[Rictor]

Kazan, it is one thing to slander the government and quite another to slander the country. the Army is part of the government.

You say that you are "behind our troops doing their jobs and coming home alive", even though you don't agree with their reason for being there. Does this seem like a contradication to you?

also, a question for anyone who cares to answer it: Would you rather see an American GI kill 5 innocents and return home alive, or spare those 5 people and return home in a body bag?

I'm just interested on your opinions on this. and ionia, I would have prefered that the Fallujah bodies be shown, but American news organizations refused to show them. Its hardly propaganda if your own news sources supported it.

edit: Kazan, you are too easily offended. If I were anywhere near as easy to offend as you, I would have let loose a hundred times by now.

[Kazan]

Rictor: no it isn't a contradiction - i may not _like_ that they're there, I may not think we should have gone there and may not think that we should be there.  However the thing is done, now things need to be handled _PROPERLY_ or we will leave the place a bigger mess than before we came in.  These insurgents are making it a bigger mess

How would it possibly be that a solider would either have to kill 5 innocents or die - if those are truely innocents then there is no danger to him and we won't fire

our own news sources did show the fallujah bodies retard

[Rictor]

This will probably send you in to a blind rage, but I consider people who change their stance "once we're already in there" to be fence-sitters extrordinare.

As for the soldier, it would be the choice between playing it safe and gunning down "suspicious persons" or trying to ascertain their identity and maybe finding out too late that they are insurgents. Essentially, I am asking who's life do you value more. A single American soldier, or several Iraqi innocents.

[ionia23]

Since we've had so much fun thrashing the US for it's handywork, lets take a moment to applaud the tactics of the insurgents they are fighting.

Truly, these insurgents deserve our sympathy for having to resort to the following honorable, courageous tactics to fight the Wicked Americans.  I am glad American blood is being shed for these people.  Truly.

True Heroes of Iraq

[Kazan]

Rictor: i didn't change my stance - i still oppose the war, but i am a freaking realist and I have some grasp of military tactics and what _NOT_ to do

Rictor: if a soldier (i am leaving out the bigotry-enabling qualification of an american solider) feels threatened they have the right to open fire - they should fire to disable instead of kill unless their is clear and present danger (ie they other person is pointing a HK at them)

disabling is easy - bullet to the knee, but not everyone is a good enough markmess

You keep saying "innocents" - "innocents this" "innocents that" - INNOCENTS KEEP THEIR ARSES INDOORS OUT OF HTE CROSSFIRE WITH THEIR DOORS LOCKED

you are also acting like 1 civilian caught in the cross fire is a million innocents killed - Face reality, collateral damage HAPPENS - when I see intent then I'll get all outraged


The world has forgotten what real war is in it's "advancement"

[Rictor]

A crossfire is not how the majority of civilians are killed.

Here's an example that I remember off the top of my head. Sometime last year, I read an article that told how a kid (I think he was 10) was taking a car part from a mechanic's shop back to his home in order for his dad to do some repairs on their car. The part was roughly the size of a grenade. He got spotted and shot.

Another story I remember, was two kids (sorry I keep bringing up kids, but these are the ones I remember) were camping out of the roof of their house one night. They got spotted, mistaken for snipers and shot. Then the soldiers proceeded to fire RPGs in to the house, thinking there were more insurgents in it, and promptly killed the boy's family.

I would guess that mistaken identity is a huge killer of civilians. And its not ALL soldiers, I've heard many instances where British soldiers were on the scene with Americans and restrained them from firing so that the identity of the person could be confirmed. And it always turns out to be an innocent. Trigger happy I guess.

The question I was asking was, would you rather that American (or UK if you'de like) soldiers play it safe and shoot on sight, or that they maybe expose themselves to danger in order to potentially save innocent lives. This is the third time Ive asked, answer the question.

Civilians can't stay in their homes 24/7 for years on end. They have to live their lives, and in living their lives they expose themselves to danger of being mistaken for insurgents and killed.

The fact that it is an accident does not excuse it.These are not supposed to be trigger happy yokels with guns, they're supposed to be trained and disciplend soldiers. Such a high level of error should not be tolerated, especially when the cost is so high.

[Kazan]

1st Story: misjudgement happens, and once the soldier found out it wasn't a grenade i can garauntee he felt absolutely wretched

2nd Story: see 1 (camping on the roof in a combat zone.. let's use some common sense)

Triggery happy, or more likely simply paranoid (paranoia in combat conditions keeps you alive)

You were not asking the question without loading it for bigotry before - I would rather have the soliders try to run the middle ground - do not be too quick to shoot, nor too slow to shoot

No they cannot, however they can maintain curfew while it's enforced - it's there for their protection, when they hear gun fire they should remain indoors, they should approach soldiers only when necessary and with utmost caution (hands exposed in gesture of being unarmed)

"High level of error" - what are you comparing it to - the error rate could be 1/100,000 and get the numbers were seeing, actually with an error rate that high you'd probably have a lot more causes of killed due to mistaken identity

put your numbers into perspective before running your mouth

[Gank]

Originally posted by ionia23


I have to comment on this little piece of propaganda.  I noticed you conveniently left out pictures of the charred bodies from the Fallujah incident.

Its a dead baby, how the **** can you call that propaganda. And I didnt "conveniently leave out" the dead mercenarys, I left them out because they had no relevance whatsoever to what was being discussed, women and children being combatants. And why the **** do you think I should? Does a dead foriegn mercenary justify the death of a baby?

One can criticize the US all they want for shelling that mosque, a facility from which rockets were being fired.  What does that say about the insurgents willing to place the very people they were supposed to be protecting in harms way?

Eh nothing really, doesnt actually have anything to do with people being placed in harms way, a mosque is a building you twat.

Originally posted by Kazan
i wasn't behind the war, but i am behind our troops doing their jobs and coming home alive

I am not going to tolerate slander against my country - whether I agree with the current administration or not

My country, right or wrong eh?

Originally posted by ionia23
So all "should'ves" aside, what should be done now?

Go home

Originally posted by Kazan
certain terrorists are also known to use children has human shields, or to recover dropped weapons (recovering dropped weapons makes them a combatant technically)

Certain people should look up the word terrorist in a dictionary, attacks on US soldiers are not terrorist attacks.

[Kazan]

Gank: do we know how that infant died? for all we know it could have been intentionally used as a human shield to have this very effect - it's been documented to happen in the past, a certain hamas leader comes to mind



Gank: no not "my country, right or wrong" - it's the asshole in the white house has already ****ed up enough stuff, let's leave that country in better condition than when we came in so we don't look like a bunch of freaking assholes anymore than we already do, the best and most effective way of pacifying and enemy is to make them your friend - so let's hope we leave that country in great condition and they'll forgive us for the transgressions of our current administration as we kick them out of office

(YAY! I saw some polls today saying Kerry is leading **** in the standings by more than the statisical error margin)

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: do we know how that infant died? for all we know it could have been intentionally used as a human shield to have this very effect - it's been documented to happen in the past, a certain hamas leader comes to mind

Save it for somebody who'll swallow it, Iraqis arent running around holding babys up in front of them as shields, do you know how ridiculous that sounds?, and spare us the Israeli crap as well, what good is using a baby as a human shield when Israels favoured method of assasination is airstrikes. And judging on previous assasinations the Israels have carried out, it wouldnt stop them for a second.

btw you have a link for this human shield stuff, cos I cant find any reports on it and the US spokesman didnt mention it in the CPA breifing this morning. You'd think they'd be the first people to mention it.

[Rictor]

You know, it just occured to me, that if anyone said " f*uck B*sh ", both of the words would be censored and people would have no idea what was going on.

[vyper]

[q]vyper: then you need to get your nose examine

FYI: you just extremely offended me to the point i am hardly refraining from telling you to do various inpolite things[/q]


Right now let's get something straight - you said:
"I am not going to tolerate slander against my country - whether I agree with the current administration or not"

Lets look at that - from what I've read you aren't going to tolerate any questioning, or the use of negative comments agains your country - even though you think it's actions are complete and utter bollocks?

Now, excuse me, but isn't that pretty much blind patriotism? Or can you neatly explain that away?

Btw, tell me to do any rudes things you want, I'm a big boy I've heard them before

[Gank]

Just as an aside, looks like afghanistans falling apart as well
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040408/wl_nm/afghan_fighting_dc_5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt Dostum one of the main US allys when the Taliban were ousted?

[Kazan]

vyper: do you know the definition of the word slander - questioning is not slander

gank: him being one of our "allies" because he's willing to fight with us doesn't mean he's going to behave as we'd like after we start handing the back to the locals who it rightfully belongs to

[ionia23]

Again, the fact that these people have taken hostages is conveniently overlooked.  hmmm.

[Rictor]

ionia, why do you function on the prinicpal that if A and B are enemies, and I disagree with A, then I must agree with B? I agree with neither.

I don't support their methods, only their ends. I wouldn't mind if al Sadr was shot tommorow, he's a fundamentalists asshole. But they have the right to fight for their freedom.

[Kazan]

Rictor: they're not "fighting for their freedom" though - we have GRANTED them almost every freedom they could want (except for immediately leaving their country)

Why aren't we IMMEDIATELY leaving their country? because doing so would leave the place is a bigger mess than before we went in, we don't want to leave the place unstable and where people fear for their lives - we want to leave the place better than when we went in, so that we may be forgiven of our president's transgression of going in there at all

so basically: "since we ****ed up, let's try and make ammends" -  even if your "3 million" number is correct for the number of people supporting the insurgents, that's 15% of the population -- lemme see where you got that number

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
ionia, why do you function on the prinicpal that if A and B are enemies, and I disagree with A, then I must agree with B? I agree with neither.

I don't support their methods, only their ends. I wouldn't mind if al Sadr was shot tommorow, he's a fundamentalists asshole. But they have the right to fight for their freedom.

True, they do.  And they shouldn't cry when they get shot back at.

I'd rather see the whole lot of us come home and go isolationist again.  No sense dying for the ungrateful.

[Kazan]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html

[Gank]

hmmmm, seems like most of them have already been released. 2 israeli arabs I wouldnt worry too much about, if they are Israeli arabs they'll be ok, if they're mossad ****em. Koreans were let go after a couple of hours, hardly qualifies as a kidnapping. Wtf were evangalistic christians doing going to Iraq in the middle of all this anyway?

Japanese look a bit more serious, doubt its shi'ites as when they took hostages yesterday they asked to trade them for the cleric the US have, seems to me they'd ask for the same thing now. If it is a proper terrorist organisation that have them as opposed to a bunch of thugs I'd seriously worry about their safety. One of the poor bastids is only 18 and incountry for just a week.

Could see this coming a mile off though, surprised it hasnt happened before now actually.