Cheetah772
Member
Hello everybody,
Thought I would take a moment to explain this.
Each day at my university, Gallaudet University in Washington DC, I get many comments on the American military machine and how awesome it can dish out damage to anybody daring to stand in its way.
Most of these comments were like, "Dan (my real name), haven't you heard in 1991, Americans killed these 100,000 Iraqis, they were innocent, what have they done to you? And the sanctions are killing a lot of women and children, in fact, Iraq is low on the medical supplies and other essential humanitarian items...."
Most people believe, including a few Americans, that the American military machine is fixated on causing serious civilian casualties, by that, I do not mean ethnic cleansings nor it means a new kind of mass massacre, nobody believes America would do that kind of thing, but I think the majority of world believe America intends to harm the civilians.
Thought I would post this one because it appears the majority of people here on the board believe in pacifist ideals.
First, these 100,000 Iraqis were not civilians, they were soldiers caught up in middle of withdrawing from the frontline, which Americans poured heavy firepower on the withdrawing units. Let me make clear on this, it was a proper tactical manevuer, and it wasn't illegal to open fire on a retreating unit because by then the ceasefire was not in effect. It later became the famous "Death on Highway." Hundreds of supplies, trucks, and other military hardware were destroyed in these few minutes of intense gunfire.
Second, the sanctions placed on the Iraqis were not meant to cause misery and death to the average Iraqi citizen, they were meant to deny Saddam the means to buy new updated military hardware and technology needed to build a new generation of WMDs. Saddam has used the misery to exploit the shortcomings of such sanctions, for these, I refer to Globalsecurity.org's PDF "Apparatus of Lies." I showed this to many of my friends and teachers who oppose the war with Iraq. In retrorespect, I think it was a mistake to place the sanctions on Iraq simply because it was not effective in preventing Saddam from exploiting such shortcomings, and was mainly counter-productive at least in long terms.
I strongly urge Marko and other people who oppose the war on this forum to read the short paper on such techniques used by Saddam from 1990 to 2003. Hopefully, this will change some of the misperceptions about the impending Iraqi conflict.
Further, it is not the main policy of the United States of America's armed forces to pursue the civilian targets that would cause the timely death of civilians. It is unfortunate that there will be collateral damage, which is common even with latest modern weapons, however, we do best to avoid such death.
I don't know why so many people continue to be mistaught about the rules of engagement in my American armed forces.
At times, I think a new course on the main roles of the armed forces is needed in the elementary schools, junior high, and high schools to educate these future generations on how the military operations are conducted in an orderly manner and compatible with these political objectives.
I honestly think the US armed forces are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world, due to so many harsh criticism of its military operations and political leaders as well.
I think a US Army recruiter would be benefical to show that the US Army and other branches do care about collateral damage and try their best to avoid this kind of damage and civilian deaths.
Dan
Thought I would take a moment to explain this.
Each day at my university, Gallaudet University in Washington DC, I get many comments on the American military machine and how awesome it can dish out damage to anybody daring to stand in its way.
Most of these comments were like, "Dan (my real name), haven't you heard in 1991, Americans killed these 100,000 Iraqis, they were innocent, what have they done to you? And the sanctions are killing a lot of women and children, in fact, Iraq is low on the medical supplies and other essential humanitarian items...."
Most people believe, including a few Americans, that the American military machine is fixated on causing serious civilian casualties, by that, I do not mean ethnic cleansings nor it means a new kind of mass massacre, nobody believes America would do that kind of thing, but I think the majority of world believe America intends to harm the civilians.
Thought I would post this one because it appears the majority of people here on the board believe in pacifist ideals.
First, these 100,000 Iraqis were not civilians, they were soldiers caught up in middle of withdrawing from the frontline, which Americans poured heavy firepower on the withdrawing units. Let me make clear on this, it was a proper tactical manevuer, and it wasn't illegal to open fire on a retreating unit because by then the ceasefire was not in effect. It later became the famous "Death on Highway." Hundreds of supplies, trucks, and other military hardware were destroyed in these few minutes of intense gunfire.
Second, the sanctions placed on the Iraqis were not meant to cause misery and death to the average Iraqi citizen, they were meant to deny Saddam the means to buy new updated military hardware and technology needed to build a new generation of WMDs. Saddam has used the misery to exploit the shortcomings of such sanctions, for these, I refer to Globalsecurity.org's PDF "Apparatus of Lies." I showed this to many of my friends and teachers who oppose the war with Iraq. In retrorespect, I think it was a mistake to place the sanctions on Iraq simply because it was not effective in preventing Saddam from exploiting such shortcomings, and was mainly counter-productive at least in long terms.
I strongly urge Marko and other people who oppose the war on this forum to read the short paper on such techniques used by Saddam from 1990 to 2003. Hopefully, this will change some of the misperceptions about the impending Iraqi conflict.
Further, it is not the main policy of the United States of America's armed forces to pursue the civilian targets that would cause the timely death of civilians. It is unfortunate that there will be collateral damage, which is common even with latest modern weapons, however, we do best to avoid such death.
I don't know why so many people continue to be mistaught about the rules of engagement in my American armed forces.
At times, I think a new course on the main roles of the armed forces is needed in the elementary schools, junior high, and high schools to educate these future generations on how the military operations are conducted in an orderly manner and compatible with these political objectives.
I honestly think the US armed forces are one of the most misunderstood organizations in the world, due to so many harsh criticism of its military operations and political leaders as well.
I think a US Army recruiter would be benefical to show that the US Army and other branches do care about collateral damage and try their best to avoid this kind of damage and civilian deaths.
Dan