Bwah-haha there are some real retards posting up above in this thread. General Norman freed a country from invaders. What have YOU done to help others?
Norman Schwarzkopf died
- Thread starter Twister
- Start date
It was he who wanted to drop the limited nuke strike on Iraq/ Baghdad ...but Powell said no..too many civilians would die....
Dude had some major balls......
RIP
Dude had some major balls......
RIP
He also used mis- direction...the fucknut journalists thought they were so fucking smart scooping the whereabouts of the allied forces....Sadamn had all bis forcess focused on the water...and the allies had a free run...straight into Baghdad from the desert side.....he Couldve wiped them out before they could get their guns turned around!!!!!!
He was a fucker who ordered bulldozers to bury soldiers huddled in the sand. The dozers had machine guns on them firing away so no one could stand up to surrender or escape
He also ordered fleeing soldies killed as they tried to flee back to Iraq on the infamous "road of death"
Iraq soldiers were forced to fight or their families would be killed
How do you justify such mass murder when the enemy did not have a chance and was run by a ego maniac
The killings were needless and lacked humanity or creativity and go against the united nations charter and the geneva convention but when you are a hammer all problems are a nail
CapitalGuy, not sure I would use the word retard, but can ceratainly think of a few pejoratives to describe the views expressed by yoga pants. Stunningly myopic, inaccurate and detached view of events. It was an armed conflict and, nasty as that might be to some sensibilities, the idea is to stay alive and kill the other guy. Would it have been "nicer' if the enemy combatants were mowed down in open battle or bombed from above? And how in God's name do you kill enemy soldiers creatively and with humanity. This is the living end in touchy feely nonsense. And I would like to see links to the Geneva convention and the UN Charter that would condemn the actions that were taken in warfare. This was not a case of murdering unarmed civilians (non combatants).Bwah-haha there are some real retards posting up above in this thread. General Norman freed a country from invaders. What have YOU done to help others?
Whatever his personal qualities or his competence as a soldier were (and I believe both were admirable), I think involvement in the Iraq war is nothing to be celebrated. He served his country...in an immoral and cynical event.CapitalGuy, not sure I would use the word retard, but can ceratainly think of a few pejoratives to describe the views expressed by yoga pants. Stunningly myopic, inaccurate and detached view of events. It was an armed conflict and, nasty as that might be to some sensibilities, the idea is to stay alive and kill the other guy. Would it have been "nicer' if the enemy combatants were mowed down in open battle or bombed from above? And how in God's name do you kill enemy soldiers creatively and with humanity. This is the living end in touchy feely nonsense. And I would like to see links to the Geneva convention and the UN Charter that would condemn the actions that were taken in warfare. This was not a case of murdering unarmed civilians (non combatants).
Fair enough. But what often seems to be lacking when positions like this are advanced, and especially that from yoga pants, is the specific alternative that should have been pursued. To your point, I have reservations about the second war with Irag. The whole pretext of WMD etc. But do not agree with immoral. I have NO issue with the first war in Iraq which was pursued by a great many countries, including arab. What was the alternative? Ask Sadam to pack his bags and leave Kuwait? The history of appeasement is not a glorious one.Whatever his personal qualities or his competence as a soldier were (and I believe both were admirable), I think involvement in the Iraq war is nothing to be celebrated. He served his country...in an immoral and cynical event.
The first thing lost in war is the truth.. From all sides.
I really don't think anybody on this forum can properly judge the general for his activities.
He was a soldier who followed orders.
He was one senior commander amongst many that devised the winning strategies.
The air commander of the first Gulf War ( I think it was Horner ?) did a more brilliant job then anybody.
Not sure who came up with the Hail Mary move with the tank divisions.
And yes in many ways they looked at my man's strategies for ideas.
But I did like how Norm appeared to take no bull shit.
I really don't think anybody on this forum can properly judge the general for his activities.
He was a soldier who followed orders.
He was one senior commander amongst many that devised the winning strategies.
The air commander of the first Gulf War ( I think it was Horner ?) did a more brilliant job then anybody.
Not sure who came up with the Hail Mary move with the tank divisions.
And yes in many ways they looked at my man's strategies for ideas.
But I did like how Norm appeared to take no bull shit.
Here's to General Schwarzkopf, a great general, leader and man.
Yoga face is obviously a bit light on facts. The only mistake made at that time was not carrying on and finishing Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi soldiers caught on the "highway (not road) of death" were fleeing a country THEY invaded and annexed. A great many of the vehicles destroyed in the air attacks were stolen high end civilian vehicles filed with valuables the soldiers looted from Kuwaitis.
Yoga face is obviously a bit light on facts. The only mistake made at that time was not carrying on and finishing Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi soldiers caught on the "highway (not road) of death" were fleeing a country THEY invaded and annexed. A great many of the vehicles destroyed in the air attacks were stolen high end civilian vehicles filed with valuables the soldiers looted from Kuwaitis.
When surrender was being negotiated, before Stormin' Norman would discuss anything, he presented a full accounting of US held POWs and demanded an accounting of his own missing men. Then he established that all POWs would be released to their respective nations. After that, the usual discussions could take place. Of Iraq had not assuaged his concerns for his own men, Schwatzkopf would not have allowed the peace talks to progress any further and likely would've kept pushing into Baghdad.
As for the bulldozers....the total "buried alive" was only found to be around 44. Certainly the death toll would've been much higher if soldiers had to engage in the trench clearing themselves. Honestly, I don't see why it matters. A bomb will kill people who surrender too. Why does it matter if they were killed by a bomb, a tank, a grenade or a bulldozer? As a soldier, you are required to take all steps required to minimize collateral damage and that includes the deaths of innocents, POWs, refugees, stragglers AND people surrendering. If a guy stands in the middle of a bunch of people shooting at your platoon and puts his hands up in surrender, the grenade that takes him and the rest of his squad out is perfectly acceptable by Geneva Convention.
Once you choose to put on a uniform, you're aware of the risks. And you know that Geneva MIGHT protect you... But you also know it might not. And I'm sure the Iraqi's knew that too.
As for the bulldozers....the total "buried alive" was only found to be around 44. Certainly the death toll would've been much higher if soldiers had to engage in the trench clearing themselves. Honestly, I don't see why it matters. A bomb will kill people who surrender too. Why does it matter if they were killed by a bomb, a tank, a grenade or a bulldozer? As a soldier, you are required to take all steps required to minimize collateral damage and that includes the deaths of innocents, POWs, refugees, stragglers AND people surrendering. If a guy stands in the middle of a bunch of people shooting at your platoon and puts his hands up in surrender, the grenade that takes him and the rest of his squad out is perfectly acceptable by Geneva Convention.
Once you choose to put on a uniform, you're aware of the risks. And you know that Geneva MIGHT protect you... But you also know it might not. And I'm sure the Iraqi's knew that too.
Specific alternative to what? Rescuing all that oil? Getting mixed up with Saddam in the first place? Being complicit in the subjugation of Arab people throughout the region?Fair enough. But what often seems to be lacking when positions like this are advanced, and especially that from yoga pants, is the specific alternative that should have been pursued. To your point, I have reservations about the second war with Irag. The whole pretext of WMD etc. But do not agree with immoral. I have NO issue with the first war in Iraq which was pursued by a great many countries, including arab. What was the alternative? Ask Sadam to pack his bags and leave Kuwait? The history of appeasement is not a glorious one.
Avoiding an answer with a question is a good tactic. I will try one more time to get your comprehensive perspective. Try this. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, would you have left him alone to do it? If no, what would you have done?Specific alternative to what? Rescuing all that oil? Getting mixed up with Saddam in the first place? Being complicit in the subjugation of Arab people throughout the region?
You remember that Gulf 1 began when Saddam invaded an Arab nation and they requested assistance from their allies, including the US? And you remember that once the Iraqi army had been crushed on routed, despite being on Baghdad's doorstep, the coalition left Iraq in order to engage in a diplomatic surrender?Specific alternative to what? Rescuing all that oil? Getting mixed up with Saddam in the first place? Being complicit in the subjugation of Arab people throughout the region?
How does responding to help from an Arab nation, then leaving after finishing helping them, contribute to the subjugation of the Arab people?
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just not letting you frame the question in a way I believe to be wrong.
The invasion of Kuwait was the culmination of a long train of events so it's wrong to try to understand it in isolation. If someone sets fire to a house, you put out the fire, but then that someone should be arrested for arson. Schwarkopf put out the blaze, but we shouldn't be celebrating the fact he had to do it. Words like "patriot" give an unwarranted gloss to the war. I'd have respected him just as much--or maybe more--if in private life he had condemned the job he was called upon to do.
The invasion of Kuwait was the culmination of a long train of events so it's wrong to try to understand it in isolation. If someone sets fire to a house, you put out the fire, but then that someone should be arrested for arson. Schwarkopf put out the blaze, but we shouldn't be celebrating the fact he had to do it. Words like "patriot" give an unwarranted gloss to the war. I'd have respected him just as much--or maybe more--if in private life he had condemned the job he was called upon to do.
I also remember the corrupt governments of the region that the U.S. has propped up for decades...which is how people have been subjugated. We both remember, I'm just going back further.You remember that Gulf 1 began when Saddam invaded an Arab nation and they requested assistance from their allies, including the US? And you remember that once the Iraqi army had been crushed on routed, despite being on Baghdad's doorstep, the coalition left Iraq in order to engage in a diplomatic surrender?
How does responding to help from an Arab nation, then leaving after finishing helping them, contribute to the subjugation of the Arab people?
Saddam was a product of the U.S.'s involvement in the region.
You're not a good skater.I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just not letting you frame the question in a way I believe to be wrong.
The invasion of Kuwait was the culmination of a long train of events so it's wrong to try to understand it in isolation. If someone sets fire to a house, you put out the fire, but then that someone should be arrested for arson. Schwarkopf put out the blaze, but we shouldn't be celebrating the fact he had to do it. Words like "patriot" give an unwarranted gloss to the war. I'd have respected him just as much--or maybe more--if in private life he had condemned the job he was called upon to do.
And you are still avoiding Celticman's question from post #32.I also remember the corrupt governments of the region that the U.S. has propped up for decades...which is how people have been subjugated. We both remember, I'm just going back further.
Saddam was a product of the U.S.'s involvement in the region.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just not letting you frame the question in a way I believe to be wrong.
The invasion of Kuwait was the culmination of a long train of events so it's wrong to try to understand it in isolation. If someone sets fire to a house, you put out the fire, but then that someone should be arrested for arson. Schwarkopf put out the blaze, but we shouldn't be celebrating the fact he had to do it. Words like "patriot" give an unwarranted gloss to the war. I'd have respected him just as much--or maybe more--if in private life he had condemned the job he was called upon to do.
I belive your are sincere in your belief system, but as an idealogue, you are unable to confront, let alone answer, direct relevant questions. For what it is going to add to anything, you can have the last word.I also remember the corrupt governments of the region that the U.S. has propped up for decades...which is how people have been subjugated. We both remember, I'm just going back further.
Saddam was a product of the U.S.'s involvement in the region.
Again, you are not a good skater. And you fail to deflect. You did not answer the question from post #32, no matter how many times you say "yes I did".I answered everything you asked. Not my fault if you don't understand.
Man up - tell us what you would have done. Or, run away like you want to.
If you want to have a discussion, can the rhetoric about skating etc. I've answered the other poster respectfully and expect the same.
I said Schwarzkopf had to put out the fire, and that answers Celtic man's question. I went further, and pointed out why I believe it's wrong to ask and answer that question in isolation.
I said Schwarzkopf had to put out the fire, and that answers Celtic man's question. I went further, and pointed out why I believe it's wrong to ask and answer that question in isolation.
