ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:57 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
KC,While I agree that a victory is assured it could turn into a real dirty fight.
Look at this nice article from CDI.


Children Used as Soldiers in Iraq

Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org

During the decades of war in Iraq, the images of suffering children have become commonplace. Experts estimate the under-five mortality rate to be 130 deaths for every 1,000 live births. Moreover, the effects of years of sanctions are well known as an estimated twenty-two percent of Iraqi children under 5 suffer from moderate and severe forms of malnutrition. But the 1.1 million children under the age of 18 (nearly fifty percent of the Iraqi population) are not only suffering the effects of war related to sanctions and landmine injuries. Many children are also directly involved in the ongoing fighting in Iraq.

Existing Iraqi law perpetuates the use of children as soldiers, as it has for many years. It is believed that children were used during the 1991 Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq War. Current Iraqi law allows voluntary recruits at age 15, and during war allows conscription of those younger than age 18. Currently, approximately 1,000 children are believed to be in the official Iraqi government armed forces. However, Iraq doesn’t just rely on traditional recruits or conscripts to fill its military ranks.

For decades Iraq has developed several military training programs to prepare youths for war and militarize Iraqi society and culture. Both boys and girls participate in these military programs, some as young as 10. Some of the best known of these programs include: "Raad" and "Al Anfal," which have trained over 23,000 children, and "Saddam Cubs," military training camps for 8,000 Iraqi children. In these three-week programs children aged 10 to 15 are trained to rappel from helicopters, take part in hand-to-hand combat, infantry tactics, and small arms use. Some of these programs are known to last up to 14 hours a day, and according to the State Department’s Human Rights Report on Iraq, families that refused to enroll their children in these programs were threatened with the loss of their food ration cards. In other cases, the State Department reported that children were denied school examination results if they hadn’t registered in one particular program, the Fedyayeen Saddam. (Saddam’s Martyrs). According to reports this particular unit is made up entirely of children and contains between 18,000 and 40,000 troops. These children report to the Presidential Palace (not the government army) and undertake patrolling and anti-smuggling responsibilities.

Iraq has not signed the one international treaty protecting children under the age of 18 from use as soldiers, the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Indeed, Iraq has taken no steps towards preventing the use of children in its military, or cutting back on military training programs for young children.

Armed opposition groups within Iraq are also known to use child soldiers. In 1998, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) was believed to have 3,000 child soldiers in its forces, more than ten percent of which were girls. Reports indicate that the PKK has used children since 1994 and even developed a children’s battalion named Tabura Zaroken Sehit Agit. A child as young as seven was reported in the PKK’s ranks. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), another Iraqi opposition group, is also believed to use children as soldiers. Reports have indicated children as young as 10 are serving within the PUK’s ranks.

As the United States sends more troops to the region and plans for a possible ground invasion, occupation, or other kind of operation, the fact that Iraq has thousands of military trained children should not be taken lightly or ignored completely. U.S. military forces may come into contact with child soldiers in the course of military operations in Iraq, as the number of children in the Iraqi military and opposition groups will increase during times of active fighting. The U.S. military needs to provide training to its soldiers before deploying to Iraq to help troops prepare for the reality of facing children in combat. The first U.S. casualty in Afghanistan was reportedly due to the gunfire of a 14 year-old child. The U.S. military would be well served to address the likelihood of direct combat with children before troops are deployed to avoid the shock and horror of seeing armed children renders U.S. troops defenseless.


Combine this with some controlled media outlets,saddam could easily turn the world against us.If we were to go to war we would have to make it the quickest blitz ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 7:19 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 16:42, Kills Commies wrote:
I'm sorry, but any philosophy that decrees that greed is good is inherintly flawed.


You obviously have no understanding about what Objectivism is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I'm distilling objectivism down into a simple sentence. Sure, a lot gets lost in that, but I don't give a crap.

Secondly...Barghest, it is a well known fact that soldiers not specifically psychologically prepared to kill other people (check out the training we do to our soldiers...its not that way for their health) shoot to kill* 15% of the time. Look at the statistic from Afghanistan- it follows that from the casualities inflicted by both the NA and Taliban regulars, that these troops are not used to shooting to kill. In fact, data suggests that the shoot-to-kill* percentage might be a bit BELOW 15%.

Now, think of KIDS. Angry and hungry and tired or no, they are just as or more unprepared to shoot their fellow human than the poorly trained Afghan regulars.

No, I doubt these kids will make a difference. Maybe make for bad PR, but eh...its war. If anything, the kids will surrender more readily than the (understandably) cowardly Iraqi regulars. These arn't Hitler Youth fanatics we're dealing with here, folks. These are poor kids who really deserve a better life, not under Hussein's rule.

*Shoot to kill is defined when you actually shoot to hit the person. If you're not shooting to kill, you're either shooting purposely to one side, or more often high, in hopes of scaring off the opposition.

-Kills Commies
“Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . .” (General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 7, 1944)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:06 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Let me start by making some concessions. First, I'm not some monster who thinks that we should, with all our power and influence, do nothing to stop human rights violations throughout the world, even if doing so happens to also coincide with our goal to amass a shitload of oil. I happen to think that it would make sense to go assassinate Saddam, install a new (even a puppet, if necessary) government, and help out the Iraqi people. Also, I know my name is stupid, and I can understand why you would want hate it, although that is sorta the point/joke of it.

However. On principle, The United States has no right to go to a country we like/that has something we want, create a new government for it, and then say it was all the name of human rights. And don't say we didn't do this. In Afghanistan, we said that we went in there to get Bin Laden and stop these "atrocious" acts of terrorism from ever occuring again. When we realized that that was a bit too broad, it was decided that the point was actually to liberate the oppressed Afghani women and create a new government for the country. This may not be a bad goal, but do we really have any business simply invading a country because a terrorist organization is based there? And besides, while a terrorist agency did attack us and kill 3000 people, how does that compare to what we've done in the world do defend our interests? How many people died in the Gulf War, or the attacks on Afghanistan? Worse yet, how many people have died due to our sanctions, or because their leaders try to match us in power?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Well, my friend, here's the deal. No one who knows what they're talking about says we're invading Iraqi or Afghanistan for the sole reason of human rights violations.

We're doing it because it is beneficial to the United States to do it. It is wonderful that we also get to stop these human rights violations, but the overriding reason for all of this is that it is beneficial to WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, that these dictatorships get overthrown.

-Kills Commies
“Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . .” (General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 7, 1944)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:20 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 20:06, Kills Commies wrote:
I'm distilling objectivism down into a simple sentence. Sure, a lot gets lost in that, but I don't give a crap.


Which is why I don't take you seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
boo-fucking-hoo.

If you had any brains in that skull of yours, you would have realised that implies that I've been around the block of objectivism before, and dismissed it after reviewing it. I'm simplifying it for the layperson, as a few boardies read this for entertainment. If you would be so kind as to fuck off with your Ayn Rand fangirliness, it would be much appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 20:41, Kills Commies wrote:
boo-fucking-hoo.

If you had any brains in that skull of yours, you would have realised that implies that I've been around the block of objectivism before, and dismissed it after reviewing it. I'm simplifying it for the layperson, as a few boardies read this for entertainment. If you would be so kind as to fuck off with your Ayn Rand fangirliness, it would be much appreciated.


I second that. I have yet to find one thing worth my time or trouble in Ayn Rand. And boiling it down to Greed is Good is very accurate. It's very similar to social darwinism that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
There's something so... strangely satisfying about seeing KC argue with an objectivist...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:17 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
"Greed is good." is not an accurate representation of what Objectivism is. Greed is simply the desire for material values, and whether it is good or bad is determined by the context of what you do to satisfy your greed. If you steal to satisfy it you are evil, if you work honestly to satisfy it you are good. Greed in and of itself isn't good or evil so using it as a smear word against Objectivism is futile.

Oh, and Ice, I am curious, exactly how is it satisfying to see and argument between an Objectivist and KC? I find it rather boring... *Yawn*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Goldstandard on 2002-11-11 23:18 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 11:14 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I find it boring too, since you always take 1 small, irrelevant point and ignore all my actual arguements in favor of propagandizing.

I'm sorry, but that shit doesn't work here. Please go somewhere where people are gullible enough to fall for your idiotic fangirliness, because no one takes an objectivist seriously here.

Maybe if you got your history strait, you'd realise you were wrong. But hey, who needs history books when you have a dogmatic self denial?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
So true, KC, so true . . . ^^

(No, I'm not insulting KC, he knows what I mean.)

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:15 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
The only people who truly take objectivism seriously are those who are inherently selfish people with no impulse towards benevolence. She advocates living your life as an entirely self-centered person without stopping to help people along the way. I also like how she goes on and on about what is and is not "art" in her Romantic Manifesto. Oh, and if you like books narrated from the 4th person Anthem's your bag (god that book was a pain in the ass to read.) She's boring and not too bright/perceptive and you'd be better off finding a philosophy that doesn't emphasize personal selfishness. Or, of course, you could go hardcore and co-opt Nietsch's beliefs. Certainly would make your arguments more interesting.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:53 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Well, for the record, KC, I actually said I that I agreed with post 17. However, you seem to get <i>so</i> upset over nothing but an occasional Ayn Rand quote; in this case I put one up relating to nuclear war. But you have decided to be Mr Gestapo and declare war on someone who doesn't share your view of existence.

Quote:
Edit: and if I see ONE MORE Ayn Rand quote, I'm going to pull a Jihad of my own on Goldstandard.


Since you can't do shit to me physically, what this means is that you will just continue to slander me and my chosen philosophy.

From the very begining you have treated me with nothing but contempt, all because I happen to hold ideas different from you. I do not give respect if I do not recieve respect, so don't expect me to take you seriously if all you are going to do is insult and smear me.

I seem to remember Kitsune getting a bit irritated a few days ago about someone mocking his religion. So people stopped. I happen to hold some strong philisophical views, and I get smeared and slandered as if I was some evil beast. Do I really deserve that?


And as for you Veritron, if you even bothered to pay attention to the plot of Anthem you would understand that in that society saying the word "I" was punishable by death. So of course everybody would refer to themselves as "we!" But enough about Ayn Rands fiction.

What really bothers me is your assertion about Ayn Rands form of egoism. Objectivism says that in order for people to be truely happy, they must live for their own sake, rather than for the sake of others. From what you say, Objectivists are all assholes who screw over everyone else. This is not the case, because if you even bothered to pay attention to what Ayn Rand says, you would know that we consider it wrong to sacrifice others to oneself. Objectivism doen't have anything against being benevolent, it only says that you should always look after yourself <i>first</i>. Objectivists do value certain people, such as their friends and their loved ones. If an Objectivist has a friend who needs some help with something he will help him if he can. Objectivists are willing to risk their lives for those they love, if they love them so much that they wouldn't care to live without them. They may even help a stranger, if it involves no personal sacrifice. (Example: Moving over a few inches to the right so someone behind you can see the guy making a speech.)

What we WILL NEVER DO is be benevolent towards those we have contempt for, those who hate us and those who are just plain evil.

If this makes me an idiot, make the most of it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Goldstandard on 2002-11-12 15:01 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I've already been around this block, stupid. I've heard this exact same arguement plenty of times, and it frankly clashes with any contractualist thinking (which is what all of human society is and has been based on, no matter the political bent) and so is poorly contrived in it's ideals.

Also, no one has claimed that Objectivism required that you hurt people- it simply follows that one would logically hurt other people to benefit oneself. IE, 'the smarter you are the harder it is not to take advantage of your dumber brethren.'

So in that sense, Objectivism postulates that morality should be tossed aside when faced with self interest. Though no one is SAYING you should kill people, supposedly if it benefits you, you're not going to need to hesitate to do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:52 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Just playing devil's advocate here...

That's true if you don't take social interaction into account, but what if you do?

-One's goal is happiness. If I'm not mistaken (which I might be; it's been years since I read any of Ayn Rand's philosophical stuff as opposed to her fiction), this is a primary tenet of Objectivist thought.

-One's happiness depends to a large extent upon the actions of others. This is true even if you don't care what they think; business, after all, depends upon the actions of others in buying a product.

-If one pisses off too many people, by, for example, contributing to their deaths or injuries, others will start to notice.

-If enough people notice and act upon it, one's happiness will start to go down.

-Therefore, one should take others' welfare into consideration.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
Enough!Why don't you guys go start another debate thread?

Lets try and get back on topic.Now if we were to attack iraq I feel we should wait till our missile interceptor systems are finished.There is no telling how many SCUDs he still has left and if he has armed them with bio-warheads.Even though it would be political and bascially physical suicide for him,he probably wouldn't hestitate to fire if backed into a corner.

_________________
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
Sir Winston Churchill, My Early Life, 1930


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1914
Location: Baal Secondus
I agree. We should wait till we can intercept his missiles and then attempt to take them all down at once to be on the safe side.

_________________
"We Legion know what it be like to be warjack. When death comes, I die bleeding oil and sparks like metal brothers. When death comes, I die in steam." - Deidric Harkinos, veteran of the Man-O-War Legion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
That is actually more of a concern for the Isrealis. His scuds can hit all of Isreal... barely. I suspect that Isreal is aware of this issue and has given Washington its blessings behind closed doors.

Hussien isn't even close to having missles that could in anyway threaten the US or Europe with the exception of Turkey, which is a unlikely target. Hussien has 3 logical targets. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Isreal. The first two rule themselves out because Saddam needs the support of the Arab world and if he starts attacking parts of it he's likely to find himself with out any friends. So we only need worry about Isreal and I think that they are aware of and accept the risks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Well, you see, the missile defense system would be in place so we could go after both China and North Korea with little/no worries of nuclear weapons being used, for three main reasons:

A) All the USA's plans involve air supremacy, and as such our air force is ~30 years ahead of what most other airforces have. There is the problem of redundancy that the air force seems to want (2 air superiority fighters? come on guys, why can't we just have 1 at half the price?) but thats an issues for another thread. Therefore, a nuclear bomb being used is mostly out of the question

B) The missile defense system would render inert any ICBMs, which is basically what prevents us from going after china for too many human rights violations to list here. That and economic needs...but that would be a minor thing once China is actually under attack.

C) For the few nuclear weaponry that they could use (bombs, perhaps, or maybe the chinese version of the nuclear artillery piece) it is VERY inadvisable to nuke your own home. Besides that, much of China (especially the younger generations) hate the government. This would be a political death knell to the 'People's' Republic of China, because no one would support a regime that not only uses nuclear weaponry, but uses it on its own soil.

(snide comments about hiroshima/nagasaki are not welcome. The circumstances and mentality of the time were different- today, little else besides an attack by another WOMD would justify it in the eyes of a large percentage of the American people.)

-Kills Commmies
“Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . .” (General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 7, 1944)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group