[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
The reason I brought up the news is that we obviously read and watch the same stuff. I just find it strange that we would manage to come to so completely different conclusions.

I could give you a patronizing answer, but you haven't, and I appreciate that.

Suffice it to say it is one of the imponderable questions that makes humanity such a fascinating and wonderful creature. If everyone in the world could spend their time pondering such questions, sharing their views and thoughtfully considering those in opposition to their own as we do in this forum perhaps oppresion and war truely would be things of the past.

Geoschmo

[Crazy_Dog]

An intersting article from the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/in...D-ASSE.html?th

[Krsqk]

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.

[Master Belisarius]

For awhile I have heard references to the Rand think-tanks, related with the visions that moved the US to start this second war in the Gulf.
Today I was reading some papers in their website(http://www.rand.org/), and some of them, seemed very interesting to me.
If somebody have the time/patience, here some links that I liked (specially the 2 Last):

- Confronting Iraq: U.S. Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War (MR-1146-OSD) by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 2000. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1146

- Leadership Succession in the Arab World: A Policy-Maker’s Guide" (RP-902) by Jerrold D. Green, 2000. Originally published in Changing Leadership in the Arab World.
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstract....pl?doc=RP-902

- The Persian Gulf in the Coming Decade: Trends, Threats, and Opportunities (MR-1528-AF) by Daniel L. Byman and John R. Wise, 2002 (PDF).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1528/

- Persian Gulf Security (MR-1245-AF) edited by Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee, 2000.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1245/

[ March 31, 2003, 03:09: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

[Crazy_Dog]

British fury at 'cowboy' US pilot's deadly error

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...962677977.html

[Unknown_Enemy]

How do arabs country see the gulf war 2 ?
The other side of the Hill.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/31_03_03_a.asp

It is a libanese newspaper, but a moderate one. I had troubles finding any interesting sources of more "weird" arab countries such as Syria/Saudia Arabia.

[Aloofi]

I remember there was a war once in which some guy said something like "You only need to knock at their door and the whole house will come down in debris...."
This guy was invading because of ideology diferences, because the other war he had with some other guy was in stalemate, and because of oil......
Who says history doesn't repeat itself with a twist?

[Some1]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.

---

But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics .

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)

But my point is as Primitive already said:

It's all a matter of perspective.

We all agree that people who excecute, torture etc. Can be considered war criminals..
But what is the divinition of people? Al Aqaida people on Cuba? I think they are not handled that well.... in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.

[ March 31, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Some1 ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Some1:
....in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.

hohoho, me pay Pay-per-view fee for that fight. Me like it. Me bet Saddam kick, Bush cry. Me thinks Saddam make Bush wash underwear.

Me thinks Romans had Gladiators, me have Marines on CNN live.
Me thinks Romans not that evil now.

[dogscoff]

British fury at 'cowboy' US pilot's deadly error

I wonder if friendly fire could be a feature of se5.