Saddam Hussein Executed

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

But then shouldn't it also imply we were being "condescending and imperialistic" by invading it if the first place?

Possibly. (leaving aside the need to remove a dictator)

And isn't Michael Lewis, the letter's author, being "condescending and imperialistic" by stating that he understands the how the Iraqi and Middle Eastern cultures think, by stating himself "it is unreasonable to expect that the Shia would not dance for joy at the death of Saddam."

I don't think so. I think he is demonstrating some understanding of their mindset.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Civilians killed by accident?
I take it that the government know the area before an attack is launched?
They would know it is populated by a high percentage of innocent civilians, just as, as bill pointed out about warrington, the ira knew the area.
" Indiscriminate bombing " you call this an emotive phrase, when I look up the meaning of the word " Indiscriminate " here is what I get:


" not showing careful thought or planning, especially so that harm results "

To twist my opinion to be some " anti troop " comment is out of order.
My whole point is against this government, they cannot say they do not condone execution on humanitarian grounds, yet allow bombings of areas highly populated by innocent civilains, what are they trying to say? are they saying that it is not right in a humanitarian " improving people's lives and reducing suffering " way to not agree to execution? but it is ok to do the other? and this is why I am saying it is hypocritic.
I dont need a lecture from you or anyone about conflict, I am so sorry that my opinions do not " tally " with the stereotypical profile held in peoples heads.
Tell me how you differentiate between what the IRA were doing, the suffering they were causing, and what this government is now doing, tell me how we can take the moral higher ground?
Having served in the forces the troops have my utmost respect, sadly that does not carry forward to our leaders.
I would love to be proved wrong if the place is at peace next year, I mean, sadam has now been removed from power, which was the mandate for our troops going over there, so they should all be home soon thankfully.

arcamalpha, I wasn't trying to twist your comment into an anti-troop statement - if it came out that way, it wasn't meant to. No one is trying to lecture you, they just have a different opinion to you (the joy of a democratic society).

The statements are only "hypocritical" if you believe that "acts of war" are in the same category as "state execution", and the UN disagrees with you.

Once again, you appear to be comparing the IRA actions (who set out deliberately to bomb civilians) with those of our troops (who when returning fire or attacking enemy strongpoints, accidently cause civilian casualties and deaths). And you also equate "state execution" with "acts of war", which if you were in the forces, is a very strange equation to make. I think you will find there is a huge difference in deliberately targeting civilians and "collateral damage" in a war crimes tribunal (though not unfortunately to those killed or injured).

Do you actually believe our troops would take part in "indiscriminate bombing"? I find this deeply offensive, having been in the RAF (Comms/SigInt), having being posted to Germany, Cyprus, NI, Masirah, HK, etc, and worked alongside 2 Para, 2nd Royal Anglians, IntCorp, Royal Signals, and others.

I was asking (imho) a valid question - if insurgents are firing from a building, and there are civilians are in that, or nearby, buildings, are you saying it is indiscriminate to attack that building? If so, what would you suggest - as you say, you have served in the forces, so surely you have some opinion on tactics? (what were your last three, btw?).

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Possibly. (leaving aside the need to remove a dictator).

As has been stated many times in this thread - best get our uniforms on, then, there are still a lot of dictators waiting to be removed; I wonder why this one was chosen?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I don't think so. I think he is demonstrating some understanding of their mindset.

Or perhaps just his opinion, which he is entitled to, but does not necessarily make him an expert.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

arcamalpha, I wasn't trying to twist your comment into an anti-troop statement - if it came out that way, it wasn't meant to. No one is trying to lecture you, they just have a different opinion to you (the joy of a democratic society).

The statements are only "hypocritical" if you believe that "acts of war" are in the same category as "state execution", and the UN disagrees with you.

Once again, you appear to be comparing the IRA actions (who set out deliberately to bomb civilians) with those of our troops (who when returning fire or attacking enemy strongpoints, accidently cause civilian casualties and deaths). And you also equate "state execution" with "acts of war", which if you were in the forces, is a very strange equation to make. I think you will find there is a huge difference in deliberately targeting civilians and "collateral damage" in a war crimes tribunal (though not unfortunately to those killed or injured).

Do you actually believe our troops would take part in "indiscriminate bombing"? I find this deeply offensive, having been in the RAF (Comms/SigInt), having being posted to Germany, Cyprus, NI, Masirah, HK, etc, and worked alongside 2 Para, 2nd Royal Anglians, IntCorp, Royal Signals, and others.

I was asking (imho) a valid question - if insurgents are firing from a building, and there are civilians are in that, or nearby, buildings, are you saying it is indiscriminate to attack that building? If so, what would you suggest - as you say, you have served in the forces, so surely you have some opinion on tactics? (what were your last three, btw?).

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------


As has been stated many times in this thread - best get our uniforms on, then, there are still a lot of dictators waiting to be removed; I wonder why this one was chosen?



Or perhaps just his opinion, which he is entitled to, but does not necessarily make him an expert.

If you dont find it indiscriminate for our government to order the bombing of targets that could result in civilian casualties then that is your right, as you say about a democratic society
So, if it is not indiscriminate, what is it?
What other word can you find to describe it?
My whole point, is that the government cannot have it both ways, they cannot claim that they are against execution on humanitarian grounds, then they order mass bombings of areas populated by civilians.
I prefer to leave the tactics to the experts, they are paid a lot more than I ever was, but the tactics are obviously not working are they?
As I have said, it is not a go at the troops over there.
Again you seem obsessed in wanting to know my last three?
I have always been of the opinion that the ones who " gob off " about their history are the ones best treated with a pinch of salt.
I have given my opinion, I dont lose sleep over whether its agreed with, as you say its a democratic society
ATB.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

If you dont find it indiscriminate for our government to order the bombing of targets that could result in civilian casualties then that is your right, as you say about a democratic society
So, if it is not indiscriminate, what is it?
What other word can you find to describe it?
My whole point, is that the government cannot have it both ways, they cannot claim that they are against execution on humanitarian grounds, then they order mass bombings of areas populated by civilians.
I prefer to leave the tactics to the experts, they are paid a lot more than I ever was, but the tactics are obviously not working are they?
As I have said, it is not a go at the troops over there.
Again you seem obsessed in wanting to know my last three?
I have always been of the opinion that the ones who " gob off " about their history are the ones best treated with a pinch of salt.
I have given my opinion, I dont lose sleep over whether its agreed with, as you say its a democratic society
ATB.

I think the biggest problem is reaching an uderstanding if the areas are indeed populated by "innocent" civilians, or civilians who support the bad guys and are in effect offering themsleves as human shields.

How often have military buildings been bombed and we hear them claim it was a hospital, and how many times have they placed a target next to a hospital for their own reasons. These terrorists use all methods they can against our troops. For them killing troops is far more important than some innocent lives, I'm afraid they set the rules and we play by them how many innocent lives in their own countries have these terrorists killed!

There will always we bad decisions, and decisions that cost innocent lives to get the baddies. As I said before, I guess it will all result in one set of baddies being replaced by another set.

[Mr Angry]

Supposed consideration for the lives of innocent civilians in the current war in Iraq where bombs, missiles and artillery are concerned, is a nonsensical argument and one which is clearly debunked by conflict history.

Furthermore it is a notion which is theatre / demographic dependant.

For example, there have been several mentions of the IRA in this thread - up until the current "war on terror" the biggest solitary threat to british security and, some may say, strategic global interests.

Never, in it's entire history, did the British army carpet bomb or use missiles or tanks againt the IRA in West Belfast or South Armagh (two of their strongholds from which the bulk of their operations were either planned or carried out). No one sanctioned the bombing of Leeds or Bradford in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

These two instances alone show that the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq are far less valued than the lives of innocent civilians in Britain. That is not to say that British soldiers wantonly target civilians with their munitions. However, you don't need to be Einsten to determine the potential for collateral damage and, as such, rationales such as some proffered here are deeply flawed. The aforementioned munitions are designed to inflict maximum damage, be that collateral or structural.

The face and practicalities of war have changed dramatically in the last 20 years to one of "distance conflict" whereby the ordinary soldier / pilot is as far removed from the conflict in which he / she is engaged as is practically possible whilst his / her usefulness / specialism is still of value to the core conflict.

The days of minimum civilian casualties resulting from military / paramilitary conflict are long over - that is a given.

It's also why democracy through war is a lot more palatable when it's being exercised several thousand miles away and not on our own doorsteps (the internet and 24hr tv broadcasts notwithstanding).

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Supposed consideration for the lives of innocent civilians in the current war in Iraq where bombs, missiles and artillery are concerned, is a nonsensical argument and one which is clearly debunked by conflict history.

Furthermore it is a notion which is theatre / demographic dependant.

For example, there have been several mentions of the IRA in this thread - up until the current "war on terror" the biggest solitary threat to british security and, some may say, strategic global interests.

Never, in it's entire history, did the British army carpet bomb or use missiles or tanks againt the IRA in West Belfast or South Armagh (two of their strongholds from which the bulk of their operations were either planned or carried out). No one sanctioned the bombing of Leeds or Bradford in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

These two instances alone show that the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq are far less valued than the lives of innocent civilians in Britain. That is not to say that British soldiers wantonly target civilians with their munitions. However, you don't need to be Einsten to determine the potential for collateral damage and, as such, rationales such as some proffered here are deeply flawed. The aforementioned munitions are designed to inflict maximum damage, be that collateral or structural.

The face and practicalities of war have changed dramatically in the last 20 years to one of "distance conflict" whereby the ordinary soldier / pilot is as far removed from the conflict in which he / she is engaged as is practically possible whilst his / her usefulness / specialism is still of value to the core conflict.

The days of minimum civilian casualties resulting from military / paramilitary conflict are long over - that is a given.

It's also why democracy through war is a lot more palatable when it's being exercised several thousand miles away and not on our own doorsteps (the internet and 24hr tv broadcasts notwithstanding).

Correct me if I am wrong but is it British soldiers that are doing the bombing and shelling of civilian area's, I have always understood that we have very different 'rules of engagement' to those of our allies

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Correct me if I am wrong but is it British soldiers that are doing the bombing and shelling of civilian area's, I have always understood that we have very different 'rules of engagement' to those of our allies

"That is not to say that British soldiers wantonly target civilians with their munitions"

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"That is not to say that British soldiers wantonly target civilians with their munitions"

Understood and I quite agree, however I seem to remember reading a report that said coalition forces were responsible for over 30% of civilian deaths out there, a pretty shocking figure considering how many people are being murdered each day by terrorists

[Escapee]

Did anyone see this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6232859.stm

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

For example, there have been several mentions of the IRA in this thread - up until the current "war on terror" the biggest solitary threat to british security and, some may say, strategic global interests.

Never, in it's entire history, did the British army carpet bomb or use missiles or tanks againt the IRA in West Belfast or South Armagh (two of their strongholds from which the bulk of their operations were either planned or carried out). No one sanctioned the bombing of Leeds or Bradford in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

Of course that's a valid point, unless of course the reason why West Belfast, South Armagh, or Leeds weren't carpet bombed was because there were alternative tactics available, such as police raids on houses, now there's a thought.
Similarly, raids on houses have taken place in Iraq, correct?
It's not all carpet bombings is it?
In fact, carpet bombings in comparison with house raids with troops is a rare thing wouldn't you say?
There are thousands of times more house raids by soldiers than there are carpet bombings right?

Not forgetting that the IRA did take steps to have areas cleared of civilians in many bombings by alerting the authorities.
That's one major difference between the insurgents and the IRA.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Of course that's a valid point, unless of course the reason why West Belfast, South Armagh, or Leeds weren't carpet bombed was because there were alternative tactics available, such as police raids on houses, now there's a thought.
Similarly, raids on houses have taken place in Iraq, correct?
It's not all carpet bombings is it?
In fact, carpet bombings in comparison with house raids with troops is a rare thing wouldn't you say?
There are thousands of times more house raids by soldiers than there are carpet bombings right?

Not forgetting that the IRA did take steps to have areas cleared of civilians in many bombings by alerting the authorities.
That's one major difference between the insurgents and the IRA.

If my memory serves me correct, I thought the IRA generally made a phone call before the bomb went off in a building?

I think the big difference was the IRA were nasty terrosrists without a doubt, but they did all they could not to kill one of their own side. These terrorists in Iraq are not so worried, because life is seen as cheaper than in the west.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

If you dont find it indiscriminate for our government to order the bombing of targets that could result in civilian casualties then that is your right, as you say about a democratic society
So, if it is not indiscriminate, what is it?
What other word can you find to describe it?
My whole point, is that the government cannot have it both ways, they cannot claim that they are against execution on humanitarian grounds, then they order mass bombings of areas populated by civilians.
I prefer to leave the tactics to the experts, they are paid a lot more than I ever was, but the tactics are obviously not working are they?
As I have said, it is not a go at the troops over there.
Again you seem obsessed in wanting to know my last three?
I have always been of the opinion that the ones who " gob off " about their history are the ones best treated with a pinch of salt.
I have given my opinion, I dont lose sleep over whether its agreed with, as you say its a democratic society
ATB.

As you say - don't lose sleep.

ps I didn't gob off about my history, I just stated it to show I had some - You don't even appear to know what your "last three" are .

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Of course that's a valid point, unless of course the reason why West Belfast, South Armagh, or Leeds weren't carpet bombed was because there were alternative tactics available, such as police raids on houses, now there's a thought.
Similarly, raids on houses have taken place in Iraq, correct?
It's not all carpet bombings is it?
In fact, carpet bombings in comparison with house raids with troops is a rare thing wouldn't you say?
There are thousands of times more house raids by soldiers than there are carpet bombings right?

Not forgetting that the IRA did take steps to have areas cleared of civilians in many bombings by alerting the authorities.
That's one major difference between the insurgents and the IRA.

Yes, you're entirely right. There were alternative tactics available then in Northern Ireland as there are now in Iraq. That these strategic house raids are regularly carried out in Iraq is not in dispute, nor is the fact that house to house searches cause less collateral damage than carpet bombing.

Factually the house raids in Iraq far outweigh the number of carpet bombing incidents. However, the significantly lower number of carpet bombing incidents have claimed many more innocent civilian lives than house raids.

The fact is that carpet bombing, heavy artilliery, missile and mortar fire has taken place in Iraq in densley populated areas and killed civilians (even when the option of house to house was available). As I stated earlier this is a part of the changing face of "distance conflict", due in no small part to the fact that the French realized very early in their military campaigns that dead soldiers do not win wars.

My argument is that anyone who thinks that the use of such munitions can in some way be controlled to minimize civilian casualties in these circumstances is barking up the wrong tree. I have witnessed the after effects of this type of ordnance and worse (see flechettes) in Beirut and other theatres and, even when deployed by the most professional of soldiers, there is no way to legislate for potential civilian casualties if the environment is a predominantly civilian populated area.

I'm not saying the current tactics in Iraq are right or wrong (either way they don't seem to be working) but simply that if the ends justifying the means involves the use of indiscriminate (beyond targetting) fragmentational ordnance in civilian areas then it is entirely 100% likely that innocent civilians will be killed. No amount of "careful targetting" will prevent the fact - so quite why anyone would seek to say they are trying to minimize civilian deaths and casualties whilst using ordnance designed specifically to fragment is beyond me.

Civilians will die - even with the best will in the world that is unavoidable. Once a war starts no amount of hand wringing, conscience cleansing or well intentioned soundbites regarding "careful deployment" will change that fact.

Military commanders attempt to expunge their consciences and the consciences of their suborbdinates by using the argument that they are trying to prevent civilian losses. The best way to prevent such a magnitude of civilian losses is not to use certain ordnance - but this takes us into the realm of "house to house, street by street" and the potential for military losses on a far greater scale. It comes down to economics of personnel. If you can kill the baddies with minimum losses to yourself then you do it - fact (and indeed objective) of war.

Based on what the military know to be factual regarding the design and deployment capabilities of certain ordnance there is no logical reason for them to excuse or to seek to excuse the deaths of civilians once that ordnance has been utilized in a conflict situation. That is a fact of life.

On Northern Ireland.

Had the British army / establishment sought to carpet bomb selective parts of Belfast or South Armagh citing their losses and the embedded terrorists and their support infrastructure in those areas they would have been quite justified (based on current military losses in Iraq vis a vis the figures for military losses in any three year period in Northern Ireland) in doing so.

There would have been no reasonable argument against the the use of carpet bombing / artilliery use / mortars or missiles to affect the suppression of insurgents / terrorists in Northern Ireland (or Bradford for that matter) beyond the fact that it was morally and democratically unjustifiable in the eyes of an otherwise civilized society. That, and a preference for counter insurgency, infiltration and effective intelligence gathering (not really available options in Iraq), is why it was never used as an option. The result? A thirty year war.

This brings me back to my point of exercising democracy on our own doorsteps. The notion of carpet bombing, the use of heavy artilliery, rockets, tanks and mortars in civilian populated areas is entirely acceptable to the civilian population of Britain and America in certain conflict situations - as long as it isn't happening on their own street or area.

Fragmentational ordnance may be dirty, morally objectionable and a very real threat to civilians but that is how they were designed and they work. That is the reality of war.

I realize this is all off topic (apparently some bloke got hung) and apologize for the length of the above. If anyone would like to discuss these things in detail perhaps we should start a new thread or move to pm or email to exchange views?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

As has been stated many times in this thread - best get our uniforms on, then, there are still a lot of dictators waiting to be removed; I wonder why this one was chosen?

All of what you are insinuating is probably true but the fact remains that he did need deposing....

Or perhaps just his opinion, which he is entitled to, but does not necessarily make him an expert.

No one said he is an expert, least of all him. He is merely possibly showing an understanding of the Arab mind...

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Bloody great big snip

Does your fingers hurt after a post like that.