Recommended Posts
FunBobby 0
QuoteI am not saying it is OK for our guys to die in war, just that in an actual shooting war, getting killed by a suicide car bomb is no different from getting shot or stepping on a mine or whatever.
I completely disagree. Believe it or not, there are actual international laws that govern armed conflict that aim to protect basic human dignity and decency during war. They also aim to protect civilians. Members of a military force who are fighting must be distinguishable from the civilians around them so that civilians will not be targeted by the opposing force. Those bastards used civilian vehicles in part to mask the fact that they were a hostile force, knowing full well that American forces would hesitate to target them for fear of harming innocent civilians. That's not only cowardly, but also unethical and illegal.
Once car bombs became a threat, coalition forces upped their defensive posture and were much more aggressive towards any civilians vehicles that approached – rightfully so, I might add – because it was shown that any car could be a threat. But with that heightened defensive posture and tension came the increased chance of getting an innocent civilian harmed or killed.
QuoteIt's like calling the few American flyers in history who have purposely flown into targets to take 'em out (I can't quote times and dates, but this must've happened multiple times) terrorists.
Hmmmm. I am an American flyer who, like my contemporaries, has studied that tactics of my predecessors. American aviators have always been too valuable to waste in intentional, planned suicide type attacks. Our weapons delivery systems and tactics have always been more than adequate enough to keep us from having to resort to such desperate measures. The only suicide attacks I am aware of by American aviators are those few instances where pilots at the controls of doomed, battle-damaged airplanes intentionally crashed their aircraft into the best target they could find in their last moments. None of those, though, went flying with the intention of crashing into an enemy target. And oh, by the way, all of those pilots were flying in regular military aircraft with US insignia, easily identifiable as US military.
Very, very different from car bombers.
I am an American flyer and I shudder to think that anyone would ever put me, my comrades, or my predecessors in the same category as those bastards making runs at our posts with car bombs.
Respectfully
Bobby R.
LCDR, USN
[Edited to correct a typo that wasn't caught by the spell checker]
I completely agree with your sentiments regarding the difference between suicide bombers and soldiers.
I'm curious though, based on the following comment, how you feel about the prisoners at XRAY?
I'm curious though, based on the following comment, how you feel about the prisoners at XRAY?
QuoteBelieve it or not, there are actual international laws that govern armed conflict that aim to protect basic human dignity and decency during war.
kallend 2,027
Quote[Edited to correct a typo that wasn't caught by the spell checker]
QuoteI am not saying it is OK for our guys to die in war, just that in an actual shooting war, getting killed by a suicide car bomb is no different from getting shot or stepping on a mine or whatever.
I completely disagree. Believe it or not, there are actual international laws that govern armed conflict that aim to protect basic human dignity and decency during war. They also aim to protect civilians. Members of a military force who are fighting must be distinguishable from the civilians around them so that civilians will not be targeted by the opposing force. Those bastards used civilian vehicles in part to mask the fact that they were a hostile force, knowing full well that American forces would hesitate to target them for fear of harming innocent civilians. .
All well and good. How about the photos of US Special Forces in Afghanistan before the invasion, dressed as Afghanis?
And how would you classify the Norwegian Resistance in WWII. Maybe you recall that they shut down the Nazi's nuclear weapons program. Or the Dutch resistance, or the Danish resistance? Or the Polish resistance who identified the V1 and V2 research facilities so we could bomb them. I don't think any of them dressed up as soldiers.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
benny 0
QuoteThe folks at CENTCOM called them terrorists.
This just shows that the whole war from start to (is it over yet)? Well, that's it's just a big PR campaign. Anybody remember wag the dog? If I only we were so fortunate that this war was being staged. Also, does anybody remember how during the "major combat" we were always complaining about the Iraqis violating the Geneva conventions? Now it turns out we are doing it too.... Blah, we must defend ourselves but we must also make ourselves respected.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Darius11 12
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.
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.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
benny 0
I remember seeing a news report during the waning days of major combat and they were talking about how US administration officials didn't want to call Iraq a "war" because that would make us an "occupying power" and that as such we'd have to give Iraqi POWs rights under the Geneva convention... Now if 150000 ground troups invading is not a war, I'm not quite sure what is...
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Lets not assume we are so much better and more honorable then the rest of the world we are not.
We are better than terrorists. We do not fly hijacked aircraft into buildings with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.
never pull low......unless you are
FunBobby 0
QuoteAll well and good. How about the photos of US Special Forces in Afghanistan before the invasion, dressed as Afghanis?
And how would you classify the Norwegian Resistance in WWII. Maybe you recall that they shut down the Nazi's nuclear weapons program. Or the Dutch resistance, or the Danish resistance? Or the Polish resistance who identified the V1 and V2 research facilities so we could bomb them. I don't think any of them dressed up as soldiers.
A little disclaimer here – I’m not a JAG officer. Those guys could address all of this better than me. But I’ll offer my opinion and thoughts, right or wrong.
SpecOps forces in Afghanistan – that’s a good one. Perhaps they were primarily recon units? And I believe the rules are different if forces are conducting in a mission other than open warfare . . . as a matter of fact, I’m sure of it. Those special forces are restricted in what they can do during those covert ops.
In any conflicts these days, some of the most important members of admirals’ and generals’ staffs are their JAG officers – their lawyers. Fighting units get lots of training on rules of engagement and the legality of their actions. Actually, it makes it harder to fight sometimes, but like I said before, hopefully, honoring ROE protects civilians.
As for resistance fighters: if they are not part of the sovereign state’s regular military, I do not believe they are governed by the laws of armed conflict. Hopefully, though, they would have some sense of decency.
Bobby
benny 0
QuoteWe are better than terrorists. We do not fly hijacked aircraft into buildings with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.
No, we pay for the airplanes with our tax dollars and then drop cluster bombs out of them. They say sometimes these things don't completely detonate though, and that the remnants resemble toys...
Never go to a DZ strip show.
OK, shoulda been more clear. I am a student of military history (on my own), and I know that we have never carried out planned kamikaze style suicide attacks. I just have heard stories (the veracity of which I am not sure on) of "I am shot to shit, my plan won't fly, parachute is on fire, etc., might as well take out that building, etc."
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 was in the Marines. I would never lump our awesome pros in with the like of the Fed Saddam. I am just writing from a perspective of... perspective. 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)).
Really. What is the moral difference in us blowing up a shitload of Iraqi civilians in two attempts to "get Saddam" at the beginning and end of the war, and them blowing up our guys (and some civvys) at a checkpoint. I see none. It is all horrible. We are just right because our hearts are in the right place. But that matters little to the dead of both sides.
We invaded a soverign nation for no good reason (see the above War College post). While I am deeply saddened to see our guys dying, I am not surprised by the tactics used against us.
To put it into perspective, if we were discussing the Afghan war and the Taliban, I would be out-hawking ALL the hawks on this board. Kill'em, Pacify'em, Save'em. But this war is bullshit.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
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 was in the Marines. I would never lump our awesome pros in with the like of the Fed Saddam. I am just writing from a perspective of... perspective. 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)).
Really. What is the moral difference in us blowing up a shitload of Iraqi civilians in two attempts to "get Saddam" at the beginning and end of the war, and them blowing up our guys (and some civvys) at a checkpoint. I see none. It is all horrible. We are just right because our hearts are in the right place. But that matters little to the dead of both sides.
We invaded a soverign nation for no good reason (see the above War College post). While I am deeply saddened to see our guys dying, I am not surprised by the tactics used against us.
To put it into perspective, if we were discussing the Afghan war and the Taliban, I would be out-hawking ALL the hawks on this board. Kill'em, Pacify'em, Save'em. But this war is bullshit.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
QuoteQuoteWe are better than terrorists. We do not fly hijacked aircraft into buildings with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.
No, we pay for the airplanes with our tax dollars and then drop cluster bombs out of them. They say sometimes these things don't completely detonate though, and that the remnants resemble toys...
The US does not disguise their bombs as toys. We do not target civilians either.
never pull low......unless you are
MarkM 0
Quote
Hmm. So is it funny or disgusting? I found it interesting that it only took 14 posts for someone to blame Iraq for 9/11. Now that we control it, who will we blame for the next terrorist incident? North Korea? Cuba? France? Texas?
Who said I was blaming Iraq? Iraq likely had very little to do with 9/11 or at least as much as some of our "allies" in the region. But 9/11 definately changed our foreign policy, which is why we're in Iraq today.
Personally I dislike dislays like what was in the origional post because they're designed purely to create an emotional response and that's the kind of things that leads to drek like not being able to take nail clippers on board and airplane.
kallend 2,027
Quote
We do not target civilians either.
All those dead Iraqi civilians must be pleased that they were taken out by our mistakes.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
benny 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe are better than terrorists. We do not fly hijacked aircraft into buildings with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.
No, we pay for the airplanes with our tax dollars and then drop cluster bombs out of them. They say sometimes these things don't completely detonate though, and that the remnants resemble toys...
The US does not disguise their bombs as toys. We do not target civilians either.
I agree we don't actively try to disguise our bombs, and we do not actively target civilians, but we surely consider a certain amount of civilian losses to be "acceptable". Now, I agree with this concept if we are bombing a country who say, bombed us. But Iraq didn't bomb us. And, considering that none of the reasons (WMD, ties to terrorism, etc.) which we were given the hard sell on to go to war there have turned up... Well, I guess it's clear that I just don't think this war was justified, and therefore none of the losses of their civilians (and defintely not our soldiers) are acceptable.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
benny 0
QuoteBut 9/11 definately changed our foreign policy, which is why we're in Iraq today.
Let's get this clear, 9/11 did not change foreign policy. The guys who wanted to invade Iraq wanted to well before 9/11. 9/11 made it politically popular because we were all scared shitless and they made us even more scared by screaming WMD WMD, what if they give 'em to Osama?!?!?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>We do not fly hijacked aircraft into buildings with the intention of
>killing as many civilians as possible.
We do drop nuclear and incendiary weapons with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. We killed 350,000 civilians with nuclear weapons during WWII. We intentionally targeted a civilian city, too. Not to "win" - there was no question we would win - but to finish the war more quickly. And if we had to do it again, at least under this administration, I believe we would.
To our credit, we usually try to minimize civilian casualties during recent wars, wars that we're sure we will win. But to claim moral superiority because we kill thousands of innocent people only during wars is a bit disingenuous; the Israelis and Palestinians have been having exactly the same argument for years. "You killed us first." "You use suicide bombers." "Yeah, well you killed ten kids with a helicopter, and we don't have a helicopter." See how far it's gotten them.
War is killing your enemy as efficiently as possible without letting him kill you. It's the worst thing there is; it's the opposite of moral superiority. There are no winners in a war, just sides that weren't wiped out. Preparing so as not to be wiped out in a war makes a lot of sense, but a policy of pre-emptive war to mold the people of the world to our way of thinking? Hard to reconcile that with moral superiority.
>killing as many civilians as possible.
We do drop nuclear and incendiary weapons with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. We killed 350,000 civilians with nuclear weapons during WWII. We intentionally targeted a civilian city, too. Not to "win" - there was no question we would win - but to finish the war more quickly. And if we had to do it again, at least under this administration, I believe we would.
To our credit, we usually try to minimize civilian casualties during recent wars, wars that we're sure we will win. But to claim moral superiority because we kill thousands of innocent people only during wars is a bit disingenuous; the Israelis and Palestinians have been having exactly the same argument for years. "You killed us first." "You use suicide bombers." "Yeah, well you killed ten kids with a helicopter, and we don't have a helicopter." See how far it's gotten them.
War is killing your enemy as efficiently as possible without letting him kill you. It's the worst thing there is; it's the opposite of moral superiority. There are no winners in a war, just sides that weren't wiped out. Preparing so as not to be wiped out in a war makes a lot of sense, but a policy of pre-emptive war to mold the people of the world to our way of thinking? Hard to reconcile that with moral superiority.
Darius11 12
Will it depends.
Do you think blowing up a factory that made aspirin with a cruise missile is an act of terrorism. There is many more examples some that have been mentioned on this thread.
What i am saying is we are and have been in the past responsible for killing innocent people.
in our history when we were out gunned we fought by any means we could. That is what the Iraqs are doing by any means. offcourse we don't like it when it is happening to us. I refuse to Bullshit my self and think that we are so honorable and every thing we have done has been for the good of man kind.
I refuse to believe what people tell me to believe. I refuse to have people play with my emotions with sad music and images. I like to do research and make up my own mind not what foxnews, or CNN tells me to think.
Lets not forget why we entered Iraq not for 9-11 it was for WMD. I'll give you two guesses who supplied Iraq with the weapons. We didn't care when it was used against the Iranian men women, and children (there not american so who cares right).
It is sad when people can't even admit or don't know what a war that they are supporting is about.
Do you think blowing up a factory that made aspirin with a cruise missile is an act of terrorism. There is many more examples some that have been mentioned on this thread.
What i am saying is we are and have been in the past responsible for killing innocent people.
in our history when we were out gunned we fought by any means we could. That is what the Iraqs are doing by any means. offcourse we don't like it when it is happening to us. I refuse to Bullshit my self and think that we are so honorable and every thing we have done has been for the good of man kind.
I refuse to believe what people tell me to believe. I refuse to have people play with my emotions with sad music and images. I like to do research and make up my own mind not what foxnews, or CNN tells me to think.
Lets not forget why we entered Iraq not for 9-11 it was for WMD. I'll give you two guesses who supplied Iraq with the weapons. We didn't care when it was used against the Iranian men women, and children (there not american so who cares right).
It is sad when people can't even admit or don't know what a war that they are supporting is about.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Just a general post. This was in the news awhile back, not much was made of it.
Keep in mind this document (which says the Iraq war was unnecessary) came from the actual US War College, though there is a disclaimer at the beginning (i.e. "these views do not necessarily ....")
Interesting stuff.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites