I see some of you are starting to see the consequences of attacking the mobs. Finally. However, you are still not understanding fully. There is nothing you can do about people's memory of the looting except help get the people to control themselves as soon as possible. The army that crushed Saddam is showing strength - weakness would be to deal with the looters with the only means at hand, lethal force. It is far better than some stereos get stolen than a squad of marines fires indiscriminantly into a crowd (which would certainly stop all looting I assure you). That is the wrong sign. People care about RIGHT NOW, which is indicative of the attitudes in here. If they walk down the street in a week and have police, working sewers, and a TV playing Brtiney Spears, they will RIGHT THEN be happy. The exact same way some discussers in here only talk about RIGHT NOW and ignore history constantly. People ignore the past and future because they are too ignorant or narcissistic to understand it. A perfectly human reaction, but one that infuriates me.
I'm seriously having a hard time understanding the shift in people's attitudes here. It was bad to invade a country and destroy its evil regime, and good to put a bullet in someone's head for running off with a gold-plated toilet seat.
Just like it was wrong to think the war would go on for months and involve a hundred-thousand civilian deaths, it is wrong to think that looting ever lasts more than a couple days.
Stop implying this. I'm not talking about some burglar who's laid an eye on Saddams shampoo, but about people raiding hospitals and foodstores. By 'enforce', I never meant lethal violence, nor did I imply such use, and while I agree with you that the coalitions handling of the situation can be called sovereign (sp?), it won't be percieved as this by many. If you want 'historic' examples - check Afghanistan, where exactely the same happened and some people drew the correct conclusion.
It <i>is</i> bad to invade a country, but it's even worse to claim to liberate it and then allow a small humanitarian disaster to happen <i>after</i> being victorious. This may appear to be ignorant or narcissistic to you, but there are humans dying <i>right now</i> in 'pacified' areas because medication they would have needed was stolen. Next week, people will walk down a street with a more or less working police that consists mainly of men who made their pledge on Hussein, pass a TV that plays some kind of new noise they don't understand, and go to these humans funeral. Will they be happy?
Before you start your old arguments again - yes, it's good that Hussein was put out of power, yes, it's good to at least try to offer these people freedom (whether this'll succeed is the question that dominates all our Iraq discussions), but these riots were the first taste of the price that'll have to payed for it, and if 'we', whoever that may be, don't pay attention, it'll be higher than we can imagine.
Before you start your old arguments again - yes, it's good that Hussein was put out of power, yes, it's good to at least try to offer these people freedom (whether this'll succeed is the question that dominates all our Iraq discussions), but these riots were the first taste of the price that'll have to payed for it, and if 'we', whoever that may be, don't pay attention, it'll be higher than we can imagine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry Nem, I just don't get it. The <b>first</b> price? FFS several thousands of people died! Far more than on sept. 11th for instance.
MonsE: Your pseudo-moral strikes me. It is good to bomb the hell out of the citizens because of a 'greter good' leading to so much death, grief, horror. But it is bad to stop those citizens from looting... funny. Besides, you are refering to <i>mobs</i> all the time. What mobs? There are just ordinary people on the streets, no 'mobs'. Some soldiers standing in front of the hospital would prevent any looting <b>at once</b>. Those soildiers were responsible for 'shock and awe' and now they can't protect a museum or a hopital? And you think the Iraqis would attack US soldiers just because they need the 'gold-plated toilet seat'?
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Apr 14 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Apr 14 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Nem, I just don't get it. The <b>first</b> price? FFS several thousands of people died! Far more than on sept. 11th for instance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The first <i>taste</i>. Don't ignore my words if you want to criticise my morallic integrity, please <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you run over a person in your car by accident, there was no intent. You are not a murderer, you are a manslaughterer (legal terms that might not make sense as you do not speak English as a first language).
If you drove down the street, saw an old lady, and swerved into her on purpose, killing her, you are a murderer. There was intent. You cannot compare the Sept 11 attacks and bombing iraqi government buildings, as there is no intent to kill civilians in the baghdad case. The attacks on sept 11 were intended dor killing civilians.
You might as well compare us bombing bagdahd to the car industry and blame them for all deaths in cars in the US. There were 58,000 last year. Your analogy does not work.
And you still missed my points. Go back and re-read, as your reply shows that you are misunderstanding me entirely.
Well, Lockheed Martin announced a failure rating of 8 to 12 percent for their smart bombs. I'd say the better comparision would be blaming the tobacco industry because it accepted that people would die to its benefit.
(just 1 thing: If there were ameriacan soldiers willing to stop the poeple from looting hospitals and museums there definately wouldn't be any looting in those places. Some patrolling soldiers would prevent the iraqis from stealing, simply because they fear them.)
Monse: Eggmac seems to think a major military prescense will stop looting. Its feasable too, considering how small of an area Bagdhad is and how the Iraqis aren't suspicious of our motives. I say a Bradley on ever corner! Thats a surefire to win their trust.
Look people: Monse has been in riot control training (situations too?) I think he knows more than us in these matters.
EDIT Yes, the US values human lives. We could have won with nukes. We could have carpet bombed that entire damn country back into the stone age. We could have riddled dumb bombs everywhere. We could have ignored humanitarian aid all together. What makes US warfare so unique in history is that we try to win with the least civilian deaths, and run massive propagand campaigns urging those already in harms way to get out of it. Do you think that imperial Britain would take over a nation, grant it its freedom and spend tons of money to rebuild it? No! Losing a war to the US has been the quickest path to modernization. I'm still amazed that, even after all evidence pointing to US policy almost handicapping itself in the interest of life, people still can be blind enough to criticize it!
I'm getting a little annoyed you're alluding to moral equivelance between my country and 'mass murders' ala Hitler and Pol Pot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course it was no intent to kill 'em, but it was known that they would be killed. Their death was accepted. Like a 10t truck on the pavement in the center of the city which just goes through people as if going through butter. And you country is responsible for their death. That is murder, mass murder, one of the gretest crimes of humanity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell do you think HAPPENS in war? People try to kill each other. Eventually, one side decides that they will spare lives and surrender. Of course the we value our troops lives more than Iraqi troops lives... but we still value them. Why else would civillians try to surrender to us? To get food and water. Patton said "The goal of war isn't to die for your country- its to make some poor 'child without a father' die for his!"
You can accept death as a part of war. I certainly do. I also accept death as a bad thing; I don't want to wish it upon anyone except maybe Saddam, Bin Laden, and Fox Executives for canceling Family Guy. As Monse explained, the key word is 'intent'. We weren't trying to kill civilians. They were (ala Human Shields and attacks on dissidents).
And 1 last thing: I beleive that this war was worth the 115 US soliders, as well as any Iraqi civillian casualties. We could either fight now with our military, accepting the deaths of Iraqi civillians and the US military, or wait until we needed to fight with fireman, police, and health professionals in a US city while more Iraqis die under their own government.
Lets see what eggmac has posted, well, that's interesting... What the... ?!?
Yes, most deaths in wars are accidental. Don't act surprised. When anyone starts throwing explosives around, someone who gets hurt not at the intention of the one throwing, that would have to be accidental. This is where the term "friendly fire" comes from, as I doubt very much a military force intends to kill its own as that is determental to being the victor in a life or death conflict. Should human shields used by the Iraqi military conflict over the duration of this conflict and the subsequent deaths of those people be considered a hostile act, and by whom? If Sadam Husien built military installations near schools, mosques, and hospitals, hitting civilians is intentional by the coalition forces or by the Iraqi forces? I think you are over looking alot of the details in what has gone on, and so your argument is terribly flawed.
Your answer to the mob mentality and looting is their (the coalition grunts) presence will deter mob mentality and looters? Er, they are already doing that, which according to you should be easy, but I thought you said it isn't good enough in a previous post. That's a contradiction, right? Perhaps you need to be a little more detailed in your suggested solution, then perhaps we can discuss this in a more reasonable manner.
Hmm, mobs, what mobs you ask, normal people you state... Er, but to the best of my knowledge, its always "normal" people who make up mobs, you just need a alot of them in one place and a social catylst (er, spelling?), like say a socially oppressive regime, mix liberally, and you have the recipe for instant mob. Mobs can happen anywhere large groups of people are gathered, like rock concerts, political protests, and even sports events.
Also, I feel the need to come to Monse's defence here, he has criticized his own government many times in the forums, so don't paint him as a US government lackey, since to the best of my knowledge, he no longer serves in the armed forces and has civilians right to voice his own opinions again.
From what I can see, I think you're just looking for a way to tar and feather the USA's military and political accomplishments, I'm not even sure it would matter who was in public office there to you and folks like yourself. I know folks who sound off in my own country, they totally hate the US for things they have done and it doesn't matter to them what they do now, they were wrong for hurting us and so everything they do from then on was wrong as well.
[edit] Jammer, you too, eh? Cancelling Family Guy was a crime against humanity, er, or something like that. I want Fox's top executives heads on a sliver platter! Monse, fetch! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
A big JUST KIDDING for anyone who thinks I'm serious, even the "Monse fetch!" comment, but hey, if you know anyone closer... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> [/edit]
Hmm. So accepting that a degree of looting is inevitable, and that resource is thin on the ground, wouldn't it have been sensible to locate most of that resource in the vulnerable areas (the hospitals etc - I can't condone risking peoples lives for wors of art)?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a rowdy mob was shot by US Troops, you would be screaming for war crimes trials, and you know it. Unacceptable solution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I would NOT if the mob opened fire on the US troops or attacked them. That's justifiable: you said it yourself. You're seriously telling me that looters would attack a US tank?!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a building is merely being emptied of TV sets and you are one of 2 Marines on a street corner against 500 looters, you stay out of it - this has been done. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could not give a rat's rear for TV sets: the reason I was upset was because the Baghdad Museum was looted. One **** building is what I wanted to see protected: looting of buisnesses and the like is, as you say, virtually unavoidable. I felt sick watching those priceless relics of the past being dragged out in wheelburrows and pawned off to whoever wanted them. This is probably why we're so riled up about this monse: I couldn't understand why you thought protecting 1 building was impossible and you thought I was suggesting controlling the whole city <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Never ever once did I state that I wanted to see the looting everywhere stop. Let me throw this at you Monse: you drop 500,000 people into New York and tell them to protect the Museum of Natural History. They wouldn't come anywhere near your troops.
The same would apply for hospitals: eggmac makes a good point. Controlling a few positions around the city would be easily attainable.
Looters are not out for confrontation: they're out for a quick buck. If you had a choice between trying to get through a US patrol around a museum and smashing open a TV shop with no guards you'd go for the shop. Why risk your life? Looters arn't soldiers (although some of them may have been in the army). As such they're going to be very intimidated by soldiers guarding a hospital or museum. 500,000 troops could hold up to I'd say a dozen buildings with ease. If you dispute that Monse then please give me your reasoning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I feel the need to come to Monse's defence here, he has criticized his own government many times in the forums, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Figural remark that doesn't touch the validity of Ryos statement: There are no 500.000 GIs in Baghdad, the number is closer to 10.000. Doesn't change the fact that one could've defended a number of isolated buildings (hospitals, culturally significant structures, stuff important for the infrastructure, media...). The question was whether the troops wanted to become the 'bad cops' right from the start, which they apparently didn't.
Sorry Nemesis you're right, I don't know where I got the 500,000 figure from. It was somewhere in this thread but I think I was mistaken. In any case I don't believe it changes the validity of what I said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question was whether the troops wanted to become the 'bad cops' right from the start, which they apparently didn't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just don't see how protecting hospitals and museusm would make the US troops "bad cops". I think the US would have won a lot of "PR" points for protecting such places i.e. "We're protecting Iraq's heritage for it's people" something like that. I know Fox would lap it up <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then again, they would've lapped a nuke in inner-city Bagdhad up.
I was referring to the impression the Iraqi public would've got - the coalition would've displayed (note to Jammer and MonsE: displayed != used) force from day one of the occupation, after all.
Argh, I knew my two posts would be provokative for super-conservative ideologists. That's why I deleted them 10 minutes after I wrote them, but obviously it was too late. Oh well...
This whole 'my morality is better than yours, n00b!' is not very progressive in discussions, you know...
10,000 isn't that many. You can't expect to fully control a city with that many men. The looting broke out while there was still fighting. Add in the fact that <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/15/wcops15.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/15/ixnewstop.html' target='_blank'>Baghdad normally has a police force of 40,000</a>.
You also need to recognize (which Nem does) the pyschological effect of having troops 'protecting' government buildings. It would look suspiciously like an occupation, one perception the US has been fighting even before the war began.
And I'm not super conservative... well... shut up! Don't look at my avatar! But neoconservative thought is based on the idea that yes, there is an objective moral reality and yes, we have a right to encourage (not enforce, keep in mind) adherence to that morality. But this is off topic.
I just find it highly amusing that you find ancient relics as or more important than human lives, Ryo. I wasn't expecting that - basically, it's an odd twist on capitalism, and I had you pegged for a socialist. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If it makes you feel any better, <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030415/pl_afp/iraq_war_museum_loot_us&cid=1521&ncid=1478' target='_blank'>the Army is trying to get them all back</a>.
Everyone chill and try and keep your perspective. As for "'my morality is better than yours, n00b", that's a one-line summary of almost all of your posts, eggmac. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Less emotion and more using brains people, please, or this forum will go down again and never come back.
And for gosh sakes, if you ask me to offer my experience on this sort of scenario, then tell me that my experience is wrong or incorrect, why bother asking? Everyone here who has dealt with rioting civilians while in the armed forces raise your hand. Everyone here who has not the slightest idea about it raise your hands. The idea of the discussion is to expand your minds, not just say 'well, I think having marines on a street corner DOES stop looters'; that's just pulling stuff directly from your ****, not to put a bad spin on it.
Comments
I'm seriously having a hard time understanding the shift in people's attitudes here. It was bad to invade a country and destroy its evil regime, and good to put a bullet in someone's head for running off with a gold-plated toilet seat.
Just like it was wrong to think the war would go on for months and involve a hundred-thousand civilian deaths, it is wrong to think that looting ever lasts more than a couple days.
By 'enforce', I never meant lethal violence, nor did I imply such use, and while I agree with you that the coalitions handling of the situation can be called sovereign (sp?), it won't be percieved as this by many. If you want 'historic' examples - check Afghanistan, where exactely the same happened and some people drew the correct conclusion.
It <i>is</i> bad to invade a country, but it's even worse to claim to liberate it and then allow a small humanitarian disaster to happen <i>after</i> being victorious. This may appear to be ignorant or narcissistic to you, but there are humans dying <i>right now</i> in 'pacified' areas because medication they would have needed was stolen.
Next week, people will walk down a street with a more or less working police that consists mainly of men who made their pledge on Hussein, pass a TV that plays some kind of new noise they don't understand, and go to these humans funeral. Will they be happy?
Before you start your old arguments again - yes, it's good that Hussein was put out of power, yes, it's good to at least try to offer these people freedom (whether this'll succeed is the question that dominates all our Iraq discussions), but these riots were the first taste of the price that'll have to payed for it, and if 'we', whoever that may be, don't pay attention, it'll be higher than we can imagine.
Before you start your old arguments again - yes, it's good that Hussein was put out of power, yes, it's good to at least try to offer these people freedom (whether this'll succeed is the question that dominates all our Iraq discussions), but these riots were the first taste of the price that'll have to payed for it, and if 'we', whoever that may be, don't pay attention, it'll be higher than we can imagine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry Nem, I just don't get it. The <b>first</b> price?
FFS several thousands of people died! Far more than on sept. 11th for instance.
MonsE: Your pseudo-moral strikes me. It is good to bomb the hell out of the citizens because of a 'greter good' leading to so much death, grief, horror. But it is bad to stop those citizens from looting... funny.
Besides, you are refering to <i>mobs</i> all the time. What mobs? There are just ordinary people on the streets, no 'mobs'. Some soldiers standing in front of the hospital would prevent any looting <b>at once</b>. Those soildiers were responsible for 'shock and awe' and now they can't protect a museum or a hopital? And you think the Iraqis would attack US soldiers just because they need the 'gold-plated toilet seat'?
...
FFS several thousands of people died! Far more than on sept. 11th for instance.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first <i>taste</i>. Don't ignore my words if you want to criticise my morallic integrity, please <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you run over a person in your car by accident, there was no intent. You are not a murderer, you are a manslaughterer (legal terms that might not make sense as you do not speak English as a first language).
If you drove down the street, saw an old lady, and swerved into her on purpose, killing her, you are a murderer. There was intent. You cannot compare the Sept 11 attacks and bombing iraqi government buildings, as there is no intent to kill civilians in the baghdad case. The attacks on sept 11 were intended dor killing civilians.
You might as well compare us bombing bagdahd to the car industry and blame them for all deaths in cars in the US. There were 58,000 last year. Your analogy does not work.
And you still missed my points. Go back and re-read, as your reply shows that you are misunderstanding me entirely.
<b>nevermind</b>
I see that we have different moral values so there is no use in discussing that.
<b>nevermind</b>
(just 1 thing: If there were ameriacan soldiers willing to stop the poeple from looting hospitals and museums there definately wouldn't be any looting in those places. Some patrolling soldiers would prevent the iraqis from stealing, simply because they fear them.)
Look people: Monse has been in riot control training (situations too?) I think he knows more than us in these matters.
EDIT
Yes, the US values human lives. We could have won with nukes. We could have carpet bombed that entire damn country back into the stone age. We could have riddled dumb bombs everywhere. We could have ignored humanitarian aid all together. What makes US warfare so unique in history is that we try to win with the least civilian deaths, and run massive propagand campaigns urging those already in harms way to get out of it. Do you think that imperial Britain would take over a nation, grant it its freedom and spend tons of money to rebuild it? No! Losing a war to the US has been the quickest path to modernization. I'm still amazed that, even after all evidence pointing to US policy almost handicapping itself in the interest of life, people still can be blind enough to criticize it!
I'm getting a little annoyed you're alluding to moral equivelance between my country and 'mass murders' ala Hitler and Pol Pot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Of course it was no intent to kill 'em, but it was known that they would be killed. Their death was accepted. Like a 10t truck on the pavement in the center of the city which just goes through people as if going through butter. And you country is responsible for their death. That is murder, mass murder, one of the gretest crimes of humanity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell do you think HAPPENS in war? People try to kill each other. Eventually, one side decides that they will spare lives and surrender. Of course the we value our troops lives more than Iraqi troops lives... but we still value them. Why else would civillians try to surrender to us? To get food and water. Patton said "The goal of war isn't to die for your country- its to make some poor 'child without a father' die for his!"
You can accept death as a part of war. I certainly do. I also accept death as a bad thing; I don't want to wish it upon anyone except maybe Saddam, Bin Laden, and Fox Executives for canceling Family Guy. As Monse explained, the key word is 'intent'. We weren't trying to kill civilians. They were (ala Human Shields and attacks on dissidents).
And 1 last thing: I beleive that this war was worth the 115 US soliders, as well as any Iraqi civillian casualties. We could either fight now with our military, accepting the deaths of Iraqi civillians and the US military, or wait until we needed to fight with fireman, police, and health professionals in a US city while more Iraqis die under their own government.
if(argument=logical)
{
eggmac.accept(false);
eggmac.say(void);
}
ROFL! Coding Humor is teh best! ;-)
Yes, most deaths in wars are accidental. Don't act surprised. When anyone starts throwing explosives around, someone who gets hurt not at the intention of the one throwing, that would have to be accidental. This is where the term "friendly fire" comes from, as I doubt very much a military force intends to kill its own as that is determental to being the victor in a life or death conflict. Should human shields used by the Iraqi military conflict over the duration of this conflict and the subsequent deaths of those people be considered a hostile act, and by whom? If Sadam Husien built military installations near schools, mosques, and hospitals, hitting civilians is intentional by the coalition forces or by the Iraqi forces? I think you are over looking alot of the details in what has gone on, and so your argument is terribly flawed.
Your answer to the mob mentality and looting is their (the coalition grunts) presence will deter mob mentality and looters? Er, they are already doing that, which according to you should be easy, but I thought you said it isn't good enough in a previous post. That's a contradiction, right? Perhaps you need to be a little more detailed in your suggested solution, then perhaps we can discuss this in a more reasonable manner.
Hmm, mobs, what mobs you ask, normal people you state... Er, but to the best of my knowledge, its always "normal" people who make up mobs, you just need a alot of them in one place and a social catylst (er, spelling?), like say a socially oppressive regime, mix liberally, and you have the recipe for instant mob. Mobs can happen anywhere large groups of people are gathered, like rock concerts, political protests, and even sports events.
Also, I feel the need to come to Monse's defence here, he has criticized his own government many times in the forums, so don't paint him as a US government lackey, since to the best of my knowledge, he no longer serves in the armed forces and has civilians right to voice his own opinions again.
From what I can see, I think you're just looking for a way to tar and feather the USA's military and political accomplishments, I'm not even sure it would matter who was in public office there to you and folks like yourself. I know folks who sound off in my own country, they totally hate the US for things they have done and it doesn't matter to them what they do now, they were wrong for hurting us and so everything they do from then on was wrong as well.
[edit]
Jammer, you too, eh? Cancelling Family Guy was a crime against humanity, er, or something like that. I want Fox's top executives heads on a sliver platter! Monse, fetch! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
A big JUST KIDDING for anyone who thinks I'm serious, even the "Monse fetch!" comment, but hey, if you know anyone closer... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[/edit]
Good points guys.
Good points guys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
SO TRUE!
Anyone who has something to say about my arguments?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I would NOT if the mob opened fire on the US troops or attacked them. That's justifiable: you said it yourself. You're seriously telling me that looters would attack a US tank?!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a building is merely being emptied of TV sets and you are one of 2 Marines on a street corner against 500 looters, you stay out of it - this has been done.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could not give a rat's rear for TV sets: the reason I was upset was because the Baghdad Museum was looted. One **** building is what I wanted to see protected: looting of buisnesses and the like is, as you say, virtually unavoidable. I felt sick watching those priceless relics of the past being dragged out in wheelburrows and pawned off to whoever wanted them. This is probably why we're so riled up about this monse: I couldn't understand why you thought protecting 1 building was impossible and you thought I was suggesting controlling the whole city <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Never ever once did I state that I wanted to see the looting everywhere stop. Let me throw this at you Monse: you drop 500,000 people into New York and tell them to protect the Museum of Natural History. They wouldn't come anywhere near your troops.
The same would apply for hospitals: eggmac makes a good point. Controlling a few positions around the city would be easily attainable.
Looters are not out for confrontation: they're out for a quick buck. If you had a choice between trying to get through a US patrol around a museum and smashing open a TV shop with no guards you'd go for the shop. Why risk your life? Looters arn't soldiers (although some of them may have been in the army). As such they're going to be very intimidated by soldiers guarding a hospital or museum. 500,000 troops could hold up to I'd say a dozen buildings with ease. If you dispute that Monse then please give me your reasoning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I feel the need to come to Monse's defence here, he has criticized his own government many times in the forums, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHEN?
Damn Monse fanboys <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The question was whether the troops wanted to become the 'bad cops' right from the start, which they apparently didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question was whether the troops wanted to become the 'bad cops' right from the start, which they apparently didn't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just don't see how protecting hospitals and museusm would make the US troops "bad cops". I think the US would have won a lot of "PR" points for protecting such places i.e. "We're protecting Iraq's heritage for it's people" something like that. I know Fox would lap it up <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I was referring to the impression the Iraqi public would've got - the coalition would've displayed (note to Jammer and MonsE: displayed != used) force from day one of the occupation, after all.
This whole 'my morality is better than yours, n00b!' is not very progressive in discussions, you know...
You also need to recognize (which Nem does) the pyschological effect of having troops 'protecting' government buildings. It would look suspiciously like an occupation, one perception the US has been fighting even before the war began.
And I'm not super conservative... well... shut up! Don't look at my avatar!
But neoconservative thought is based on the idea that yes, there is an objective moral reality and yes, we have a right to encourage (not enforce, keep in mind) adherence to that morality. But this is off topic.
If it makes you feel any better, <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030415/pl_afp/iraq_war_museum_loot_us&cid=1521&ncid=1478' target='_blank'>the Army is trying to get them all back</a>.
Everyone chill and try and keep your perspective. As for "'my morality is better than yours, n00b", that's a one-line summary of almost all of your posts, eggmac. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Less emotion and more using brains people, please, or this forum will go down again and never come back.
And for gosh sakes, if you ask me to offer my experience on this sort of scenario, then tell me that my experience is wrong or incorrect, why bother asking? Everyone here who has dealt with rioting civilians while in the armed forces raise your hand. Everyone here who has not the slightest idea about it raise your hands. The idea of the discussion is to expand your minds, not just say 'well, I think having marines on a street corner DOES stop looters'; that's just pulling stuff directly from your ****, not to put a bad spin on it.
Topic closed.