Remembering 9/11... check this out.

[caress 0]

I'm crying, that was really well done Chile. No I had not forgotten at all. I think about it alot. I think about our troops everyday. Am I thankful-yes do I live a life worthy of their sacrifices, I try. Do I ask forgivness when I haven't?-Yes Do I always get forgiven?-No-Caress

I've learned.... That being kind is more important than being
right.

[FunBobby 0]

Quote

Funny when we were fighting the British we used Guerrilla warfare because we had no other choice and at that time the way we fought the british was considered uncivilized. Kind of the way we look at the"terrorist"
War is War the only difference is now we have technology and money so every one who fights us is scum and a terrorist. The fact is if they had F-18 they would not need to kill them selfs. I am sure they would love be able to fight us with the same technology that is not an option for them. Lets not forget our past. Lets not assume we are so much better and more honorable then the rest of the world we are not.

Right on about the guerrilla warfare during the Revolutionary war . . . I believe there was a Major named Fox who the British called the “Swamp Fox” because his forces would make quick guerrilla type attacks out of the swamps and retreat back into those swamps before the British could react and counter.

The difference from then and now is that there are international, recognized laws that govern warfare. Those laws were written to establish standards of decency and protect dignity and humanity during armed conflict. That’s why you hear about leaders who have committed atrocities in warfare being brought up on war crimes - take Milosevic, for example, who was tried in the Hague on war crimes charges. They stand trial and are judged according to those laws. We as American servicemembers fight by those laws.

Yep. War is war. But I don’t think soldiers who lack our technology and capabilities are scum. In some cases, I admire them for their tenacity and willingness to fight even with the odds stacked against them. But when those fighters threaten our forces, we have to take them down. And when those soldiers resort to low down, dirty, cowardly, kick-in-the-crotch tactics, then they’re scum.

And I, as an active duty officer in the U.S. military, do very, very firmly believe that I and my comrades are hundreds of times more honorable than many of the enemies we face. We fight according to a code of conduct and standards that dictate how we treat opposing forces. Ask Jeff Zaun (US Navy A-6 BN shot down during the first night of Desert Storm and POW during the entire conflict) how honorable his Iraqi captors were. Better yet, have a look:

Clicky

American servicemembers aren't allowed to do that kind of crap to others, even our enemies.

I don’t think I and my comrades are more honorable because we have better technology, better weapons, better training, and a better life. We are more honorable because we are charged with being persons of honor. I as an officer am held to high standards of integrity and honor. Honor is one of the core values of the force in which I fight.

I believe we are more honorable than many of the forces we face, but not because we have equipment – it’s because we have honor.


Respectfully,
Bobby R.
LCDR, USN

[Darius11 12]

You have my respect for serving your country.
I wish you success and hope that you will remain safe.

I think there is no one that hates war more then a soldier and rightfully so.

I always like too put on the other persons shoe. I know if someone was invading my home who was bigger then me and stronger the first thing I would do is kick him in the balls. It’s not about being nice it’s about surviving. My point for talking about our history is this. If we were in there shoes and out gunned we would do the same. The reason we don’t brake the laws (and there is many times that I think we do just don‘t feel like arguing about it) is because we have the money and technology to train are soldiers and make them the best in the world. I think Billvons post is a good one that points to how we do what is convenient for us.
My view right or wrong is this and I have said this before. I feel the same sadness when I hear that an American child is going to be with out a mother/father as I do for an Iraqi, Israeli, or Palestinian child.
There is many who would argue with me. I just think this war is stupid. I was looking at pictures of a US soldier who was burned I wish him a quick recovery, if it was my choice I would pay any amount of money for my gas not to have one human go threw what that soldier is going threw.
I value your life and every ones life more then any amount of money.
It is very disturbing to me when every one gets sad when one of our boys dies but when we are responsible for killing THEM (any one but us) no one cares as much. That is sad.
Here is what I believe Before I am Iranian Before I am American I am Human.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[ChileRelleno 0]

Quote

Yes, there are laws of war. You are not supposed to use large caliber weaponry (i.e. M2 .50cal, 25 mm Bradley Cannon, Apache Cannon) to shoot people. Believe it or not, SHOTGUNS are technically illegal under the Geneva Conv. We have violated ALL these laws. Take a look at some of the Apache footage from Basra Hwy from Gulf War I (clearly shooting the shit out of dudes on the ground). Read up on the use of M2 as sniper weapon in Korea and Vietnam.

I personally don't see anything wrong with using any of the above weapons to kill someone, "Dead is Dead" in my opinion, whether its from a high velocity 7.62 round or a 50cal. Wasteful, messy, and a serious case of overkill, yes.
I remember alot of people griping during Desert Storm about Iraqi soldiers being buried alive when our tanks equipped with dozer blades(or some such) went busting thru the berms in front of Iraqi trenches, "Dead is Dead". To me these are legitemate weapons

Quote

Modern war became organized terrorism with the advent of strategic bombing (pioneered in the Spanish Civil War and refined by us in Dresden and Tokyo (I am never sure what to make of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)).

Strategic Bombing is by definition designed to operate directly against military, industrial installations of the enemy and is in some cases essential to the warplanners strategy, hence the term strategic. I do believe the Germans were the ones who first actively targeted population centers for bombing and refined it in their Blitzkreig tactics and during the Battle for Britain. The Japanese also had no compunctions about targeting population centers.
Strategic Bombing is not terrorism, it is a means to a end.

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[Ian84 0]

Just wondering........did Iraq sign the geneva covention?

also my hats off to ya, i hope to follow in your footsteps and become a military flyer someday.

[SkydiverRick 0]

We do drop nuclear and incendiary weapons with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.

[PhillyKev 0]

I think he was referring to Japan. And I think, actually, we did use depleted uranium munitions.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

I think he was referring to Japan.

Wasn't Truman a democrat?

never pull low......unless you are

[crapflinger2000 1]

Quote

Strategic Bombing is by definition designed to operate directly against military, industrial installations of the enemy and is in some cases essential to the warplanners strategy, hence the term strategic. I do believe the Germans were the ones who first actively targeted population centers for bombing and refined it in their Blitzkreig tactics and during the Battle for Britain. The Japanese also had no compunctions about targeting population centers.
Strategic Bombing is not terrorism, it is a means to a end.

In WWII we firebombed Japanese population centers under the (weak) rationale that since the population was mobilized for war production they were legit. targets.

In WWII we bombed Dresden, which is now acknowledged to have had NO military value, (it is also known that we knew it at the time).

In WWII we staged "maximum effort" sweeps of Germany, killing ANYTHING MOVING AND OUT IN THE OPEN IN THE DAYTIME (see the biography of Chuck Yeager). Yeager got it right when he said "If we are gonna do this stuff, we had better make sure we are on the winning side."

Again, I ain't saying that we are the only ones that do it... just that WE DO (or DID) IT TOO.

As regards the large caliber thing... I was not arguing for or against the "laws", just pointing out that WE violate them all the time. Yup, dead is dead, be it by shotgun, .50 call, 5.56mm, tankround, or suicide bomber.

__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?

[billvon 2,991]

>Wasn't Truman a democrat?

Yeah, so? Were you under the impression that this was a democrat vs republican thread?

[billvon 2,991]

>Strategic Bombing is by definition designed to operate directly
>against military, industrial installations of the enemy and is in some
>cases essential to the warplanners strategy, hence the term
> strategic.

The second part of your statement is correct, but the first part isn't. Strategic bombing is intended to shatter an enemy's morale and thus reduce his ability to act aggressively. Which, oddly, is exactly what terrorism is supposed to do.

In any case, we killed hundreds of thousands of people in WWII when we targeted population centers with no military or industrial value.

>I do believe the Germans were the ones who first actively targeted
> population centers for bombing . . .

Actually it was the Italians who came up with that idea. Do a search on Giulio Douhet.

>Strategic Bombing is not terrorism, it is a means to a end.

Careful there! If a good reason turns a terrorist act into a non-terrorist act, then an awful lot of terrorism can be justified. The Palestinians have some excellent reasons to want to kill Israelis.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

I believe we are more honorable than many of the forces we face, but not because we have equipment – it’s because we have honor.

Honor is great, loyalty to the guy next to you is even better. Completing the objective and coming home alive is the most important thing you guys can do though IMHO.

Things like honor and being in the right are often perspectives. I'm sure the terrorists think of themselves as heros and as us as the scum. We often rationalize/ignore things like the firebombing we did of Tokyo in WW2, wiping out the Native Americans, etc etc. I'm sure they rationalize the same way every time there's a nasty hit against us or one of their enemies.

I don't care so long as in the end we win. I think Germany/Japan are better places today because we won against them(of course, naturally I would think this because I feel my Westernized democractic way of life is the best way of life) and I also think Iraq will be a better place tomorrow because of what's going on today, assuming we can rebuild the country.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Now that we control it, who will we blame for the next terrorist incident? North Korea? Cuba? France? Texas?

I blame Canada.....

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Strategic bombing is intended to shatter an enemy's morale and thus reduce his ability to act aggressively. Which, oddly, is exactly what terrorism is supposed to do.

Terrorism's goal isn't to reduce "his" ability to act agressively. It is to influence the political will of the power the terrorism is directed against. HAMAS' goal is the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state. Al Qaeda's goal is to get all Western influence out of the Middle East and the creation of Islamic governments in every nation, ultimately, in the world.

I don't know of any terrorist organization with the goal of reducing a countries ability to act aggressively. That is more of a military mission and requires a national military's resources to accomplish. The lack of resources is what turns groups to terrorism.

Calling Strategic Bombing a form of terrorism is a stretch. Strategic bombing does not, by definition, mean you are attacking civilian population centers. In fact, it was not until late in WWII that we started bombing population centers. Before that time we conducted day light raids on military and industrial targets in order to increase the accuracy of the bombs even though this also increased our casualties. Other allies conducted night raids aimed at population centers the entire war. We ultimately went to night raids aimed at population centers because we couldn't continue to absorb the casualties resulting from daylight raids.

Quote

The Palestinians have some excellent reasons to want to kill Israelis.

And Israel has some excellent reasons to want to kill Palestinians. When an act is aimed at killing civilians with the sole purpose of instilling terror and changing the political policies of the government, IOW no military objective, then it is terrorism. The terrorist group tries to get governments to do what they want through killing people to instill terror. Armies might instill terror but it is not their primary tool to fulfill their objective. Their primary objective is the destruction or neutralization of the enemies army. Strategic bombing had a military objective in WWII.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

So is it funny or disgusting?

I was laughing in disbelief.

Quote

Now that we control it, who will we blame for the next terrorist incident? North Korea? Cuba? France? Texas?

I'm pushing for California. BTW, I've always blamed the liberal Democrats for 9/11.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

You are not supposed to use large caliber weaponry (i.e. M2 .50cal, 25 mm Bradley Cannon, Apache Cannon) to shoot people. Believe it or not, SHOTGUNS are technically illegal under the Geneva Conv.

Please show me this in the Geneva Convention. I've had several military classes at USMA and 9 years in the Army and have never been taught this as a Geneva Convention Law. Not shooting .50 cals at individual troops is just a tactical policy to keep them focused on light armored vehicles and large groups. This isn't a Geneva Convention Law.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

The difference is that I don't whine and then have a sig line about whiners.

No, the difference is that I don't get on here and complain and cry about every thing the government does or fails to do. It's quite simple.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Movies like this that say "This could be your house"... "This could be your daughter" to instil anger in us.

You're right, and it should. I think that they should replay the scenes everyday on TV. Just like the song says, I think that the American people have a right to still be pissed off, and I for one am and will not change anytime soon,346 brothers give me that right

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Just wondering........did Iraq sign the geneva covention?

Doen't matter, we did

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Right on about the guerrilla warfare during the Revolutionary war . . . I believe there was a Major named Fox who the British called the “Swamp Fox” because his forces would make quick guerrilla type attacks out of the swamps and retreat back into those swamps before the British could react and counter.

Not Fox, but Marion, General Francis Marion Also the movie "The Patriot" was based on his life and tactics

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[quatorze 1]

Quote

I think he was referring to Japan. And I think, actually, we did use depleted uranium munitions.

yep, depleted urainium, or uranium depleted material, tomamto, tomahto, but they are not "nuclear". What we use DU for is because it is extremely dense, many more times then lead and we use them as the armor piercing sabot rounds in our tanks. But you get more irradiation from gloves that are used in the administering of cancer radiation treaments then in the rounds

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[juanesky 0]

How quick you are to side to the enemy of your own govt forces. You forgot that the japanese rulers instilled this fear to civilians, and they did commit suicide in great numbers.

Tactically, it was the best choice, you don't see it, but tell that to the veterans of that war, who actually did the fighting.

What was the point, the jap military were almost not surrendering till death, and the civilian was committing suicide. I think the a-bomb was a win-win for both sides, IMO.

And Kallend you crack me up with your comments.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think the a-bomb was a win-win for both sides, IMO.

Just got done reading "Flyboys." They give some pretty graphic descriptions of the "fire bombing" of several other cities. It was far worse a thing than a nuclear weapon.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I think he was referring to Japan. And I think, actually, we did use depleted uranium munitions.

yep, depleted urainium, or uranium depleted material, tomamto, tomahto, but they are not "nuclear". What we use DU for is because it is extremely dense, many more times then lead and we use them as the armor piercing sabot rounds in our tanks. But you get more irradiation from gloves that are used in the administering of cancer radiation treaments then in the rounds

While it may be true about the gloves, it in no way changes the radioactive properties of depleted U. And they don't scatter gloves all over the territory, they dispose of them very carefully.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[juanesky 0]

Yes, now there is a movement to critize the atrocities commited by US to Japan. Same thing with the poor Saddam theory.

More wood to the flames

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon