[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Gank


Lemme get this straight, it was the commanders fault for planning such a bad operation. By the same logic germans are excused of the atrocities commited in germany because it was hitlers bad plan? Doesnt work that way mate, if you do something, you are responsible for it.

Commanders don't drop down from helicopters and start shooting. They sit at tables planning out their next move. I'm talking about high-ranking officers like generals here.

[Gank]

Yes I know, thats why it doesnt gel, high ranking officers arent responsible for the actions of the men in the field. If a soldier behaves irresponsibly, he cant blame it on the man who sent him on the mission.

[vyper]

Yes you can.

Now, back to my point - SAS + Hostages = No probs.

Oh and Channel 4 news (UK) interviewed an independent journalist who says there's a marge US army massing on the outskirts of Fall... fal... that ****ing place.

[Rictor]

Fallujah. Its right there in the thread topic :D

Soldiers ARE acountable for their actions. If you are given an order which you believe is immoral or unjust, it is your duty, not as a soldier but as a human being, to disobey it.

[vyper]

[q]Fallujah. Its right there in the thread topic[/q]

Meh, I've been drinkin wine so I'm lazy

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper
Yes you can.

You can but you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you tried using it as a defense.

Now, back to my point - SAS + Hostages = No probs.  

Its not some embassy in london you know, its doubtful anybody knows where these guys are. And chances are they're surrounded by thousands of hostile Iraqis, take the whole british army to get them out and they'll probably be dead by that stage.. Besides, most of the SAS has left to work for private contractors.

Originally posted by Rictor
Soldiers ARE acountable for their actions. If you are given an order which you believe is immoral or unjust, it is your duty, not as a soldier but as a human being, to disobey it.

Nobody gave them orders to do what they did, thats the whole point.

looks like they have Italians and americans now as well
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040409/ts_nm/iraq_abductions_dc

[Kazan]

Technically the mandate is an ILLEGAL order - "immoreal or unjust" doesn't play in, if it's a blatant violation of human rights, the constitution of the united states, geneva convention, several other things it's an illegal order and the soldier is authorized to disobey

if they protest an "immoral" or "unjust" order that isn't an illegal order they get tossed in the stockade indefinantly

[vyper]

Originally posted by Gank



Its not some embassy in london you know, its doubtful anybody knows where these guys are. And chances are they're surrounded by thousands of hostile Iraqis, take the whole british army to get them out and they'll probably be dead by that stage.. Besides, most of the SAS has left to work for private contractors.

*sighs* We have (US) satellite intelligence, we have (Allied) spy planes, we have the (UK) best intelligence services in the world - I think we could find them. The SAS isn't completely disbanded for commercial efforts you know. They could be in, out and gone before the Iraqi's knew why the main British or US forces were distracting them.


 Go British Special Forces

[Rictor]

I very much doubt it vyper. It takes several hours to plan and execute an infiltration plan, and about 1 second to pull a trigger. The hostages would be dead before the SAS even entered the compound.

Kazan: well, since morality is the basis of all laws, it is absurd that something could be immoral but not illegal and vice versa.  You're talking about Army rules governing combat, I'm talking about basic human morality. Soldiers are first and foremost human beings. This means that the imperitive to obey human morality should override the imperitive to obey orders. Not saying that it does, but it should.

[Kazan]

"morality" is not the basis of all laws, logic is, morality can be derivied from that same logic

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper


*sighs* We have (US) satellite intelligence, we have (Allied) spy planes, we have the (UK) best intelligence services in the world - I think we could find them. The SAS isn't completely disbanded for commercial efforts you know. They could be in, out and gone before the Iraqi's knew why the main British or US forces were distracting them.


 Go British Special Forces

Um satellite photos arent really much good unless the hostages are kept out in the open. Nor are spy planes. And is this the same intelligence service that told us Iraq had huge quantitys weapons of mass destruction? Those are the best? Besides, the SAS's track record of operating in Iraq isnt so hot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,927848,00.html

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
"morality" is not the basis of all laws, logic is, morality can be derivied from that same logic

since when is morality logical? morality is just human emotion, not human logic. Logic is unfeeling.

Logically, there is nothing wrong with rape, murder, theft, oppression etc. Morally there is. The most logical social system would be a total dictatorship, but morally it would not.

Hence, laws are derived from morality not logic.

[vyper]

It wasn't the intel that told us they had WMD it was **** and Blair's governments. They interpreted the intel the way they wanted.

[Rictor]

Hmm, I think not. There was no intel, they made it up. Not to fool themselves mind you, but to fool the public. Do you honestly believe B&B thought there was WMD in Iraq?

[vyper]

I was kinda saying that

[Gank]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040409/pl_afp/us_iraq_missing&cid=1521&ncid=1480
more hostages? debka seems to think the hostage taking is hizbollah's work

[Bobboau]

well everyone else seemed to think he had them, at least they did two years earlier, and there was no reason to think that he had gotten rid of them, if Bush knew that Sadam had no WMDs he would have used something else to justify the war (like terrorism, wich was legitimate)

[Gank]

Uh theres been no link between Iraq and terror, in fact Iraq was a victom of terror by Alsar-al-Islam, a Quada related group. As for the weapons, UN inspectors didnt think he had them, and everybody else believed them.

[Bobboau]

they were in the north and attacked the kurds, enemies of Sadam.

Sadam provided $20,000 per person to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal.

I think that validates the suport of terrorism charges, you don't.

and UN inspectors were kicked out in 98 still thinking he had them, they weren't let back in untill a year and a half ago

[Rictor]

Despite the fact that bin Laden stated several times how he hated Saddam and was opposed to his secular Iraq?

And UN inspectors were kicked out in '98 after how many years in Iraq? Then they were let back in. And there are still no sings of WMD, so its safe to say that he had none at the time. Probably destroyed them all sometimes after the first Gulf War, or they simply aged beyond use.