"I believe the American forces truly endeavor to minimize civilian casualties. But this is war and every soul that dies, civilian or military, is human. We are engaging in the most horrible enterprise that mankind has ever invented. There is no glory now, only tragic death and suffering inflicted on men, women and children by members of their own species." DavidK

what you describe - tragic death and suffering inflicted on men, women and children by members of their own species - has been going on for years at Saddam's direction. Our arrival did not start it. "the most horrible enterprise that mankind has ever invented" occurs when you take the armies out of one side of the war equation, and substitute the tyrant's own helpless citizenry in their place.

#789 by Xerraire - 3/22/2003 7:23:21 PM
My trust in the media is likely in the negative numbers, but, I just read something on UPI of interest: Link


The more I learn of Saddam and how he treats people the more I fear for those caputured. Not to mention those who have to live in a society like this.

I don't like Bush. Probably a nice guy, but as presedent I have many consernes. Then his policies; yikes!! I am sure he could have gotten more support for the War effert if he didn't shove it down people throats. He might be right about going into Iraq, but how he went about it surely was a problem.


It just started 5 days ago and it feels like five weeks. I want this to end. I want to hear the stories. I want to see the 'evil' of Saddam. Maybe we won't get so many people angry at us when all of this comes out. Let rebiulding begin and boom, on our way to North Korea.

US military personnel are losing their lives *because* the US doesn't want to kill civilians. We have reached the point in the conflict that many warplanes and helicopters are coming back with their payload because they could not deliver it, which means they faced the threat they went to destroy, turned their backs to them, and left. how much easier would it be to simply carpet bomb these places?

The world has become such an evil, corrupt place that the *act* of placing an anti-aircraft weapon on a school is understandable; only destroying it is evil. All the Iraqi military need do is strap small children onto their backs and the war would be over, the evil US would have to go home. I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is running the war from beneath some untouchable, civilian place.

Paxx: you need to allow military personnel to have whatever emotions they are gonna have on the battlefield. You have no clue how they feel, and though you can find it in your heart to understand many more complex, wrongful emotions felt by evil people, you are clueless to those who risk their lives to battle them. Those in the military already live by so many idiotic rules of engagement, and you would have "show no happiness or pleasure at a successful attack" added to the list.


DavidK: "It's a complete failure of competence to have to kill other human beings"

I am so utterly sick of this ignorant attitude. If you and Paxx want to assail every veteran who ever cheered when their mission was successful, go ahead, but it it reflects most harshly on you, and how utterly removed from real life you are. I equate it to people who enjoy a steak and gag when they realize where it comes from. I can't think of a worse fate for myself, though I suppose it makes you feel elevated.

Go back and enjoy your comfort, and forget that it is totally based upon countless "complete failures of competence".

Well, if you want to bang N.Korea it looks like you won't be dissapointed Joe. Remember when we went into Afganistan and GWB kept saying "this is the first war of the twenty-first century"?

Richard Perle, Rumsfeld's advisor and one of the key architects of the Bush Neocons' current multi-war agenda says Iran is next but N.Korea will be a priority. There is much money to be made and with the right investments anybody can make a 'killing' in this New American Century.

From the NY Times: "His convictions of right and wrong extend to the right and wrong investments. On Wednesday he participated in a Goldman Sachs conference call to advise clients on investment opportunities arising from the war, titled, "Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?ex=1049447795&ei=1&en=fe9486b8b8fe82cb

US news showed Iraq POW's on camera NOT the US government showing POW's and asking for rank and file.


I don't like war either paxx. I wish I could stand by my conviction on this one, but I can't. I've been trying to answer my own questions about this whole thing and it keeps leading to one decision.

War.

lmao. David...again... Bush has less than 2 years left, then *if* he is re-elected he has 4 more, tops. In that time we are going to somehow conquer both Iran and North Korea, and still have time left for bullying the rest of the world and doing all the evil we can to US citizens here. You people will shamelessly go to all ends to villify someone.

In the last few days I have seen some really, really odd things come out of you. Reverand Moon? Who knows what will be next. Are you getting enough zinc? I have seen the same sort of opinions coming *out* of N. Korea... I have really wondered once or twice whether someone was posting on your account without you knowing.

Hiya Baker, don't be ashamed, lot's of people get a boner over war. It's not uncommon at all. I was born a pacifist and spent my whole life being one. I'm just an artist, I don't have the answers to prevent war. I don't think anyone does because those that can profit from war will do so no matter what argument comes along. I think it can be vieweed in no other way than as a failure. It's the worst possible answer to any problem.

2004 will be interesting. I said back in 2000 (on the skinz MB) that if Bush gets elected there won't be any elections in 2004. I still think I may have been right except that Bush didn't exactly get elected, more like appointed. I think people are being blind to the build-up of a big-brother type infrastructure and the selling of fear. There's plenty of time left for a coup to become visible and elections to be cancelled if that's necessary. Remember, it's not my generation that this is being built for, we're going away and being replaced with a New American Century...

"Be careful what you say" - Ari Fleischer

Paxx, it just seems to me that you are suggesting that there is equivalence in the treatment by Iraq of coalition EPOW's and Iraqis who have surrendered to coalition forces. POW's marching down a road filmed by the press as an incidental part of their coverage is not the equivalent of being interrogated by gov't officials on state run TV.

rework Orwell's "1984" and call it "2004" if you wish. i refuse to live scared.

Gosh, dave!!! If Bush does away with elections, and appoints himself god-emperor of all, denying our rights and laying waste to the world, there won't be anything we can do about it!!!

Since "it's a complete failure of competence to have to kill other human beings", we'll just have to let him. Our only option will be to make asinine, ungrateful comments about the people who finally do come to stop him. Heck, if we are lucky they might just stay home and starve us to death! It is so insanely annoying to sit and listen to you accuse Bush of 'possibly' becoming what Saddam Hussein has been for 3 decades.

I would have more respect for you if I thought you'd raise up in rebellion against your imagined Ming, 'dubya', the Merciless, but I suppose if there were no virginal, pristine answer to the situation, we would have to live with the thousand year reich, huh?

Bush is a good president, though, duly elected according to the constitution, and who will probably be re-elected.

BUT, dave, if elections are suspended, the Constitution is flushed down a fascist commode, and this nation is swept up in an overtly anti-Dave regime, for heaven's sake don't bother dusting off reality. Many of us will be more than happy to risk our lives to save your fragile ethics and our, more deserving, children. We might even listen while you abstain from violence and ponder our methods.

Here was me thinking that Bush only got elected due to a convenient polling error thanks to his brother...

I've always despised preferential voting as so often it's 'minority rules'....good-old branch-stacking, swaying of self-interest factions with false-promises, puppeteered by extremists behind the scenes...often not 'far' behind...etc, ad nauseum.
God I hate politics and politicians. They are almost NEVER interested in the betterment of the common man, but only if it concurs with the agendas of the puppeteers.

It has always been a fact of life that if wars were fought by politicians and NOT by the gullible youth whose training I'm sure doesn't encompass the concept of 'cannon fodder', there would be FAR FEWER of them...[both wars, AND politicians].

And that would be a 'good thing' [tm].

BTW....interesting [eye-opening] fact....Australia is operating under different rules of engagement than the US....we are NOT going to be using or making use of Anti Personnel Mines. [history has shown their ultimate 'target' is entirely civilian].
Food for thought...

Nothing like a great stream of uninformed invective about 'Warfare' by 'Civilians' .... and what moron dubbed the Iraqi troops who have surrendered or been captured "EPOW"s???
A "Prisoner of War" is just that, no distinction on either side.
One point to consider, Australian forces have very strict guide lines on ROE .... far stronger than the US.

David K and paxx, stick to your beliefs, I'm not necessarily with you or against you, but the 'Gung-Ho' types need to be countered by reasonable argument.

G'Day Jafo .... funny thing coincidence!

One thing that everyone on this planet has to understand if nothing else. The manner in which the USA is fighting this war, right or wrong as it may be, is it is attempting to keep innocents from dying at colition hands. Otherwise it would be close to being over and there would be untold numbers of dead Iraqis, both military and civilian alike...

war sucks, it really really does...

I wish the UN had a back bone for the dirty work, it is nice to be able to hand out food, medical supplys, water, etc, and be considered such a good positive body of leaders. But it really is a load of crap that they can never seem to follow through on the dirty stuff.

Maybe there should be two world bodies including the UN which could handle the humanitarian needs, and such. Election oversight, heloing to (re)construct governmnet bodies where needed, education, health, argiculture, economic stability and how to build a solid economy in developing nations, natural resource monitoring so no one ends up being ripped off blind.

Another to deal specifically with the dirty stuff... One that everyone knows without question when they show up it is time to quit screwing around because they are going to do it better and harder. They ARE the dogs of war, they are not police, they are not missionaries, they are not going to hold anyones hands and they are not going to take sides, what they are going to do is remove the ability to wage war, oppress with arms, and control by force, from anyone who figures they are going to go about things in those manners...

If the UN can not deal with it, then the Dogs WILL do it...

Maybe that is a means to end war as we know it?

Isn't it odd that the election was a virtual tie, but nobody seems to have wanted Bush to be president? I have seen several ignorant man-on-the-street interviews throughout the world who posed their opinion of the war as "Oh, well, he wasn't elected anyway, so he is no different than Saddam Hussein."

A couple thousand votes were iffy out of the over 50 million he got. If a few blue-haired voters were disenfranchised in Florida, the vast majority of people who voted for Bush have been ignored and alienated by the propaganda since. World opinion of the 2000 election is ill-informed if it supposes the US has been suffering a president that was forced on us.

The people who voted the other way have more reason to be vocal, that's all. When Gore whines about it periodically he faces almost universal derision. Some people would have you think that we are all patiently waiting for the next election, hopeing won't break anything in the meantime.

If you *really* knew a lot of the opinions in America; not the televised, Times Square interviews, but the fly-over America, diner, Redneck opinion, you'd have an even harder time sleeping. I'm *liberal* to a many people here. There are people who would happily have this war over in a blinding flash, and find it 12 years overdue. Ain't it great that we don't vote on everything?

P.S. I saw yesterday that Ralph Nader was calling G.B. a dictator. Laughable coming from the guy who *knew* he was gonna lose. He was probably most responsible for preventing Gore an outright victory by splitting off far-left, greenish voters, and was happy enough with that eventuality to run anyway. Thanks Ralph!

Wombat, evidently some morons in the military use "EPOW." It's not something just invented for current use. Here's something dated 1999 from the US Marines, for example. See 4C: http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/mccsss/los/Lessons/Blssc/LS205.pdf

learn something new every day. oops, that looks like a non Air Force pub so i'm required to do an immediate core dump.

Yeah, BKB, there's some weird stuff out there on the net.

And back to the disposition of POW's just because I've seen different things in the press but can't find them all again to reference. Don't know if it's just for propaganda value or some planners' dreams, but there have been statements in the press (supposedly from military officials) stating that POW's who surrender without combat would be treated differently from the other POW's who do engage in combat. Various things as detaining, processing and perhaps sending them home before hostilities cease; restricting them to their barracks and letting officers retain their small arms; and/or enlisting them in a "Free Iraq" type military, such as in this article from the UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/23/wirq323.xml

Another article is this one from the Times (London) discussing using "noncombat" POW's as laborers in reconstruction and to constitute the "new army of Iraq": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html

One more time on the Times link, perhaps it's too long.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5884-620070,00.html

I dunno, seems to me if you have a weapon your not giving up...

sig 101 .... it's been "POW" around the World for as long as I can remember .... but if some anal retentive dweeb in the USMC with a penchant for acronyms has decided that as of 1999 the term is "EPOW" then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform ....
Probably the same type who came up with "Triple A" .... another REALLY clever term.
How long before a "Platoon" becomes a "Posse" ... duh!

ePOW sounds like an internet prisoner...

DavidK