Bush gets shoes thrown at him in Iraq

[Ramius75]

One war has very little to do with the overall panorama of history. Other nations invade other nations all the time - even unto this day. It happens.

so u can invade another country killing thousands but not ok to throw shoes?

and oh, i know my history very well and im going to teach my children, how Iraq got invaded twice. 1 right, 1 wrong.

 

[LucyDuke]

Only on one side of that conversation.

And lucy, as this is OT to the topic, you yourself are approaching tolling on this as well. Its not your arguement to make, so why inject yourself into it?

It's trolling to go off-topic?

It's trolling to say "hey guys, you disagree with each other, and you're always going to disagree with each other, and that's okay"?

Since when are there rules on who can participate in a discussion, and in what capacity?

I never got those memos.

I see it as a bit more specific than that.

Right, because you're stuck on the word "this". Which may indeed mean that that bit was directed at you, but if you can look past that, you'll see very good advice for anyone engaged in forum head-butting with no end in sight. If you won't look past that, I can understand your tenacity.

 

[LucyDuke]

And who wears the same pair of shoes two days in a row? 48 hours to dry out minimum, and rotate out dirtier shoes for spraying, waxing and washing. When I was younger, I had a favorite pair of shoes. I used to try to wear them every day and ran into foot problems fast. That's not how you are supposed to wear shoes anyway...

I do all the time. How off-topic is this? My feet are fine, even if I wear the same shoes just about every day for a month, which is not particularly unusual. Why, should my feet be having problems?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I always wore the same shoes for casual purposes before they finally had weared off.

BTW, were these shoes the journalist threw at Bush new, specially picked for the occasion?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh FFS... right. Read this post and get it through your thick head:

It would be better to be shot in the temple than burned alive.

thats what I'm saying. not "you can choose where ot be shot" or "being gutshot isnt painful". read it again. comprehend it. stop arguing a point I havent made.

Is it this thread where you advise someone to let it go?

 

[Adrogans]

Yes, They were new. He bout new ones made in Iraq for the occasion.

 

[RedRalph]

Is it this thread where you advise someone to let it go?

you've got a point there brother

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I do all the time. How off-topic is this? My feet are fine, even if I wear the same shoes just about every day for a month, which is not particularly unusual. Why, should my feet be having problems?

Yeah, it's off topic, sorry. Shoes to take care of sweaty feet, versus shoes meant to symbolically resist an occupation, I mean. I didn't scan enough posts after the OP to realize how far out there it was to the rest of the conversation. 12 pages is a bit much for me.

 

[Merkinball]

I know, sorry - I don't know what happened? Now I can't remember what I was saying regarding it (too lazy to go back & refresh my memory - you will forgive me won't u?) - Shimraman

The tongue was placed firmly on the cheek for the most part.

Don't twist my words around, and your blocking your ears to what I am implying - I originally said: "They had too much respect for him to try it (I know its a twisted way of thinking about it). But a 'strong' man with 'credible' reasons for harsh rule is respected in that region - as opposed to a 'strong' foreign army with 'devious' motives (i.e. oil) coming inside their sovereign country. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say - it may be confusing because its a cultural thing. - Shimraman

I've been around the block. I've been in the middle east. It is one thing to regurgitate such things, but it's another to put credence in them. It took a while for me to dig up a good analogy, but I think I have some. Saying that the Iraqi people respected Saddam is like saying that women in Afghanistan respect their husbands because they beat them and force them into niqabs. Saying that the Iraqi people respected Saddam Hussein is like saying that 14 year old girls in Utah respect their 50 year old pedophilic husbands because they forced them into marriage.

You can call it "respect." You can pull up links where people claim that they respect Saddam. But I don't think that anybody would follow such an absurd mantra as abuse = respect.

Saddam Hussein was an awful, terrible individual. Much like a pedophile or a wife beater. Or Hitler or Mussulini. Respect does not equate to such individuals. Fear is not respect.

The very fact that you bring about the words "culture" and put "quotes" around all of your adjectives, is to me at least, indicative that you're pretty self aware that you are wrong. I've been a lot of places across the Islamic world in my day. And I've talked to many Arabs and other-Muslim folks, and most of the people that I encountered did think Saddam was a hero. They also denied, did not know about, or willfully denied the atrocities he committed from 1985 until the day he was deposed.

Immature response, the conversation entails years of details, two historic wars and other elements - therefore, the conversation will naturally lead from one subject to another - as you can see where we've ended up. - Merkinball

Quite possibly, but let's be honest. You dug yourself in a hole that you can't dig yourself out of. We were talking about the non-existant war for oil that has given America billions of gallons of non-existant oil and has deflated the cost of our oil a non-existant amount while Iraq has built up tens of billions in oil surplus' that could very well propel the economy into progressive years of double digit GDP growth. So why not stay on that point? Why deviate into Halliburton? You're right, it's a long sordid story that is multi-faceted. With that in mind, it seems to me like the best approach would be to take the argument point by point, instead of trying deviate from one point to another because your initial point is completely invalid.

They don't see it as purely their country with them controlling their resources, currently - they see it as an occupation with foreigners trying to profit. - Shimraman

That's a negative ghost rider. This may be what the idiots who go off and blow up oil pipelines may think. But from their masters of war perspective, it's nothing more than a power grab. An attempt to grab...an almost infinite amount of wealth and power. To control some of the most vast oil reserves in the entire world. Don't be naive. The insurgent leaders who are running the show behind the scenes could give two hoots about who the oil goes to. They just want to be in control and at the point of sale. They want the power, the clout, and the wealth that Saddam once had. The mantra and dogma they regurgitate to the masses in a propaganda war that the US is shamefully losing is what you speak of. The insurgency has always been, and will always be about controlling Iraq and the oil there. It is about destabilizing Iraq for future power grabs. It is about deligitemizing the US military, and making a mockery of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces. The longer Iraq remained unstable, the better chance the leaders of various insurgency groups had at obtaining political and economic power. It is not about the percieved control over oil. IRAQ HAS THAT. The very fact that they still belong to OPEC, in and of itself, is all the evidence you need of that.

Did you offer assistance and practical help to the elderly, orphans, disabled, widowed (who had no means of escaping) to leave? So the international pics that came out of Fallujah with children (and even animals) - dead and plopped straight in the middle of streets and sidewalks were props? References upon request, my friend - I want to finish this and go on to other things. Better yet, I'll give you - your own advice, 'do some research', there is plenty on the massacres of Fallujah. - Shimraman

I happened to have served with a battalion of Fallujah Marines. Just so you know, yes, they did allow EVERYONE a chance to get out. Of course, the US military did not offer assistance to people to get out. But that was pretty much because the US military couldn't even go into Fallujah at that point because it was all insurgents. However, the Red Crescent was in Fallujah up until the day before the operation helping to evacuate people before the operation took place. Nevermind what we did to help these individuals get out. If they wanted to get out, they got out. Either by the Red Crescent, or their families. It's cultural thing. If you are who you claim to be, you should understand that Arab families don't leave handicapped elders to die simply because they can't get out under their power.

Were there children killed in Fallujah? Absolutely. Were their animals killed in Fallujah? Absolutely. Old people died, women died, so on and so forth. Not everyone agreed to leave. The militias of Fallujah were notorious for using child fighters, and in particular, they used children as lookouts. So yeah, there were children killed there. Fallujah was also pretty notorious for female fighters and produced female suicide bombers. The militia leaders within Fallujah were also extremely noted for intimidating the local populace, and exploiting the local populous to achieve their political agendas. Some people didn't get out because the militias didn't want them to get out.

So far as research goes? I don't need to do any research on Fallujah. It was total war. Aside from An-Nasariya, it was probably the only real time where a location in Iraq was under a total war condition. It was no-holds bar. It was really the only time we took the gloves off to get a job done so far as the US military is concerned. Research? How about the fact that nearly every single mosque in Fallujah was fortified? Every school, and every medical facility in Fallujah was utilized as defensive position by the insurgency. They used child fighters. They wired dead babies with explosive devices. The entire city was booby-trapped. But then again, that's why we let all the innocents leave that place before we completely obliterated it.

Say, since you're so much up on your Iraq knowledge. Why don't you tell the community how Fallujah is doing today.

Prove what - exactly? Oh the poison chemicals, tsk-tsk -- I know you are just wasting my time. But, K, here you go:

Iraq: Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...ttle022703.htm
There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s

Important word bolded. You didn't prove anything. The only stuff we ever sent Iraq, any of our companies, was closely regulated by the US government. Requests from Iraq were processed directly by the US government, and all "precursors" were dual use materials that were never requested in chemical or biological weapons production.

I'll say it again. It was NEVER, not once, by anybody, not even the UN, shown that ANY dual use materials that came from the US during those periods ever made it into chemical or biological weapons production.

It's great that you listed a litany of companies that sent dual use "precursors" for chemical weapons to Iraq. You proved that. Pin a rose on your nose. Prove that anything that we sent them was used in their weapons. The only thing that was ever used from the US in the Al Anfal campaign was a handful of old helicopters that dispatched the munitions themselves. None of our chemicals were proven to have been used by anybody. All that crap came from Europe.

Enough for you, I think so - no?? - Shimraman

Nope. We sent them Anthrax. Big deal. Anthrax has many important usages. Prove that our Anthrax was ever used in a biological weapons program. Oops. That's right. You can't. Cuz all that stuff came from Germany and France.

Again, as far as the 'respect' - I answered you above. In reference to 'defending dictators' --
"Let the one with no sins - cast the first stone!" - Shimraman

I'm without sin. I'll cast as many damn stones as I want.

Bush got the shoe - because he is an unrespected hypocrite, you don't force democracy down peoples throats and through a gun barrel, killing them with chemical weapons, raping, and installing puppet governments. - Shimraman

I'm sorry, but the only way a Democracy can be yielded from a dictatorship is from the barrel of a gun. Fallujah was an extremely isolated incident, and it HAD TO BE DONE. Raping? Over a million US service personel have rotated in and out of Iraq. There's one single (maybe two?) case of rape. The case of Mahmoudiya was individual act. It certainly isn't a policy of the US military within Iraq itself. And a puppet government? I guess the Iraqi people elected a puppet.

Or what is really bothering you - the fact that I posted the journalist would be treated like royalty by the Iraqi police - even if he does go to prison - right? That's the post that really bothered you and the other guy (forget his name 'mor..' something or other) - that started all of this.
So, is that the part that's bothering you? I think it is, and I think you (respectfully) are being a hypocrite when you say "I don't have a problem criticizing America for its past wrongs in regards to our positions on Iraq," because if you are really "plenty cognicant of all of those facts" - you wouldn't ask me to 'prove things.' - Shimraman

No...why would this bother me? Actually, when I read that I figured that it was a possibility. Although, if we are to believe the reports that have come out surrounding the incident, it would appear that you were completely wrong about this one.

Tsk, tsk, tsk -- how, my friend, how do you know that there were no schools built in Kurdish North? Pathetic, my uncle graduated with a physists degree from the university of Sulaimania in the hearth of the Kurdish North.

Health system - are you joking - Iraq had the best health system with the best doctors in the whole of the Middle East AND ALL FOR FREE!

So, in the end - I still and will always have the gull to point out untruths. - Shimraman

Here's the problem. The problem is that you are talking about a time that was about three decades ago. I am talking about a time proceeding that. I know damn well that Saddam was an educational reformer, he secularized the nation, revamped the oil system, built roads, built ports...so on and so forth. That's all fine and good. But that didn't last but a decade...decade and a half tops. The rest of Saddams legacy is one of neglect, subjugation, repression, torture, and other heinous crap. So what. Saddam passed out some free washing machines. Then he mercilessly gassed Halubja. You make him out to be some sort of hero. It's amazing to sit here and watch you criticize my brethren for not going into a terrorist infested hellhole to assist the handicapped to get out of that hellhole, but then, in an effort to defend Saddam, you legitimize his actions when he gassed to death tens of thousands of innocent people, and made an effort to maximize the number of innocent people he would kill. He must have just been looking for a little respect. Maybe Bush wouldn't have had the shoe thrown at him if he just would have gassed Fallujah, Hit, Haditha, and Sadr City, in an effort to maximize death and destruction. It's all about respect right? Saddams Machievellian approach to politics was disgusting. Make them fear you so they respect you. And somehow the people respect fear, more than they respect the man that unshackled them.

Uhhhhh, welcome to the 'no-fly zones' -- the last two decades - the Kurdish north and the Shiite south - were not in control by the Iraqi government. Excuse me while I - duhhhhhh. - Shimraman

Yeah, welcome to no-fly zones. No fly-zone means just that. It wasn't a "No-building new hospitals zone." It wasn't a "No health aid-zone." It wasn't a "No education zone." It was a freakin' no fly zone. Coincidentally, Saddam was notorious for keeping the schools in the southern part of the country flush with weapons. Most schools in the south no longer served that purpose. They were more or less outposts for the lower level conscripts.

I forgot to answer you regarding the sanctions killing children in Iraq --

Albright “Apologizes”
In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

Dude, I really don't know what to tell you. But these are all NULL POINTS thanks to the oil for aid scandal. The money skimmed from the oil for aid scandal would have been enough to educate, feed, clothe, and provide healthcare for every disseffected Iraqi during that time period. And until you can argue your way around multi-billion dollar scandal which pumped money into the Ba'athist regime, your apologies are nothing more than senselessness.

DU is related as the number one cancerous causing deaths in Iraq since the first Gulf War. - Shimraman

DU is actually pretty harmless. What caused Gulf War syndrome was the destruction, burning, and exposure to chemical weapons.

And that's justifiable - to burn civilians from the inside out? Because - that's what happened. Their clothes were not burned yet their flesh was burned to the bone! Medical analysis (not only of my good doctor) conclude that it is a characteristic of White Phosphorus. - Shimraman

White Phosphorous does not burn from the inside out. It burns just like anything else, from the outside in. In Fallujah we never really used WP directly as a weapon to kill insurgents. People died from it, but we used it as an agent to flush out insurgents from dug in positions. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that a civilian died of WP. Some insurgents? Sure. But civilians? Don't make me lul again.

Oh, say - like the Abu Ghraib scandal - where interrogators had good intentions but - Shimraman

Those people didn't have a good intention in one bone of their body.

 

[innonimatu]

This may be what the idiots who go off and blow up oil pipelines may think. But from their masters of war perspective, it's nothing more than a power grab. An attempt to grab...an almost infinite amount of wealth and power. To control some of the most vast oil reserves in the entire world. Don't be naive. The insurgent leaders who are running the show behind the scenes could give two hoots about who the oil goes to. They just want to be in control and at the point of sale. They want the power, the clout, and the wealth that Saddam once had. The mantra and dogma they regurgitate to the masses in a propaganda war that the US is shamefully losing is what you speak of. The insurgency has always been, and will always be about controlling Iraq and the oil there.

There is a war between the insurgents and the occupation army of the USA. If the insurgents are fighting for control over "the most vast oil reserves in the entire world", then so is the occupation army opposing them. That conclusion is inevitable.

It is about destabilizing Iraq for future power grabs. It is about deligitemizing the US military, and making a mockery of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces.

The illegitimate US invasion, built on lies and with the clear goal of grabbing control over iraq's oil (in which you admitted above it succeeded) does a pretty good job of delegitimizing itself.
And it certainly destabilized Iraq. And continues to do so, deliberately. The whole strategy of the occupation depends on keeping Iraq unstable - if it attains stability and and independent government the occupation forces would be forced to leave, bereft of any political justification to continue the occupation. The US government would lose control over those oil reserves.
The neocon strategy of promoting and using instability to justify invasions has been very obvious - the even coined the term "failed state" in the process.

I happened to have served with a battalion of Fallujah Marines. Just so you know, yes, they did allow EVERYONE a chance to get out. Of course, the US military did not offer assistance to people to get out. But that was pretty much because the US military couldn't even go into Fallujah at that point because it was all insurgents.

"All insurgents": therefore by definition enemies to either submit or die - that was the goal of the operation. War is about murdering people who will not submit, or terrorizing them into submission. What the US did in Fallujah was no different from what Saddam had done to its own "insurgents". And he could, equally cynically, argue that civilians on the areas his army targeted were free to leave and cease supporting the rebels against his government - and that any who did not leave were therefore insurgents themselves.

Were there children killed in Fallujah? Absolutely. Were their animals killed in Fallujah? Absolutely. Old people died, women died, so on and so forth. Not everyone agreed to leave. The militias of Fallujah were notorious for using child fighters, and in particular, they used children as lookouts. So yeah, there were children killed there. Fallujah was also pretty notorious for female fighters and produced female suicide bombers. The militia leaders within Fallujah were also extremely noted for intimidating the local populace, and exploiting the local populous to achieve their political agendas. Some people didn't get out because the militias didn't want them to get out.

And the US is quite notorious for invading countries and intimidating the population to accept a military occupation there. Any who resist are branded "insurgents" and killed if caught, together with whatever passive civilians happen to get caught in the way. Not just in that particular city, anywhere.
How is that any different?

Get off your high horse. You invade a country and go about killing "insurgents", you're as much a murderer as those "insurgents" in the ensuring war.

All that crap came from Europe.

It did? Then I return you your answer: prove it.

Nope. We sent them Anthrax. Big deal. Anthrax has many important usages. Prove that our Anthrax was ever used in a biological weapons program. Oops. That's right. You can't. Cuz all that stuff came from Germany and France.

Prove it. Really, you're coming across as a firm believer in "we can do no wrong". Have you any idea how ridiculous that seems?

Fallujah was an extremely isolated incident, and it HAD TO BE DONE.

Fallujah was not an isolated incident. It is just the most obvious example of the realities of a military occupation against an actively hostile population. You are right: militarily (and politically) it had to be done. The alternative was to admit defeat and leave. But by doing it, your country is using the same methods (repression and terror) its propaganda blames those "insurgents" of.
It's a dirty war and the US will not come out of it clean.

White Phosphorous does not burn from the inside out. It burns just like anything else, from the outside in. In Fallujah we never really used WP directly as a weapon to kill insurgents. People died from it, but we used it as an agent to flush out insurgents from dug in positions. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that a civilian died of WP. Some insurgents? Sure. But civilians? Don't make me lul again.

Will it ever enter your thick head that the difference between an "insurgent" and a civilian in a situation such as Iraq's is minimal?
"used it as an agent to flush out insurgents"... again, ridiculous. What were the alternatives for those insurgents, run away from their hideouts to be properly killed with the more kindly bullets or explosives?

And, for the record, if it kills and is used upon an enemy, it's a weapon. Else the chemical weapons used by the germans in WW1 to clean allied trenches prior to attacks would not count as weapons. And you just stated that it was used and that you testify to it. Not that I particularly care about the means used to kill people in war, when the ends are clearly the same.

 

[Gelion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&feature=related

Thank you for the video of the day!

 

[RedRalph]

Welcome back Gelion!

 

[Gelion]

Welcome back Gelion!

Don't count on it, I still have classes for 1.5 weeks

 

[BasketCase]

So, could it be said that George Bush got the boot a month before he's gonna get the boot?

<BA dum bum CLANK>

 

[kramerfan86]

I personally liked the shoe chucking, it expresses what the polls cannot. Just wish he would have made actual contact at some point.

 

[BasketCase]

Every President in U.S. history has been on the receiving end of such abuse, Kramer. Every last one. Except Kennedy and Reagan--two cases where the attacker DID make contact.....

 

[Jawz II]

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/crappy_flash_games.php?gamename=bushoes

You know you want to.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Every President in U.S. history has been on the receiving end of such abuse, Kramer. Every last one. Except Kennedy and Reagan--two cases where the attacker DID make contact.....

What about Lincon ?

 

[Gooblah]

I'm still amazed that shoes symbolize "contempt and dirt", since shoes are what protect your feet from filth and dirt. It seems to me like you are scorning the very thing that helps protect you against illness. Throwing anything at someone is still insulting, but it would be more like throwing a bottle of antibiotics at someone rather than throwing a dirty cow pattie... Hyperbolic analogy, I admit, but I'm trying really hard (and utterly failing) to understand why a shoe is so demeaned, considering its practicalness.

A clean, well maintained shoe or boot is an invaluable tool to keep your feet healthy. It's still an insult to the person you throw your shoe at, but it seems to have a different sub-meaning in the "oriental tradition".

A) Not Oriental, Middle-Eastern. BIG difference.
B) Speaking as someone who's had significant contact with a similar culture (in fact, being raised in one), shoes are what you use to walk on dirt, grass, and come into contact with thousands of germs and the lower parts of life (sewage, etc). Thus, the shoe represents dirt, disgust, gross materials.
C) Having shoes thrown at you indicates that you are no better than the filth that the shoes comes in contact with.

Just trying to help, hope I explained it well.

Edit: Oh, is it true that the reporter's being tried for throwing shoes near al-Maliki, not Bush?

 

[Merkinball]

There is a war between the insurgents and the occupation army of the USA. If the insurgents are fighting for control over "the most vast oil reserves in the entire world", then so is the occupation army opposing them. That conclusion is inevitable. - Innon

Invariably. However, there is a distinction between the two. Insurgency groups who seek to use terrorism and other objectionable means to obtain political power and accumulate wealth do so for their own interests. And by their own interests, I mean the group.

America, on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any tangible "oil gain" from this. None what so ever. The progress over the last two years has been so brisk that our own Democratic opposition congressmen are calling for Iraq to "pay for the war" with their oil revenues. I'm sorry, but we're not getting any benefit from Iraqs oil. Not the country, not our corporations. Iraq is an OPEC nation - Period.

Now, with that said, obviously we are fighting to protect the flow of oil in Iraq. That's a no brainer. But that's not because we want it for our own personal monetary and power ends. We want to protect the oil in an effort to stabilize the country, and boost economic prosperity throughout it. We want to protect the oil so that the Iraqi people as a whole can benefit from it. We're not doing it in an effort to promote our own special interests.

The differentiation must be absorbed.

The illegitimate US invasion, built on lies - Innon

I know we've had this discussion before, but bad intelligence is not a lie. Let's save this argument for another day please.

And it certainly destabilized Iraq. And continues to do so, deliberately. The whole strategy of the occupation depends on keeping Iraq unstable - if it attains stability and and independent government the occupation forces would be forced to leave, bereft of any political justification to continue the occupation. The US government would lose control over those oil reserves.
The neocon strategy of promoting and using instability to justify invasions has been very obvious - the even coined the term "failed state" in the process. - Innon

I'm sorry, but none of this makes any sense. Like -- None. Not one iota of sense to be found here.

"All insurgents": therefore by definition enemies to either submit or die - that was the goal of the operation. War is about murdering people who will not submit, or terrorizing them into submission. What the US did in Fallujah was no different from what Saddam had done to its own "insurgents". And he could, equally cynically, argue that civilians on the areas his army targeted were free to leave and cease supporting the rebels against his government - and that any who did not leave were therefore insurgents themselves. - Innon

Every time you try to equate death = death simply because its death, you fail. A democracy is not the same as a minority led totalitarian regime. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. The groups which led Fallujah at that time were another Saddam esque totalitarian dictatorship in the making. A group that would have foisted its own narrow version of Islam upon the entire population of a largely secular Muslim nation if given the chance. The idea that killing a bunch of people who sought to terrorize the general population of that nation in an effort to acquire wealth and power was the same as the US military which sought to shield the greater population from these evils is laughable. It's not even political fodder. It falls flat on its face.

Just one more time so you know this. Everytime you say death = death no matter what. And Violence = violence no matter what. You fail.

And the US is quite notorious for invading countries and intimidating the population to accept a military occupation there. - Innon

There, see. You did it again. And you failed again.

What the US did in Fallujah was no different from what Saddam had done to its own "insurgents". - Innon

Oh look, you did it again! Yup. America killing insurgents who want to kill as many innocent rival clansmen as possible is just is no different than insurgents killing as many innocent civilians as possible! I love your logic! It's so logically based! It holds so much merit!

You know what the irony of your horrible argument is? I originally described our tactics with Fallujah, and how attempted to preserve as much human life as possible in our operation with the Al Anfal Campaign which was pretty meant to kill as many innocent people as possible. And somehow, someway, you still manage to say that they are somehow, someway, morally equivelant.

You fail.

How is that any different? - Innon

You can't be serious.

You mean, what is different from purposefully gassing tens of thousands of women, children, and old people in villages devoid of "insurgent groups" and "Iranian soldiers" versus surrounding a city, leafletting the city, giving the innocent people a week to evacuate from the city, and urging the insurgents to abandon their positions and give themselves up. Oh gee, I don't know. What's different Innon. If you there's a blank void of air between your ears, I suppose nothing is different between the two. There's no moral difference between the Mumbai terrorists which tried to maximize civilian casualties, and the US which tries to preserve as many innocent lives as possible. None what so ever. It's all just the same.

Of course I'm being asinine right now.

It did? Then I return you your answer: prove it. - Innon

LOL You can't be serious. I've done this about a dozen times on the board. I'm not doing it again, and not in this thread.

Prove it. Really, you're coming across as a firm believer in "we can do no wrong". Have you any idea how ridiculous that seems? - Innon

This isn't how you play this game. I asked him to prove his allegations. He can put up, or he can shut up. I'm not to the point where I have to back up my counter-allegations.

Fallujah was not an isolated incident. - Innon

I hate to tell you this. But uhhhh... yeah, it pretty much was. I'll say it again, Fallujah was really the only case of total war over the entire course of the Iraq war. Even An-Nasariya doesn't hold a candle to what took place in Fallujah. The vast majority of Iraq has been pure assymetric warfare. Nothing more, nothing less. Ambushes here, ambushes there, counter insurgency raids here and there...blah. Fallujah was really...in all honesty, the only hardcore battle of this war. Ya know, the stuff that legends are made of.

But by doing it (Fallujah), your country is using the same methods (repression and terror) its propaganda blames those "insurgents" of. - Innon

You couldn't be any more wrong. Fallujah is now prosperous. It has been rebuilt from the ground up. The insurgency is gone. The unrelenting violence, intimidation, and near ethnic cleansing of its neighborhoods has evaporated. If I recall correctly, American forces are in the process of turning Fallujah over to Iraqi's as we speak. There has been some excellent exposes that have been done by numerous global news outlets on the remarkable transformation that has taken place in the wake of Fallujahs complete and total destruction.

Will it ever enter your thick head that the difference between an "insurgent" and a civilian in a situation such as Iraq's is minimal? - Innon

Well I mean, in the eyes of the ignorant? Yes. In reality? There is a huge difference. There is a huge difference between someone that wants to live their life, and someone who takes up an AK and tries to kill the people who just want to live their life. One of the huge mistakes that people make when taking this attitude is that they forget that the insurgency was far more Iraqi vs Iraqi than it was Iraqi vs US armed forces. In which case, the distinction between civilian and insurgent becomes quite clear.

"used it as an agent to flush out insurgents"... again, ridiculous. What were the alternatives for those insurgents, run away from their hideouts to be properly killed with the more kindly bullets or explosives? - Innon

I don't know what you're arguing here. I mean, come on, do you really think I care? I'm just stating facts. I mean, it's your partner in crime who's vehemently opposed to the use of white phosphorus because apparently it's a much worse death than a bullet. Not me.