Originally posted by Curtis In both WWI and WWII, the majority of the American public was AGAINST going to war. In both instances, public opinion didn’t swing towards prowar until blatant acts of aggression were committed against America by the enemy(the declaration of unlimited submarine warfare by Germany in WWI, the bombing of Pearl Harbor in WWII).
I was thinking more along the lines that Americans wanted to support the allies, but thank you for correcting me.
Originally posted by Curtis The times when Americans were most eager to go to war(before being attacked) is usually when the enemy is way overmatched, for instance the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Iraq War that just finished.
Yes, and in particular, the Mexican American War was supported by southerners and westerners. The south and west wanted to add more slave states to the United States.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 Say, for a moment, that removing Saddam Hussein from power does not constitute ‘liberation.’ In that case, we don’t need to look back too far to find other liberation-based conflicts. The most obvious: Gulf War I. Was that illegitimate too? No doubt. In fact, I’d probably have to go back to World War II to find an act of liberation that you’d support ( e.g. we saved France, for all their government cares ).
Okay, enough with the France-bashing. As far as WWII goes, it is ridiculous to believe that all frenchmen were in la resistance, but still, look at their military record. Entire divisions of French troops (possibly some partisans as well) were annihilated staving off the Germans so that the Miracle at Dunkirk could take place. They’re not perfect, but neither are we (after all, we have the death penalty! ^_^; )
That aside, does it strike anyone that when…
Article Nantz said soldiers fired automatic weapons for 20 to 30 minutes. Because residents carried away the dead and wounded quickly, Bray said troops had no idea about Iraqi casualties overall.
In twenty to thirty minutes of firing, they managed to kill 13 and wound 75? I don’t know how susceptible our troops are to Spray-'n-Pray, but it seems to me that they certainly weren’t firing at the crowd. Perhaps there were people firing on them from a rooftop. Are these deaths and injuries trajic? Of course. That doesn’t make them unjustified.
Originally posted by Kraken Are these deaths and injuries trajic? Of course. That doesn’t make them unjustified.
Who cares if they justified, for taking an innocent life, even if it is not one of ours is still a terrible/unjustified event. For they should taken their time and taken out these shooters carefully!
Originally posted by me In twenty to thirty minutes of firing, they managed to kill 13 and wound 75? I don’t know how susceptible our troops are to Spray-'n-Pray, but it seems to me that they certainly weren’t firing at the crowd. Perhaps there were people firing on them from a rooftop. Are these deaths and injuries trajic? Of course. That doesn’t make them unjustified.
See how much time they took? In any high stress situation, (when I think of it, all situations), three seconds is a long time. Now think about twenty to thirty minutes. They did take their time.
Originally posted by OmegaflareX So you’re saying that Americans oppose wars until they’ve been attacked? – cut off
Uh, no. I said Sephiroth Katana opposes war until we’re outright attacked. Do I need to answer the rest?
Yes, they did. Your point is?
Just that we did liberate Kuwait. Sephiroth Katana said it was not a war of liberation, and I said it was. If you’re finished blindly leaping into this discussion – oh, wait, you’re not.
If they were fired upon, it’s natural to fire back instead of presenting yourself as an open target. Although if the U.S. troops weren’t fired upon, they shouldn’t have been so quick to act. However, if they were being threatened, they were left with no other choice.
Then we’re probably agreed that, “If this is how a liberation army acts; I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” is not a fair response to the article. Though you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about here.
When all else fails, think abstract…
You’ve missed the bulk of our discussion. You have no idea what you’re talking about, because you have no idea what we’re talking about. If you want to participate, read through the earlier posts.
In twenty to thirty minutes of firing, they managed to kill 13 and wound 75? I don’t know how susceptible our troops are to Spray-'n-Pray, but it seems to me that they certainly weren’t firing at the crowd. Perhaps there were people firing on them from a rooftop.
Originally posted by Heaven’s Soldier
[b]Well then they may have taken a long time, but it still did not stop killing those 13 people, and injuring the other 75! Now did it?
What the hell were they doing, they took all that time and managed to get so many innocents involved. How the hell did they manage that? [/b]
Are you sure those numbers are correct? I read in the local newspaper ( the day after ) that an Iraqi organization gave thirteen deaths and seventy-five injuries, while the military said seven were reliably dead and an uncertain number injured. I’m not disputing you, but if you have a more recent source, I’d like to read it.
Originally posted by Kraken Okay, enough with the France-bashing. As far as WWII goes, it is ridiculous to believe that all frenchmen were in la resistance, but still, look at their military record. Entire divisions of French troops (possibly some partisans as well) were annihilated staving off the Germans so that the Miracle at Dunkirk could take place. They’re not perfect, but neither are we (after all, we have the death penalty! ^_^; )
Right, I tend to like French people. That’s why I specified their government.
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana No, this is ridiculous, as she has already said that my interpretation of her post was correct.
Well, she would hardly say my interpretation of her post was correct. She would have had to admit that she had said something unfair.
If a “liberation” army shoots into a crowd of civilians - even in the event that it is shot at from somewhere among the crowd and <i>even in the event that it is not at fault</i> - people who see them firing into that crowd will not view that as an act of liberators, and will prefer to not be “liberated” by them.
The problem is that she connected the way an army ‘acts’ to preferring ‘not to be liberated.’ There is an implication that the army is ultimately at fault for how it acted. Think not? Then let’s rephrase Nulani’s statement so that it obviously concurs with your interpretation: “If this army is going to fire back when fired upon, when innocent people are present, I think I’d prefer not to be liberated.” Clearly, it bears a whole new meaning. It no longer implies blame on the army; therefore it becomes pointless to say.
That’s not an anti-American belief, nor is it a condemnation of the military. It is simply how public opinion often works, and it is a recognition of the fact that we have gotten ourselves into an extremely messy situation in which every course might result in some harm to us.
You’re reading into her comment as a deep, sociological insight. It may have elements of one, but in fact it was just an offhand comment; not intended for careful explication, but to shortly convey that she disapproved of the army’s behavior. Alas, that’s become lost in a series of miniature arguments that have brought confusion into what’s really a simple matter. Maybe - “If this is how arguing people act; it will be impossible to get anything accomplished” - you can explicate that.
“Uh, no. I said Sephiroth Katana opposes war until we’re outright attacked. Do I need to answer the rest?”
Well then, SK is entitled to his opinion, and you are to yours. I apologize for reading your post incorrectly.
“Just that we did liberate Kuwait. Sephiroth Katana said it was not a war of liberation, and I said it was. If you’re finished blindly leaping into this discussion – oh, wait, you’re not.”
Well, I agree with you there, the war WAS a war of liberation. Blindly leaping into this discussion? Go read the second page.
“Then we’re probably agreed that, “If this is how a liberation army acts; I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” is not a fair response to the article. Though you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about here.”
To be honest, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One one opinion you seem to be agreeing with Nulani’s statement, but on another you seem to imply that you oppose it.
“You’ve missed the bulk of our discussion. You have no idea what you’re talking about, because you have no idea what we’re talking about. If you want to participate, read through the earlier posts.”
I agree that was a little quick of me, I would have edited it but my Mom wouldn’t let me stay on the computer for another minute.
[QUOTE]“Then we’re probably agreed that, “If this is how a liberation army acts; I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” is not a fair response to the article. Though you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about here.”
To be honest, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One one opinion you seem to be agreeing with Nulani’s statement, but on another you seem to imply that you oppose it.[/QUOTE]
Read the second page carefully; he agreed with Nulani that the what was happening after the “liberation” was the issue, and disagrees with her comment implying that the army situated in Iraq was completely at fault for the civilian deaths, if that is indeed her implication, which I doubt, actually.
Blindly leaping into discussions? What, do we need an invitation and an RSVP? No, we don’t, so fuck off. People can say what they want, when they want it.
The first Gulf War was not a war of liberation on the sole fact that Kuwait was being invaded, not being occupied. If Iraq had occupied Kuwait, then it would have been a war of liberation.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 Well, she would hardly say my interpretation of her post was correct. She would have had to admit that she had said something unfair.
So basically, Nulani is lying now, because you know what she meant so well that when she explicitly says she actually meant something different, the only conceivable explanation is that she must not be telling the truth. Rock and roll!
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana So basically, Nulani is lying now, because you know what she meant so well that when she explicitly says she actually meant something different, the only conceivable explanation is that she must not be telling the truth. Rock and roll!
Rather, she didn’t want to say, “I was wrong.” A familiar sensation, I’m sure.
Originally posted by Xwing1056
[b]Rather, she didn’t want to say, “I was wrong.” A familiar sensation, I’m sure.
Xwing1056 [/b]
You’d want to be careful with that phrase; it works both ways.
I have already made a post where, in my opinion, I adequatly explained what I put into the phrase. Sephiroth Katana has added his interpretation, one which I agree to. I will, however not argue with your interpretation, which you seem dedicated to retain at all costs. But it is in conflict with what I put into the phrase.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 A familiar sensation, I’m sure.
Oh, spare me your silly little low-level jabs. You sound like you need a vacation. I recommend Tahiti.