South Korean Hostage Beheaded In Iraq

[Link47]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040622/D83C6L8G0.html

What the hell, is this the French revolution or something?

Seriously though, this is ****ed up. The militants don't realize that they are just making people hate muslums even more.

[Ditto]

They're getting desperate. They only did this because the Koreans dared stand up to help us.

I'm feeling less and less charitable towards these people.

[Mushroommarioman]

They don't realize how much resentment they're creating.

[Ditto]

They're gonna keep on 'til they really do.

And then God have mercy on their souls, cuz their bodies sure ain't gonna see much.

And there won't be a thing we can do for them, then.

[Gamer Chris]

God DAMN. This is getting out of hand...

---------------------------------

~Gamer Chris

[Ditto McCloaker]

Like I say, they're just getting desperate. In a horribly grotesque way, this is almost a... I hate to say it... positive sign.

They're scared out of their wits, and on the run, and they know it. Remember that note they found from al Qaeda's number two guy, saying his biggest fear was us turning over Iraq to a stable Democratic government this June?

They're angry, they're frustrated, they're terrified, and they're frantically scrambling for any way they can weaken or terrify their enemy.

[Ninja Hammer Man]

The terrorists want to kill any forien person that they capture.

[Erdawn Il Deus]

We should of finished with Iraq back in the freaking Gulf War...

[Ditto]

^YES. THANK YOU! There's hope for this forum yet.

We could have had Iraq cleaned out and secure by now, with a much lower cost, instead of listening to the wussies who said

[handwring]"but it's a *sob* sovereign nation! And we're killing all those innocent people with our wicked weapons of war! *sob* Oh, those poor Iraqis, with us messing up their country! We are such warmongers!!1"[/handwring]

Yes, they DO want to kill every foreigner they can, but they did it to that South Korean because that country is sending troops to help us.

They're angry, they're frustrated, they know they're on the losing side, they've got no hope, and they're trying to take as many people with them to Hell as they can.

[ June 25, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

[Nick]

[handwring]"but it's a *sob* sovereign nation! And we're killing all those innocent people with our wicked weapons of war! *sob* Oh, those poor Iraqis, with us messing up their country! We are such warmongers!!1"[/handwring]

Like G HW Bush and Colin Powell?

[Lord_Zack]

They don't care if we resent them. They want to kill or convert all of us. Also, I hate when people complain when we kill a few Iraqis. There are always a few people killed in any war. Do you think the Iraqis would have liked to have been killed by Saddam?

[UserGoogol]

I believe we had a plan to back an Iraqi-led revolution after the Gulf War, but we ended up not actually doing anything after the Iraqis started to revolt, and they ended up losing pretty badly. That was bad.

[Ditto McCloaker]

Thats' what I'm talking about. While we were there, we ACTUALLY got a revolution going, and intended to stay, but we were forced to pull out, and those people were left with... nothing.

Nobody cares that the Baathist Regime actually organized the commercial zones of Baghdad so that innocent civillians were next to valid military targets. Or that we are using the most advanced targeting technology in the world to produce more accurate bombings than any war in history. Or that these terrorist and insurgent monsters brutally murder innocents themselves to blame on us. Or that we've saved far more lives than we could ever WANT to take.

I think our policies are slowly starting to pay off. They just released three Turkish hostages (I'd like to know why, however). And didn't I hear something recently that we'd killed the lot who'd recently executed that Arabic marine? I didn't catch it very well, but we've shown them this gets them nothing but more despair.

Crush them all, says I. Don't laugh, don't enjoy it. But rub. Them. Out.

[ June 29, 2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Ditto McCloaker, Nintendo Loyalist ]

[spicy]

I like the hypocrisy of "What a despicable thing those militants have done, killing that poor man" and then "Will you STOP complaining of about us killing a few Iraqis?"

[Ditto McCloaker]

There is a difference between deliberate, cold-blooded murder and the regretted harming of innocents when you're trying to fight evil people. People need to realize that.

[spicy]

Still, you shouldn't act cold about it. A kill is a kill is a kill.

[Nick]

Pick up a book on the gulf war politics (I'd recommend one, but my brain isn't really functioning at the moment due to extreme fatigue, so if I have a major screwup in this, let me know). So it starts out as a US diplomat in the Iraqi embassy giving our good buddies, the Iraqis (after all, they spend a decade in a war of attrition with the hated Iranians) giving the impression that we wouldn't care if they invade Kuwait since the Kuwaitis were being less than reasonable with the Iraqi war debt (considering that the Arab World was behind Iraq during the 8 year war since the kingdoms viewed the spread of Islamic fundamentalism ala Iran as a major threat). So, they invade and the world freaks out. UN is pushed to a unilateral invasion supported by member nations and NATO. Objectives are to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Not "regime change," not "Find the WMDs," not "Occupy Iraq," and not "full invasion of Iraq." It was to push them out of Kuwait and prevent them from retaking it. What follows is one of the first modern post-Cold War examples of air superiority over waves. Airpower combined with long range cruise missiles and surgical strikes routed the Iraqi military and destroyed much of their armor and air power. They left Kuwait and retreated, we ended hostilities after pilots reported that they werent even taking fire from the retreating army and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. UN objectives met, and Iraq faced actions because of it. Towards the end, we gave the Kurds the idea that we'd help them repell the Baathist rule and support their rebellion. Well, we didn't. They got the wrong end of the Iraqi air force and missile command.

If they did define objectives as regime change, do you think we'd have bases in any country in that region? No. If we kept going after the UN said stop, do you think that any other nation in that coalition would have followed us? Hell no. While the Cold War was technically still over, we really didn't know what to make of the former Soviet Union and really had no reason to give ANY country a reason to start a shooting war with us over something that detached and remote. Also consider that we didn't have about a decade of two presidents telling us that Iraq was making WMDs to gas our children when they're sleeping. If Bush Sr. would have kept going when everyone else would have stopped, his approval would have went from 90% to 30%. Think about it, make those hampster wheels in your head turn...if the American people don't have a reason that effects them directly, they do not give a damn. Why were we in the Cold War? Because the Russians had nukes aimed at us. Everything else was a lower form of that...Korea, Vietnam, Ghosts in Afghanastan (that sounds like a bad movie), Middle Eastern policy, NATO, Warsaw, etc. Anyone that says we shouldn't have stopped in 1991 doesn't know their ass from their elbow and should keep their mouth shut. That's similar to saying that someone should have sent a bullet between Hitler's eyes directly after WWI. Yeah, its a nice theory, but the question on everyone's mind in 1919 was "Who the hell is Adolf Hitler?" Or how about "OMG TEH UNITAD STAETS SUHOLD NEVAR HAEV LEFT VEITNAM!1" No popular support for a war tends to get congress away from it (as you're seeing now). Remember, most of congress voted on the Gulf of Tonkin to go to 'nam, and by the end most of congress was questioning or need to be there. Sure, we have crackpots that say "We should have used tactical nuclear weapons." Yeah, that's a good idea if we wanted an ICBM sandwhich from Russia with Love. There are many complexities about waging war with a democratic system, and people need to realize that some things are just not possible to do.

They released Turkish prisoners because they're turkish you tit. Notice they didn't release the American Marine, the South Koreans, or the other two Americans...maybe it has something to do with that they aren't from native muslim lands (yes, I know you're being sarcastic, I'm spelling it out).

Crush them all, says I. Don't laugh, don't enjoy it. But rub. Them. Out.

I hate to ask this, but did you lift this straight from an al Qaeda video or something? Think about it man, they say the same thing about us.

The major problem lies when we don't distinguish the differance between the evil people and the people we're trying to help. Which leads me to ask you: if I lined up 10 Iraqis, could you tell me which ones were evil? Didn't think so.

[Ditto]

...my brain isn't really functioning...

Handicap acknowledged.

at the moment due to extreme fatigue, so if I have a major screwup in this, let me know). So it starts out as a US diplomat in the Iraqi embassy giving our good buddies, the Iraqis (after all, they spend a decade in a war of attrition with the hated Iranians) giving the impression that we wouldn't care if they invade Kuwait since the Kuwaitis were being less than reasonable with the Iraqi war debt

Oh, 'giving them the impression?' When I hear 'giving them the impression' I'm hearing the words of someone with a political axe to grind.

(considering that the Arab World was behind Iraq during the 8 year war since the kingdoms viewed the spread of Islamic fundamentalism ala Iran as a major threat).

One of you actually admits that there was a reason why we backed Saddam way back when: Because there was a worse threat, i.e. the radical Muslim terrorist Ayatollah Kho-maniac. I'm going to remember this, now that you've confirmed you know this. Here this, everyone? THIS IS WHY BE ARMED SADDAM.

So, they invade and the world freaks out. UN is pushed to a unilateral invasion supported by member nations and NATO.

'Unilateral?' I question your use of the word in this context, but it really is open to debate. Of course, your earlier handicap is acknowledged.

Objectives are to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Not "regime change," not "Find the WMDs," not "Occupy Iraq," and not "full invasion of Iraq." It was to push them out of Kuwait and prevent them from retaking it.

Quite so.

What follows is one of the first modern post-Cold War examples of air superiority over waves. Airpower combined with long range cruise missiles and surgical strikes routed the Iraqi military and destroyed much of their armor and air power.

Go us... er, I mean, go U.N.

Iraq faced actions because of it.

Ah, you remember that little part. Yes, as I recall, it was something like "Disarm everything you have, and from now on, give us unfettered leave to check you out anytime it pleases us, and if you don't comply with our wishes in this regard one-hundred percent, if you give us any reason to doubt you, we're going to nail your slimy a** to the wall."

Of course, hearing this from the U.N. is the same as hearing it from Bozo the Clown, and we saw what came of it a few years later when everyone finally stopped laughing and Saddam ordered the inspectors out over some nonsense about them not really being given unfettered access.

Towards the end, we gave the Kurds the idea that we'd help them repel the Baathist rule and support their rebellion. Well, we didn't. They got the wrong end of the Iraqi air force and missile command.

Which was what I was talking about. We didn't need any bloody help. We were all the help they'd have needed. We could have backed them up and damn the U.N. and those scumbag politicans who would have whined. As we all know, things like that blow over in five years anyway.

We should have followed through on that. It would have been in the world's best interests: Ours, the Kurds, the ordinary Iraqi citizens who would be tortured, murdered, and terrified for the next eleven years, our soldiers who lost their lives starting all over on what we could have done back then, and the cause of world security in general. We wouldn't have sat through years of uncertainty and unverifiable, inconclusive data for a decade, leaving us unsure of whether he was a deadly despicable rodent or a contained angel.

If they did define objectives as regime change, do you think we'd have bases in any country in that region? No. If we kept going after the UN said stop, do you think that any other nation in that coalition would have followed us? Hell no. While the Cold War was technically still over, we really didn't know what to make of the former Soviet Union and really had no reason to give ANY country a reason to start a shooting war with us over something that detached and remote. Also consider that we didn't have about a decade of two presidents telling us that Iraq was making WMDs to gas our children when they're sleeping.

If Bush Sr. would have kept going when everyone else would have stopped, his approval would have went from 90% to 30%.

IT DID ANYWAY, YOU FOOL. AND IT WAS FOR THAT REASON. THE MAN WAS TOO AFRAID OF WHAT THE PEOPLE WOULD THINK TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THEM PROUD. THAT'S WHY WE LOATHED HIM.

Think about it, make those hampster wheels in your head turn...if the American people don't have a reason that effects them directly, they do not give a damn. Why were we in the Cold War? Because the Russians had nukes aimed at us. Everything else was a lower form of that...Korea, Vietnam, Ghosts in Afghanastan (that sounds like a bad movie), Middle Eastern policy, NATO, Warsaw, etc. Anyone that says we shouldn't have stopped in 1991 doesn't know their ass from their elbow and should keep their mouth shut. That's similar to saying that someone should have sent a bullet between Hitler's eyes directly after WWI. Yeah, its a nice theory, but the question on everyone's mind in 1919 was "Who the hell is Adolf Hitler?" Or how about "OMG TEH UNITAD STAETS SUHOLD NEVAR HAEV LEFT VEITNAM!1" No popular support for a war tends to get congress away from it (as you're seeing now). Remember, most of congress voted on the Gulf of Tonkin to go to 'nam, and by the end most of congress was questioning or need to be there. Sure, we have crackpots that say "We should have used tactical nuclear weapons." Yeah, that's a good idea if we wanted an ICBM sandwhich from Russia with Love. There are many complexities about waging war with a democratic system, and people need to realize that some things are just not possible to do.

In other words, most politicians are a bunch of wishy-washy, not-really-concerned-with-anything-but-publicity windbags. We agree. You, however, seem to have this view that the way of the world is to listen to them anyway.

I hate to ask this, but did you lift this straight from an al Qaeda video or something? Think about it man, they say the same thing about us.

Yeah, I really need to learn that there's no difference between us and them, really. It's all just a conflict of values. Nothing's really right or wrong.

That fool Reagan refused to understand that about the Soviet Union.

The major problem lies when we don't distinguish the differance between the evil people and the people we're trying to help.

*BOL* ...And we're through the looking glass.

Get some sleep, Lurch.

[ June 30, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

[Nick]

Essentially what happened was that someone high up in the US embassy to Iraq (either Ambassador or assistant ambassador) had the idea of invasion passed by them by Iraqi reps and was asked if the US would get involved. The official response was "Its a regional dispute...no."

I've said that numerous times before. I just dont agree with selling arms to countries like that.

Multilateral. Nato and US bore most of the brunt.

Well, it was disarm + inspections + economic sanctions for so many years.

Disagree, I think that would have been universally condemmed and we could have potentially seen a war with other nations (Ie: Russia) over that. Bush in doing so would have certainly lost his presidency. The plan wasn't to liberate the entire country, but to liberate the Kurds in Kurdistan. At least we set up No Fly Zones to protect the Kurds and other minorities, which I suppose is better than nothing.

No, I think people loathed him because the economy sucked. Coming out of the war and into the primary season, Bush was carrying extremely high numbers. As soon as his opponents mentioned the words "Economy," "Job loss," and "National Debt," (Thank Perot on the last one), he plummetted like a rock.

Politicians in a democratic regime have to be wishy-washy in a sense because they're dependant on the people supporting them every 2, 4, or 6 years. If more than half the population comes out against Vietnam, you're going to see the entire federal government change their views to suit their constituents. Politicians have to listen to the people. Sure, its akin in 90% of situations as listening to drooling slack-jawed morons, but they're technically the bosses of politicians.

Oh no, there's a difference...they use God to justify their....oh wait, I forgot about the quite nutty religious right. I dunno, throw in some more regional terms and you have an ending line in an al Qaeda propaganda video.
"We will rub out the west and crush them!"