Export thread
Soliders in Iraq Are Ordered To Indiscriminately Kill Civilians
#1
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
Link here This is also kind of a followup to the Wikileaks video from a little while back.
Ethan McCord, one of the soldiers seen in the now-famous Wikileaks video in which two American Apache helicopters fire upon a relaxed, unhurried gaggle of men in Baghdad, has stated in an interview with World Socialist Website that he witnessed numerous times the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Iraq after IED attacks. McCord is on of the soldiers seen helping two wounded children after the attack. He has stepped forward with open opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and written a letter of apology for his part in the incident to the mother of the children, who has accepted his apology. The mother's husband was killed in the attack and found with his body shielding that of one of his children.
[...]
"we had a pretty gung-ho commander, who decided that because we were getting hit by IEDs a lot, there would be a new battalion SOP [standard operating procedure]. He goes, “If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street." Myself and Josh and a lot of other soldiers were just sitting there looking at each other like, “Are you kidding me? You want us to kill women and children on the street?” And you couldn’t just disobey orders to shoot, because they could just make your life hell in Iraq. So like with myself, I would shoot up into the roof of a building instead of down on the ground toward civilians. But I’ve seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them."
[...]
"Instead of people being upset at a few soldiers in a video who were doing what they were trained to do, I think people need to be more upset at the system that trained these soldiers. They are doing exactly what the Army wants them to do."
#2
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
You can and should disobey that order to shoot. No way in hell is that a lawful order.
#3
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It's not. It's violating just about every rule of war we have on the books.
#4
Denbrought
Denbrought
Oh yeah, I read the guy's letter (without the commentary article) a while back. I meant to ask about this part to someone, but forgot.
What's a malingerer in US Army terms, and just how much was the sergeant bullshitting him?"I went to see a staff sergeant who was in my chain of command and told him I needed to see mental health about what was going on in my head. He told me to “quit being a pussy” and to “suck it up and be a soldier.” He told me that if I wanted to go to mental health, there would be repercussions, one of them being labeled a “malingerer,” which is actually a crime in the US Army."
#5
tegid
tegid
To the people who know about this things: Is this possible? Do you give any credibility to that letter?
#6
Sparhawk
Sparhawk
No, I don't give any credibility to the letter. Guy that released the video was just busted this week and I believe that it's related to that.
#7
Covar
I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it is something the Army is actively trying to do away with.
Covar
It is, but the way the soldier who wrote it handled it is completely wrong. If you request to see a chaplain or Army Psychologist, your request must be granted by your supervisor. Failure to do so on his part instantly gives you the right to escalate it up the chain of command, or bypass the chain of command if need be. In turn the SSG would then face some serious repercussions for failure to provide the soldier with the help they need.To the people who know about this things: Is this possible? Do you give any credibility to that letter?
I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it is something the Army is actively trying to do away with.
#8
Dave
Dave
Taken from a blog called Warisacrime.org?
Jon, I know you really, really hate soldiers and will believe anything that these people throw at you, but they found weapons and this is all still based on illegally released classified video by an E-5 who wanted to do nothing more than make money by selling this stuff. But you don't care about this. You only want soldiers to lay down their arms and walk away. War is bad. I dig it. But this isn't a damned movie or book where rainbows and puppies live together in perfect harmony without guns or soldiers. If we didn't have an army people would be dead.
Read that article again.
Again, you weren't there, you have never been a soldier and all you ever do is Monday morning quarterback and criticize soldiers. Good thing there were soldiers so you could do that, huh?
Jon, I know you really, really hate soldiers and will believe anything that these people throw at you, but they found weapons and this is all still based on illegally released classified video by an E-5 who wanted to do nothing more than make money by selling this stuff. But you don't care about this. You only want soldiers to lay down their arms and walk away. War is bad. I dig it. But this isn't a damned movie or book where rainbows and puppies live together in perfect harmony without guns or soldiers. If we didn't have an army people would be dead.
Read that article again.
You God damned right that order would be given. IEDs are triggered remotely, but the person triggering it has to be very close to see where the target is as well as the fact that these things have a limited range of radio contact. Insurgents have been dressed as women so they can cover their faces. Children I have no answer for, but this is only the word of 1 disgruntled soldier on an obviously biased web site. Not even a news site but some dude's blog.because we were getting hit by IEDs a lot, there would be a new battalion SOP [standard operating procedure]. He goes, “If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street."
Again, you weren't there, you have never been a soldier and all you ever do is Monday morning quarterback and criticize soldiers. Good thing there were soldiers so you could do that, huh?
#9
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
Nice thread *snip*. Go push your political agenda somewhere else *snip*.
While I personally agree with the sentiment of the post, please no personal attacks. - Admin
While I personally agree with the sentiment of the post, please no personal attacks. - Admin
#10
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
While Jon may believe anything these leftist blogs and leaks and that say, you have to concede that yourself and most everyone that's former military around here give the military a HUUUUUUUUGE benefit of a doubt every time something like this comes up.
#11
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'm really skeptical about that letter. Indiscriminately killing everyone in sight doesn't seem to make the slightest sense. Not only is there no guarantee you'll hit the bomber, who could very well be under cover, but you'd hand the insurgency a huge PR victory if he kills two soldiers and the rest of the squad kills 10 civilians who just happen to be there.
I could see shooting anyone who didn't immediately hit the deck and show their hands, but that doesn't sound like what he's describing.
I could see shooting anyone who didn't immediately hit the deck and show their hands, but that doesn't sound like what he's describing.
#12
Dave
He has no clue what he is talking about because he only has 1 side of the argument and can't even begin to fathom the viewpoints of the other side.
Dave
I do, especially when it's based on a video that shows a good shoot where they really did find weapons in a situation that had intel was a hot zone, leaked illegally by a guy just wanting to make money and commented on by a single disgruntled individual on a blog called warisacrime.org. I look at it through the eyes of a soldier (so to speak) while the OP is only looking at it through the eyes of someone who thinks these situations are so cut & dried it's easy to go back 2 or 3 years and deconstruct everything in slow motion and determine how these people should have reacted and how they felt/thought during that time of duress.While Jon may believe anything these leftist blogs and leaks and that say, you have to concede that yourself and most everyone that's former military around here give the military a HUUUUUUUUGE benefit of a doubt every time something like this comes up.
He has no clue what he is talking about because he only has 1 side of the argument and can't even begin to fathom the viewpoints of the other side.
#13
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
One time that a squad did react that way to getting bombed, they all ended up with either murder or manslaughter charges.
#14
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Exactly, which is why that letter just doesn't sound kosher.One time that a squad did react that way to getting bombed, they all ended up with either murder or manslaughter charges.
#15
MindDetective
MindDetective
As usual, this kind of thing boils down to two different arguments:
1.) Killing civilians indiscriminately is bad. Not a hard point to defend, really. You'll find most people agree with this. I, for one, absolutely agree that if that happens then we need to look into and fix the problem.
2.) It actually happened to the extreme described. Is this just a painted picture or is there more to the story? There usually is more to the story. If there isn't, and that is a difficult thing to demonstrate, then see point number 1.
1.) Killing civilians indiscriminately is bad. Not a hard point to defend, really. You'll find most people agree with this. I, for one, absolutely agree that if that happens then we need to look into and fix the problem.
2.) It actually happened to the extreme described. Is this just a painted picture or is there more to the story? There usually is more to the story. If there isn't, and that is a difficult thing to demonstrate, then see point number 1.
#16
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Listen, I am all for supporting the troops, but I can't support the idea of "kill every motherfucker on the street" under any circumstance.
#17
Troll
Troll
It's okay, I can't believe the order was ever really given.Listen, I am all for supporting the troops, but I can't support the idea of "kill every motherfucker on the street" under any circumstance.
#18
Espy
I think you'd have to have watched a few to many movies in your moms basement with tinfoil hat on to not be skeptical here, but I still love the drive-by posting style of Jonjon.
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------
Espy
It's okay, I can't believe the order was ever really given.[/QUOTE]Listen, I am all for supporting the troops, but I can't support the idea of "kill every motherfucker on the street" under any circumstance.
I think you'd have to have watched a few to many movies in your moms basement with tinfoil hat on to not be skeptical here, but I still love the drive-by posting style of Jonjon.
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------
Why is giving the benefit of the doubt to the people under stresses you will never even come close to understanding a bad thing? We force the justice system to PROVE the guilt of the innocent in our normal society, can't we ask the same of crazy left wing bloggers who hate the military? If it's real, prove it and watch the condemnation from those of us who have military connections.While Jon may believe anything these leftist blogs and leaks and that say, you have to concede that yourself and most everyone that's former military around here give the military a HUUUUUUUUGE benefit of a doubt every time something like this comes up.
#19
Chibibar
Chibibar
This war is just plain bad, but the U.S. can't pull out and can't really just quit. I have read so many articles now that WOMEN are being use for suicide bombs and kids too. Does it make it right to kill them? probably not, but at the same time Dave hit the mark that these soldiers are using OUR rules of engagement to protect themselves. If we don't shoot suspecting women, the soldiers can be dead soldiers (I know it sound harsh but war is harsh) kids... I got nothing.
All I know is that war is never pretty like in the movies and people have to do some really bad things to win the war. This is why in any war, civilians are the main losers of any war.
All I know is that war is never pretty like in the movies and people have to do some really bad things to win the war. This is why in any war, civilians are the main losers of any war.
#20
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
I'm not saying that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea (it isn't, the infrastructure is still pretty wrecked) and I can appreciate having an army around. But America is the country occupying another nation here. Even if soldiers are attacked on the street on a regular basis they need to be held to an extremely high standard of conduct to maintain an occupation while keeping some semblance of goodwill among the Iraqi populace. Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians, because this is what leads to more people becoming insurgents against the American occupation.Taken from a blog called Warisacrime.org?
Jon, I know you really, really hate soldiers and will believe anything that these people throw at you, but they found weapons and this is all still based on illegally released classified video by an E-5 who wanted to do nothing more than make money by selling this stuff. But you don't care about this. You only want soldiers to lay down their arms and walk away. War is bad. I dig it. But this isn't a damned movie or book where rainbows and puppies live together in perfect harmony without guns or soldiers. If we didn't have an army people would be dead.
Guilty until proven innocent after being shot to death. Great strategy, that'll really solve the image problem American soldiers have. Shit like this is what leads to normal civilians to react in such an extreme way to American occupation.You God damned right that order would be given. IEDs are triggered remotely, but the person triggering it has to be very close to see where the target is as well as the fact that these things have a limited range of radio contact. Insurgents have been dressed as women so they can cover their faces. Children I have no answer for, but this is only the word of 1 disgruntled soldier on an obviously biased web site. Not even a news site but some dude's blog.
Please explain to me how the Iraqi war in any way protects my freedom to browse the internet.Again, you weren't there, you have never been a soldier and all you ever do is Monday morning quarterback and criticize soldiers. Good thing there were soldiers so you could do that, huh?
#21
Denbrought
Denbrought
#22
Espy
Espy
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
#23
crono1224
crono1224
The fact that they use women and children for suicide bombing is the shit that makes everything messed up. A kid comes up to you with what looks to be brownies or cookies, oh what a nice gesture, turns out it was a bomb and you just got yourself or other people killed. Now i'm not saying shoot anyone that comes up, just saying that it changes the game, people aren't wearing the colors of what side they are on and announcing themselves. It causes a huge level of stress and even greater feeling of distrust of everyone around you (the 'enemies' mostly).
This does make no sense (jonjon's statement not your's), in fact, it is probably the fact they hide among the common population that causes civilians to die.
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
This does make no sense (jonjon's statement not your's), in fact, it is probably the fact they hide among the common population that causes civilians to die.
#24
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Dave has said without any bit of irony that he thinks Jack Nicholson is the hero and did nothing wrong in that movie.
#25
Dave
And thanks for putting words in my mouth. I thought you were against that kind of tactic.
Dave
Really? I'm saying his sentiment is correct, but the order that he gave had NOTHING to do with a war zone. What HE did was issue an order to attack IN A NON-THREATENING SITUATION another Marine. If you think I am condoning that then you are dumb.Dave has said without any bit of irony that he thinks Jack Nicholson is the hero and did nothing wrong in that movie.
And thanks for putting words in my mouth. I thought you were against that kind of tactic.
#26
Null
Null
Look, Jon's basically a leftist answer to Glenn Beck. You can't argue or reason with that.
#27
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I could have sworn in an old thread you defended Nicholson's character and said you took his side and everything. I'm sorry I remembered it wrong!
#28
Chibibar
Now if you are asking how the Iraqi war benefit your ability to surf the internet? not directly, but due to cheap fossil fuel to create electricity for our nation that power the stations, that power the servers, and connect power to your home
that could be part of it.
Chibibar
maybe not the Iraqi war but all the war that U.S. have fought in the past has allow people today to have the freedom that some county don't have. There are countries that have the same freedom as U.S. does, but there are also countries where freedom is limited like China. The Great Firewall of China is a good example. Now of course some of us take that freedom for granted (I too sometimes but not often) the soldiers are doing their job the best of the ability. The best with what knowledge given to them. Sometimes they go in with bad intel. It happens. Sometimes they go with good intels and civilians died cause the battles are in the streets. It is not like in the movie where a war is fighting and most of the civilian have already evacuate the area.Please explain to me how the Iraqi war in any way protects my freedom to browse the internet.
Now if you are asking how the Iraqi war benefit your ability to surf the internet? not directly, but due to cheap fossil fuel to create electricity for our nation that power the stations, that power the servers, and connect power to your home
that could be part of it.
#29
JONJONAUG
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.
JONJONAUG
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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.
#30
Dave
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]
Said because it'll never be you. It's different when it's your friends getting torn to shit.
Dave
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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]
Said because it'll never be you. It's different when it's your friends getting torn to shit.
#31
Iaculus
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]
Doesn't that often mean not being able to shoot back at all?
The thing about this sort of conflict is that it's not just soldiers who get hurt by doing nothing, remember.
Iaculus
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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]
Doesn't that often mean not being able to shoot back at all?
The thing about this sort of conflict is that it's not just soldiers who get hurt by doing nothing, remember.
#32
Chibibar
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]
well. You can say that now, but when your buddies who have been watching YOU back get torn to shread by random gun fire or IEDs, you may want to think twice in that statement. In war, those who hesitate in a heat of combat usually don't get out alive.
The problem with this war (the Iraqi war) compare to other wars is that only ONE side (our side) is following the rules of combat. The enemy will use women, children, and animals (if they can figure out how) to kill YOU. They will use road side bombs, attack you in your sleep, and even kill YOUR women and children without a second thought. Does this give us the right to be just like them? no, I am not saying if a soldier is happening to guard a building and then just decide to hose everyone in the street without provocation, but if that same soldier is under attack from sniper, explosives or a suicide bomb, you can be sure the rest of the soldier will be on high alert and probably shoot anything suspicious.
I am NOT a soldier, but I have many friends who are. You are train to follow order and train to kill. It is a war where the enemy could care less of your welfare. It is not a battle that you can win by capturing a city or overwhelm them with superior number and they will surrender. These people don't have that kind of morals. They truly believe that everyone else must die and willing to sacrifice themselves for that cause.
Chibibar
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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]
well. You can say that now, but when your buddies who have been watching YOU back get torn to shread by random gun fire or IEDs, you may want to think twice in that statement. In war, those who hesitate in a heat of combat usually don't get out alive.
The problem with this war (the Iraqi war) compare to other wars is that only ONE side (our side) is following the rules of combat. The enemy will use women, children, and animals (if they can figure out how) to kill YOU. They will use road side bombs, attack you in your sleep, and even kill YOUR women and children without a second thought. Does this give us the right to be just like them? no, I am not saying if a soldier is happening to guard a building and then just decide to hose everyone in the street without provocation, but if that same soldier is under attack from sniper, explosives or a suicide bomb, you can be sure the rest of the soldier will be on high alert and probably shoot anything suspicious.
I am NOT a soldier, but I have many friends who are. You are train to follow order and train to kill. It is a war where the enemy could care less of your welfare. It is not a battle that you can win by capturing a city or overwhelm them with superior number and they will surrender. These people don't have that kind of morals. They truly believe that everyone else must die and willing to sacrifice themselves for that cause.
#33
Sparhawk
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]
The lives of the soldiers are already at risk, because we do have rules of engagement, and do follow them. Yes, there are some that break the rules, and they are punished. The insurgents are causing harm to the Iraqi civilians just to sow discord and strife. They are the school bullies that have found out there is a bigger, tougher kid at school and they are just trying to keep everything stirred up so that they can go on beating their wives and children, accusing others of not being "true" to the faith (as they interpret it that week) and taking out their jollies by "punishing" those that they point out.
Sparhawk
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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]
The lives of the soldiers are already at risk, because we do have rules of engagement, and do follow them. Yes, there are some that break the rules, and they are punished. The insurgents are causing harm to the Iraqi civilians just to sow discord and strife. They are the school bullies that have found out there is a bigger, tougher kid at school and they are just trying to keep everything stirred up so that they can go on beating their wives and children, accusing others of not being "true" to the faith (as they interpret it that week) and taking out their jollies by "punishing" those that they point out.
#34
tegid
tegid
Without going into the discussion here, I think everyone's entitled to an opinion (be it wrong or right), especially on something as important as this, no matter if they have never been soldiers.
I also think Jonjon may be mixing things here: this war was unfair and does not really make sense, and you need to give a good images, but that should not mean soldiers can't take some measures to protect their lifes.
I also think Jonjon may be mixing things here: this war was unfair and does not really make sense, and you need to give a good images, but that should not mean soldiers can't take some measures to protect their lifes.
#35
TommiR
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]
There are rules governing this, Distinction and Proportionality, edit: as codified in their military's Rules of Engagement /edit. If the soldiers' conduct is in line with these, then any civilian deaths are regrettable but there is no wrong-doing involved.
If conduct isn't in line, then what you have is a war crime. Gunning down a dozen unsuspecting civilians on the street to get the one or two insurgents in their midst doesn't sound like a proportionate response to me, regardless of how shitty life and death is for the soldiers.
^ My two cents.
TommiR
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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]
There are rules governing this, Distinction and Proportionality, edit: as codified in their military's Rules of Engagement /edit. If the soldiers' conduct is in line with these, then any civilian deaths are regrettable but there is no wrong-doing involved.
If conduct isn't in line, then what you have is a war crime. Gunning down a dozen unsuspecting civilians on the street to get the one or two insurgents in their midst doesn't sound like a proportionate response to me, regardless of how shitty life and death is for the soldiers.
^ My two cents.
#36
Espy
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.
Espy
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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.
#37
AshburnerX
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.
AshburnerX
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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.
#38
Chibibar
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.
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.
#39
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
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.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.
#40
Espy
Espy
Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch.And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?
#41
JONJONAUG
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).
JONJONAUG
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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).
#42
Troll
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.
Troll
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians,
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.
#43
Chibibar
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)
Chibibar
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.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).
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)
#44
SpecialKO
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.
SpecialKO
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.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).
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.
#45
Krisken
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.
Krisken
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.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).
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.
#46
RealBigNuke
War is evil. People are evil. News at eleven.
RealBigNuke
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?There's going to be terrorists of some form or another for eternity.
War is evil. People are evil. News at eleven.
#47
Espy
Espy
Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.War is evil.
#48
RealBigNuke
It would be more accurate to say that it lives in a little black world.
RealBigNuke
Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]War is evil.
It would be more accurate to say that it lives in a little black world.
#49
Espy
Espy
This is all starting to sound very goth.
#50
Denbrought
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.
Now, war on chaos and other races? That's just our most holy work.
#51
Krisken
Krisken
Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya!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.
#52
Denbrought
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.
Denbrought
Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]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.
See, if you had gotten me a kitty I'd be too busy squeeing to lecture ya on the finer points of Imperial creed.
#53
Krisken
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!
Krisken
Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]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.
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!
#54
Denbrought
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:
Denbrought
Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]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.
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:
#55
SpecialKO
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!!
SpecialKO
Gee wiz, buy a guy a beer and he gets all holy roller on ya![/QUOTE]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.
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!!
#56
D
Dubyamn
[/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?
D
Dubyamn
Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch.And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?
[/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?
#57
Espy
[/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.
Espy
Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch.And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?
[/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.
#58
tegid
Wars DO tend to be evil in some sense. They are rarely, if ever, started for the right reasons.
tegid
Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]War is evil.
Wars DO tend to be evil in some sense. They are rarely, if ever, started for the right reasons.
#59
Espy
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.
Espy
Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]War is evil.
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.
#60
Denbrought
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.
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.
#61
Espy
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.
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.
#62
Denbrought
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.
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.
#63
Espy
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.
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.
#64
D
Dubyamn
[/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?
D
Dubyamn
Because thats what people here are advocating for. Great catch.And gunning down a street full of civilians will give us the edge how exactly?
[/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?
#65
Espy
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.
#66
D
Dubyamn
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.
D
Dubyamn
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."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.
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.
#67
Chibibar
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.
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.
#68
Chibibar
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.
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.
#69
Espy
Espy
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.You're getting old you probably missed all that.
Apparently the only sane conclusion to you linking to that story is that you are. Sorry.Thanks Epsy: I am not advocating that we should gun down civilians.
#70
D
Dubyamn
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?
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.
D
Dubyamn
Past discussions about police with you mostly. You seem like a person who values government types over the lives of American civilians.@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.
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?
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.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.
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.
#71
Chibibar
This police action/war (whatever you want to call it) is not like any other type of fight the world has to fight against. It is not a typical one where you can defeat/negotiate with the leaders and they will just drop their arms and have peace. I am sure if the economy is stronger, then they will have more money to access better weapons and bombs.
of course it doesn't help that there are two to three factions that has been at each other's throat for over 2000 years.
Chibibar
Hmm. I do support the government to an extent. AZ law for example, I don't support. I think it is a bad idea (see that thread if that is still around) Generally I have no problem with police and the rules they operate within in. I am more about the establish lawful rules and following them. I don't agree with the unjust laws (like AZ laws) or laws that suppress human rights (like the lack of same sex marriage and such)Past discussions about police with you mostly. You seem like a person who values government types over the lives of American civilians.
Sounds interesting, but alas, these people do not follow normal rules. I mean they are recruiting people who are financially stable and do crazy things. I mean we have read articles that people around the world are following their dogma (faith, whatever you call it, I can't think of the right words) people abandoning all their worldly goods and join them ready to cause terror.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.
This police action/war (whatever you want to call it) is not like any other type of fight the world has to fight against. It is not a typical one where you can defeat/negotiate with the leaders and they will just drop their arms and have peace. I am sure if the economy is stronger, then they will have more money to access better weapons and bombs.
of course it doesn't help that there are two to three factions that has been at each other's throat for over 2000 years.
#72
D
Dubyamn
In America the people they recruit are the financially stable people. In Iraq the people they recruit are Mercenaries who sign up for the paycheck because that is literally the only job they can find in Iraq and young men who don't see any future in trying to secure a real job.
They don't sign up for the adventure or the glory, fuck they don't even sign up the glory of Allah. They sign up because a life in the insurgency means money and protection for them and their family.
You give them money and those who are already rich will spend that money on making more money while those who didn't have any before will spend it on things they need or things they like.
They aren't going to hand over half of their wages so that their country can be turned back into a warzone.
D
Dubyamn
Not even remotely what I'm talking about. But going further would just be rehashing a debate we both agreed to put aside because we couldn't agree on even the most basic things.Hmm. I do support the government to an extent. AZ law for example, I don't support. I think it is a bad idea (see that thread if that is still around) Generally I have no problem with police and the rules they operate within in. I am more about the establish lawful rules and following them. I don't agree with the unjust laws (like AZ laws) or laws that suppress human rights (like the lack of same sex marriage and such)
Don't think that the people they recruit are the same in Iraq and America.Sounds interesting, but alas, these people do not follow normal rules. I mean they are recruiting people who are financially stable and do crazy things. I mean we have read articles that people around the world are following their dogma (faith, whatever you call it, I can't think of the right words) people abandoning all their worldly goods and join them ready to cause terror.
In America the people they recruit are the financially stable people. In Iraq the people they recruit are Mercenaries who sign up for the paycheck because that is literally the only job they can find in Iraq and young men who don't see any future in trying to secure a real job.
They don't sign up for the adventure or the glory, fuck they don't even sign up the glory of Allah. They sign up because a life in the insurgency means money and protection for them and their family.
Are you kidding? Cause you're certainly talking out of your ass. Iraq is a bog standard Insurgency no different than the fight in Colombia or the fight with the Tamal Tigers in Africa. Insurgencies never end when you focus on killing the leaders they only end when people can drop their arms and go earn a living.This police action/war (whatever you want to call it) is not like any other type of fight the world has to fight against. It is not a typical one where you can defeat/negotiate with the leaders and they will just drop their arms and have peace.
Muslims aren't subhuman monsters who fight for the shits and giggles. They're people who want nothing more than to make money, find a companion and raise a family and they fight because they think those are in danger from outside forces.I am sure if the economy is stronger, then they will have more money to access better weapons and bombs.
You give them money and those who are already rich will spend that money on making more money while those who didn't have any before will spend it on things they need or things they like.
They aren't going to hand over half of their wages so that their country can be turned back into a warzone.
Actually during times of prosperity and plenty Shites and Sunnis get along pretty well. It's only during times of crazy leaders and chaos that the groups started tearing at each other. Settle things down and you'll have people mixing the neighborhoods again like they did in pre war Iraq.of course it doesn't help that there are two to three factions that has been at each other's throat for over 2000 years.
#73
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It's really only been this bad since after World War 2. Many of the older people in the Middle East can remember being able to go to college and study, without people trying to murder them for different faiths. It's only recently it's become this bad, mainly because they were afraid of losing their identity to the West.Actually during times of prosperity and plenty Shites and Sunnis get along pretty well. It's only during times of crazy leaders and chaos that the groups started tearing at each other. Settle things down and you'll have people mixing the neighborhoods again like they did in pre war Iraq.of course it doesn't help that there are two to three factions that has been at each other's throat for over 2000 years.
#74
tegid
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.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I used too strong/general terms. I still think that no war is started (started, not joined!) selflessly (I mean, for the good of others)... And, well, I have no citation but show me a single war that was started for the 'right reasons'... Which would be helping people. Or something. Whatever you want it to be.
What's more, I'd even say that no country will participate in a war if it's not for: 1-self protection (ok, 'right' reason) 2-they have something to gain.
Bleh. Forget about this if you want. I endorse Den's posts, I think he expressed something very similar to what I think.
tegid
Thats a huge generalization that seems to live in an interesting little black and white world.[/QUOTE]War is evil.
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.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I used too strong/general terms. I still think that no war is started (started, not joined!) selflessly (I mean, for the good of others)... And, well, I have no citation but show me a single war that was started for the 'right reasons'... Which would be helping people. Or something. Whatever you want it to be.
What's more, I'd even say that no country will participate in a war if it's not for: 1-self protection (ok, 'right' reason) 2-they have something to gain.
Bleh. Forget about this if you want. I endorse Den's posts, I think he expressed something very similar to what I think.
#75
Espy
Espy
It's all good man, I don't really think we are that far off, just like I said about Den. I think we all agree on the important points.
AGREEMENT DANCE! :moon:
AGREEMENT DANCE! :moon:
#76
tegid
:whoo:
tegid
Yay!It's all good man, I don't really think we are that far off, just like I said about Den. I think we all agree on the important points.
AGREEMENT DANCE! :moon:
:whoo:
#77
Denbrought
:whoo:[/QUOTE]
Wheee
Denbrought
Yay!It's all good man, I don't really think we are that far off, just like I said about Den. I think we all agree on the important points.
AGREEMENT DANCE! :moon:
:whoo:[/QUOTE]
Wheee
#78
Krisken
Krisken
Dancing in the Politics forum. Next we'll have fighting in the War Room. Get a grip, people!