Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on April 01, 2004, 07:51:36 pm
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4729361§ion=news
...
:mad2:
...
-
You can kill someone, but do not humiliate them. That's exactly what the Iraqis did.
I'm all for this response.
-
If we nuked Falluja, would anyone miss it?
-
It's the wrong response. It keeps the circle of violence going. It creates another Israel-Palestine conflict.
The problem in Israel right now is that everyone has to get revenge for some act of violence performed by the other side. Now, we're going to get sucked into a similar neverending cycle because THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT!
Since when did the stupid Joe on the street know what was good for his country?!
We cannot retaliate in kind because it will just deepen the opposition's resolve.
-
Ahh, but if we vaporized the entire country... :drevil:
No, I know. You're right. But I still favor the idea more and more with every attack... :sigh:
-
Wait? What's wrong with this picture?
Oh thats right, nothing. They were "security contractors". Do you know what this mean? They were soldiers, except they got paid by a private corporation instead of by the Army. The difference exists on paper alone.
Oh and, as for parading their bodies through the streets, I got three words for you: Uday and Quasay.
-
buT ThEy Are INferRioR IraKIs aNd WErE AmerKIa!!!1
-
Not a good thing. Not that we should be in there in the first place, mind you, but still....
-
so were going to find the people who did it, and kill them, as long as we don't do any sort of colective punishment here I don't see what's wrong. I actualy don't see how this differs from all the other atacks we've had as Rictor points out they were basicly solders, and if not I'm sure they knew what they were getting in for, asside from the humilliation afterwards (an obvius atempt to recreate mogadeshu syndrome) this is nothing so unusual.
-
Black hawk down finally made it to iraq then.
-
You know the funny thing? I heard that the Iraqi resitance was buying up copies of Black Hawk Down to study US engamement tactics? Now, how credible this information was, is a bit disputable, but its interesting nevertheless...
-
Its madnening to see the great US threatening an unorganized bunch of people who hate the west and have no weapons threaten overwhelming response.
Yet another bully tactic that will backfire and cause more death and destruction. The US response is expected, and unneeded. Although the loss of life was despicable and useless, and i feel for those families involved, more violence does not solve your problem, and will only beget more violence.
But dont let the past teach the US anything, they are too big for anything to reason with. might as well call themselves the NWO now.....
One last thing, condoning death to people across the world, is not a brave thing. Do it to their faces, then feel good about it, any man or woman with half a heart knows then and there its wrong.
But i guess condoning the death, when not actually holding the knife so to speak, is easy when u got a computer and lazyboy and all the news u want at your disposal. Remember we are all humans living on a very small rock, we should try to get along instead of blowing each other up after each agressive act.
I thought the west was better then what this forum displays? From most of the views here, its no wonder they want us all dead.
Peace....
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Wait? What's wrong with this picture?
Oh thats right, nothing. They were "security contractors". Do you know what this mean? They were soldiers, except they got paid by a private corporation instead of by the Army. The difference exists on paper alone.
Oh and, as for parading their bodies through the streets, I got three words for you: Uday and Quasay.
Touche
Funny it isnt such a big deal to most here? Its a big deal to me, the hypocrisy is sickening.
-
LET'S BOMB TEH CITY TO ASHES
:rolleyes:
**** happens, and mercs really are not "civilians" or "non-military personell".
-
Originally posted by Janos
LET'S BOMB TEH CITY TO ASHES
:rolleyes:
**** happens, and mercs really are not "civilians" or "non-military personell".
Yeah, I was going to make a comment on that:
"Security Contractors" sounds like a sanitized term for mercenary.
If you're taking a job like that (merc, military, even a reporter in the region) you know the risks involved, including death. Yes, what happened is disgusting, but it is a risk involved.
Retaliation will only give the guerillas/resistance, whichever you prefer, what they want.
-
Funny, those security contractor's train down the road from me. The company that trains them trains body guards and the like, not full on mercenaries. They're run by an ex-SEAL, and their staff includes several other ex-special forces soldiers.
Uday and Qusay were not killed, hung from a bridge, pulled down, their legs, arms and head cut off, nor were they set on fire. But hey, why quibble.
The whole thing is just stupid. If we hadn't invaded in the first place, this would be a non-issue.
-
You people make me sick. It doesnt matter who they were, they were killed, but not only that, mutilated. They were brutally, unbearably, indescribably disrespected. And some of these people claim to do it in the name of their religion. It makes me sick.
-
Once you're dead, what does it matter? I don't see how you would much care what happens to you, not like its going to be an issue. Is killing, then mutiliating, is that worse than just killing? If so, its by a miniscule amount. Once you've killed someone, its not like you're about to soil your conscience with mutilating them. Bullets or bombs; brutal or clean: dead is dead.
But whatever. Deepblue, would you care as much if they were Iraqis? Resitance fighters to be exact? Would you care? Would you be shocked, would you be appaled?
As for the mercs, I have no more sympathy for them than for regular soldiers. From what I understand, the "security contractor" positions are all being filled up with Special Forces guys who left the Army for better pay with a private corporation. If Special Forces soldiers don't know how to handle themselves, thats their problem. These guys are supposed to be the best of the best, its not like they were unprepared for the job.
-
If it helps, I think its pretty sick too. I also think it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been there. I also think it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't propped up the guy in the first place that we had to go in to remove.
Face it: this is the reality of occupation. This is what happens when you invade another country and choose to hang about after you're done shooting the place up. On the other hand, this is the kind of thing that blind faith in religion pushes people.
Its all nice and happy and wonderful now that we've "liberated" them, isn't it? Wheeeeee!
-
north and south arn't too bad, but it's that creamy center part that don't tast too good.
honestly if US troops did that to Iraqis I would be quite shocked, but this is just another attack as far as I'm concerned, I make note of the mutalations (ect) as it's just so blataint an atempt to blackhawk-down-ify the situation, but aside from that it's just a footnote.
so, what the **** are we going to do, I doubt this was the entire town, were going to sooner find a fully operational nuke than the individuals responcable, unless we have actual proof of who did what, I hope the threats are just bluster, nothing good can come from us over reacting to a hand full of dead mercs.
-
this city shot down a blackhawk last november and then danced on the wreakage.
this place is the last holdout of pro-saddamites.
One well placed line of precision guided 500lb bombs across the bridge and right down the main road at midnight - minimial causaulties, min housing destruction, etc - but one hell of a wakeup call
-
actualy with this groupe it might encurage them, if they think what there doing is causeing any change in our behavior the'll probly see it as a sign of them haveing an effect
-
no matter what we do the will continue
if we do nothing? they must be scared of us! kill more of them!
if we retaliate? those bastards! kill them!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
if we do nothing? they must be scared of us! kill more of them!
if we retaliate? those bastards! kill them!
Sounds like Sandwich's neck of the woods.
-
Is that about what I saw yesterday ( or the day before ) on the news ? They were dragging burnt to death bodies behind cars in the streets of whatever city. Quite awful images...
-
mikhael: it IS sandwich's neck of the woods
-
I meant more specifically, Kazan. Iraqi/US relations are beginning to sound more and more like Israeli/Palestinian relations.
-
See, it goes against all rules of warfare which I believe in. If you kill a person, at least respect who and what they were, and who they were fighting for. Uday and Qusay were shown around (not mutilated), as proof that they were actually killed.
However, these Iraq "Freedom Fighters" mutilated and humiliated these people. Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.
While war is never the best option, it is often times the last option (even though that wasn't so in the Iraq War 2's case). I think that the "honorable" age of combat ended with World War II. Back then, everyone was involved in the war effort, the soldiers were welcomed as heroes, and tales of bravery showed in the papers. Right now, you can't even tell we're at war, which is really sickening. All you people up in the states go to the mall, hang out with freinds, bla bla bla, and yet people are fighting and dying out there, with no recognition except maybe a small homecoming party.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
See, it goes against all rules of warfare which I believe in. If you kill a person, at least respect who and what they were, and who they were fighting for. Uday and Qusay were shown around (not mutilated), as proof that they were actually killed.
However, these Iraq "Freedom Fighters" mutilated and humiliated these people. Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.
While war is never the best option, it is often times the last option (even though that wasn't so in the Iraq War 2's case). I think that the "honorable" age of combat ended with World War II. Back then, everyone was involved in the war effort, the soldiers were welcomed as heroes, and tales of bravery showed in the papers. Right now, you can't even tell we're at war, which is really sickening. All you people up in the states go to the mall, hang out with freinds, bla bla bla, and yet people are fighting and dying out there, with no recognition except maybe a small homecoming party.
Of course, it's worth noting that Vietnam was the first war with TV coverage..... people became aware then of what war was really like - not the gallant, brave effort it was shown as during WW2 (and presumably the korean war). And, of course, back then we (i.e. the Allies as they were) were actually fighting for the right to exist as nations - not invading small near-3rd world countries under spurious justification.
Now, on this whole topic I don't think it should considered acceptable to mutilate anyone once they're dead. But at the same time it's dangerous for the US to react heavy handidly - not only is there the risk of increasing reciprocal violence, but there may also be the political issue if (if?) it appears that the US cares more for it's own, than for the Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Soldiers or not, they died fightign for their own cause, and that should be enough to allow anyone to respect them, enemies or not.
Their cause was the almighty dollar, and that doesnt earn them a whole pile of respect in my book.
-
So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?
-
Mik: no, but if you are going in just for the pay, and in a conflict you have no purpose in, I have a lot less respect then someone who goes into combat to defend his country, or to defend allies he or his country's leader has sworn to protect.
Also, mercenaries are going in for nothing but the money. Most of em would just as well fight for the other side the moment the pay was better. That is not someone I'd respect. If someones only reason to join an army was money, I'd have my doubts too. Those doubts would mostly concern the country that person is coming from, and it's welfare and education system in particular. I mean that if either the army pays so much it is a better source of revenue than a normal job, then the country is either preparing for war and doesn't want to conscript, or it has money left over. If the welfare is so much crap that someone is forced in the service, that is even more wrong.
-
If they were mercenaries, well, they were still fighting. And I don't think they should be mutilated, especially the way they were (burned, dismembered, hanged), nomatter who they are. I would say the same thing if likewise was done to Bin Ladin himself. He is still a combatant, and is privy to certain forms of respect.
EDIT: Don't get the wrong idea, I want to see Bin Ladin dead. It's just that mutilation and public embarrassment (about the closest word) is just wrong.
-
UT: I was only responding to Mik's question. I condemn this.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?
Lets give both of us a bit of credit here and presume we know the difference between a soldier who follows orders and a mercenary who chooses his line of work. Not saying they deserved what happened to them but at the end of the day they chose to be there. For money.
UT, they dont fight, they guard Bechtel, Halliburton etcs profit making
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So, uh, basically you have to be an unpaid soldier to earn any respect?
Bingo. If you are not willing to fight for no pay, that means either the conflict doesn't involve you, and you should stay the hell away, or you are not fighting not for freedom, peace or whatever but for power, usually someone else's.
Think about this for a second. If we were to simply take away every soldier's pay, very few would fight in America's wars, which are always offensive. The only time that people would be willing to fight for no pay would be when they are either defending their homeland or when they are fighting for an ideal they believe very strongly enough. No one would fight in wars of conquest, because they don't get a piece of the pie in the end.
Seems like a wonderful system to me, if it could be implemented. By its nature, it makes wars of conquest and subjugation almost impossible. Even with all the "Go go America, kill the dirty terrorist bastards" talk around the States, how many soldiers do you think would be willing to be shipped overseas for no pay whatsoever? Not many I would think.
________
Oh and, as for the brutality, I believe that TV news stations should show alot more of it, both Iraqis and Americans. If people see the realities of war, they are much less likely to support them. On CNN, they show a nightvision shot from an airplane of a missle hitting a warehouse, and them boom. Thats too sterile. You don't see the guys who got burned alive, the guys who are missing half of their bodies, the guys who simply exploded into red mist, the guys with their brains and guts seeping out. If you are too squemish to handle that kind of stuff, then the answer is simple: don't support the ****ing war in the firstplace. People need to see what their taxdollars and their support is doing, they need to see the consequences of their actions.
-
Rictor: I don't think that's going to happen. The recent trend in war coverage seems to be the sterile video game aspect. You see TV guided bombs hitting targets, gunfire over the horizon, but nothing that would actually make you think you're watching a war.
Besides, I still don't think anyone, regardless of who you are, should be mutilated in the way that the Iraqis did. It's despicable. Sure, fight for your freedom, but do it honorably, not like the barbarians you say the US is.
-
See, it's a catch-22. The actual response and the correct response will be 2 different things.
In the actual response, it'll be door to door searches, arrests, blah blah.
In the correct response, it would be like a 400+ cruise-missle strike on the city as a whole. Indisriminate targeting with no warning whatsoever. The message being "Sucks when we play by your rules, doesn't it?"
Of course, it wouldn't work. You can't "rebuild" something on one side and keep leveling everything else. Besides, the outrage expressed by even our allies would be pretty phenomenal. I'd rather we just withdraw all our troops overnight from the whole of the middle east and let nature take it's course.
What I love is all the bleeding hearts out there crying about the "poor innocent Iraqis" being stomped by our vicious troops. You don't hear any of them crying about the tens of thousands mercilessly crushed under Hussein, nooo. The only bad guy on the planet is America and America is solely repsonsible for anyone's woes anywhere.
It'd be nice if some of you would do a little reading up on the zero-sum theory.
Success rarely breeds popularity. It's no wonder so many people hate America.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
What I love is all the bleeding hearts out there crying about the "poor innocent Iraqis" being stomped by our vicious troops. You don't hear any of them crying about the tens of thousands mercilessly crushed under Hussein, nooo. The only bad guy on the planet is America and America is solely repsonsible for anyone's woes anywhere.
It'd be nice if some of you would do a little reading up on the zero-sum theory.
Success rarely breeds popularity. It's no wonder so many people hate America.
The reason I'm not *****ing about Hussien is
a) His reign of terror is over. America's doesnt' look like its going anywhere soon, so they have the potential to cause much more damage in the world.
b) While Saddam was commiting his atrocities, I wassn't old enough to be really thinking of world politics.
Originally posted by ionia23
See, it's a catch-22. The actual response and the correct response will be 2 different things.
In the actual response, it'll be door to door searches, arrests, blah blah.
In the correct response, it would be like a 400+ cruise-missle strike on the city as a whole. Indisriminate targeting with no warning whatsoever. The message being "Sucks when we play by your rules, doesn't it?"
Yes, and since when have the Iraqis targeted civilians? Thats not playing "by ther rules", thats genocide. Can you make the disticntion between civilians in their own country and soldiers occupying a foreign country. You kill their soldiers, they kill your soldiers, its called a ****ing war. Or do you think they should just lay down their arms because killing American soldiers is evil?
-
Life of an average American soldier
Lived his whole live in freedom
Lived his whole life in *relative* wealth
Fight for money
Fights a war of agression in a foreign nation
Occupies a sovereign country
Recieves good pay for his service, or excellent (100k+) if he is a "defense contractor"
Has superior traning
Has superior equipment, technology and recon.
Low probablilty he will be killed.
His wife and kids are safely at home, on the other side of the world.
Life of an average Iraqi resitance fighter
Lived his whole live under Saddam's tyranny.
Fights for the safety and freedom of his family and his nation.
Fights with inferior technology
Fights against overwhelming odds (numbers, tech, recon etc)
Recieves little pay
Has his possession looted, and his family humiliated
Good probability he will be killed
now, who am I supposed to feel sorry for again? Which of these men is the honourable one?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
What I love is all the bleeding hearts out there crying about the "poor innocent Iraqis" being stomped by our vicious troops. You don't hear any of them crying about the tens of thousands mercilessly crushed under Hussein, nooo. The only bad guy on the planet is America and America is solely repsonsible for anyone's woes anywhere.
You do realise that while Saddam was commiting those atrocities he was the US's biggest ally bar Israel in the region? I love the way you guys shout about how great you are because you removed him and ignore the fact that you put him in there and propped him up for most of his rule. :rolleyes:
Btw the correct response you give is exactly the sort of thing that causes people to do this sort of stuff. Go out and get a copy of the book black hawk down and you'll see the reasons **** like this happens.
-
Gank: not all of us ignore it
-
Yes, as has been mentioned, they themselves are beyond caring, but what of their families and loved ones. There IS a War going on, people will die. But to be mutilated and abused and displayed in such a way simply makes those who did it nothing more than howling blooded animals.
Regardless of who invaded who, and who is shooting who, I feel precisely the same way about the people who did that as I would felt about the British Papers when they displayed Saddams dead Sons, and they weren't even mutilated.
As much as I feel for the people of Iraq, I do not blame the Americans for wanting to hunt down these individual animals and put them down.
I know it will just continue the circle of violence, but the hatred in that town seems to be no longer based on any rational basis, how many must they kill to 'make up for' their own 15 citizens?
-
I know that Kazan, it was aimed at those who do. Who do seem to be in the majority.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Lived his whole live under Saddam's tyranny.
Fights for the safety and freedom of his family and his nation.
Wouldn't 'resitance fighter x' be a supporter of Sadam? Thats why he's so opposed to the american take over, and fights in the resistance in the first place. If he was fighting for the safety and freedom of his family, why is he attacking the americans? I agree that america may not be doing the best job, but they are doing better than nothing.
The resistance are brain washed extremists, if they knew what was good for them they would help the americans rebuild their country after years of sadam's rule.
I didn't belive in the war based on WMDs, but only things like this occupation can change the world for the better. Iraq wasn't going to sort itself out, even after sadam died of old age, one of his sons would continue. The resitance continues to preserve what keeps iraq's people in poverty, and de-stabilises the middle east. I don't have a problem with the elimation of these people, they are a plauge on the progress of humanity.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Btw the correct response you give is exactly the sort of thing that causes people to do this sort of stuff. Go out and get a copy of the book black hawk down and you'll see the reasons **** like this happens.
Yup. 300,000 starving Somalis asked for our help. Funny how that sort of thing happens.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Lets give both of us a bit of credit here and presume we know the difference between a soldier who follows orders and a mercenary who chooses his line of work.
Let's presume we know the difference between mercenaries and armed guards riding herd on a convoy.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Yup. 300,000 starving Somalis asked for our help. Funny how that sort of thing happens.
Nobody asked you for help, the US decided to go in and bring peace by shooting up the place. Delta force and the rangers raided the UNDP hq, the charitys World Concern and Medicin sans frontier and captured the head of the UN police force, blew up a meeting of tribal leaders discussing a peace treaty and finally killed up to 1000 civilians in the raid seen in Black hawk down before running home with your tail between your legs. Sheer ****ing brilliance. But they were starving :rolleyes:
Beatspete, saying why dont they help the americans rebuild the place is ridiculous. If somebody bombed your country repeatedly over 13 years then invaded and gave all its own companys nice big juicy contracts to rebuild the mess they made would you help them? A lot of the Iraqi resistance isnt pro-saddam, its anti-american. Probably because these guys have first hand experience with the kind of rulers the US likes in that part of the world.
Originally posted by mikhael
Let's presume we know the difference between mercenaries and armed guards riding herd on a convoy.
Imo, there aint any difference between these guys and say the East India trading companys mercenary armys, there still hired guns.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Wouldn't 'resitance fighter x' be a supporter of Sadam? Thats why he's so opposed to the american take over, and fights in the resistance in the first place. If he was fighting for the safety and freedom of his family, why is he attacking the americans? I agree that america may not be doing the best job, but they are doing better than nothing.
The resistance are brain washed extremists, if they knew what was good for them they would help the americans rebuild their country after years of sadam's rule.
I didn't belive in the war based on WMDs, but only things like this occupation can change the world for the better. Iraq wasn't going to sort itself out, even after sadam died of old age, one of his sons would continue. The resitance continues to preserve what keeps iraq's people in poverty, and de-stabilises the middle east. I don't have a problem with the elimation of these people, they are a plauge on the progress of humanity.
:lol: :lol:
Ah, good stuff. Comedy gold man, you should try stand-up sometime.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Nobody asked you for help, the US decided to go in and bring peace by shooting up the place. Delta force and the rangers raided the UNDP hq, the charitys World Concern and Medicin sans frontier and captured the head of the UN police force, blew up a meeting of tribal leaders discussing a peace treaty and finally killed up to 1000 civilians in the raid seen in Black hawk down before running home with your tail between your legs. Sheer ****ing brilliance. But they were starving :rolleyes:
Actually, the UN and US CITIZENS said that something had to be done to fix the situation, so the US responded. Maybe they could have done it better, but they were still responding to the rest of the world.
Beatspete, saying why dont they help the americans rebuild the place is ridiculous. If somebody bombed your country repeatedly over 13 years then invaded and gave all its own companys nice big juicy contracts to rebuild the mess they made would you help them? A lot of the Iraqi resistance isnt pro-saddam, its anti-american. Probably because these guys have first hand experience with the kind of rulers the US likes in that part of the world.
We didnt' bomb them repeatedly over 13 years. We bombed them three times. Once during Desert Storm, once during Desert Fox, and this last time. That's three times, and the first two times, we had the support of the UN.
Imo, there aint any difference between these guys and say the East India trading companys mercenary armys, there still hired guns.
So they deserve to die, and be paraded about in a show of utter brutality?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Actually, the UN and US CITIZENS said that something had to be done to fix the situation, so the US responded. Maybe they could have done it better, but they were still responding to the rest of the world.
Wonderful logic. So I, as a Yugoslavian citizen, think that Paraguay should be bombed, which gives Yugoslavia's Army the right to do it. You are lucky that the world does not function on this principal, otherwise America have been a smoking crater long ago.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
We didnt' bomb them repeatedly over 13 years. We bombed them three times. Once during Desert Storm, once during Desert Fox, and this last time. That's three times, and the first two times, we had the support of the UN.
So they deserve to die, and be paraded about in a show of utter brutality?
Clinton bombed Iraq on and off for the entire time he was in office. And isn't three enough? You say it like its "only three". Yeah, real humanitarians, only three times. Them Iraqis are just a bunch of wussies.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Nobody asked you for help, the US decided to go in and bring peace by shooting up the place. Delta force and the rangers raided the UNDP hq, the charitys World Concern and Medicin sans frontier and captured the head of the UN police force, blew up a meeting of tribal leaders discussing a peace treaty and finally killed up to 1000 civilians in the raid seen in Black hawk down before running home with your tail between your legs. Sheer ****ing brilliance. But they were starving :rolleyes:
Okay, facts.
1,000 civilians? Crikey. The word you're looking for is "guerilla". The Rangers weren't killed by mere rocks and sticks, you know.
"Peace treaty" amoung tribal leaders, including that sick f*cker who was robbing food shipments for sale on the black market. How easily we forget, no?
It was the right thing to do, and the wrong way to do it. A classic example of underestimating your enemy.
By the by, those soldiers didn't run home with their "tail between their legs". They were ordered to leave. Perhaps Bill Clinton decided that carpetbombing the entire country wasn't a proper response.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Actually, the UN and US CITIZENS said that something had to be done to fix the situation, so the US responded. Maybe they could have done it better, but they were still responding to the rest of the world.
Wtf is that last statement supposed to mean, it makes no sense. And its not maybe they could have done it better, they definetly could have done it better, US/UN intervention in somalia was a complete and utter failure.
We didnt' bomb them repeatedly over 13 years. We bombed them three times. Once during Desert Storm, once during Desert Fox, and this last time. That's three times, and the first two times, we had the support of the UN.
Ummm bombing them 3 times is repeatedly. And there were more bombings than just the 3 major campaigns. And I dont think UN support is going to mean **** all to the Iraqis being bombed, do you?
So they deserve to die, and be paraded about in a show of utter brutality?
Learn to read.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Wonderful logic. So I, as a Yugoslavian citizen, think that Paraguay should be bombed, which gives Yugoslavia's Army the right to do it. You are lucky that the world does not function on this principal, otherwise America have been a smoking crater long ago.
Bombing Paraguay...now, there's a thought. Any reasoning behind it?
There's only two countries on this planet with the capability of rendering North America a "smoking crater", and you don't come from either of them.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Okay, facts.
Where?
No facts here, just some bull**** opinions based on a film which isnt even accurate to the flagwaving book it was based on.
Originally posted by ionia23
1,000 civilians? Crikey. The word you're looking for is "guerilla". The Rangers weren't killed by mere rocks and sticks, you know.
1000 civilians is a UN estimate. It even comes up at the very end of the film. Thats what happens when you conduct military operations in broad daylight in a packed city. Why do you think those guys were pulled out of the helicopter and dragged around the street? Because the same guys had just been flying around the place shooting everything up with miniguns. Innocent people died.
Originally posted by ionia23
]"Peace treaty" amoung tribal leaders, including that sick f*cker who was robbing food shipments for sale on the black market. How easily we forget, no?
As opposed to the sick ****ers who blew up the best chance of peace in the region :rolleyes: How easily we ignore, no?
Originally posted by ionia23
It was the right thing to do, and the wrong way to do it. A classic example of underestimating your enemy.
Goes a bit beyond underestimating.
Originally posted by ionia23
By the by, those soldiers didn't run home with their "tail between their legs". They were ordered to leave. Perhaps Bill Clinton decided that carpetbombing the entire country wasn't a proper response.
Right, because that was the only alternative left. :rolleyes:
-
Well, actually, there are six nations capable of rendering America a smoking crater, but I still don't from any of them. Does that matter? No.
You said that America went into Somalia because "the UN and US CITIZENS said that something had to be done to fix the situation, so the US responded." You have no right, as a US citizezen, to condone the invasion of another country. You can agree or disagree, but your agreement does not validate the act. In short, you can think what you want, but no one gives a ****. You can't invade because "Us citizens thought it was right", it simply doesn't work that way.
I meant that if the world worked on the "do what the people think, even if its none of their business" principal, America would be quickly destroyed. You may or may not know this, but America has very few friends in the world.
Before the war, in Britain and Australia, your two greatest allies, public support was less than 50% for the war. And Spain, the third greatest ally, was 91% against. The rest of the world was uninimously against.
-
Yup, you're all right. World be damned. The sooner my country can go isolationist again, the better.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Imo, there aint any difference between these guys and say the East India trading companys mercenary armys, there still hired guns.
By that logic, my sister and brother in law are mercenaries. They're both security sorts hired to carry guns. The warehouse they work in might find that a bit of a stretch though. Same for the guy that rides herd in a bank's armored car.
There's a difference between a mercenary (an unaffiliated soldier who sells his combat services to the highest bidder) and a security guard.
-
Yes, but this did not happen in America, this happened in Iraq. There are two major differences. Firstly, Iraq is a warzone. Secondly, these guys were not in their own country, defending against thieves. They were in a foregin nation, protecting the thieves. Even if you choose to disregard that last part, they were still in a foreign nation, which is currently a warzone. They were guarding the interests of US companies, war profiteers to be exact.
And I don't remember Rent-A-Cop security guards carrying automatics or wearing kevlar.
-
I don't think the question of 'valid target' is really what is causing the problem here though.
-
so much for gratitude.
-
Rictor pretty much said it Mikhael.
Main Entry: mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages -- more at MERCY
: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
Main Entry: mercenary
Function: adjective
1 : serving merely for pay or sordid advantage
2 : hired for service in the army of a foreign country
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but this did not happen in America, this happened in Iraq. There are two major differences. Firstly, Iraq is a warzone. Secondly, these guys were not in their own country, defending against thieves. They were in a foregin nation, protecting the thieves. Even if you choose to disregard that last part, they were still in a foreign nation, which is currently a warzone. They were guarding the interests of US companies, war profiteers to be exact.
And I don't remember Rent-A-Cop security guards carrying automatics or wearing kevlar.
That really all depends on what you guard, doesn't it? Saudi rent-a-cops carry automatics and wear kevlar, and that certainly wasn't a warzone.
armed_guard != mercenary. You can try to dress it up all you want to fit your happy political agenda, but at the end of the day, you're rather incorrect. Ducks have feathers and eagles have feathers, but that doesn't make a duck a bird of prey, nor does it make an eagle water-fowl.
I'll agree they shouldn't have been there. The entire US war machine shouldn't have been there. Unfortunately, its a moot point: the invasion took place, and the troops and the civilian support people are there.
I don't know why I even try, some days. Its like talking to Liberator's left-spin twin.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
armed_guard != mercenary. You can try to dress it up all you want to fit your happy political agenda, but at the end of the day, you're rather incorrect. Ducks have feathers and eagles have feathers, but that doesn't make a duck a bird of prey, nor does it make an eagle water-fowl.
You're oversimplifing things quite a bit to fit your own agenda here Mikhael, these guys arent just that. They're hired guns working for a foriegn power which illegally invaded another country. You can call them whatever you want, but at the end of the day they're mercenarys working for the US government in a foreign country.
-
Yeah, you say the whole war machine should no be there, but now that it is, so what. What I'm saying is that the Iraqis had every right to kill these guys, whether you want to call them mercs or secuirty contractors. They were as legitimate a target as any American soldier. People tried to condemn the act, while I don't think there is anything to condemn. The mutilation was a bit overboard, yes, but its nothing worse than what American bombs leave in their wake.
The fact is, if you go in to a place like Iraq, armed to the teeth, be prepared to die. Regardless of whether you are a US soldier, a mercenary, a security guard or a reporter. The most you can hope for it to align yourself with one side, reather than having both sides shooting at you because they don't know who the hell you are. The fact that these people who got killed were protecting the interests of US corporations, I think that rather obviously aligns them with the US side. And if I understand correctly, they were almost certainly ex-military men, who went into the private market. The only difference between them and any US soldier is what uniform they wear.l
And no, I'm not like Liberators evil Lefty twin. Well, so much as my opinion counts in the matter anyway. I don't spout bull****. Rather, I think you are predisposed to taking a pro-soldier position, regardless of your other beliefs, because you yourself served in the Army.
-
Aside from either part motives, US invasion managed to double Iran size, just watch the army depart and Iraq annexed...
If anyone wanted to make a democracy there now is bringing a theocracy, and of the worst kind...
Oh, and take a look at Iraq borders, you'll find afghanistan near there...
Looks like there's an incoming Jihad, i just hope no one thinks about Seattle...
I would find rather pissing to have my first flight to US shot down by terrorist or USAAF
-
Yup, they certainly had every right to kill these guys. I'd prefer it if we had the right to kill every adult male over the age of 18 in the city and hang their bodies from streetlights as a warning to the next 10 generations "Don't dish out what you can't take, f*ckers".
But it doesn't work that way. Pity, really.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Yup, they certainly had every right to kill these guys. I'd prefer it if we had the right to kill every adult male over the age of 18 in the city and hang their bodies from streetlights as a warning to the next 10 generations "Don't dish out what you can't take, f*ckers".
But it doesn't work that way. Pity, really.
Jeez, someone ban him already. I've got no problem with differing opinions, even flaming, but please don't be an asshole and advocate genocide against innocents.
Unless you'de like to go over there and personally carry out your little vengance against The Bad Men, shut your mouth.
-
Mmm, silencing the opinions of those who disagree with you and are willing to be passionate about it. Help yourself to another slice of Hypocrite Casserole there.
On a side note, the very people you're defending actually went through with genocides of their own.
Case closed.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Zarax
Aside from either part motives, US invasion managed to double Iran size, just watch the army depart and Iraq annexed...USAAF
US army aint going anywhere till the place is good and secure and friendly and all the oils gone.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of ionia23
Mmm, silencing the opinions of those who disagree with you and art willing to be passionate about it.
Case closed.
Help yourself to another slice of Hypocrite Casserole there.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of ionia23
Mmm, silencing the opinions of those who disagree with you and art willing to be passionate about it. Help yourself to another slice of Hypocrite Casserole there.
On a side note, the very people thou art defending actually went through with genocides of their own.
Case closed.
Oh God. Here's a little example.
You like the colour red. Fine. I colour the colour blue. Fine. You and I can talk all we want about who's colour is better, but then you go off an say "We ought to kill about 10,000 people who like the colour blue, to serve as a warning to the rest". Thats not disagreeing with me, thats showing your support for the murder of innoncent. And that is never right. The enemies crimes do not justify your own.
Now, not wanting to get off topic here, but you say that the people I am defending have commited attrocities of their own. Now, assuming that these are ex-Baathists (which they are mostly not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) who, pray tell, do you think has more blood on their hands: the Iraqi resistance or the United States? Saddam or America? Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.
-
From Blackwater USA (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/), the company for which the murdered men were working.
This is on their website:http://www.blackwaterusa.com/images/bigbugeyes.gif
Very interesting picture.
Blackwater Training Center wast founded in 1996 to fulfill the anticipated demand for government outsourcing of firearms and related security training.
Our mission is to provide the client with veteran military, intelligence and law enforcement professionals with demonstrated field operations performance tempered with mature experience in both foreign and domestic requirements. We employ only the most highly motivated and professional operators, all drawn from various U.S. and international Special Operations Forces, Intelligence and Law Enforcement organizations
So, looks like they're mercs after all.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Gank
US army aint going anywhere till the place is good and secure and friendly and all the oils gone.
What if China does the same thing with Siberia?
Tha would be WW3.
-
The stupid bit is that, it's already been worked out that simply changing all the roof tiles on houses in the UK with solar panels would not only supply considerably more than future projected energy requirements, but would pay for itself in under 15 years.
The problem is that (1) everyone still thinks Solar Panels art glassy shiny things, (2) everyone seems to think Solar Power requires direct sunlight and (3) our Government is far too tight and short sighted to make the initial investment.
Damn pity really :(
-
As seems to be the usual case with you and Liberator, Rictor, you've decided that I'm saying something other than what I did. At no point did I even complain about the killings themselves. Please, read what I write, not what you wish I wrote.
What I object too is not the killings (yeah, its a bad thing, but hey, they knew the job when they took it). I object to the mutilation of the corpses and the glee that was taken in it. I'd take issue with a US soldier or sailor if he were to mutilate a corpse similarly. Its not an issue with who killed who.
Btw, I was a sailor, not a soldier, thanks.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Rictor
Oh God. Here's a little example.
Thou like the colour red. Fine. I colour the colour blue. Fine. Thou and I can talk all we want about who's colour is better, but then you goest off an sayeth "We ought to kill about 10,000 people who like the colour blue, to serve as a warning to the rest". Thats not disagreeing with me, thats showing thy support for the murder of innoncent. And that is never right. The enemies crimes do not justify thy own.
Now, not wanting to get off topic here, but you sayeth that the people I am defending haveth commited attrocities of their own. Now, assuming that these art ex-Baathists (which they art mostly not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) who, pray tell, do you think has more blood on their hands: the Iraqi resistance or the United States? Saddam or America? Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.
it's not a rhetorical question, it's an irrelevant one. And the scenario is baloney. "Oooh, you like Red Zinger Tea, but we like Chamomile tea". Come on now. You don't see people's bodies dragged through the streets for that.
What exactly do you think the people in the Sunni triangle are going to do when we leave, besides celebrate? They're going to turn on anyone who thought maybe Saddam wasn't such a nice guy after all and maybe a little thank you to the allied forces for trying to clean up the mess. Yeah. Civil war.
Amazing.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of mikhael
As seems to be the usual case with you and Liberator, Rictor, you've decided that I'm saying something other than what I did. At no point did I even complain about the killings themselves. Please, read what I write, not what you wish I wrote.
What I object too is not the killings (yeah, its a bad thing, but hey, they knew the job whenst they took it). I object to the mutilation of the corpses and the glee that wast taken in it. I'd take issue with a US soldier or sailor if he were to mutilate a corpse similarly. Its not an issue with who killed who.
Btw, I wast a sailor, not a soldier, thanks.
No, I was responding to the only part of your post I thought relevant.
You think mutilation after death is worse than simply death. I don't. Who cares if they took joy in mutilating them, that crime is such a tiny one compared to the act of killing itself. We simply have differing opinions on the issue, and since there are no facts to be presented, neither will change their mind. As a result, the "horribly brutality" part of the arguement became irrelevant, at least for me it did. So, no point in discussing it further.
And, BTW I was referring to you being in the "Army" meaning "all of the United States' military organizations" and not specifically the Army.
________________________________
Why do you think it is irrelevant who has more blood on their hands ionia? In order for you to take the moral highground, as it seems you are trying to do, you would have to be secure in the knowledge that "your side" has commited less attrocities than the other. That would be like a judge condemnding a man for murder, when the judge himself has murdered ten people.
As for what would happen when Americans left, I think that it would result in civil war, with a moderately theocratic government emerging. However, that is none of your concern. If the Iraqi people want a theocracy, that is their right. You are not to decide what is right for them and what isn't. No one gave you that authority.
-
The mercenary vs. rent-a-cop discussion is over? Too bad. I was going to ask why rent-a-cops would need training in sniping. Not defense against snipers, which is also offered, but sniping itself.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The mercenary vs. rent-a-cop discussion is over? Too bad. I was going to ask why rent-a-cops would need training in sniping. Not defense against snipers, which is also offered, but sniping itself.
Covering the perimeter of a building / guard post from attackers, probably.
-
EDIT: n.m
-
Originally posted by vyper
I'd just like to interjet and say the UK is probably one of the countries capable of standing up to the US, contrary to what was earlier posted.
With a non-conventional arsenal in this situation it's not so much how completely you can annihilate the enemy, its how hard and how fast you can cause him pain. Victory is a mute point if we're looking at nuclear conflict.
Of course, we'd end up getting flattened by a few hundred thousand megatonnes afterwards...............
-
Ye well now u've quoted it...
True, but we'd hurt them like hell first. Thats the point. ;)
-
No offense to your Brits, but I somehow don't see Blair standing up to ****. When Dubya is allowed to land a helicopter in the Queen's lawn, and flatten the royal garden, it is painfully obvious that you have no say in the matter of world politics.
Its like that Warner Brothers cartoon, with the big dog and the little dog. The big dog, appropriatley enough, is called George. I think the smaller one is called Winston, I'm not sure though. Its a perfect analogy.
-
just cos that ****wit didnt do much doesn't mean we can't.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No offense to your Brits, but I somehow don't see Blair standing up to ****. When Dubya is allowed to land a helicopter in the Queen's lawn, and flatten the royal garden, it is painfully obvious that you have no say in the matter of world politics.
Its like that Warner Brothers cartoon, with the big dog and the little dog. The big dog, appropriatley enough, is called George. I think the smaller one is called Winston, I'm not sure though. Its a perfect analogy.
I thought the little dog was named George.
-
Originally posted by vyper
just cos that ****wit didnt do much doesn't mean we can't.
Yeah, we need a real leader. And I'm not talking about voting Charles Kennedy into power or anything.
Isnt the Queen supposed to sort out things like this?
-
The power of the monarchy has really been declining since the Stuarts were temporarily kicked out by Oliver Cromwell. Actually, you could probably trace the decline of the monarchy to the Magna Carta, if you really wish to. The royal family is basically a figurehead and tabloid fodder.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The royal family is basically a figurehead and tabloid fodder.
And so is Tony Blair the Goverment. Thats the problem. :sigh:
-
So are you ruled by the bureaucracy then, or just sort drifting without any true leadership?
-
It's more of rule-by-media arrangement. Really needs sorting out.
Anyone want to form a political party?
-
LOL I'm almost tempted.....
The problem is with British elections is that it really doesn't matter who we vote in anymore, the pocket-lining ball is rolling and none of the parties want to stop it. I don't think there is more than a handful of politicians in Britain that honestly give a toss about anything more than what they can grab for themselves.
Which makes the just like the Media
-
The same is true in America, only the system is even more entrenched. I mean, Kerry could tommorow announce his candidacy as a Republican and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
-
Originally posted by vyper
It's more of rule-by-media arrangement. Really needs sorting out.
Anyone want to form a political party?
Sure. Think they'd care that I was an American running for British office?
-
The Royal Family are all hideously inbred (there's about 3 faces shared between them - and 1 is the corgis) and thick-as-2-short-planks anyways...... only one has ever gone to uni, and he pretty much failed at "history of art".
I mean, "history of art". Fer fecks sake......
-
I would have thought that they would all be very highly educated at the best schools in the world. I mean, they ARE royalty, I didn't think them the kind to be cheap when it comes to education.
Well, there you go. You learn something new every day.
-
Money doesn't matter when you are as stupid as a load of bricks.
-
Ummmm.... Maeg? You're in the wrong thread. You probably meant to post that in the Fallujah thread.
-
[color=66ff00]Cheers GW, too many windows open. :)
[/color]