Here's an interesting clip of how Terrorists use Ambulances

[asy]

WTF does this have to do with Iraq?

Those who know nothing of which they speak should STFU.

At risk of getting into this discussion as an "outsider" i was going to keep quiet, but i must agree with Dust.

These pics were not taken in Iraq; Both Palestinians and the Israelis who are in it/posted it are not objective or playing it "fair" (actually they are not playing at all).

Using ambulances as shelter for fighters/ smuggling explosives, weapons or people/ disguising car bombs or missile launchers as ambulances/ using fake documents, paramedics or equipments to hurt others are all well "customary" around here for decades. So does shooting AT ambulances or stealing them in order to sneak into hospitals and public buildings unsuspected and KILL.

There is NOTHING holy or taboo.

All that has nothing to do with choices to join a certain war. There are also no choices where this film was taken, for any of the sides.

Notice that the ambulance filmed is a UNRA one, with a RED CROSS on it - when most there are RED CRESCENT ones, like the one the majority of people are seen running towards. Interesting.

This was taken by Reuters in GAZA, on May 11th 2004.

Yes, it happens, and yes, we use it as propaganda. Please think and come visit before passing moral judgements.

Now, I will duck and STFU.

[Scaramedic]

A little history lesson part II. In 1936 Hitler ordered his forces into the Rhineland area of Germany, an area that was supposed to be off limits to military forces. His forces at that point were pathetic, under-equipped, under trained and basically useless. The rest of the world basically said "Bad Hitler Bad, your a bad boy" and let it go. This encouraged him to further bolster his forces and set us on the course for war. By the end of that war 60 million people lost their lives in Europe.

My question is this, if Britain, France, Russia or the U.S. would have invaded Germany in 1936 and stopped Hitler would people say that it was a useless act and that Hitler was not a danger to the rest of the world? Would Joe Sr. be standing in front of a podium telling the world that Roosevelt was out of control and that the war in Germany was a "boondoggle?"

History lesson part III. Most Americans were against the War in Europe until we were bombed by Japan in 1941. We even had a bona fide hero, Charles Lindbergh, who not only opposed any involvement in Europe but said that it was the British, Jewish groups and Roosevelt who were the problem, not Germany. As of November 1941, after Hitler had invaded France and started his bombings of Britain, only 1 in 4 Americans was for involvement in Europe. In poll number that would only be 25% of Americans were for the war, since it seems like poll numbers are all that is important nowadays.

Does any of this sound familiar? Who knows what could of happened in Iraq, maybe nothing, maybe Saddam would have died next year of syphilis and the issue would be mute. Just please keep in mind that in just a few short years ole Adolph went from a joke to a man who caused the death of sixty million people.

Peace,

Marty

:joker:

P.S. I know this thread has nothing to do with Iraq, I just had to throw in my two cents. Back on subject. Did y'all know that several ambulance have been stolen around the country and never recovered? Scary.

[paramedicmike]

Just to take this a little further off course...sorry everyone...

Please tell me you're not comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. There's little or no comparison to be made. The rest of the world appeased Hitler to no end. The rest of the world pretty much stood by and did nothing while Hitler started his roll over Europe. By the time they had the guts to stand up and militarily say "STOP!" it was much too late.

Hussein headed an army that was at one point the fourth largest in the world. He was funded by many countries, including the USA, for many years. This funding included both arms, training, and yes, chemical weapons. Don't believe it? Ask current US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about his trips to Baghdad in 1983. As soon as Hussein stepped out of line by invading Kuwait the rest of the world jumped to not only contain him but sanctioned him and his government for almost 15 years after the fact (ok...they jumped at the request of the Saudi's, who not only are on top of the largest crude oil reserves on the planet, but were afraid that they were next. The rest of the world, dependent on that oil, of course had to rush in and help!).

As a further side not, the majority of the Arab world wasn't upset that Hussein invaded Kuwait. They were upset he did it without telling them first. Kuwait is not well regarded in the Arab world.

But back to this particular point. There are little to no similarities between the two. Yes, they both were just a tad megalomaniacal. Yes, they both wore a goofy mustache (Hussein wears his better than Hitler). Yes they killed untold numbers of people. But even here there's no comparison between the tens of millions Hitler killed and the hundreds of thousands Hussein killed.

Oh! And the reference to Lindbergh is quite funny. Do you know why he was opposed to the war against the Nazis? Because he was a Nazi sympathizer and agreed with their politics! The wartime government refused to let him join the military to fight due to his outspoken position in favor of Nazi Germany. Although, they did let him work as a civilian employee in the Pacific Theater (they didn't want him in Europe.).

There's little comparison between the two.

Now, as to using ambulances as a transport truck for mercenaries for the purpose of ambushes...

YIPE!

Although, it doesn't surprise me much.

I had a boss who, the story goes, allowed the local swat team to use an ambulance in serving a high risk warrant. Providers refused to enter that neighborhood for a long time after that.

Just a thought.

-be safe.

[Asysin2leads]

Okay, let's back the turnip truck up here. See, one thing I can't stand is when someone like me is trying to make an abstract point, that the tactics of terrorists are really nothing new, and someone comes crashing on down on me with a big old American flag waving the breeze. I'm not equating Special Forces with terrorists. Special Forces, you're right, do a lot of things. Terrorists do a lot of things. Cows do a lot of things too. But I'm not equating Special Forces with cows, either. Now, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my former boss and Fire Chief, who was a captain in the Special Forces in Vietnam, aiding guerilla insurgencies, setting up ambushes, and blending into civilian populations is something that they do very well.

So, yeah, I'm a pacifist. Spend enough time watching people die for stupid reasons, and you might get warped into hoping less people would die too. You might even lose that sacred sense of honor in killing and dying, and get this crazy notion that living is a pretty good thing.

I'm glad you were never shot at, I'm glad your planes flew and nobody got hurt. Unfortunately, my friend's former partner in the police wasn't so lucky after he was killed by a sniper in Iraq. That's war for you, play anyway you want, but people are still going to die, and dying is a bad thing.

Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, I am sick and fucking tired of these chickenhawk retards comparing Iraq to World War II. Roosevelt did not invade Europe on faulty intelligence. He didn't land on an aircraft carrier and declare victory after D-Day. Germany did not just sit there and thumb its nose at the League of Nations, it invaded a bunch of countries. Yes, sometimes war is justified, but just because we are at war, doesn't automatically mean its justified. And you think, its only been 30 years since Vietnam and already we forgot how not to screw up.

[Michael]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060705/wl_mi...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[Scaramedic]

OK, let me address a couple of issues.

#1. The Hussein and Hitler issue. I agree that you cannot compare Hitler to Hussein, because Hussein was stopped before he could do any harm. My point was that IF Hitler was stopped in 1936 the war in Europe would not of happened. Also six million people (including members of my family) would not have been thrown into the Death Camps. My point was that in 1936 Hitler was a lot less dangerous than Hussein. The Treaty of Versailles castrated the German Army, Hitler barely had anything to work with in 1936. But 3 years later his Army was storming across Europe undeterred. I personally do not believe Hussein would have became the next Hitler, it was just a perspective I was throwing into the ring.

#2. Lindberg was an ass (i.e. anti-Semitic) I just mentioned him because he was out front for the "America First" antiwar group.

3. D-Day was too late. The point I was making is that if we invaded Germany when Hitler broke the treaty of Versailles by rolling troops into the Rhineland the war in Europe would have NEVER happened, and D-Day would have been unnecessary. Roosevelt saw Germany as threat, the rest of the government and the people of the US did not. So we sat back and let Hitler build his Armies and destroy the lives of 60 million people. What would history say about Roosevelt if he would of taken Hitler down in 1936? How about "Roosevelt invaded Europe on faulty intelligence, Hitler was not a threat." Hindsight is 20/20 we now know Hitler was a threat, most people did not see him as a threat then. I am not a fan of starting a war, but in certain cases we must stop a psycho before he hurts others. If 250,000 Germans died in 1936 by the U.S. invading Germany we still saved 59,750,000 lives. Who knows what Hussein was capable of, like Mike said at one point he had the worlds fourth largest army, just as a comparison in 1936 Hitler barely had an Army. Once again just a thought, don't crucify me over it.

On a side note. A2L I know New Yorkers think they are the center of the universe but guess what, people die all over this country. I have been in this game along time, I've seen people die in ways you can't imagine in Gotham. It has not lead me down the yellow brick road to the peace & love sect. Quite the opposite to be honest, I feel evil people must be stopped before they hurt others. If you want to compare useless deaths lets look at the homicide rates in the U.S., over 16,000 in 2005. As far as pacifism and just letting others hurt people without taking action, ask the people of Rawanda how that felt.

War is a horrible thing, but the lack of action is even worst. Oh and one more thing, A2L we probably agree on more things than we disagree on. I am not a fan of GW, the post war effort has been pathetic, and we are putting our people and the Iraqi people in danger. We need to end this now and let them stand or fall on their own. This country and its leaders are not perfect but we try and that is better than the alternative.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Peace,

Marty

:joker:

[windsong]

I'm so glad we had that discussion. . .

[Asysin2leads]

Well, just so its all on the table, lets clear a few things up here. First of all, pro-war supporters do not use WWII/Hitler analogies for the Iraq War because they are fitting, they use them because World War II is extremely well documented and we all have good patriotic touchy feely feelings towards it. You really want to have an analogy? Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We ended up dropping an atomic bomb on them. That's retaliation, and it only took about four years to do. Also, while the administration likes to tip toe around the issue, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nope, our good buddies the Saudi Arabians had far more to do with that whole incident than Iraq could ever dream of.

Secondly, I'm sick of hearing this shit about New Yorkers thinking they are the center of the universe. Sure, maybe we're a bit more vocal about the whole terrorism thing because other than the Pentagon and Oklahoma City, we're always the ones getting blown up! While the administration doesn't seem to think so, small town America simply does NOT have to worry about terrorism. Al-Qaeda is not going to train operatives to attack bingo halls (although there is currently a $30,000 program to protect them), no one is going use Sarin at county fair, and the spaghetti dinners are pretty much safe from suicide bombers.

As for Rwanda and the 16,000 homicides in America each year, the deaths in Rwanda were certainly not prevented by the inaction of the international community, by the same token, they were caused by a bunch of people doing what they believed was necessary to secure peace. By the same token, everybody except some of the most fervent members of the NRA agree the huge number of homicides in the United States is caused by gun violence, and people own guns so that they can take action when they need to, heck a lot of them probably point to World War II and what happens if you are not armed when they buy one. So, my point is, while inaction can indeed cause deaths, most violence in the world is caused by people taking action in the name of peace and safety, and going to war and invading a country and killing people and causing deaths of your own country men in the name of inane slogans and dubious information is nothing to be proud of.

[streetsmart]

Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, I am sick and fucking tired of these chickenhawk retards comparing Iraq to World War II. Roosevelt did not invade Europe on faulty intelligence. He didn't land on an aircraft carrier and declare victory after D-Day. Germany did not just sit there and thumb its nose at the League of Nations, it invaded a bunch of countries. Yes, sometimes war is justified, but just because we are at war, doesn't automatically mean its justified. And you think, its only been 30 years since Vietnam and already we forgot how not to screw up.

You can debate Iraq vs. WWII all you want. Debate faulty intelligence, landing on an aircraft carrier, and declaring victory while you are at it. But in my opinion the killing of 3000+ inncocent americans deserves somebody getting their ass kicked and I am personally thankful for a president and the men and woman Serving in the armed forces willing to do just that. I would also like to add that relying on the best intelligence we have, even though it was faulty is better than listening to a president that provides FAULTY information about a white spot on a dress.

[Ontariomedic]

You can debate Iraq vs. WWII all you want. Debate faulty intelligence, landing on an aircraft carrier, and declaring victory while you are at it. But in my opinion the killing of 3000+ inncocent americans deserves somebody getting their ass kicked and I am personally thankful for a president and the men and woman Serving in the armed forces willing to do just that. I would also like to add that relying on the best intelligence we have, even though it was faulty is better than listening to a president that provides FAULTY information about a white spot on a dress.

This is the kind of mentality that gives America a bad rap.

Yes, 9/11 was a tradegy, no two ways about it, but does that justify invading Iraq? Remember just like the way we teach our children that we can solve problems without using violence the grownups could really use that same advice. All war does is just ignite more war.