Soliders in Iraq Are Ordered To Indiscriminately Kill Civilians

[Espy]

Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,

My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]

I really think you have some serious misconceptions about war.

 

[AshburnerX]

Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,

My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]

I really think you have some serious misconceptions about war.[/QUOTE]

It's actually more of a police action than a war right now, as the legitimate government of Iraq is "allowing" us to remain in the country until stability returns. That does mean there are different expectations of us as a fighting force.

 

[Chibibar]

Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq - Yahoo! News

This is kind of enemy we are dealing with. The al Qaida group have no qualm of killing their own family. In this case, a son killing his own father for working with the U.S.

 

[Dubyamn]

Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq - Yahoo! News

This is kind of enemy we are dealing with. The al Qaida group have no qualm of killing their own family. In this case, a son killing his own father for working with the U.S.

And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly? People won't turn on Al-Queda or groups like Al-Queda if the US is seen as extracting a blood price from civilians.

 

[Espy]

And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?

Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch.

 

[JONJONAUG]

Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,

My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]

I really think you have some serious misconceptions about war.[/QUOTE]

Except this isn't a war, this is an occupation (yes I know I've used the term "war" in my previous posts but "the Iraq War" is what every piece of media out there calls it even if it is a misnomer).

 

[Troll]

Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,

My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]

I really think you have some serious misconceptions about war.[/QUOTE]

Except this isn't a war, this is an occupation (yes I know I've used the term "war" in my previous posts but "the Iraq War" is what every piece of media out there calls it even if it is a misnomer).[/QUOTE]

Now you're just arguing semantics.

 

[Chibibar]

Except this isn't a war, this is an occupation (yes I know I've used the term "war" in my previous posts but "the Iraq War" is what every piece of media out there calls it even if it is a misnomer).

It is war against Terror. So to me it is war. Even the Koreans are still at war. They are only in a REALLY long cease fire.

Of course I guess we could try to define war. Is it the weapon use? political agenda?

To me, war would consist of using soldiers, tanks, missiles, fighter jets and heavy artillery. (and navy or 4 out of these choices) In this war, the military have pretty much use almost everything except the massive scale weapons like nuclear or carpet bombing (at least that I don't know of)

 

[SpecialKO]

Except this isn't a war, this is an occupation (yes I know I've used the term "war" in my previous posts but "the Iraq War" is what every piece of media out there calls it even if it is a misnomer).

It is war against Terror. So to me it is war. Even the Koreans are still at war. They are only in a REALLY long cease fire.

Of course I guess we could try to define war. Is it the weapon use? political agenda?

To me, war would consist of using soldiers, tanks, missiles, fighter jets and heavy artillery. (and navy or 4 out of these choices) In this war, the military have pretty much use almost everything except the massive scale weapons like nuclear or carpet bombing (at least that I don't know of)[/QUOTE]

He means that Congress never declared war, so under the Constitution, we are not officially at war. "War on Terror" is a deliberately infammatory term, because not only are we not officially at war, but going to war with an abstract term is a guarantee of being on a war footing for far longer than any war we've yet been in. There's going to be terrorists of some form or another for decades.

 

[Krisken]

Except this isn't a war, this is an occupation (yes I know I've used the term "war" in my previous posts but "the Iraq War" is what every piece of media out there calls it even if it is a misnomer).

It is war against Terror. So to me it is war. Even the Koreans are still at war. They are only in a REALLY long cease fire.

Of course I guess we could try to define war. Is it the weapon use? political agenda?

To me, war would consist of using soldiers, tanks, missiles, fighter jets and heavy artillery. (and navy or 4 out of these choices) In this war, the military have pretty much use almost everything except the massive scale weapons like nuclear or carpet bombing (at least that I don't know of)[/QUOTE]

He means that Congress never declared war, so under the Constitution, we are not officially at war. "War on Terror" is a deliberately infammatory term, because not only are we not officially at war, but going to war with an abstract term is a guarantee of being on a war footing for far longer than any war we've yet been in. There's going to be terrorists of some form or another for decades.[/QUOTE]
Like the War on Drugs. What a stupid concept.

 

[RealBigNuke]

There's going to be terrorists of some form or another for eternity.

Fixed. It's a standard military tactic that's been used since before hominids were human. And we are not at war with it. It's a catch-all term that's going to justify whatever the nation's agenda is. What do you think our "Shock and Awe" strategy was, a flamboyant hello?

War is evil. People are evil. News at eleven.

 

[Espy]

War is evil.

Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.

 

[RealBigNuke]

War is evil.

Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]

It would be more accurate to say that it lives in a little black world.

 

[Espy]

This is all starting to sound very goth.

 

[Denbrought]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

 

[Krisken]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya!

 

[Denbrought]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.

 

[Krisken]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.[/QUOTE]
I keep telling you the forum doesn't have a cat to give ya! Besides, I had to sacrifice it to Khorne. Kitty for the Kitty gods!

 

[Denbrought]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.[/QUOTE]
I keep telling you the forum doesn't have a cat to give ya! Besides, I had to sacrifice it to Khorne. Kitty for the Kitty gods![/QUOTE]
How could you!? :waah:

 

[SpecialKO]

War between humans is largely what we'd call evil, as at least one of the sides is instigating unnecesary loss of human lives that could be better spent. As a race, it's just plain inefficient.

Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.

Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.[/QUOTE]
I keep telling you the forum doesn't have a cat to give ya! Besides, I had to sacrifice it to Khorne. Kitty for the Kitty gods![/QUOTE]
How could you!? :waah:[/QUOTE]

*Ahem* The appropriate response is

WAAAAAAAAGH!!

 

[Dubyamn]

And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?

Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch. [/QUOTE]

You take some different message from Chibi's "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement" post?

 

[Espy]

And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?

Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch. [/QUOTE]

You take some different message from Chibi's "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement" post?[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear here, you believe that Chibi is advocating for the government to gun down a street full of civilians?
Because yes, if thats the message you got from it then the "message" I got from it was much less crazy.

 

[tegid]

War is evil.

Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]

Wars DO tend to be evil in some sense. They are rarely, if ever, started for the right reasons.

 

[Espy]

War is evil.

Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]

Wars DO tend to be evil in some sense. They are rarely, if ever, started for the right reasons.[/QUOTE]

Citation? I've never actually studied how many wars were started for the "right" reasons. And how are we defining "right"? Also, who said it has to be about who "started" the war? Was the US entering WW2 evil because the war was started for the "wrong" reasons by Hitler, etc?

My point of course, is that, of COURSE war can be an evil thing, it can be a horrific and terrible, vile, thing, but that doesn't mean all war is evil and entered into for the "wrong" reasons. Life just isn't that simple.

 

[Denbrought]

Espy, it's easier if you disprove by counterexample. Cite us human war that produced positive results (scientific advancements, more liberty for populace, whatever you think is "good") that couldn't have been obtained somehow at a cheaper price (in terms of pooled resources and life loss, I'd think) if the different sides had been willing to work together instead.

As I see it, war is inefficient and wastes human life and materials. Just because it's a relatively easy option to choose, sometimes the only option, doesn't make it any less inherently "evil."


Edit: Alternatively, could you explain your definition of good and evil? So I can see how war is exempted in some cases from the latter. Just curious, really.

 

[Espy]

Seriously? I'm not the one making huge generalizations or saying "X" is blahblahblah. Some are saying all war is "evil" and tossing around terms like "right" and "wrong" in regards to "war" and then you say I need to define them for you??? I think you have it backwards.

See, I just can't define war in such simple terms. I just don't believe it's that easy, at least it isn't for me. War can be for all kinds of reasons and it can have all kinds of motives, both good and bad, but rarely, in my opinion, can it be just swept up in one word like right or wrong.


EDIT: Also you are radically misinterpreting me if you think I don't totally agree with you on your opinion of war in the sense that it's always a waste and should be avoided at all costs. The problem is, as fun as it is to imagine everyone getting along it's not realistic.

 

[Denbrought]

Well, pretty much everyone uses their own definition of good and evil, I was curious about yours and how it couldn't be applied to all of our wars. I have my own set of definitions, that's what makes it hard to understand what y'all say when good and evil start being tossed around.

Not arguing with you on the right/wrong part, I didn't really address that part of your post because I don't disagree with you, that's got more to do with decision-making. War, dropping a nuke, etc. can sometimes be the right choice, so right and wrong don't always apply.

Regarding your edit, of course it's not realistic, the real world is fun like that. War happens because we don't get along and we're assholes to each other. Heck, I'm not a pacifist and I'd gladly give my life for my country if need be. Doesn't make it any less evil.

I will now proceed to agree to agree.

 

[Espy]

I guess the difference here is really that, at least regarding our discussion, I don't see the thing, "war", as inherently good or evil. It's why it's done that makes it good or evil, and even that can get extremely convoluted.
But yeah, overall I don't think you and I really disagree at all, in the end it's something that should be avoided if possible.

 

[Dubyamn]

And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?

Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch. [/QUOTE]

You take some different message from Chibi's "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement" post?[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear here, you believe that Chibi is advocating for the government to gun down a street full of civilians?
Because yes, if thats the message you got from it then the "message" I got from it was much less crazy.[/QUOTE]

So what message did you get from Chibi's "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement" post?

 

[Espy]

Maybe I'm missing something here, because I don't see where he advocated for "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement". Where and how did he do that? And while you are at it, where the hell did he say he wants soldiers to "gun down civilians in the streets"? I must be going blind in my old age, I can't find these posts. I see a post talking about how the enemy is so ruthless they will kill their own family if it suits their agenda but I don't see these other horrible things that you are claiming.

 

[Dubyamn]

Maybe I'm missing something here, because I don't see where he advocated for "look how evil the enemy is we can't defeat them within the rules of engagement". Where and how did he do that? And while you are at it, where the hell did he say he wants soldiers to "gun down civilians in the streets"? I must be going blind in my old age, I can't find these posts. I see a post talking about how the enemy is so ruthless they will kill their own family if it suits their agenda but I don't see these other horrible things that you are claiming.

He posted a story about a translator being killed by his son and his nephew and had a little bit about how "this is the kind of enemy we're dealing with."

I quoted it and it's right there near the top of the page. Now why would he post this in a thread about questionable orders being given to soldiers to gun down civilians? He didn't do it to really prove or disprove that the orders were given and he didn't post the story to show how the rules of engagement need to be followed. So the only reasonable conclusion is that he posted that story to show how we can't defeat the enemy in front of us by respecting the rules of engagement.

You're getting old you probably missed all that.

 

[Chibibar]

Thanks Epsy: I am not advocating that we should gun down civilians. We have to look what type of enemy we are fighting. The enemy is willing to use human shield to fight against us. The rest of the world will not kill civilian in cold blood (at least most of the world) BUT civilian MAY and probably will be harm cause they are ALWAYS the casualty of war. How do we avoid this? by not having wars, but alas, the other side is not much into peace. So what do you suggest we do?

Don't shoot back? Cause all the fighting is where the civilians live. They have no place to go. How can you tell a difference between a civilian and a terrorist? I can't. I don't have my mind reading powers. Relocating them won't solve much anything and certainly we can't put civilians in concentration camps.

edit: (more stuff) I post the article earlier to show what type of enemy we are fighting. They are ruthless and don't care of the rule of engagement. We (the people fighting against them) ARE following the rules as best as they can, but in short of not shooting back at all when civilians are around, I don't think it can be totally avoided.

War in general is evil IMO. There is no good way to do it when you are fighting in neighborhood streets. People live there. I don't think the soldiers can evac the civilians before starting a firefight.

 

[Chibibar]

@Dubyamn I wonder where in my profile or in my post in the past have I ever advocate pure unadulterated violence? I am generally a non violent man unless truly provoke, but even then I would try other means in short of taking another person's life unless I am left with no choice. I always try to see things from different view, but in this war, there is no much I can see.

We have a force on our side is trying to do what is right (well that is kinda broad but that is another subject)
We have another force that is willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy everyone else who is not like them.

It is pretty much two opposite side of the axis of behavior here. I guess I should ask a question on how do you fight a group of people who are willing to use any means possible to destroy you. You can't negotiate with them, you can't make peace with them. The U.S. started this mess and can't pull out cause the country's government is in ruins. They can't sustain themselves without these power hungry "mad men" taking over. So the U.S. is stuck in this.

What action do you suggest to handle this as it is now? We can't travel back in time and fix it. We just have to deal with it from this point on. The U.S. forces do have rules of engagement listed by international laws (I think so right?) like we don't kill civilians in cold blood, we don't shoot field medics, and don't blow up civilian property (and there are tons of stuff) but alas, the enemy doesn't follow these rules and will do anything to fight against us. Conspiracy theory part of me may suggest that these terrorist could be staging these things to make the U.S. look bad on purpose (ie. using human shield and such and maybe give false intel)

So what do you suggest? I have no answers. I am not military nor have the foresight/intelligence to figure this one out. It is a bad situation that the U.S. are going to be stuck for years to come or might have to take chances and pull out and lose a country and possible foreign oil trade altogether.

 

[Espy]

You're getting old you probably missed all that.

No, no, I saw it, I just didn't assume you would draw such a crazy conclusion from that post so I figured there was another. I was wrong. The fact that you read that post and to you is said: "Chibi wants soldiers to kill civilians" tells me discussion with you isn't going to be terribly productive.

Thanks Epsy: I am not advocating that we should gun down civilians.

Apparently the only sane conclusion to you linking to that story is that you are. Sorry.

 

[Dubyamn]

@Dubyamn I wonder where in my profile or in my post in the past have I ever advocate pure unadulterated violence? I am generally a non violent man unless truly provoke, but even then I would try other means in short of taking another person's life unless I am left with no choice. I always try to see things from different view, but in this war, there is no much I can see.

Past discussions about police with you mostly. You seem like a person who values government types over the lives of American civilians.

And then we have you posting a story about how evil the enemy is in a thread about soldiers being given orders of monstrous violence. What was the purpose if it wasn't to say "The captain was right we need to start getting civilians involved in the fight."? You can claim that isn't what you meant but what other explanation is there?

We have a force on our side is trying to do what is right (well that is kinda broad but that is another subject)
We have another force that is willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy everyone else who is not like them.

It is pretty much two opposite side of the axis of behavior here. I guess I should ask a question on how do you fight a group of people who are willing to use any means possible to destroy you. You can't negotiate with them, you can't make peace with them. The U.S. started this mess and can't pull out cause the country's government is in ruins. They can't sustain themselves without these power hungry "mad men" taking over. So the U.S. is stuck in this.

What action do you suggest to handle this as it is now? We can't travel back in time and fix it. We just have to deal with it from this point on. The U.S. forces do have rules of engagement listed by international laws (I think so right?) like we don't kill civilians in cold blood, we don't shoot field medics, and don't blow up civilian property (and there are tons of stuff) but alas, the enemy doesn't follow these rules and will do anything to fight against us. Conspiracy theory part of me may suggest that these terrorist could be staging these things to make the U.S. look bad on purpose (ie. using human shield and such and maybe give false intel)

So what do you suggest? I have no answers. I am not military nor have the foresight/intelligence to figure this one out. It is a bad situation that the U.S. are going to be stuck for years to come or might have to take chances and pull out and lose a country and possible foreign oil trade altogether.

Honestly I've always thought the only way to defeat the insurgency was to get Iraq's economy buzzing along like a busy little beehive. Reduced unemployment leads too fewer mercenaries joining the insurgents ranks and robs them of some of their brightest soldiers. After that would be shutting down the flow of military grade explosives to the insurgents and going after their financing.

Once those things happen there will be a few holdouts who will try to continue the fight but without the fear of those around them it'll be easier to hunt them down and drag them in front of court where they can be tried and executed.

Actually planning on fighting the ground troops and grunts of the insurgency should be a measure of last resort because winning a war through killing of the enemies troops is a really stupid way to win.