12 Marines killed in Iraq

[Skyrad 0]

Returning fire with an assault rifle is one thing..launching a guided bomb and rocket from a helicopter and fighter aircraft into forty people attending afternoon prayers is something totaly different. That is incompetence at best and a war crime at worst. American soldiers are killing women and children, killing people at prayer.
Just who are the terrorists here?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=509582

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Chrisky 0]

IIRC, insurgents that do not belong to an organized group and do not make themselves recognizable as such are not granted combatant status. (Example: Guerilla Groups usually wear some kind of uniform and insignia, like certain headwear, colored bandages etc.) IIRC as well, noncombatant fighters are not covered by the geneva convention (which regards rules of behaviour in armed conflict) and can be treated as terrorists.
So, an unorganized peoples upheaval usually does not "create" combatants.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Chrisky 0]

Quote

It isn't short sited if you are a Marine in Iraq and some pussy is shooting you from a mosque? "What do you mean we can't shoot back sir?"

Yes it is, because you can lay a effin smoke screen, retreat, lock down access to the damn city to make sure they won't get away and then wait, negotiate and in the end, disarm them and arrest the leaders.
It's called strategy. All the US troops are using is poor combined arms tactics.
Attacking buildings gives the defender a 1:5 defensive advantage, blow the buildings to rubble it turns to 1:10 for the defenders.
No lessons learned from WWII...

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[rhino 0]

Quote

American soldiers are killing women and children, killing people at prayer.
Just who are the terrorists here?

If you are stupid enough to attend prayer at a mosque that is knowingly being used as a center for combat operations your as good as dead anyways.

Who are the terrorists?

Maybe you can tell us?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Who are the terrorists?

Maybe you can tell us?

The word "terrorist" is ridiculously over-used these days, but I remember discussions about the definition from last year. I think the gist was that if one blows up civilian targets and kills unarmed people, they are a terrorist. If one attacks military targets, they are "warriors" or "resistance fighters."

I imagine it appears to most of the world that right now in Iraq, we are the ones bombing churches, houses, and other "non-military" targets, and the natives are the ones attacking uniformed military men.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Chrisky 0]

Quote

The previous Spanish Govt. was defeated in the elections b/c Al Qaeda made a statement that the bombing would continue unless Spain withdrew troops. The new Govt, responding to fear announced they would withdraw.

You are completely disregarding the fact that the majority of the spanish population was against joining the coalition. A main reason for the downfall of the previous government was their inept, blind stupid blame they put on ETA to be responsible for the bombings before any evidence was evaluated. This showed the spanish population that their goverment wasn't making intelligent decisions once and for all. The former spanish prime minister has a long list of political SLAMs under his belt.
He finally got to pay the bill.
To accuse the new spanish goverment to react in fear is way too simple, they, for a change do what their people want them to, which is the job of any government in the first place.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[billvon 2,991]

>If you are stupid enough to attend prayer at a mosque that is
> knowingly being used as a center for combat operations your as
> good as dead anyways.

Only when we're there.

[Chrisky 0]

Well, think about that as well:
The Wehrmacht was originally greeted as liberators from soviet oppression in the east after the attack on the Soviet Union. That is a fact. That was after an estimated 24 million people died of starvation in the thirties following the forced restructuring of farming by the soviets. And before the SS and "special Police" went in, what turned the liberated people into partisans.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not comparing US troops to SS.

But killing innocents, intentional or unintentional, will always make people your enemies. Even if you liberated them just before.
Killing innocents is not relative. Simple as that.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

see this from their point of view here

I don't think that's possible for many people and is the main factor that divides those rabidly supporting the war and those who think things need to be done differently.

Lack of empathy is the root cause of evil.

Problem is those who think thing should be done differently never seem to be able to tell us how. Oh, except "bring in the UN" The UN is proving itself to be even more corrupt than Saddam. More like a criminal enterprise. So lets hear the plan.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ummm...what part about Spanish troops still being in Iraq is confusing? Gee, you mean the terrorists didn't immediately stop all their plans because a PM-elect made a statement? I said get out of Iraq, not make a speech.

If the bombings have nothing to do with the war, please tell me why the terrorists targeted spain?

Then explain to me why 3 Japanese humanitarian workers have been kidnapped and the terrorists have threatened to kill them by setting them on fire unless Japan withdraws all of their approximately 500 humanitarian workers from Iraq. The Japanese haven't been involved with any military action.

The point is the murderous terrorists will always find away to justify intentionally killing innocents. Not even just innocents, but people who have come to help feed, and supply medicine to their own children as these Japanese were doing.

[billvon 2,991]

>Problem is those who think thing should be done differently never
>seem to be able to tell us how.

Y'know, it's funny. Over a year ago I heard this a lot, and I'd give one or two options as to what we could do differently. And right-wingers told me how stupid those ideas were. "What, you honestly believe a tyrant when he says he has no WMD's? Your idea is idiotic." Then a week later they'd say it again - "those people never have any ideas, just complaints." And I'd give the options again. And then the righties would attack again. And then forget again a week later.

So keep on thinking that no one but you has any ideas! I imagine it avoids some awkward questions.

How'd that "invade Iraq and find his WMD's" thing work out, by the way? Great idea, that.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Y'know, it's funny. Over a year ago I heard this a lot, and I'd give one or two options as to what we could do differently. And right-wingers told me how stupid those ideas were. "What, you honestly believe a tyrant when he says he has no WMD's?

Bill.. Sadham's son drove BILLIONS of dollars a year worth of oil ILLEGALLY out of that country. Smuggled it out right under our noses...

If you are niave enough to think the same thing might not have happened with the WMD's then you are probably waiting on the Easter Bunny to come!! LOL



Rhino

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Problem is those who think thing should be done differently never
>seem to be able to tell us how.

Y'know, it's funny. Over a year ago I heard this a lot, and I'd give one or two options as to what we could do differently. And right-wingers told me how stupid those ideas were. "What, you honestly believe a tyrant when he says he has no WMD's? Your idea is idiotic." Then a week later they'd say it again - "those people never have any ideas, just complaints." And I'd give the options again. And then the righties would attack again. And then forget again a week later.

So keep on thinking that no one but you has any ideas! I imagine it avoids some awkward questions.

How'd that "invade Iraq and find his WMD's" thing work out, by the way? Great idea, that.

Why do the lefties always shift into time travel mode whenever asked a question about the present?

I was responding to a question about how the war should be handled NOW. But of course we still get no answers from the sympathizers and appeasers except more sympathy and appeasement.

Hey next time you're in the time machine, can you pick up a muffler for my 1966 Chevy?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

How'd that "invade Iraq and find his WMD's" thing work out, by the way? Great idea, that.

Never was a question about whether he had WMDs. Just what happened to them. I don't recall you or anyone else claiming he didn't have them so don't be so self-rightious.

[billvon 2,991]

>I was responding to a question about how the war should be handled
> NOW. But of course we still get no answers from the sympathizers
> and appeasers except more sympathy and appeasement.

I've answered that before too. Put our troops under UN command in exchange for matching troops. We are already going begging to France and Germany for more troops; going via the UN will allow us to pull from all member nations.

I know, you don't like that, and in a week you will forget that I said anything and claim again "the lefties never have any solutions!" Well, 30 US soldiers died this week, and we are losing control of key cities in Iraq. The Sunnis and the Shi'a are allied against us. At what point will you admit that maybe the current solution isn't working that well?

[billvon 2,991]

> I don't recall you or anyone else claiming he didn't have them so
> don't be so self-rightious.

March 18th of last year I said:

> I think the same thing will happen in Iraq that
> happened in Afghanistan i.e. the initial objective will be to 'get'
> someone or something, which we will change retroactively to "hey,
> we're fighting a war of liberation; that's the important thing" when
> we can't find much in the way of WMD's (or Hussein himself, for that
> matter.)

Those short right wing memories again . . .

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I was responding to a question about how the war should be handled
> NOW. But of course we still get no answers from the sympathizers
> and appeasers except more sympathy and appeasement.

I've answered that before too. Put our troops under UN command in exchange for matching troops. We are already going begging to France and Germany for more troops; going via the UN will allow us to pull from all member nations.

I know, you don't like that, and in a week you will forget that I said anything and claim again "the lefties never have any solutions!" Well, 30 US soldiers died this week, and we are losing control of key cities in Iraq. The Sunnis and the Shi'a are allied against us. At what point will you admit that maybe the current solution isn't working that well?

Nope, my memory is just fine. If you read my previous post from about a couple of hours ago you will see I stated the only solution the lefties have is to get the UN involved. So apparently its' your memory thats faulty. Thats the only solution the Dims ever have. The UN is nothing more than a criminal enterprise as is becoming evident. Look at how the UN handled Somolia and Rwanda.The U.N. was given plenty of opportunities to get involved and each time they refused or ran when the going got tough. Looks like we are starting to find out why.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> I don't recall you or anyone else claiming he didn't have them so
> don't be so self-rightious.

March 18th of last year I said:

> I think the same thing will happen in Iraq that
> happened in Afghanistan i.e. the initial objective will be to 'get'
> someone or something, which we will change retroactively to "hey,
> we're fighting a war of liberation; that's the important thing" when
> we can't find much in the way of WMD's (or Hussein himself, for that
> matter.)

Those short right wing memories again . . .

Here's something you said on March 7, 2003:

1. Because Hussein has WMD's and he has shown that he will not disarm without the threat of force. There is sufficient evidence to show he has at least chemical weapons, and that the only reason he has even begun to admit this is that we are threatening him with war. This is both an argument for war (since he is still dragging his feet) and an argument for keeping up the pressure (since it's working.)

On Feb. 11, 2003:

Agreed; Michele's comment was more along the lines of "he seems like he's connected to Al Quaeda, and since that's not impossible it's probably true." We still have to get a reasonably accurate account of his WMD's.

Jan. 27, 2003:

If we enforce the UN resolutions, innocent americans will not die due to Saddam's WMD's.

Feb. 11, 2003:

As an example - do you like what Iraq is doing? If not, are you racist because you hate arabs, or do you just hate evil dictators who hide WMD's?

March 17, 2003:

30 days with a definite conclusion. No "serious consequences." No "other resolution." A description of how his WMD's will be removed by force if he doesn't disarm.


Ahem...................Please tell me about my memory again.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"The UN is nothing more than a criminal enterprise as is becoming evident."
What a risible notion.
Any instances of international being broken by the UN?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gawain 0]

Quote

"The UN is nothing more than a criminal enterprise as is becoming evident."
What a risible notion.
Any instances of international being broken by the UN?

The Oil-for-food-Program is pretty much a mega-violation unto itself. Ahh then enlightened minds of the UN....

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Morning Max.Slightly immoral maybe, but I don't see how its criminal. It was intended to prevent legitimate sanctions hurting the little people, and ensuring what little hardware that came into the country was being directed at maintaining the oil production infrastrucure. Note I said intended....
I really don't see an alternative to an organisation like the UN. Its when countries act outside the guidance of organisations like the UN that we start getting problems.
For example, in this mornings news....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3611733.stm

To quote from the Stokholm International Forum on the Prevention of Genocide..
"preventing genocide requires long-range strategies that target economic stability, integration and respect for human rights."......
"But when the diplomatic tools or the threat of future prosecution do not help in averting an immediate genocidal threat, the international community must be given the opportunity to intervene,"

Community being the important words in the context of our side discussion on the effectiveness of the UN.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[damion75 0]

Quote

I wish there was a way out, a way that we don't have to watch as hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of US troops die over the next few years. But I just don't see it.

There is a way we can 'win' - we just need to finish training the Iraqi Security Forces, set up the government and pull out. That's all we came to do.

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[damion75 0]

Quote

Quote

I thought you guys would finally start to understand that things in the middle east are a little more complex then "good guys vs. bad guys". The latest uprising is by Shia's not Suni's.

Gee Mikkey.. I would have thought you would know what you are talking about before making such an untrue statement.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4667742/

Quote from the article:

Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite Muslims loyal to a militant cleric challenged U.S.-led forces on two fronts Tuesday, mounting battles across four southern Iraqi cities and taking on U.S. Marines in Fallujah, where several columns backed by tanks met heavy fire as they tried to move in.

Actually Mikkey is right - the Shi'a are the only ones involved in an uprising. The Sunni situation has arisen because of the attack on 4 x civilian security guys in Fallujah. The current violence is the US reprisal for that. The Sunni have not risen up as such.

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[Skyrad 0]

Read the thread.

Defend yourselves when needed but don't use tanks on the streets and attack helicopters in residential areas. Falluja could have been contained, give them time to cool down and then open lines of communication, get a dialouge going and defuse the situation. Like the British Army is doing in Amara.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,991]

>Ahem...................Please tell me about my memory again.

Oh, I had no doubts whatsoever he _had_ them, or that degraded traces of them still existed. That's beyond dispute; we kept the receipts and found the empty shells that once contained the chemical weapons we sold him. As I stated, I just didn't believe we'd invade and find his massive stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as proponents of the war claimed we would. And after we found nothing significant we'd claim it was a "war of liberation."