Cried about the carpet bombing of civilians

  • News
  • Thread starter Alias
  • Start date
  • #1
You cried about the carpet bombing of civilians that you were sure would happen. It didn't.
You cried about the thousands of coalition soldiers that were sure to die. Very few have died. Nearly half were accidents.
You cried about the fact that the Iraqi's didn't want this war. Yet now they dance in the streets with glee at Saddams destruction.

Now you complain. You say, "Oh yeah, big deal, the coalition steamrolled right over a defenseless country." Wait a minute, three days into the war you complained about how it wasn't going to be as easy as everyone said it would be. When victory came swift, you complained it was too swift. Face it, you just want to be on the other side of George Bush. Well guess what? George Bush is being celebrated by the Iraqi people. How ya like them apples? I guess that means your on the opposite side of the Iraqi people. Of course, I always knew you were.

Regardless of your opinions, the Iraqi people are happy we did what we did. You'll never, ever, live that down. Happy days.

ADMIN EDIT: Profane innuendo
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.

Hippies around the world are saddened by our success. Liberals in the US are disheartened by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
 
  • #3
*In voice of Darth Vadar*
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a life is insignificant in comparison to the power which creates it.
-------------

Methinks you seek to lump everyone together in one tightly knit ball and bounce this ball off the wall.
 
  • #4
Not really.

The ones I can't lump into a racket, I lump into a ball. It makes for better sports.
 
  • #5
FZ+
1,599
3
You cried about the carpet bombing of civilians that you were sure would happen. It didn't.
You cried about the thousands of coalition soldiers that were sure to die. Very few have died. Nearly half were accidents.
You cried about the fact that the Iraqi's didn't want this war. Yet now they dance in the streets with glee at Saddams destruction.
We did? That's news to me.
1. I never mentioned it. But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?
2. Hmm? Really? I thought the consensus was that we should win easily?
3. Note "at Saddam's destruction". Not at the declaration of war. Most of it is relief the war is over. And the point was at the start of the war we DIDN'T know.

Now you complain. You say, "Oh yeah, big deal, the coalition steamrolled right over a defenseless country."
Clean out your brain Alias. There seems to be an army of radical ignorants hiding in the part we call your IMAGINATION. Or maybe these are messages from posters in a parallel universe? Hmm...

When victory came swift, you complained it was too swift.
Erm... when? We worried it was going to take a long time, but we are happy it's finally (hopefully) over. IMHO, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but it's better than expected. But the real test will come in the months/years ahead.

Face it, you just want to be on the other side of George Bush. Well guess what? George Bush is being celebrated by the Iraqi people. How ya like them apples? I guess that means your on the opposite side of the Iraqi people. Of course, I always knew you were.
Sweet and fresh, please.
I always thought of Bush as an dimensional character. So any side I take is on the Iraqi people's side. Unless... how many sides do the Iraqis have?

ADMIN EDIT: Profane innuendo
Damn. I missed it.

Hippies around the world are saddened by our success. Liberals in the US are disheartened by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
Now that's just a straw man argument.
But you needn't bathe yourself in glory quite that much, you know...
 
  • #6
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.

Hippies around the world are saddened by our
success. Liberals in the US are disheartened
by Bush's success (so much for 2004).
 
  • #7
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

This is obviously not the end of problems in Iraq, by a long shot. But it is a significant turning point. That's what I'm celebrating.

My main beef is that the "anti war-give inspections more time" crowd was horribly wrong in their assesment of the problem.

Examples of this are pouring in as Iraqi testimonials about the brutality and torture by Saddam's Regime. Weapons inspections would never, ever have stopped the torture. Yet, the 'give inspections a chance crowd' had no answer for this problem. Their unwillingness to take responsibility for shedding a small amount of blood to save a lot underscores their complete wussification.

Again, this buttresses my contention that 'those not politically similar to myself' don't know how to troubleshoot or effectively solve problems. And even when they are faced with the scary cliff of viable solutions, they chicken out and refuse to jump. Leaving the problem unsolved.
 
  • #8
Njorl
Science Advisor
285
17
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"



Njorl
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Njorl
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"



Njorl
 
  • #10
why dont you read the papers. or turn on the news. if you had you would see that we HAVE bombed civilians. We have killed innocent iraqis. Granted this happens in war, I just thought you should know.

Should we have given the inspectors more time? Well why not, if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction. Do you mean to tell me he's hiding them in Baghdad? Please.....
 
  • #11
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
alias, i think you need to find some hobbies away from your computer...
 
  • #12
Mulder
54
1
Originally posted by hybrid
why dont you read the papers. or turn on the news. if you had you would see that we HAVE bombed civilians. We have killed innocent iraqis. Granted this happens in war, I just thought you should know.

Should we have given the inspectors more time? Well why not, if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction. Do you mean to tell me he's hiding them in Baghdad? Please.....
Everyone is well aware that we have accidentally bombed civilians. The number of deaths has actually been remarkably low, and the troops deserve congratulating for this. Theres also a good chance that Saddam bombed his own people at least once.

However, we have also almost definitely saved more Iraqis from Saddam's sword had he been left to stay in power, than we have accidentally killed.

The UN had 10 years to get Saddam to comply to the agreements of the Gulf War. He didn't. We should have gone back in a year or two after he started his antics again, but that's in the past. We could still have been in the same position in 10 years time as we were 3 weeks ago had we left it to the UN to do something (more than words) against Saddam. In that time, who knows how many more Iraqis would have suffered and been killed at his hands?

Saddam producing and hiding WMDs WAS NOT the only reason for conflict, although I repeat, for about the hundredth time, there is still a high chance that WMDs will be found - there are so many highlighted sites that haven't even been searched yet!

And finally, the images of Baghdad today just confirmed that we had made the right choice.
 
  • #13
"Nobody could possibly lose an election after such a resounding military victory. Right dad?"
lol. I hope for a repeat of '92. Can we have Clinton back? Please?
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
Originally posted by FZ+
We did? That's news to me.
1. But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?
Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
 
  • #15
kat
39
0
I think there are some moments where people should just pause and show a bit of grace. I found myself tearing for the sheer joy in their faces but..it's not over...and they've earned their moment, I'm afraid not a one of us arm chair captains have and maybe gloating just isn't appropriate at times like these.
My two cents.
 
  • #16
*In voice of Darth Vadar*
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a life is insignificant in comparison to the power which creates it.
QUOTE]

Being the star wars moron i am....

you mean Darth Vader. And it was insignificant to the power of the force but that was referring to the movie reason but you seemed to be quoting so I thought I would correct it
 
  • #17
This is a silly, silly thread. Again, let us thank the protesters, without whom Iraw may well have been carpet bombed.
 
  • #18
If the intent was to deal with terrorism, how does carpet bombing Iraq fit into the equation.

You seem to assume that the war is about oil and economics. If it is, why are we not carpet bombing? If it is about money, why don't we just take over the oil fields and blast Saddam and his people if they get to close.

Why go to all the trouble of engaging in as humane a war as possible? World opinion, and if you listen to the left, the vast majority of the US population are against Bush, so how could it get any worse for Bush and his buddies if they just killed everything in site with a minimum amount of money and coalition lives? Their reputation couldn't possibly get any worse. Why are they conducting themselves in such a respectable way when no one respects them?

The truth is that the US government is telling the truth, and I admit, as foreign a concept as that sounds, it just happens to be the case this time. We will liberate Iraq. We will find WMDs. We will expose atrocities of Saddam's regime. We will help the Iraqi's restore order. We will help the Iraqi's create a better government. We will leave when these things are accomplished. And the rest of the Arab world is going to have to deal with a very free, and very rich Iraq. That's what I call a huge step in treating the problems that cause terrorism.

Please wake up and smell the cordite. This is not colonialism. This is not one country conquering another. This is a war on terrorism.

But then again, maybe we should give inspections more time. Good grief!
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Alias
Why go to all the trouble of engaging in as humane a war as possible?

you mean not brutal enough to hopefuly not turn more people against the ageneda.

Originally posted by Alias
World opinion, and if you listen to the left, the vast majority of the US population are against Bush, so how could it get any worse for Bush and his buddies if they just killed everything in site with a minimum amount of money and coalition lives?

see above.

Originally posted by Alias
Their reputation couldn't possibly get any worse.

it damn well could.

Originally posted by Alias
Why are they conducting themselves in such a respectable way when no one respects them?

that might make some sense if it was true.


you are the one who is obviously sleeping on the job Alias.
 
  • #20
Hmmmmm...use a made up 'War on Terror'(the dumbest idea since Missle Defense)to secure oil contracts in Iraq. Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria. This administration hasn't told teh truth sincce they stopped letting Shrub answer questions off the cuff.
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
Originally posted by Zero
Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria.
I'm not sure why I didn't pick up on it before, but isn't that ironic. The same people who made excuses for why we needed to continue inspections after 12 years of failure want Iraq to be an open book in 3 weeks. Such hypocrisy. Hell, give us at least a month. We've been a little busy lately.
...made up 'War on Terror'
9/11 was painful for all uf us, but denying it happened won't change the fact that it did.
 
  • #22
kyleb - You live in an alternate universe.

Zero - You seem to be time traveling into the future of kyleb's universe.

Maybe you guys should stop watching Dr. Who.
 
  • #23
And ironic that U.S. inspectors need time, but feel confident, while mocking teh same statements and convitions from the U.N.


We're hijacking this thread, let's move on, shall we?
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Alias
kyleb - You live in an alternate universe.

Zero - You seem to be time traveling into the future of kyleb's universe.

Maybe you guys should stop watching Dr. Who.

it is called reality and maybe you should watch some Dr. Who, so that you might see the difference.
 
  • #25
FZ+
1,599
3
Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
Oh.. ok..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

(CBS)_They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted
 
  • #26
Siv
Gold Member
89
5


Hey we have some big bad dictators down here too. Come and attack India, please.

Make sure you get us to destroy all our weapons first, though.

And sure, you can say the Indian govt. caused Sep 11th. Never mind that the Al Q hates us as much as it hates you.

Come on ... there are some nice juicy reconstruction deals to be won here too.

Of course we have no oil, but hey, you cant have everything now, can you ?

- S.
 
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
re: carpet bombing.

But the US army did threaten to do so... I guess we should have cried more about their lies, no?
Huh? Do you have a quote on that? Thats absurd.
Originally posted by FZ+

Oh.. ok..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
FZ+, *NOTHING* in that article can be construed as a threat. It is not a communication meant for Iraqi officials. It is simply a discussion of possible tactics. And NOWHERE in that article does the term "carpet bombing" appear.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
FZ+
1,599
3
Exactly. It was meant for the public and press to drive themselves into a frenzy so that whatever the military eventually does would seem like an anti-climax. It was a well calculated exercise in misdirection. (By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics)
 
  • #29
Njorl
Science Advisor
285
17
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmmm...use a made up 'War on Terror'(the dumbest idea since Missle Defense)to secure oil contracts in Iraq. Use teh lack of WMDs as an excuse to attack Syria. This administration hasn't told teh truth sincce they stopped letting Shrub answer questions off the cuff.

This is logigal hogwash.

You claim the war on Iraq was not about terrorism, but about oil, and that now we plot war with Syria.

What possible aim could we have in a war with Syria? Our only beef with them is that they support terrorism. But according to you, terrorism can only be a facade for war.

Njorl
 
  • #30
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
Originally posted by FZ+
Exactly. It was meant for the public and press to drive themselves into a frenzy so that whatever the military eventually does would seem like an anti-climax. It was a well calculated exercise in misdirection. (By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics)
Well thats fine and I tend to agree it was somewhat of a propaganda campaign (and whether its a direct or implied threat is a matter of semantics), but the use of the word "threat" wasn't my primary objection. My objection was to your inference that we threatened CARPET BOMBING. We did no such thing. The term they used (interestingly this link shows the military actually uses the term - I figured some dumb speachwriter made it up for Bush) is "shock and awe." Shock and awe is not even close to carpet bombing. In fact it is the antitheses of carpet bombing. *EVERY* bomb we dropped on Bagdhad was guided.

We "threatened" "shock and awe" and we followed through with it.

This is logigal hogwash.....You claim the war on Iraq was not about terrorism, but about oil, and that now we plot war with Syria.

What possible aim could we have in a war with Syria? Our only beef with them is that they support terrorism. But according to you, terrorism can only be a facade for war.
Easy answer: Does Syria have oil? (No really, I don't know). If Syria has no oil then we couldn't go after them for oil. Did we go into Somalia for their oil? Yugoslavia? Haiti?

Njorl, I think its extremly convenient that terrorism seems to go often hand in hand with oil. The anti-US crowd can then easily make the logical fallacy seem logical that we use terrorism as the excuse to go after oil. I also think the opologists have it backwards - we don't use terrorism as an excuse to go after oil, rather terrorism exists BECAUSE of the oil. Oil attracts greed. Certainly the US would do little in the region if there was no oil, but by the same token if there was no oil, there wouldn't be anything for the US to do - oil is the enabler for people like Saddam Hussein.
 
  • #31
Njorl
Science Advisor
285
17
Syria probably produces more sesame oil than crude.

I will readily concede that oil attracts our interest in terrorism like nothing else. We don't hear much about the terrorism in Sri Lanka (there's quite a lot). We would have ignored the invasion of Kuwait if it were not for oil (or maybe we'd boycott the Baghdad Olympics if they ever were held there).

But I don't think that greed for oil is all that drives our foreign policy. If it were, we would have sold out Israel years ago. We would have used the siezure of our embassy in Iran in 1979 as a pretext for invasion (it would actually have been justified, technically).

Njorl
 
  • #32
The whole pretext of this war was to get WMD. Have we got them? Nope. I suppose Sadam's got them all hidin in his basement... Why go after Iraq though? Its obvious they havent the technology to use them directly on us. But here's a thought. North Korea has WMD and HAS the technology to hit us directly with them. SO why arent we fighting them? Because a war with lots of american casualties looks bad on a presidential resume. especially when your job is up for the taking very soon.

On another almost completely unrelated note....Bush's brilliant tax cut. Oh boy. Do you suppose he's told any of our injured soldiers that he's cutting $28billion from their health care so he can have a nicer christmas?

"Is there no honor in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation's heros and rob our programs....to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" - Edward Heath - national commander of disables american veterans.

"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay



peace
 
  • #33
FZ+
1,599
3
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well thats fine and I tend to agree it was somewhat of a propaganda campaign (and whether its a direct or implied threat is a matter of semantics), but the use of the word "threat" wasn't my primary objection. My objection was to your inference that we threatened CARPET BOMBING. We did no such thing. The term they used (interestingly this link shows the military actually uses the term - I figured some dumb speachwriter made it up for Bush) is "shock and awe." Shock and awe is not even close to carpet bombing. In fact it is the antitheses of carpet bombing. *EVERY* bomb we dropped on Bagdhad was guided.

We "threatened" "shock and awe" and we followed through with it.
Whatever they actually meant, the image and intention was critical. It's not every day you had military advisors comparing what they would do to hiroshima, is it not? And it's not everyday when we are given figures for bomb loads as more than the previous conflict altogether. (and I do not believe such a load was dropped on the first night)
As to the carpet bombing, I do not think I or anybody else used that term to cry about. Rather, we were concerned, probably as intended about the consequences of dropping over 400 cruise missiles on a single night. And in the end, did that happen? No.
The press don't get excited about nothing. They are easily excitable, yes, but something must start it. And the various disclosures made did it quite well.
Tell me the truth. How many of you genuinely expected the war to begin the way it did? I rest my case. (And if you said yes, then you know too much. :wink:)
 
  • #34
Can you be more clear about YOUR POINT! I can't see it.

Look into my eyes... you are becoming conservative... you hate big government... you want to be responsible for your own destiny... tax cuts for the rich are your responsibilty... you must sacrifice to me... for I am George Bush The Evil One..muuuuaahhhhhhhhh!
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
21,846
8,806
Originally posted by FZ+
As to the carpet bombing, I do not think I or anybody else used that term to cry about.
No, but you *DID* say we THREATENED to carpet bomb when we clearly did NOT. That was my primary point.

Can you be more clear about YOUR POINT! I can't see it
Alias, he's trying to evade the point because he doesn't want to admit he misspoke. It goes back to my thread on admitting mistakes...
 

Suggested for: Cried about the carpet bombing of civilians

Replies
1
Views
114
Replies
1
Views
214
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
406
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
408
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
405
  • Last Post
64
Replies
2K
Views
41K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
529
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
289
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
1K
Top