I know these are just terrorists, so who gives a damn. Is there any limit to the number of Iraqis we will kill before we view this as less than a good thing? ********************************* Up to 3,000 Iraqi fighters were killed in a show-of-force foray into Baghdad by American armored vehicles, the U.S. Central Command said Sunday. ยท U.S. 'Friendly Fire' Kills 18 in Kurdish Convoy Reuters - 17 minutes ago Special Coverage The command also said it was investigating a report of a friendly fire incident in northern Iraq (news - web sites). According to Kurdish officials, at least 12 people were killed when a U.S. warplane bombed a convoy carrying Kurdish fighters and U.S. special forces. In southern Iraq, British forces made their deepest push yet into Basra, with a column of 40 armored personnel carriers rolling into the country's second-biggest city after a series of strikes on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s loyalist defenders. Though Saturday's 25-mile incursion through an industrial section of southern Baghdad was brief, it inflicted a heavy toll, according to command spokesman Jim Wilkinson. More than three-dozen tanks and armored vehicles were involved; U.S. casualties were described as light. The blitz took two task forces of the 3rd Infantry Division from the southern outskirts of the city past Baghdad University and near the banks of the Tigris River, then back to the western outskirts of the city to the airport, which is under U.S. control. The U.S. Central Command said the estimated toll of 2,000 to 3,000 deaths referred to fighters only. Later, asked at a news briefing to explain how the number was calculated, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks gave no specifics, but said it was a reasonable estimate based on the resistance U.S. column encountered from Republican Guard units and militiamen and the weaponry used in response. "We know it was a considerable amount of destruction," he said. "In virtually every engagement we have, it's very one-sided." .........
THEY WERE SHOOTING BACK FOOL! It's not like rolled into ____ Square in Baghdad & shot the first 3,000 people we saw. War is NEVER a good thing, but what would you have us do - leave now? Sit at the airport & wait for them to give up? C'mon now - you are constantly baiting people on this board - why don't you post a message about the thousands of Iraqis who are helping us, instead of shooting at us. Why don't you post an article about the thousands Saddam & his cuz Chemical Ali have killed? Try to mix it up instead of being so blindingly one-sided.
So we have a war that is immoral and illegal in the eyes of the most of the world. We send our tanks and helicopter gunships past the University of Baghdad to see if we can smoke out some little guys with their outdated weapons or handarms. We slaughter them 3,000 to zero and I'm so one sided to question the morality of this? My bad. I forget at times that they are an imminent threat to the security of the United States.
It is perverse to cast Saddam's cronies as "little guys" after their brutal repression of the Iraqi people. Wake up, indigenous opression is opression is no better than foreign opression. oh, and the sixties ended thirty-odd years ago.
You're right glynch, we need to spot Iraq a few kills to make this war "competitive". God forbid the U.S. soldiers FIGHT BACK! Considering there have been Iraqi soldiers pretending to be civilians and killing soldiers I would think fighting back is the smart thing to do. <b>We slaughter them 3,000 to zero and I'm so one sided to question the morality of this? My bad. I forget at times that they are an imminent threat to the security of the United States.</b> You're right, lets just leave and let Saddam slaughter then 2 million to zero.
Aside from the cute reply about them shooting at our troops. doesn't any of this one sided slaughter make you wonder if Iraq was really an imminent threat to the world's one superpower after all? Seriously, I'm trying to see how you guys think.
<b>My bad. I forget at times that they are an imminent threat to the security of the United States. </b> You do realize there are terrorists cells in Iraq? About a week or two ago the coalition fired several missiles and completely wiped out a terrorists cell, while another terrorist cell, Al-Qaeda, remember them? Well they are fighting WITH Iraqi soldiers in this war. While you're lamenting the fact that the U.S. "slaughtered" Iraqi soldiers 3000 to zero, what about Al-Qaeda slaughtering innocent people in the World Trade Center 3000 to zero? And the fact that Iraq is obviously backing them if there are numerous terrorists cells in there.
ah, to stand behind the guns of the American fleet and feel unthreatened while condemning the American fleet.......
We're trying to see how YOU think! Poor old Iraq, they can't slaughter millions of their own people anymore because the U.S. is kicking the crap out of Saddam's regime. Well that's just tough. Excuse me when I don't feel sorry for people who are fighting for the right to have a dictator slaughter people "2 million to zero".
Well, I never really believed Iraq was a threat to us, but Saddam has been a threat to his own people long enough.
I'm serious. As I've stated before I was raised as a strict Catholic and was thus taught the sanctity of all life, not just that of fetuses. Is there a limit of how many of these little guys can be slaughtered because they are patriotically fighting for their country, before it would be considered morally problematical? Don't forget when considering the morality of this that we engaged in an offensive war to conquer their country, therebye putting them in the position of defending their country. We did this without the moral or legal backing of most of the world.
BTW, in my posts I assume we are trying to be more ethical than Sadam, who is also responsible for continuing this one sided slaughter.
So, glynch, you are liberal right? What made you go from being a strict Catholic to someone who is pro-choice? Nam?? Or was it something else?? Maybe the answer will let us all of here KNOW exactly what YOU are thinking when you start these threads.
<b>I'm serious. As I've stated before I was raised as a strict Catholic and was thus taught the sanctity of all life, not just that of fetuses. Is there a limit of how many of these little guys can be slaughtered because they are patriotically fighting for their country, before it would be considered morally problematical?</b> Well these "little guys" have helped contribute to killing or helping protect a man that has killed 2 million people. You don't find that disturbing. You don't think there should be a limit to the people Saddam is slaughtering and that it should be stopped? I mean people are quick to rip the U.S. for "slaughtering the little guy", but refuse to acknowledge the fact that Saddam's regime has murdered about 60,000 people per year since 1979. <b>Don't forget when considering the morality of this that we engaged in an offensive war to conquer their country, therebye putting them in the position of defending their country. We did this without the moral or legal backing of most of the world. </b> Nobody is conquering the country, we're trying to get Saddam out. The U.S. gave Saddam a chance to get out without fighting. You're trying to act like it's "The BIG BAD U.S. vs Iraq", when it's really the U.S. vs Saddam's regime with the majority of the Iraqi people both in and outside of Iraq WANTING the U.S. to get Saddam out of there. Saddam is an piece of garbage that has killed millions of people. Do you really think it's Saddam and the Iraqi people vs the U.S.? Or is it Saddam vs the U.S.?
Well, ignoring the part about whether you think the war is justified (that's a whole other thread), what do you suggest happen? The U.S. troops be less aggressive and put their own lives further at risk? Or do you suggest we set an Iraqi Deathtoll Quota (we'll call it the IDQ), and when that is reached we pack up and leave? How does 3,771 sound?
