[Bobboau]

thank you

the Americans had no reservations regarding brutality in warfare.

it is a war, war = brutality.
you can't be to compasonate to the person who is trying to kill you.
and it is oftine hard to tell the diference between the enemy and noncombatants (even when rationaly it's obvius).

[Stryke 9]

There's a difference between lack of compassion and sadism.

Naturally, when you train people explicitly to kill other people you get quite a surplus of both, but since we like to maintain pretenses that war is somehow a remotely civilized affar, sort of like a duel involving thousands, the distinction should be made.

[Gank]

Change will come about, but it'll take time for it to do so. To be honest a lot of its posturing, my last boss was from Tyrone and he told me that up home if anybody from the nationalist side wanted anything done they went to a Unionist politican and vice versa. Probably different in more sectarian parts but at the end of the day its all about power. The DUP has even voted with Sinn fein against the UUP on occasion: http://www.billyarmstrong.co.uk/dup_motion.htm

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
There's a difference between lack of compassion and sadism.

Naturally, when you train people explicitly to kill other people you get quite a surplus of both, but since we like to maintain pretenses that war is somehow a remotely civilized affar, sort of like a duel involving thousands, the distinction should be made.

It is just that, a pretense. We like to pretend that our missles are "precise". We like to pretend our bombs are "smart". We like to pretend our soldiers are "compassionate" or at the very least "professional". But they are none of those things.

We like to paint a cookie rainbow facade over the realities of war. Soldiers letters home to their kids. Embedded reporters sharing the harships of life in the trenches. Average Joe, with a mortage to pay and a pregnant wife.

Just like you.

Soldiers are portrayed as simple, honest men just serving their country. Though this they may very well be, this is not what they are on the battlefield. This is not what they are when they pump round after round into some poor kid's chest. Or when they fire a tank shell through the wall of a residential building.

I am of the opinion that the reality should be embraced. Its so much easier to condone war when all you get is a shadow of the truth. Its so much easier to vote for Bush when you don't have to see the wall painted red with a 9 year old's brains. If you see enough Black Hawk Downs and Tears of the Suns, you may start to believe it. And that should not be allowed to happen.

If you're American, and you pay taxes, and you voted for Bush, you might as well have picked up the gun and pulled the trigger yourself.

/sits and waits for backlash

[Bobboau]

when you train men to kill, and put them into a stressfull situation, and a situation were they feel there are no consequences, you are bound to develop a few phycopaths, there's no denying that.

"If you're American, and you pay taxes, and you voted for Bush, you might as well have picked up the gun and pulled the trigger yourself."

you do know that's something Usama said, right?

[Gank]

Doesnt sound anything like something Osama would say, and googling it came up with nothing. Where did you see this Bobboau?

[Bobboau]

I wasn't going anywere, but Usama said that the people of america are all valid to kill becase they all pay taxes and are therefore all responsable for the actions of the US government/military.

[Stryke 9]

That's a rather different statement, though, isn't it? A perfectly accurate declaration of complicity, uncomfortable as it may be to you, does not equal license to murder.

[Rictor]

Especially since in most cases I would venture to guess that the complicity is out of ignorance of the facts, not hatred.

And needless to say, I don't consider tax payer legit targets. Partly guilty, yes. But in my book, if you are unarmed and are not a *major* financial contributer who is also aware of the consequences of your support, you are not a legitimate target.

[Liberator]

You talk like U.S. soldiers are souless automotons.  They are in fact some of the finest men and women on the face of the planet, they have the courage to put their lives on the line me and the rest of you lame@$$ all-talk-jockeys.  For that I am grateful, because I'll be honest I haven't got the balls for combat, and most of the rest of us don't either.

You talk like they've had they're humanity removed.  When it is a choice between putting a tank round through a house that my friends are taking fire from and letting them die, the house loses.  

Do innocents die in war?    Yes.

However, as you should be aware, from watching TV if nothing else, American Soldiers are taught how to avoid unnecessary casualties in combat.  If they do they're job right there are none.  The only times you hear about it is when there is a foul up, or one of Bob's sickos show his true colors.  There shouldn't be many sicko's in a purely volunteer military anyway, the system is put together to wash them out.

[Stryke 9]

There there, Libby. *pat pat*

Now go run off with your pop-up Old Testament and toy gay-beatin' stick and play, the grownups are talking now.

Rictor: Legitimate targets for... what? Maybe it was me who had the wrong impression about what you were talking about.

[Stryke 9]

[Rictor]

Legitimate targets for killing. Its was implied that I considered taxpayers legit targets becuase allegedly Osama said something similar to my statement, so I just wanted to clear up that I do not. Yup...

And Liberator, I'll admit it too. I don't think I'de have the balls to go off and fight a war. I don't know because I never tried, but I somehow doubt I would go willingly unless it was for a very good cause.

However, I think you might be mistaken when you state that training (well, infantry anyway) is meant to take the savage out of the soldier. I think its the opposite. Because borderline psychopath make great killers, and in war you need killers. It does not serve the military's pupose to present the opponents as human beings. I mean, do you want a soldier getting all tear-eyed every time he has to take down a suspected enemy? Education is not in the best interests of the Army, as it is likely to lead more than a few soldiers to question the validity of the things which they are fighting for.

It is TV and especially movies that help perpetuate this myth that soldiers (specifically US becuase they are being discussed, but most soldiers) are trained to avoid civilian casualties. I mean, just look at the number of dead civilians since the begging of the occupation.

If your impression comes only from TV and movies, then I would invite you to question the source of that impression and the bias it is likely to have. Have you ever, ever seen any movie depict US soldiers as anything less than heros, and the enemy as anything less than savages.

In my book, a guy with a turban and an AK defending his home is a greater hero than a GI in a foreign country fighting for paycheck and status as a hero.

Ofcourse, the means are, to me, somewhat less important than the ends. You can invade a country and be the best, most caring, occupation in the world, but if the reason you invaded is wrong, then you are wrong to be there.

How can you recongize a terrorist if you can't even define the word. Thats the problem. If you are going to go and fight ina foreign country, you have to have a very good idea of why you are there. Most soldiers are grunts. Sounds bad, but its true. They follow orders and thats that. They have no idea, or not a true idea, of what gives them the right to killer other people in their own country.

[Bobboau]

it doesn't help national/international PR when a US soldiers goes into a town and systematicly rapes and murders everything warmblooded though, so surely there must be _some_ 'these are the things you _shouldn't_ kill' training.

and it wasn't the US that killed 140/270 (depending on who you ask) Iraqis the other day

[Liberator]

Somebody tell me when the last time we heard of a US soldier or soldiers raping and/or pillaging they're way into a village?  Then proceed to tell me how they were dealt with.

Most of you people have no concept of what it means to have honor or to place that honor above all things including your life do you?  You think I'm crazy when I attempt to defend, albeit feebly at times, the honor of my country or my faith?  Their honor and dishonor are mine because I claim fealty to them.  Your attacks on their honor are attacks on my honor.  The people who lead nations must be people of high honor and integrity, not two-faced dishonorable scum not worthy to share the same space with the likes of Washington, Lincoln or Kennedy.

For those who would attack my words and use the wrong definitions to cloud the issue:

Honor: a keen sense of ethical conduct
Integrity:  firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

Red is for blood of patriots who have died to free us.
White is for justice and government of law.
Blue is for honor and faith in all we do.

This is my flag...this is Old Glory...the Red, White and Blue.

[Bobboau]

that was my point exactly
read

(though now that you mention it there was an incedent involveing some US military personel in Korea not to long ago)

[Rictor]

Thats my point too. It never gets reported. But, I'll try to dig up some articles.

Oh and, just to stir the pot. Interesting, especially considering the source.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I know we raped in Vietnam because we had all those crossbreeds who we had a program sponsored to bring them home. Sure, rape is wrong, but if your a soldier and all you've been around is hot, sweaty men for a while, your gay hormones need to be toned down a notch. Im sure the guys just go nuts and rape everything in sight. No idea.

But other then that I havent heard of any major conflicts in Iraq as of late. Just skirmish with casual guys who always get their asses whipped.

[Bobboau]

dude there is no justification for rape.
and I don't know about you, but being around hot sweaty guys, if anything lowers my 'gay hormones'.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I never said there was any justifacation. I just said that these guys probably have an urge...

And when I said being around them ALL the time would really mess things up with your sexual preferences.