Why Iraq killing continues: No declaration of surrender!

[Iamme]

I have never heard of this being brought up, have you?

When we bombed Japan...what happened? The emporer surrendered! When you have a war that is 'played by the game', you have war first; then when someone defeats the opposing army, the loser surrenders.

But because Saddam Hussein was either killed, or is on the run (which we think he is)...he never surrendered when *Bush* determined that we *won* the war. "Says WHO", go the Iraqi's, that are behind Saddam. Bush declared a victory, but *they* never declared that they lost! They laugh. We think we won because we secured Bagdad. They probably say, "So?"

Any comments?

[Iamme]

BTW...the 15 soldiers killed today represent the highest death toll...since the war beGAN!

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Iamme
Bush declared a victory, but *they* never declared that they lost! They laugh. We think we won because we secured Bagdad. They probably say, "So?"

Any comments?

Well, everyone knows that the United States can go anywhere and just plant a flag to declare land under their control. It's always been done that way.

I don't know what's wrong with those Iraqis. Maybe it's all that nerve gas they have there - affecting their brains.

[Zep]

Here's MY declaration:

"OK, on behalf of all the Good Guys who invaded Iraq to free it from the woeful and terrible dictator, Saddam, I hereby declare that the war for Iraq has been WON. By our side. Thank you."

There. That should settle it. Those nasty Iraqis will stop soon enough after hearing that.

I...HAVE...SPOKEN !!!

Signed
ZEP

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Zep

I...HAVE...SPOKEN !!!

Signed
ZEP

To which The Bad Guys (tm) would probably respond:

WE...WILL...IGNORE !!!

Signed
The Bad Guys

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Chaos


To which The Bad Guys (tm) would probably respond:

WE...WILL...IGNORE !!!

Signed
The Bad Guys

Interesting you label them the bad guys. I'd say their neither good nor bad, they're simply fighting against what they see as invaders in their country.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


Interesting you label them the bad guys. I'd say their neither good nor bad, they're simply fighting against what they see as invaders in their country.

No, they're bad guys. Relgious fanatics, and extremists fighting for a totalitarian cause is a bad thing.

[ImpyTimpy]

How do you know that is who does the fighting? Your psychic friend told you so? For all we know they might be p*ssed off Iraqis who had enough of a foreign presence in their country. For all we know it could be the father's/brother's/sister's/mother's of dead Iraqis civilians killed during the war.

For all we know you accept whatever you're told without doing any form of critical thinking ;)

Originally posted by Tony


No, they're bad guys. Relgious fanatics, and extremists fighting for a totalitarian cause is a bad thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
How do you know that is who does the fighting? Your psychic friend told you so? For all we know they might be p*ssed off Iraqis who had enough of a foreign presence in their country. For all we know it could be the father's/brother's/sister's/mother's of dead Iraqis civilians killed during the war.

For all we know you accept whatever you're told without doing any form of critical thinking ;)




I see you're skeptical when judging other's opinions but not your own. Check this out. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2195244)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tony


No, they're bad guys. Relgious fanatics, and extremists fighting for a totalitarian cause is a bad thing.

Well as we, the self proclaimed good guys, can't agree on why we started the war in the first place, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that we know what the opposition are fighting for?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nikk

Well as we, the self proclaimed good guys, can't agree on why we started the war in the first place, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that we know what the opposition are fighting for?

Are you only skeptical of positions with which you disagree? How come you didnt quote ImpyTimpy?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chaos
To which The Bad Guys (tm) would probably respond:

WE...WILL...IGNORE !!!

Signed
The Bad Guys But surely everyone will agree with ME??! After all, I'M the boss in our house, not them! So they have to listen to ME!! ME-ME-ME-ME-ME !!!! It's all about ME !!!

And anyone who doesn't listen to ME must, by definition, be a "bad guy," OK?

I mean, that's how it's ALWAYS been - I always play the cowboy and other kids always play the Indians...







Need I add... :i:

[ImpyTimpy]

Right, care to tell me where I stated specifically that the people fighting against the American occupation are not religous extremists? Or did I say that they might not be? So far all you've done is provide an example that this war attracts religous fanatics. You are yet to provide an example that the active resistance of Iraqi people is only made up of the said militant terrorists... Or are you honestly going to say that is so because it just is?

From your own article:


But allied forces are still struggling to figure out the dimensions and composition of the opponent they now face in Iraq.

"We are quite blind there," said the head of an intelligence agency in Europe. He added: "The Americans and Brits know very little about this enemy. They are trying to fight an enemy they cannot see."

Now will you retract your statement or will you keep saying you know who the fighters in Iraq are...


Originally posted by Tony



I see you're skeptical when judging other's opinions but not your own. Check this out. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2195244)

[ImpyTimpy]

Are you only capable of repeating the same line or will you actually address the points raised?

Originally posted by Tony


Are you only skeptical of positions with which you disagree? How come you didnt quote ImpyTimpy?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
How do you know that is who does the fighting? Your psychic friend told you so? For all we know they might be p*ssed off Iraqis who had enough of a foreign presence in their country. For all we know it could be the father's/brother's/sister's/mother's of dead Iraqis civilians killed during the war.

For all we know you accept whatever you're told without doing any form of critical thinking ;)



We do know one thing. Those who have been neutralized were not in military uniform.


Since only combatants may lawfully participate directly in armed conflict, noncombatants that do so are acting unlawfully and are considered illegal combatants. More importantly, civilian personnel who are illegal combatants constitute a legitimate military target, can be legally prosecuted for their wartime actions, and do not enjoy the same prisoner of war protections as lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions.


Link (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/klein.html)

[Zep]

Sorry to shout but...

THE SHRUB HAS CALLED TIME ON THIS, SO THE WAR IS OVER! OK? OK ???

Just because some misguided fools think the game is still on doesn't mean that it is. They should just stop being so mean-spirited and accept the umpire's call on this. And stop changing into other clothes and pretending to be the designated batter. They should really play fair next time.

Besides, it's really time to go home for milk and cookies and Mom's apple-pie.

:i:

[ImpyTimpy]

Does that somehow stop them from attacking the U.S. forces? Let's face it, there's no way Iraq could win the war outright. This way they can keep picking off the U.S. forces until someone says enough and they finally leave or you kill everyone out of uniform...

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


We do know one thing. Those who have been neutralized were not in military uniform.

[reprise]

Hey ImpyTimpy, let's go invade some foreign country and then tell their people the rules under which they're allowed to defend themselves and their nation...

Let's declared some unpopulated wasteland an official battlefield and everyone who wants to wage war on another nation can send their troops to wage war against the other nation's troops on this designated battleground.

[corplinx]

I just think the body counts coming from Iraq are negligible. The people making a mountain out of a molehill over it are the same ones that wouldnt support the war in the first place. So what do you expect them to do?

Yes, we are putting _our_ troops in harm's way. Foreign troops are patrolling the secured areas of the county while the americans are working the roughest deadliest parts of the country where there are still ex-military.

Afghanistan is the same way, we've been ferreting out remnants for a good while and have made huge progress.

The rebuilding Iraq is nothing short of a success. I think thats why people are so steamed. They concentrate on a few bodies because they know the marks out there are squeamish. In truth, the rebuilding to pre-war levels was rapid despite criticisms of "they didnt plan". Reminds me of the pundits accusing the war of being bogged down the week before Baghdad fell.

Baghdad fell.
The electricity is back on.
Most of the country is safe and practically self-ruling.
Yes, people are still dieing and there are remnants still in the country.

Did we need a surrender? It might have helped. Saddam surrendered before and still tried to assassinate a president and continued to target planes in no-fly zones. I'm not sure surrender means anything to Iraqi military remnants.

[reprise]

Afghanistan is the same way, we've been ferreting out remnants for a good while and have made huge progress.

I can't possibly imagine why the Iraqi's aren't eager to enjoy the same post-war benefits (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133100) as the people of Afghanistan currently enjoy...

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by reprise
Hey ImpyTimpy, let's go invade some foreign country and then tell their people the rules under which they're allowed to defend themselves and their nation...

Let's declared some unpopulated wasteland an official battlefield and everyone who wants to wage war on another nation can send their troops to wage war against the other nation's troops on this designated battleground.

First you have to tell the people that they harbour terrorists and have deadly chemical and biological weapons. You also have to form some catch phrases like "axis of evil", "coalition of the willing" and throw around "you're either with us or against us". Make numerous remarks about patriotism etc and you're pretty much set.

Don't worry about proving the existence of those WMD's though. After you're done with the war nobody will remember about that anyway. Also when resistance is encountered simply look the other way and wave your hands around a lot telling people you're building a democracy and how happy people will be once you're done.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by corplinx
I just think the body counts coming from Iraq are negligible.
Tell that to the families of the 17 soldiers killed yesterday. :rolleyes:

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by corplinx
I just think the body counts coming from Iraq are negligible. The people making a mountain out of a molehill over it are the same ones that wouldnt support the war in the first place. So what do you expect them to do?The daily and continuing casualties being inflicted on what is supposed to be a "liberating" army are most disturbing to those of us who were assured that the war was over. One doesn't expect a "liberated" people to slaughter their saviors in such numbers. As the guerillas become better equipped, it appears that U.S. troops, and other outsiders, in Iraq may become fish in a barrel for anyone who wants to come in and take potshots at them. And Iraqis aren't the only folks in that area who'd like to tweak our nose, so groups from all over could show up. Added to the disturbing loss of life is our uncertainty about when and whether the carnage will end. A guerilla campaign can go on for years, and the desert-dwellers seem adept at it. The impact on U.S. morale and the decline in U.S. military enlistments, in both the regular forces and the reserves, can reduce our ability to engage in other, and I would hope more necessary, campaigns in the future. Of course, the money it's costing us to occupy Iraq is most important, too. What Bush will do to remedy or cast a favorable light on all this as an election approaches will be interesting to see.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by reprise
Hey ImpyTimpy, let's go invade some foreign country and then tell their people the rules under which they're allowed to defend themselves and their nation...

Let's declared some unpopulated wasteland an official battlefield and everyone who wants to wage war on another nation can send their troops to wage war against the other nation's troops on this designated battleground.

Uh, it's called the Geneva Convention. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the only country actually expected to abide by the "rules of engagement" is the US. Sorry, my bad.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by plindboe

Tell that to the families of the 17 soldiers killed yesterday. :rolleyes:

Better yet, tell them that their sacrifice was for nothing.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by plindboe

Tell that to the families of the 17 soldiers killed yesterday. :rolleyes:

Give me their phone numbers slick.

[Skeptic]

Interesting you label them the bad guys. I'd say their neither good nor bad, they're simply fighting against what they see as invaders in their country.

As Socrates already noted, no evil person ever thinks he is evil. There is always a justification. But taking the evil person's justification at face value is silly.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


Interesting you label them the bad guys. I'd say their neither good nor bad, they're simply fighting against what they see as invaders in their country.

"bad guys" (tm) was the only thing I could label them without our resident moralizers having fits that I "think the same way terrorists do". Well, apart from "EVIL guys" (copyright: Skeptic, 2003). But I said it before: the E-word has no place in debate.

[Tmy]

is this type of resistance commonplace?? What happend after the Germans surrendered. Im sure that wasnt the end of Allied deaths. I would think that id be common for occupiers to be targeted by disgruntled locals.

I'm bothered by people who belittle militray deaths and make dopey comparaisons to the death rates in US cities and other statistics games.

In my parts we recently had funerals for soilders who were killed. It was quite an emotional scene to see those families. It also burns me up that the families of the 911 victims will see more government money than the families of the dead soldiers.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos
But I said it before: the E-word has no place in debate.

Why not? If the debate involves evil, or a discussion of what is or is not evil, why avoid the word?

[Skeptic]

What happend after the Germans surrendered. Im sure that wasnt the end of Allied deaths.

Not including accidents or criminal murder, it was. The supposed "werewolf" resistance movement in nazi Germany never amounted to anything at all, nor had the feared mass samurai attacks on Americans in Japan ever materialized.

[Skeptic]

Well, apart from "EVIL guys" (copyright: Skeptic, 2003).

I wish! Of course, it wasn't my creation. Recognizing evil is as old as civilization, if not older; all great writers wrote about it. Just because the term can be abused doesn't mean evil doesn't exist. In fact, it is precisely due to its power that the term IS abused in the first place.

The "evil doesn't exist" and "it's all a matter of your point of view" nonsense, on the other hand, is a minor modern aberration, which nobody takes seriously for a moment--at least not when THEY are the victims of evil. It is the kind of "objective and dispassionate" viewpoint that only the ignorant of reality can espouse.

[ImpyTimpy]

You do realise you have to first show that the person is actually evil. This is the point I made - that we don't know about these people. Using your form of arguments however I could go on saying the moon is made of green cheese so it can't be grey therefore the moon landing was faked because if we were to take NASA's word for it at face value it'd be silly.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Interesting you label them the bad guys. I'd say their neither good nor bad, they're simply fighting against what they see as invaders in their country.

As Socrates already noted, no evil person ever thinks he is evil. There is always a justification. But taking the evil person's justification at face value is silly.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Chaos


"bad guys" (tm) was the only thing I could label them without our resident moralizers having fits that I "think the same way terrorists do". Well, apart from "EVIL guys" (copyright: Skeptic, 2003). But I said it before: the E-word has no place in debate.

Aha, fair enough. I sure wouldn't want to defend the idea that things aren't black and white either.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, apart from "EVIL guys" (copyright: Skeptic, 2003).

I wish! Of course, it wasn't my creation. Recognizing evil is as old as civilization, if not older; all great writers wrote about it. Just because the term can be abused doesn't mean evil doesn't exist. In fact, it is precisely due to its power that the term IS abused in the first place.

The "evil doesn't exist" and "it's all a matter of your point of view" nonsense, on the other hand, is a minor modern aberration, which nobody takes seriously for a moment--at least not when THEY are the victims of evil. It is the kind of "objective and dispassionate" viewpoint that only the ignorant of reality can espouse.

While I thought your first point was nice, the second one is strange. Evil could very much be a point of view thing. If someone goes out and steals your money you might call them evil. But if it turns out they were stealing your money to pay for their sick child's operation I do not believe the word evil could be applied. Desperate, yes, evil, not sure.

If someone murders another on the streets and kills/wounds bystanders we might label them evil. But what if they are killing a militant extremist that is organising suicide attacks?

Say, that sounds like something you might know about.. Do you think that act was evil or justified?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
You do realise you have to first show that the person is actually evil. This is the point I made - that we don't know about these people.


We don't know everything about all of them, yes, but we know enough about enough of them to know that the term "evil" applies to many if not most. Evil is completely accurate for those who use abulances to car-bomb red cross facilities.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


We don't know everything about all of them, yes, but we know enough about enough of them to know that the term "evil" applies to many if not most. Evil is completely accurate for those who use abulances to car-bomb red cross facilities.

You're forgetting that there were crazed militants flooding into Iraq actually killing the Iraqis as well as the U.S. forces. While I agree that those people are most likely evil we don't know anything else. Do they make up the majority of the active resistence? Do they make up the minority of the active resistence? We don't know, so your statement is just pure speculation.

Unless you're psychic and you know for certain who is where in Iraq and how many. I recommend contacting the U.S. forces then making a bid for the million dollar prize. ;)

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, apart from "EVIL guys" (copyright: Skeptic, 2003).

I wish! Of course, it wasn't my creation. Recognizing evil is as old as civilization, if not older; all great writers wrote about it. Just because the term can be abused doesn't mean evil doesn't exist. In fact, it is precisely due to its power that the term IS abused in the first place.

The "evil doesn't exist" and "it's all a matter of your point of view" nonsense, on the other hand, is a minor modern aberration, which nobody takes seriously for a moment--at least not when THEY are the victims of evil. It is the kind of "objective and dispassionate" viewpoint that only the ignorant of reality can espouse.

Let´s take, as an example, child molester. Definitely the type of person you would call evil. If it wasn´t for my general dislike for the E-word, I´d agree.
A child molester violates laws, so he is a criminal. He is also cruel, probably brutal, maybe mentally ill, and surely, according to the vast majority of people, an extremely disgusting person.
So why do you need, on top of all this, the word "evil"? There are more than enough reasons, and I´m sure I forgot one or two, to send this guy to hell (figuratively speaking).
To make this clear: I dislike the E-word not because I have any sympathy for this (hypothetical) child molester. I dislike it because it muddies the water in other cases where the person in question indeed has some redeeming qualities.

Is it really such a difference if we send a child molester to jail because he is a criminal instead of because he is evil?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


We do know one thing. Those who have been neutralized were not in military uniform.



Which also were true for much of the resistance movements and SOE operatives of WW-II.

(And technically the Geneva conventions only covers armed conflict between nations. Only if the current attacks are performed by soldiers under the direct command of the remnants of the former regime, do they come into play.)

[dsm]

Originally posted by corplinx
Afghanistan is the same way, we've been ferreting out remnants for a good while and have made huge progress.


Isn't that what the Soviet Union used to say about Afghanistan? :eek:


The rebuilding Iraq is nothing short of a success.

Isn't that what the Soviet Union used to say about Afghanistan? :eek:

:D

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

Isn't that what the Soviet Union used to say about Afghanistan? :eek:


What, USA = USSR now?

Yes, the Soviets said they made progress in Afghanistan. They also denied that Chernobyl was serious. They were liars, not only about matters of spin but about basic reality itself. Your point?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos

To make this clear: I dislike the E-word not because I have any sympathy for this (hypothetical) child molester. I dislike it because it muddies the water in other cases where the person in question indeed has some redeeming qualities.


This here is part of the central debate. I use the word evil because for some people, any possible redeeming qualities are not enough. It doesn't matter if Saddam was nice to puppies, for example. He was evil. From where I'm sitting, that's not muddy at all. To try to find redeeming qualities in such a monster is a pointless endeavor. If you're sitting in a place where it's not OK to call Saddam evil, then frankly I wouldn't want to sit next to you.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by corplinx
Give me their phone numbers slick.

Don't have them, slick. Do yourself a favor, read this:

http://www.pentaone.com/hannibal/psychopath.shtml

Is Lack of Empathy the only only that fits you, or are there more? Read carefully, for your own sake.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

What, USA = USSR now?

Yes, the Soviets said they made progress in Afghanistan. They also denied that Chernobyl was serious. They were liars, not only about matters of spin but about basic reality itself.

Isn't that what's been said about Bush (et.al.) (http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/campaignslogans.htm)?


Your point?


Just the obvious. That what is happening in Iraq should be beginning to look familiar from a historical perspective.

[LW]

Originally posted by Zep

They should just stop being so mean-spirited and accept the umpire's call on this..

As this thread has already been derailed, there's probably no further damage if I'll add a slightly humorous anecdote.

In the final phase of the Winter War between Finland and USSR in 1939-40, the Finnish 5th Division was defending the Vyborg. The leftmost unit of the division was major Viljo "Father Cat" Laakso's batallion. [That particular batallion was one of the best Finnish formations of the whole war.]

However, the Red Army broke through the sector of their immediate left neighbours [belonging to the next division that was quite green] and started to roll up the trenches to both directions. When Laakso noticed this, he sent the following message to his regimental commander:

"The Russkies are attacking from outside their appointed area. I request for umpires!"

[Later on Laakso's batallion made a counter attack and sealed the breach and after that their neighbours managed to hold the line until the end of the war.]

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


This here is part of the central debate. I use the word evil because for some people, any possible redeeming qualities are not enough. It doesn't matter if Saddam was nice to puppies, for example. He was evil. From where I'm sitting, that's not muddy at all. To try to find redeeming qualities in such a monster is a pointless endeavor. If you're sitting in a place where it's not OK to call Saddam evil, then frankly I wouldn't want to sit next to you.

The problem with the dichotomy of Good vs. Evil (the Manichean world view) is the following:

First thing, there´s this dictator - let´s call him Mr. H. for now. He´s brutal, he´s a tyrant, he orders people killed, etc. Reason enough to despise him; for some, reason enough to bust him.

Then you come and call him "evil". Which, if it is accepted, would make you "good", since you oppose him and probably actively work against him.

Now imagine anyone who is opposed to you, for a real good reason. Say, one of the bombs aimed at Mr. H.´s military infrastructure landed on this guy´s house and killed his wife and kids. He resents you, to put it mildly. If anyone brings this case up and demands consequences of any kind (say, making sure you aim better next time), your answer is: "We did this to destroy evil Mr. H.; this was collateral damage, so shut up!"
The forseeable consequence of this is that the guy becomes convinced you must be resisted, since you don´t give a damn how many civilians are killed.

So this guy resists you, perhaps becomes a guerilla. BUT, according your your manichean word view, you are the good guy, and anyone who, for any reasons, is against the good guys, must be EVIL.



To say it again: It is not that it is not OK to call Saddam evil - although I don´t need to call him evil, since I call him tyrant, dictator, murderer and criminal, and this is enough for me. What is definitely not OK is that you, the self-appointed fighters against "evil", consider yourself the immaculate good guys, so that anyone who is against you must also be evil.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos

To say it again: It is not that it is not OK to call Saddam evil - although I don´t need to call him evil, since I call him tyrant, dictator, murderer and criminal, and this is enough for me. What is definitely not OK is that you, the self-appointed fighters against "evil", consider yourself the immaculate good guys, so that anyone who is against you must also be evil.

So then the real problem is you projecting your fears onto me? I never said my viewpoint represented "the immaculate good guys". I never claimed that there weren't shades of grey. Those things are in your head, not mine.

Questions about collateral damage are real issues, undoubtedly. But what you are suggesting is a sort of moral paralysis, where the fear of possibly being viewed as the bad guy by someone else prevents you from taking risks to actually try to solve any problems. Sometimes the risks aren't worth it, true, but sometimes they are. Sometimes the risks ARE worth it, and things still go wrong because of bad luck. But merely doing away with the word "evil" doesn't actually help resolve the difficult question of when the risk is worth taking. Evil is not supernatural, it is not inherently a religious concept, it is in fact frighteningly mundane, but it is very real.