Laws of War?!?

[Oat Soda]

Sorry, that last post was mine. I'm at work and forgot to log in.

[metsfan1969]

Main Entry: 1cun·ning
Pronunciation: 'k&-ni[ng]
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from present participle of can know
Date: 14th century
1 : dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources (as skill or knowledge) or in attaining an end <a cunning plotter>
2 : displaying keen insight <a cunning observation>
3 : characterized by wiliness and trickery <cunning schemes>

No? Hmmmmmm.

And just because I like to be absolutely clear with my posts, let's do this:

Main Entry: stealth
Pronunciation: 'stelth
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English stelthe; akin to Old English stelan to steal
Date: 13th century
1 a archaic : THEFT b obsolete : something stolen
2 : the act or action of proceeding furtively, secretly, or imperceptibly <the state moves by stealth to gather information -- Nat Hentoff>
3 : the state of being furtive or unobtrusive

Remember...you asked. I am not trying to be a wise guy, btw. I choose my words carefully so as to try to be as clear as possible, this is the web after all.

[Amnorix]

OatSoda, briefly posing as Guest , said:

Amnorix: No, the better option to annihilation is to surrender rather than endanger civilians and then be annihilated.

Of course I agree with you in the context of the all too elusive "in a perfect world."

Several points:

First, this thread was started by the statement that the Pentagon's response that such tactics were "deadly deception" and "violated the laws of war" was idiotic. We've gone a bit astray here, but bottom line -- the Pentagon's statement is moronic.

Anyway, let's move on to where we are now. What we need to realize is that Iraq is a country which has been chracterized by utter brutality pretty much throughout its entire history. The current political scenario is this:

A regime comprised of a minority group (Sunni Muslims), which has long terrorized, murdered and oppressed other minority groups (Kurds for one) and the majority group of the population (Shi'a Muslims) is currently defending itself from being overthrown by external forces.

In this scenario, Hussein's followers, and pretty much all Sunni Muslims, see the writing on the wall if Saddam is overthrown. What they see is their own turn at being oppressed, murdered and terrorized by the new faction in power. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US is not a benevolent friend that will stay to establish and help maintain a peaceful, beneficient new government that will establish civil rights for all Iraqis. Rather, they're figuring that sooner or later, one way or the other, the Shi'a are going to take over, and then it's all over for them.

In this context, given that the Shi'as are mainly in the South of the country, they are essentially risking the sacrifice of Shi'a civilians to preserve their Sunni government. Given their history of brutality against the Shi'a majority, why would anyone expect anything remotely different? Or, put another way, do you think the South would have cared, prior to 1865, if they had to put the life of black slaves at risk in order to preserve their existing social and political structure? Although there are obviously many differences here, the analogy is still roughly appropriate.

[kashikis]

i know im this is gonna start a feud but its not meant to so please dont take it that way.

on the point of these tactics i agree with metsfan. i am not condoning their action in anyway but seriously what did we expect? to put this in an analogy if you were a scrawny little freshman in high school and the football captain started roughing you up youd kick him in the $#%. Right? they are soooo weak military wise than us and are known to do things like this just to get a friggin Pepsi (exaggerated but whatever).

I mean any country / regime if cornered by what seems to be an indestructable force you fight like a rabid dog to save yourself. we just look at this as evil because we are on this side of the arguement. if mexico and canada just rushed the borders and started attacking us we would do the same thing!!! trust me any smart military leader would. not to mention if someone tried to take my house and i believed in the govt (said to exclude the refugees who want out of iraq) and they handed me an assault rifle and a rocket launcher i would blow up every invader i saw just being a civilian. i hope they would use it against them in a way of propaganda too.

this is all saddam can do so he is pulling out all the trump cards he has. he knows he will eventually lose but hes determined to go out fighting like any of us would. this is going to get a lot worse the closer we come to winning because we all know saddam has a few more tricks up his sleeve.

please do not drag me into the argument but i justed wanted to post the otherside of this. what he is doin is WRONG but seriously we would all do it too if our life and families were threatened. the problem is his people are too stupid to realize that saddam is wrong here but oh well, I WISH ALL THE BEST FOR OUR TROOPS!!! And that is the most important part!

[Oat Soda]

metsfan1969, my last post was awfully condescending and I didn't intend it to be taken that way (and you didn't post like you thought it was), but I apologize anyway. My point was I don't think the current Iraqi strategy particularly "clever" (part of my understanding of the word "cunning").

Amnorix: Your latest points are extremely intelligent, and as such I'm wasting my time trying to explain my previous points. You understand what I was trying to say.

kashikis: Civilians are innocent or they die.

[Amnorix]

All -- it looks like we're close to exhausting this thread. I wanted to specifically state how pleasant it is to have a rational debate, despite our differences, on this volatile matter.

The simple fact is that it is extremely rare that one can engage in intelligent debate about such volatile issues without people going nuts. Where we can simply agree to disagree, it's all good, and hopefully we all learned something. I know I did.

[EugeneStyles]

I agree, Amnorix. And, Oat Soda, I do understand what you're saying, it's just that I agree with Kashikis on this one. If China or somebody invaded the US, I would probably be willing to resort to any dirty trick in the book to fight back, we just wouldn't have to, because we outclass most of the world militarily. It's pretty much given that the more powerful country in a conflict is more likely to be worried about rules of engagement than the weaker one.

[Oat Soda]

It was nice to have a regular discussion that didn't become a flamewar, which can be easy with touchy subjects like this.

Something we CAN agree on: Thank God baseball season is finally here.

[EugeneStyles]

Yep. Three cheers for baseball!

[Talos]

awwww..... I wanted in ....






Opening day, like the smell of spring.