chuckbrown 0 #26 April 12, 2004 Quote>The reason the French, the Germans and the Russians aren't in >there is because their companies were making millions doing > business with Hussien. So? We did the same; didn't slow us down. ___________________________________________ Why should it have? ------------------ June 23, 2001 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported. ------------------ >As for the UN, a corrupt bunch of pussies. They only stalled the war > so Hussein could continue to pay kick back's to Koffi Annan's son > under the oil-for-food program. They stalled it because their weapons inspectors said they needed more time; they could not find any WMD's. Turns out they were right. ______________________________________________ You say WMD, I say Oil-for-Food. Only the Shadow knows. Pesonally, I don't care if we ever find WMD. >BTW, the people of Iraq, most notably the Shiites and the Kurds > (who were murderously oppressed by Hussien) have welcomed us > enthusiatically. --------------- (ABC News) March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high. . . . More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated. ----------------- NAJAF, Iraq - Thousands of followers of a virulently anti-American Shiite cleric heeded his calls for an uprising against the U.S.-led occupation, storming police stations and government buildings in major cities Sunday and triggering clashes that left at least eight coalition soldiers and 21 Iraqis dead. Hundreds of Iraqis -- and more than three dozen U.S. soldiers -- were wounded in heavy fighting in central and southern Iraq. The seemingly coordinated attacks demonstrated the power of Iraq's Shiite majority and fanned long-held fears of an uprising in that population's southern stronghold ----------------- I hope they don't get any more enthusiastic or we're going to need a lot more bodybags. _____________________________________________ There already would have been more body bags if they weren't. By the way, there are other "surveys" indicated an 80% approval of the invasion by Iraqi's. You know what they say about statistics. >If the Shiite community as a whole were against us, our forces would >stand as much chance as Custer did. We have a few more Apaches, AC-130's and A-10's than Custer did. ____________________________________________ And we would have killed alot more than the 700 claimed by the military. My point is the recent violence is not some uprising on the part of the entire nation or the entire Shiite community, just 2 factions trying to get the US out so they can run their own power base, either Baathist or Islamist. >As for the photos of the poor Iraqi children. They're awful and break > my heart (truly), but how do you know they weren't hurt by their > fellow Iraqis; after all a man named Hussein had no problem > slaughtering kids, women and the elderly for his own purposes. So it is your premise that local Iraqis are maiming and killing their own children to make the US look bad? Hmm. ______________________________________________ No my premise is don't automatically believe everything you read or hear. You see dead kids and you automatically say the US did it because somebody on Al Jezerra says so. What is this tag team Greenies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #27 April 12, 2004 Quote What is this tag team Greenies? Yes. billvon and myself are in constant contact and agreement on everything so as soon as anyone says anything we both disagree with . . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. Uh, well, no. Not actually.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #28 April 12, 2004 QuoteQuote Assassination is not acceptable. I disagree. As morally wrong as it may appear on the surface, I think it's far more preferable than the killing of innocents (aka collateral damage) by bombings. The only thing I can think of regarding Iraq is that there wasn't simply one target for assassination, there were probably 40 or 50. How many could we have hit before the security got thick as SF fog? My guess, two. Saddam was more than the man, he was an apparatus. That apparatus had to be removed as a whole.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #29 April 12, 2004 Quote. . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. So that's what that sticky stuff is on my keyboard. I thought I'd just gotten too excited. No wait, that's what happens when I go to Pornzone.com. All these forums get me confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #30 April 12, 2004 QuoteQuote What is this tag team Greenies? Yes. billvon and myself are in constant contact and agreement on everything so as soon as anyone says anything we both disagree with . . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. Nonsense, we know you two are telepathically linked. 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #31 April 12, 2004 QuoteAs morally wrong as it may appear on the surface, I think it's far more preferable than the killing of innocents (aka collateral damage) by bombings. I have no problem utilizing snipers in combat. I disagree that they should be employed against political figures if at all possible. "Collateral damge" is a fact of life in war. Innocents die. QuoteFurther, the U.S. didn't seem to have -any- problem with the concept right up until the time President Reagan got shot. We tried to assasinate Castro several times. We paid for attempts on Castro. Did we ever send our own? Even if we have used/attempted assassinations, just because we've done it before doesn't make it right. Besides, what does the Reagan shooting have to do with assassinating foreign enemies? That was an American shooter. Was he trained by an enemy of the US or something? QuoteAs for the goings on in other countries and our abilities to direct insurgencies . . . personally, I don't think it's any of our freekin' business. But we've held that open as an option many times in the past. Again, just because we've done it before... QuoteIf their lives were so bad, it wasn't our business to give them freedom -- it was theirs. There I agree. The US should not be Policing/Freeing other countries until we get it right here. QuoteThat said, if we wanted regime change to whatever reason, we didn't have to bomb the shit out of them. Well, I wouldn't want our troops going into a hostile area without softening up the opposition. We most certainly did have to "bomb the shit out of them" if we were going in. You'll also notice the population was receiving better utilities soon after invasion than they ever did before.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,029 #32 April 12, 2004 >Why should it have? I have no idea. You brought up the theory that countries that have million-dollar deals with Hussein don't want to invade. I agree, the theory doesn't make much sense. >And we would have killed alot more than the 700 claimed by the military. ?? Not sure what the 700 number is. Deaths at the Alamo or in Iraq? So far we've killed about 9000 innocent Iraqis per www.iraqbodycount.com. They list all the incidents and body counts per incident on the site if you want to verify them. They are running about two weeks behind, though, due to all the recent activity. >My point is the recent violence is not some uprising on the part of > the entire nation or the entire Shiite community, just 2 factions > trying to get the US out so they can run their own power base, either > Baathist or Islamist. I agree with you there, although they seem to be gathering followers pretty rapidly. (And uniting - they seem to overcome their differences when presented with a common enemy.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #33 April 12, 2004 Don't get me wrong. I would have NO problem whatsoever with bombing Iraq the way we did IF there had been a legitimate threat against the U.S. or if we were coming to the aid of one of our allies as we did in 1991. However, that was simply not the case. By most accounts, even those of the Administration, the reason we went into Iraq was to effect regime change. This does not require what we've done there so far and what we have done is lower the credibility of the U.S. as well as make us a target for further terrorist attacks. We have squandered whatever international support we had after September 11, 2001 and a very large part of the planet is now very much against us. It was a bad idea to do things the way we did them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #34 April 12, 2004 QuoteThis current situation in Iraq is -completely- the fault of GWB and he is giving the Iraqi people a reason to be terrorists against us. That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard Quade. Why in the world do you think it's completely GWB's fault? Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. They have to be killed.. Simple as that. Those pictures are propaganda. I wouldn't believe everything you see. Al Jazeer support terrorists anyways. Everything they put on the news is specifically to help the terrorist cause. Frankly I'm suprised Al Jazeer hasn't been blown to hell already.. The VAST majority or Iraqi people, say 95% are very happy that freedom is at least a possibility. You have these war lords, clreics, and assholes running around with their malitias hiding behind women and children. Hiding in mosques.. Fuck em all I say.. If innocent people die it's on THEIR backs.. Our troops have every right defend themselves. Frankly.. Let some punk ass kid throw a bottle of lit gas at me and I'm shooting his young little terrorist ass.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,029 #35 April 12, 2004 >Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. That's a silly thing to say. It's as accurate as saying that we are a group of people that cares only about oil. >They have to be killed.. Simple as that. How many? Everyone who hates the US enough to pick up a gun? You're talking tens of thousands. Everyone who doesn't much like the US? Now you're in the millions, and the process would never end - every time you kill a 12 year old that dislikes the US, you turn his family into US-haters, so you have to kill _them_, and it goes on forever. >The VAST majority or Iraqi people, say 95% are very happy that >freedom is at least a possibility. And some of these freedom lovers are now fighting against an oppressive occupying force that is killing them. They see it as a noble fight against oppression. >Fuck em all I say.. If innocent people die it's on THEIR backs.. Our >troops have every right defend themselves. I agree with you 100% on that. And because of the quality of our soldiers, we will probably kill 20 for every 1 US soldier that gets killed. But that goes back to the original question. If you want to kill everyone in Iraq who hates the US, that's still a lot of dead US soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #36 April 12, 2004 Quote That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard Quade. Why in the world do you think it's completely GWB's fault? Because it was a war that didn't need to be fought. Quote Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. Let me suggest to you that they LOVE freedom as much as we do. What they HATE is getting bombed for no reason and then being told they have to live their lives according to our rules. Further, they've become suspicious of our motives in the area in general since we invaded their country under false (or at least misguided) pretense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #37 April 12, 2004 Quote And because of the quality of our soldiers, we will probably kill 20 for every 1 US soldier that gets killed. Actually, I just finished watch the nightly BBC and they were reporting a 10:1 ratio for the last couple of weeks, but yes point well taken, we have a far superior ability to kill them than us.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #38 April 12, 2004 QuoteI would advise anyone in here especially young and sensitive members if you go to these sites, are aware you are going to see dead people. It's interesting that these gruesome anti-American images are allowed on this site. Because just a few weeks ago, I posted a link to the images of what happens to suicide bombers after they detonate their bombs, and that message was quickly removed from the forum. Poof! Gone. So I guess it's okay to show burned, mutilated images of Americans, who are trying to stop Iraqii tyranny and help 25 million Iraqiis become free. But it's not okay to show similar images of terrorists who commit mass murder against innocent men, women and children. Go figure... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #39 April 12, 2004 probably, as it depends on something specific, or someone specific...?? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #40 April 12, 2004 Most of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing?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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #41 April 12, 2004 QuoteMost of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing? A kid with an AK isn't a civilian. 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #42 April 12, 2004 Quote Everytime we financed an insurgent movement, it came back to bite us in the ass (Afgahnis, Iranis, South America a few times over, etc). Not supporting the Shia (as you said you would back then) after the '91 war bites you in the ass right now. And Saddam didn't even use c weapons, but old fashioned tanks... QuoteAssassination is not acceptable. But killing thousands of civilians as collateral damage is? The women and kids you suggested are shooting at marines are for sure fighting for tha dominance that SH provided...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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #43 April 12, 2004 Read again... The point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian?????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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #44 April 13, 2004 QuoteRead again... The point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian????? I didn't see any kids in those pictures too small to carry an AK. With the bullets flying, I don't expect that hesitation is an option for either side.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #45 April 13, 2004 Many of the countries in the coaltion are in for the money to be earned in rebuilding the iraq oil infrastructure. They aren't necessarily known for their great modern military... For the 500 polish soldiers in iraq ie, polish companies have received building contracts worth an estimated 500 Mio. USD... Not a bad deal fo a country... Even though they pretty much broke a lot of good friendship relations with germany in the process. Germany and France didn't do nearly as good business with SH as german engineers could do rebuilding iraq. But we're not all for the money if it comes to the lives of our soldiers.. And both shiites and kurds aren' too happy because - you let them down once and they had to pay dearly. - Turkey based large forces in northern iraq to suppress any kurd independence ideas, as it would threaten turkeys own borders and territorial integrity.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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BlueEyedMonster 0 #46 April 13, 2004 Funny that... by the time I was 12 I was shooting a 12ga shotgun with 3" mag slugs. damn near doubled me over backwards, but I could hit a milk jug at 100 yards. What you think is an innocent kid, may or may not be. The difference is a 12 old will do whatever an encouraging adult tells them to. They don't have enough life experience to tell dad/uncle where to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #47 April 13, 2004 Then look again. Of course there is no room for hesitation when the bullets fly. but it's not so hard to see if someone is aiming a gun or just running for cover. And as the dominating force, you do have the initiative and can choose the battlefield. If you do not have the initiative, you should try to avoid or end the fight asap for your own good. I would highly recommend not to attack any more mosques, not only for the sake of civilians, but also the image of the US (and them being targets for terrorists).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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BlueEyedMonster 0 #48 April 13, 2004 QuoteMost of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing? How do you differentiate a civilian from a soldier when there are no unifoms? That statisitic cannot be accurately kept. Most of the "civilians" you see wounded are the bad guys after a buddy took their rifle. Remember both sides play the propaganda game. Pictures are like statistics. You only see what they want to show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 0 #49 April 13, 2004 You were bigger than the gun at age 12 right? Now read again what i wrote... I didn't even write all kids... Still i don't believe that kids fight for privileges granted by a gone ruler... sorry...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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BlueEyedMonster 0 #50 April 13, 2004 QuoteI would highly recommend not to attack any more mosques, not only for the sake of civilians, but also the image of the US (and them being targets for terrorists). If people stick to praying or taking cover in the mosques they are left alone. But if they are using them as a base and firing from them... They are fair game and should be destroyed. If the bad guys are shooting from the cover of civilians and mosques, they have chosen the battlefield. The civilians are their responsibility. --edited to add. Wasn't the whole limiting targets, not giving the military the tools that needed because of what our image might look like be one of the main contributing factors to our loss in Vietnam? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 4 #27 April 12, 2004 Quote What is this tag team Greenies? Yes. billvon and myself are in constant contact and agreement on everything so as soon as anyone says anything we both disagree with . . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. Uh, well, no. Not actually.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 April 12, 2004 QuoteQuote Assassination is not acceptable. I disagree. As morally wrong as it may appear on the surface, I think it's far more preferable than the killing of innocents (aka collateral damage) by bombings. The only thing I can think of regarding Iraq is that there wasn't simply one target for assassination, there were probably 40 or 50. How many could we have hit before the security got thick as SF fog? My guess, two. Saddam was more than the man, he was an apparatus. That apparatus had to be removed as a whole.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #29 April 12, 2004 Quote. . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. So that's what that sticky stuff is on my keyboard. I thought I'd just gotten too excited. No wait, that's what happens when I go to Pornzone.com. All these forums get me confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #30 April 12, 2004 QuoteQuote What is this tag team Greenies? Yes. billvon and myself are in constant contact and agreement on everything so as soon as anyone says anything we both disagree with . . . we call each other, get on-line and attack the person until their keyboards bleed. Nonsense, we know you two are telepathically linked. 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 April 12, 2004 QuoteAs morally wrong as it may appear on the surface, I think it's far more preferable than the killing of innocents (aka collateral damage) by bombings. I have no problem utilizing snipers in combat. I disagree that they should be employed against political figures if at all possible. "Collateral damge" is a fact of life in war. Innocents die. QuoteFurther, the U.S. didn't seem to have -any- problem with the concept right up until the time President Reagan got shot. We tried to assasinate Castro several times. We paid for attempts on Castro. Did we ever send our own? Even if we have used/attempted assassinations, just because we've done it before doesn't make it right. Besides, what does the Reagan shooting have to do with assassinating foreign enemies? That was an American shooter. Was he trained by an enemy of the US or something? QuoteAs for the goings on in other countries and our abilities to direct insurgencies . . . personally, I don't think it's any of our freekin' business. But we've held that open as an option many times in the past. Again, just because we've done it before... QuoteIf their lives were so bad, it wasn't our business to give them freedom -- it was theirs. There I agree. The US should not be Policing/Freeing other countries until we get it right here. QuoteThat said, if we wanted regime change to whatever reason, we didn't have to bomb the shit out of them. Well, I wouldn't want our troops going into a hostile area without softening up the opposition. We most certainly did have to "bomb the shit out of them" if we were going in. You'll also notice the population was receiving better utilities soon after invasion than they ever did before.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,029 #32 April 12, 2004 >Why should it have? I have no idea. You brought up the theory that countries that have million-dollar deals with Hussein don't want to invade. I agree, the theory doesn't make much sense. >And we would have killed alot more than the 700 claimed by the military. ?? Not sure what the 700 number is. Deaths at the Alamo or in Iraq? So far we've killed about 9000 innocent Iraqis per www.iraqbodycount.com. They list all the incidents and body counts per incident on the site if you want to verify them. They are running about two weeks behind, though, due to all the recent activity. >My point is the recent violence is not some uprising on the part of > the entire nation or the entire Shiite community, just 2 factions > trying to get the US out so they can run their own power base, either > Baathist or Islamist. I agree with you there, although they seem to be gathering followers pretty rapidly. (And uniting - they seem to overcome their differences when presented with a common enemy.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #33 April 12, 2004 Don't get me wrong. I would have NO problem whatsoever with bombing Iraq the way we did IF there had been a legitimate threat against the U.S. or if we were coming to the aid of one of our allies as we did in 1991. However, that was simply not the case. By most accounts, even those of the Administration, the reason we went into Iraq was to effect regime change. This does not require what we've done there so far and what we have done is lower the credibility of the U.S. as well as make us a target for further terrorist attacks. We have squandered whatever international support we had after September 11, 2001 and a very large part of the planet is now very much against us. It was a bad idea to do things the way we did them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #34 April 12, 2004 QuoteThis current situation in Iraq is -completely- the fault of GWB and he is giving the Iraqi people a reason to be terrorists against us. That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard Quade. Why in the world do you think it's completely GWB's fault? Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. They have to be killed.. Simple as that. Those pictures are propaganda. I wouldn't believe everything you see. Al Jazeer support terrorists anyways. Everything they put on the news is specifically to help the terrorist cause. Frankly I'm suprised Al Jazeer hasn't been blown to hell already.. The VAST majority or Iraqi people, say 95% are very happy that freedom is at least a possibility. You have these war lords, clreics, and assholes running around with their malitias hiding behind women and children. Hiding in mosques.. Fuck em all I say.. If innocent people die it's on THEIR backs.. Our troops have every right defend themselves. Frankly.. Let some punk ass kid throw a bottle of lit gas at me and I'm shooting his young little terrorist ass.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,029 #35 April 12, 2004 >Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. That's a silly thing to say. It's as accurate as saying that we are a group of people that cares only about oil. >They have to be killed.. Simple as that. How many? Everyone who hates the US enough to pick up a gun? You're talking tens of thousands. Everyone who doesn't much like the US? Now you're in the millions, and the process would never end - every time you kill a 12 year old that dislikes the US, you turn his family into US-haters, so you have to kill _them_, and it goes on forever. >The VAST majority or Iraqi people, say 95% are very happy that >freedom is at least a possibility. And some of these freedom lovers are now fighting against an oppressive occupying force that is killing them. They see it as a noble fight against oppression. >Fuck em all I say.. If innocent people die it's on THEIR backs.. Our >troops have every right defend themselves. I agree with you 100% on that. And because of the quality of our soldiers, we will probably kill 20 for every 1 US soldier that gets killed. But that goes back to the original question. If you want to kill everyone in Iraq who hates the US, that's still a lot of dead US soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 April 12, 2004 Quote That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard Quade. Why in the world do you think it's completely GWB's fault? Because it was a war that didn't need to be fought. Quote Their are a group of people that HATE freedom. Let me suggest to you that they LOVE freedom as much as we do. What they HATE is getting bombed for no reason and then being told they have to live their lives according to our rules. Further, they've become suspicious of our motives in the area in general since we invaded their country under false (or at least misguided) pretense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #37 April 12, 2004 Quote And because of the quality of our soldiers, we will probably kill 20 for every 1 US soldier that gets killed. Actually, I just finished watch the nightly BBC and they were reporting a 10:1 ratio for the last couple of weeks, but yes point well taken, we have a far superior ability to kill them than us.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #38 April 12, 2004 QuoteI would advise anyone in here especially young and sensitive members if you go to these sites, are aware you are going to see dead people. It's interesting that these gruesome anti-American images are allowed on this site. Because just a few weeks ago, I posted a link to the images of what happens to suicide bombers after they detonate their bombs, and that message was quickly removed from the forum. Poof! Gone. So I guess it's okay to show burned, mutilated images of Americans, who are trying to stop Iraqii tyranny and help 25 million Iraqiis become free. But it's not okay to show similar images of terrorists who commit mass murder against innocent men, women and children. Go figure... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #39 April 12, 2004 probably, as it depends on something specific, or someone specific...?? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #40 April 12, 2004 Most of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing?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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #41 April 12, 2004 QuoteMost of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing? A kid with an AK isn't a civilian. 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #42 April 12, 2004 Quote Everytime we financed an insurgent movement, it came back to bite us in the ass (Afgahnis, Iranis, South America a few times over, etc). Not supporting the Shia (as you said you would back then) after the '91 war bites you in the ass right now. And Saddam didn't even use c weapons, but old fashioned tanks... QuoteAssassination is not acceptable. But killing thousands of civilians as collateral damage is? The women and kids you suggested are shooting at marines are for sure fighting for tha dominance that SH provided...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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #43 April 12, 2004 Read again... The point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian?????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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #44 April 13, 2004 QuoteRead again... The point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian????? I didn't see any kids in those pictures too small to carry an AK. With the bullets flying, I don't expect that hesitation is an option for either side.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #45 April 13, 2004 Many of the countries in the coaltion are in for the money to be earned in rebuilding the iraq oil infrastructure. They aren't necessarily known for their great modern military... For the 500 polish soldiers in iraq ie, polish companies have received building contracts worth an estimated 500 Mio. USD... Not a bad deal fo a country... Even though they pretty much broke a lot of good friendship relations with germany in the process. Germany and France didn't do nearly as good business with SH as german engineers could do rebuilding iraq. But we're not all for the money if it comes to the lives of our soldiers.. And both shiites and kurds aren' too happy because - you let them down once and they had to pay dearly. - Turkey based large forces in northern iraq to suppress any kurd independence ideas, as it would threaten turkeys own borders and territorial integrity.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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #46 April 13, 2004 Funny that... by the time I was 12 I was shooting a 12ga shotgun with 3" mag slugs. damn near doubled me over backwards, but I could hit a milk jug at 100 yards. What you think is an innocent kid, may or may not be. The difference is a 12 old will do whatever an encouraging adult tells them to. They don't have enough life experience to tell dad/uncle where to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #47 April 13, 2004 Then look again. Of course there is no room for hesitation when the bullets fly. but it's not so hard to see if someone is aiming a gun or just running for cover. And as the dominating force, you do have the initiative and can choose the battlefield. If you do not have the initiative, you should try to avoid or end the fight asap for your own good. I would highly recommend not to attack any more mosques, not only for the sake of civilians, but also the image of the US (and them being targets for terrorists).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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #48 April 13, 2004 QuoteMost of the kids look smaller than an AK-47... Do the US take statistics on the civilian casualties at all or would it be too embarassing? How do you differentiate a civilian from a soldier when there are no unifoms? That statisitic cannot be accurately kept. Most of the "civilians" you see wounded are the bad guys after a buddy took their rifle. Remember both sides play the propaganda game. Pictures are like statistics. You only see what they want to show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #49 April 13, 2004 You were bigger than the gun at age 12 right? Now read again what i wrote... I didn't even write all kids... Still i don't believe that kids fight for privileges granted by a gone ruler... sorry...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 ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #50 April 13, 2004 QuoteI would highly recommend not to attack any more mosques, not only for the sake of civilians, but also the image of the US (and them being targets for terrorists). If people stick to praying or taking cover in the mosques they are left alone. But if they are using them as a base and firing from them... They are fair game and should be destroyed. If the bad guys are shooting from the cover of civilians and mosques, they have chosen the battlefield. The civilians are their responsibility. --edited to add. Wasn't the whole limiting targets, not giving the military the tools that needed because of what our image might look like be one of the main contributing factors to our loss in Vietnam? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
