti-Coalition Forces slant. But thanks for posting the link.[/quote]
Sure it’s got that slant. But why not read it anyways? All part of that solicitation of contrary opinions principle. (Eh, don’t bother. It’s not that informative. Chasing down his articles might be more rewarding though.)
To compare two different armies is a dubious affair in the most even of circumstances. To compare a drafted army active in it’s own back yard (which has a long vile history of gruesome political violence), with a volunteer army active far from home, in an area which it is not readily familiar, is futile and is perhaps only attempted for the propaganda value such a comparison can have.
War IS Hell on Earth. People, especially non-combatants ALWAYS die. In any war, and in any place, and at any point in history civilians (especially women and children) have always suffered.
And in many wars, especially those that approximate a civil war, irregular forces, when faced with owerwhelming opposing force have always sought to merge themselves with the civilian population. This happened on a regular basis in both The Thirty Years War, and many of the colonial or native insurgent wars in North America., to name but two familiar examples. It is only in the last century or so that it has been deemed unacceptable to put whole cities to the sword in response. And when a regular, disciplined army engages an irregular force that hides behind civilians (even if that is their SOLE tactical option) the revulsion and disgust felt by Soldiers, not to mention a supreme tactical neccesity on the part of the regular force, makes it very difficult for them to fix up an exact response that will make everyone happy.
Mistakes happen in the field. Innocents die. Such is War. There’s no getting around this fact. What one would do well to remember is that disciplined armies constantly train to minimize mistakes that cost lives. And any well led army will make mistakes, just the same as it will do some good for the local community. Unfortunatly, the negative events are always more regconizable than the good deeds. This especially is true in the Age of the Media.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]To compare two different armies is a dubious affair in the most even of circumstances. To compare a drafted army active in it’s own back yard (which has a long vile history of gruesome political violence), with a volunteer army active far from home, in an area which it is not readily familiar, is futile and is perhaps only attempted for the propaganda value such a comparison can have.
War IS Hell on Earth. People, especially non-combatants ALWAYS die. In any war, and in any place, and at any point in history civilians (especially women and children) have always suffered.
And in many wars, especially those that approximate a civil war, irregular forces, when faced with owerwhelming opposing force have always sought to merge themselves with the civilian population. This happened on a regular basis in both The Thirty Years War, and many of the colonial or native insurgent wars in North America., to name but two familiar examples. It is only in the last century or so that it has been deemed unacceptable to put whole cities to the sword in response. And when a regular, disciplined army engages an irregular force that hides behind civilians (even if that is their SOLE tactical option) the revulsion and disgust felt by Soldiers, not to mention a supreme tactical neccesity on the part of the regular force, makes it very difficult for them to fix up an exact response that will make everyone happy.
Mistakes happen in the field. Innocents die. Such is War. There’s no getting around this fact. What one would do well to remember is that disciplined armies constantly train to minimize mistakes that cost lives. And any well led army will make mistakes, just the same as it will do some good for the local community. Unfortunatly, the negative events are always more regconizable than the good deeds. This especially is true in the Age of the Media.[/quote]
At what point does collateral damage become atrocity on your civilian casualties scale? Presumably, for example, My Lai would be an atrocity but dropping bunker buster bombs on the al-Saa restaurant in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad in an (unsuccessful) attempt to kill Saddam would not?
Why not? Where do you draw the line?