So are we been too soft....

[dannyboyo]

I'm not for this whole war thing, but after todays events does anyone else agree that the whole "we're your friends" approach of the allied forces isn't really going in their favor?

Iraqies are welcoming troops into Basra and the like, then shooting them. These are relativly small cities compared to Bahgdad. I think unless we get tougher, we're in for an ass-whooping when we get there.

Feel free to debate!!

[pbrettle]

Well, judging by the images of the US POWs and the hunt for the 'airmen' by shooting in the reeds today my current thoughts are flatten the lot - who needs them anyway? Ok, so that is not a productive or sensible thing to say, but at the moment they dont and wont fight by the rules....

In the case of the Geneva convention - its there to keep any conflict at a reasonable level. Not to drop back into the attrocities of the first world war. However, it seems that the Iraqis dont care and unfortunately they will pay the price. Shame, it doesnt need to be this way.

Cheers,

Paul

[Avocet]

I thought the Yanks had killed more of our chaps than the Iraqis so far! One helicoper, one fighter and a TV news crew...

[funkynige]

We shouldn't go to their level and stop playing by the rules, we need all the international support we can get.
We don't stoop to the level of parading POWs on TV (well, not interviews anyway).
We could just flatten every single building in Iraq with masses of B52s and artillery, but our fight is not against the Iraqis, it's with Saddam. As soon as we start blowing the crap out of everything insight, we effectively lose.

[eric mc]

The US has conveniently classified the prisoners held at the Marine Base at Guantenamo Bay as not being "Prisoners of Wars" in the normal sense thereby circumventing those parts of the Geneva Convention that apply to POWs. I am not for one moment suggesting that these prisoners are being ill-treated, but it does give the Iraqis that little bit of leverage in any debate raised by the US on whether Iraq is applying The Geneva Convention to Coalition prisoners. Based on how POWs were treated in 1991, it is obvious that Iraq has no intenttion of sticking to the Geneva Convention.

If the war does go badly for the Coalition forces, is there the possibilty that the US might threaten Iraq with nuclear weapons?

[sublimatica]

eric mc said: If the war does go badly for the Coalition forces, is there the possibilty that the US might threaten Iraq with nuclear weapons?

I can't imagine this - our forces are treading a fine political line at the moment, and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis with a nuclear bomb would be a step too far, even for George Dubya, I think (hope).

The majority of the casualties to our troops so far have been frustratingly wanton (copter crashes and friendly fire), but death is the cold hard reality of war. Ask your grandad. More of our lads and lasses are going to die before this is over, which makes this a far cry from Gulf War I in 1991, which was a walk in the park by comparison and has left us all thinking that Iraq would be a push-over again.

Anyone who expected us to triumph with no casualties and with no Allied PoWs must be rather naive. I think the objective will be achieved in the end, though, with full credit to the people out there fighting.

[P*Ting]

funkynige said:
We could just flatten every single building in Iraq with masses of B52s and artillery, but our fight is not against the Iraqis, it's with Saddam. As soon as we start blowing the crap out of everything insight, we effectively lose.

I'd argue we'd win. Very effectively. I get the gist of what you're saying though. We're meant to be setting an example.

The difference between levelling the area with B-52s and levelling it with WMD is only in the number of buttons pressed. If we really want to preach about WMD we can't use them ourselves in any form.

[dannyboyo]

funkynige said:
We could just flatten every single building in Iraq with masses of B52s and artillery, but our fight is not against the Iraqis, it's with Saddam. As soon as we start blowing the crap out of everything insight, we effectively lose.

I'd say our arguement isn't just with Saddam, but with the f**kers that are excucuting the allied POWs. I saw earlier, the Iraqis were claiming the allied troops had been shot and killed in a battle, but they examined the footage and saw they all had been shot square in the forehead, then peppered with and AK47 afterwards. They're playing dirty. I realise Saddam is the main target, but I'm sure there are a few hundred thousand Iraqis who just can't wait to pop a bullet between the eyes of a UK or US soldier, with or without the orders of Saddam. So when we take out Saddam, are these people just gonna say "Oh sorry, we were wrong, we see the error of our ways, we'll be good now"? I think not!

Also, Iraq TV showed a little girl who had been injured by a bomb blast while out playing. FFS, it's the 4th or 5th day of a war, what the hell was she doing out playing anyway? Are people really this stupid, or are they just trying to tug at our heart strings?

[Buffalo]

I'm sorry, but are you not being just a bit naive??

The west (read US and UK mostly) have a problem with a guy and how he run his country. They invade the blokes country with more firepower you can shake a stick at and start shooting at his countrymen.

Then when they retaliate, we say its not sporting of him and he should play fair??

That is the most fckued up thing i've heard. War is NOT pretty - it the whole point of it. The geneva convention was brought in because politicians realised that the armed forces were just pawns and should not be held reponsible for their actions/orders - hence the idea of handing them back at the end of the day.

BUT SH has nothing to looe - we ARE invading his country whatever way you look at it - he doesn't want us there, he knows we are sensitive to our servicemen coming back in b-bags and this is the easiest way of getting the big chiefs to waver under public presure to bring our lads home.

This whole war strategy was thought out according to rules people like SH just don't play. This was painfully obvious. Anybody who thought it would be straight in - straight out, had been listening to idiots like george bush too long.

I have many reasons why i am against this war, the general consensus that SH is stupid and will crush just because the US flex their military muscle is one of them - they are not, they've continually outsmarted us and played us for fools since 1991 and unless we learn how to think their way, they will continue to do so.

This "shock and awe" bombing campaign was one such stupid tactic - what did they think was gonna happen? One night of bombing is not going to change a country's opinion of what they see as an agressor. The world is more complex than that and why a simpleton like George W(anker) Bush deserves no place at the head of what used to be a bloody nice place.

Sorry for the rant, but i think some people signed up for the war option either too early, or without fully apreciating what they were up against, and this is backfiring on us now. These are the people who were aall for it one miunute and then against it the next. If people had read more of the facts or had more of them spelled out before we went in, instead of this "if you're against the war, you're unpatriotic" bullsh1t maybe we wouldn't be having second thoughts now. Its more patriotic questioning the motives of your country's leader if you don't agree, than blindly following their every word.

Ok, ok i'm off now

I will add that although i don't know for sure, there is a very strong possibility my cousin is out there, so although i might be anti war - i hope to fcuk that the servicemen and women keep their heads down and their eyes alert so we don't have too many more come back inanimate, and maybe some good will come of this mess yet and prove me wrong.....

Peace y'all