Link to Berg video

[Jim Kuhn]

This has been cross posted in the other topics forum. View at your own risk. Very graphic. Berg Beheading (http://www.military-secrets.com/)

[El Barto]

Maybe it was the poor picture quality at the site you linked, but this video did not seem that gruesome.

The other photos at the site (like the burned American bodies) were much worse.

[Frozen]

www.strangeland.com (http://www.strangeland.com) for the entire horrible video (should not be viewed by children)

I saw an even worse video a while back of Chechen Muslims (Yes, violent Muslims, oddly enough) beheading a young captured Russian soldier.
Does anyone have that link?

[William]

This is the worst thing I have ever seen.
Makes you think about the trivialities we quarrel about in this forum.

I will be sleeping real bad for the next many days. I am sorry such monstruosities happen and I feel with all of you, Americans.

William /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ewile]

I can't believe people are watching it. I'd never click that link.

[TylerD]

I agree with ewile, I have no desire what-so-ever to view this, not even curious, hell the pictures they showed on the TV made me quesy.

[ QUOTE ]
Makes you think about the trivialities we quarrel about in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry such monstruosities happen and I feel with all of you, Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel for humanity.

[siccjay]

Oh yea well read this article.....even scary....NOT GRUSOME...NO NASTY PICS I PROMISE

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000233.html

[Losing all]

OK, so I watched this and it pisses me off. I've read a lot of outrage on this board about it. Seems this video has pushed some off the fence about US involvement in crushing radical Islam.

It's ugly, I know, but I want to know WTF you were doing on 9/11 to think this is really bad? How could you(and I'm not talking just Americans) distance yourselves from the plop, plop, plop? How about Beamer and friends pulling off a truely good suicide mission? These mfers KNEW they were dead, yet somehow mustered the strength to do what's right, even though they f***ing knew they were dead, either way.

The images of that day should not be forgotten. I will never forget, but it seems many have.

I want to add one thing from that day that still burns in my brain the most. Camera and mic in the face of a little girl(probably 6 or 7) who lived next door to an entire family killed on one of the planes. She's crying about her best friend being dead, then mentions that "her" sister wasn't even a year old, and now the tears are pouring.

I tried to get back into the corps. No dice, too old, too fat and too bad of a right knee. I was even willing to settle for the army, no dice, bad knee (they don't care so much about old and fat)I'm still trying to get to the middle eaat as a contractor/security. It's very tough with no chance of passing a physical. My point of this last paragraph? Maybe someone here has a contact or even a legit suggestion to help me get involved? If so PM

sorry for the rambling

[illunious]

Japscat now takes 2nd in the videos I wish I never watched ratings. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Baulucky]

Only this year I finally realized what the Israelis have had to put up with for decades. It is so easy for some well fed, pleasure indulging communist, sitting in a cozy city in Europe to criticize the Israeli attacks on the radicals.

My mother country Spain was attacked recently, is a small-scale 911 type bombing, 200+ dead including women and children. The Israeli newspaper headline: "Welcome to the Real World". I understood, but most of my countrymen blamed the Spanish government for backing Bush on Irak, and voted out the best Gov't Spain has had in decades... to appease the terrorists. Bad move.

There is only one way to deal with terrorists. Israel knows. Follow their example.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one way to deal with terrorists. Israel knows. Follow their example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

Let me summarize every terrorist attack headline from israel in past years.

"Suicide bombing kills x people in israel. In a skirmish/retaliation following incident 2x palestinians killed."

Well, good for Israel I guess... but they keep getting attacked don't they. Sooner or later they'll just kill all the palestinians though so I guess then it'll stop. Not what I'd call a great success story though.

Have you ever noticed that some countries are NOT getting attacked? why do you suppose that is?

I'm not saying that we should knuckle under to threats, but look at the situation a bit before you go off and kill twice as many that were killed in the first place.

When Afghanistan attcked on sept 11, that was in response to an American forign policy that had a lot to do with Afghanistan being more littered with landmines than pretty much every other country in the world combined. Bombs that had USA written on then had been falling on those people from both sides for a long time.

Anyone who watches the Nicholas Berg execution and decides to run off and kill Iraquis because of it is only going to keep that kind of cycle going.

Lets recap Iraq and see what might be motivating those people. Early eighties - Regan administration funds Iraq to fight Iran in very bloody war which kills about a million and which sets Iraq back years. Iraq thinks America is an ally and talks about reclaiming kuwaiti oil that it thinks belongs to it. America doesn't comment either way.

Then Iraq moves in and America comes to Kuwaits aid. A few hundred thousand more Iraquis die. But America decides instead of removing Saddam, it is a better idea to enforce UN sanctions for about a decade and seize most of their exported oil. Saddam doesn't want to be told how to spend his money and about a million more Iraquis (mostly children) die as a result of sanctions.

Then we have our current war.

...sigh

I'm not saying that terrorism is OK, or that any of the stuff we see like the Nicholas Berg execution should go unpunished but you have to look at the complete picture.

Just ask Nicholas Berg's father what he thinks.

What kind of atrocities do you think it takes to push a person to the point where they could saw another human's head off. I assure you these people have not had pleasant lives and yeah, America takes a bit of the blame for that.

People are not born evil, as much as GWB would have us believe. Once we called the Russians the Evil Empire. Now we have a new axis of evil. It's stupid. All people do what they believe will produce good and that is what al-queda is doing too. They are wrong, but we need to ask how they could be so wrong?

Part of it might be Americans thinking things like 9/11 are the biggest (worst) news in history when they are a nation which pulled out of Rwanda 7 years earlier when they could have prevented a genocide which killed 800,000 in a few months. If you think Nicholas Bergs death was the worst thing you have ever seen, imagine wave after wave of people being hacked to death with machetes. American life may seem more important than those people's but it isn't. No oil in Rwanda I guess.

You want to stop terrorism? Stop dropping bombs on other countries and enlisting their soldiers to fight your wars for you. Wars which are mostly about your economy. More people from afghanistan have died to get rid of the Taliban than people from America. More Shiites died in 91 after father Bush told them to rise up then broke his promise and pulled out than americans dying now. A lot more actually.

Stop allowing your corporations to fund militant groups in other countries which protect economic interests for america. Then when it serves your purpose you go and attack those 'evil' groups and splatter the newspapers with stories about how they killed their own people (with your weapons and your money).

Ask yourself something honestly - If Al-Queda somewhow prevailed and America fell into complete disarray over the next fifty years... If Islamic businessmen controlled your economy and Islamic corporations funded groups which killed millions and kept your country in misery... If Islamic sanctions had killed a million american children in a decade...

Wouldn't you be tempted to set a bomb off amongst a group of these people? Maybe you are too educated and informed to do something like that. Imagine also then that your eductaion consisted of watching these atrocities all your life

And if you did do such an 'evil' thing, would you call that terrorism or would you just call it a desperate war?

Regards
Brad S

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself something honestly - If Al-Queda somewhow prevailed and America fell into complete disarray over the next fifty years... If Islamic businessmen controlled your economy and Islamic corporations funded groups which killed millions and kept your country in misery... If Islamic sanctions had killed a million american children in a decade...

Wouldn't you be tempted to set a bomb off amongst a group of these people? Maybe you are too educated and informed to do something like that. Imagine also then that your eductaion consisted of watching these atrocities all your life

And if you did do such an 'evil' thing, would you call that terrorism or would you just call it a desperate war?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd call it a revolutionary uprising.

This is probably the best analogy I have heard to get this point across. These people have suffered immensely for decades in the name of capitalism. Their methods may be wrong in our viewpoint, but if someone were to come here and do the same to us I know I would stand up and fight to defend my family and home. Kinda reminds me of the movie Red Dawn for some reason. Our government tries to sanitize war, as if it's strictly between the governments involved, and not the people...BS. It's weird, our country became independant because it's citizens organized to fight imperial england...like it or not, there's some similarity there.

[sin808]

If you're referring to the chechen rebels cutting the throat of a russian soldier I think they had it at either stileproject or somethingawful...Tremendously disturbing.

I'm not watching this one though..not something I really want to see.

[Baulucky]

Quick responses:

1-They attacked first, and did so in a treacherous way, much like Pearl Harbor.

2-If it weren't for the anglosaxon countries ruling the world (A benign power in many respects), the whole world would be inmersed in wars. (Much like they had been for centuries). Anglosaxon ruling has brought much more benefits for the world as a whole than damages. Those killings/wars/genocides/etc. have existed for thousands of years, and were NOT created by the anglosaxon.

3-Just imagine what a guy like Hitler, Arafat, Castro, Bin Laden, Zimwabwe's current president (forget his name), Chavez in Venezuela (my country), WOULD DO if they only had 1/10 of the firepower available to the US or UK or Western World. I'm gonna tell you what they WOULD DO: They WOULD/WOULD HAVE use/used their nuclear arsenal and wiped out hundreds of millions, maybe billions, WITHOUT ANY REMORSE. That's why they must be stopped, before they get any piece of that power, at any cost. (Any cost now is going to look a LOT CHEAPER than if the West does not act decisively).

This is a poker forum, and I'm sure I will not convince you, so I will exit this argument here.

Regards.

B

[goodguy_1]

After 9/11 I also investigated the Navy(Seals) and Army Reserves-I'm too old by 10 and 5 years roughly.I was ready to join up immediately.

I am freightened and angered by all of this.At the same time I think a better policy for the US-is a more isolationist policy.I dont think we should be in Iraq but if we are I obviously suuport the kids and adults getting picked off over there everyday-this is areally nasty ugly war and it's not getting any better.I'm a devout independent voter but I usually vote Republican.I think the Bush administration has made big mistakes.Smart defense doesnt mean provoking your enemies worldwide.

That being said I will do anything to defend this great country.

Lee

[Beach-Whale]

Very well put, AleoMagus.

It is very clear that the US, and the rest of the western world, value US citizens/other westerners HIGHLY above other human beings. Why all the silent minutes and honoring of the memories of the victims of 9/11, and nothing like it for other much worse disasters, let alone all the innocent people that the US have killed after 9/11 in response to that event, far surpassing the number killed on 9/11?

That one fact is disgustingly fascinating in itself - the fact that more innocent civilian people have been killed by the US after 9/11 in response to 9/11 than was killed in the 9/11 incident, and that most people for some reason seems to be OK with this?!? Oh, yes, they were not Americans... Not even westerners...

It's fascinatingly disgusting to see the US putting out massive bomb campaigns for weeks, bombings that they know will kill lots of inocent civilians, just because it's a safer war that way for the US soldiers...

I am not surprised at the terrorism going on. I don't like any terrorism, but the worst kind of terrorism is the kind that is carried out by governments, and especially democratic governments, like Israel and the US.

Shame on all government terrorists.

[GrannyMae]

I was ready to join up immediately.

if you and "losing all" are serious and still interested, i know this operation has projected staff shortages for the next 5 years.

http://www.halliburton.com/careers/index.jsp

i'll remain completely non-political about the company in this post, but the rate of morbidity for contractors is approaching or passing those of the troops. but hey, the money is great.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick responses:

1-They attacked first, and did so in a treacherous way, much like Pearl Harbor.


[/ QUOTE ]

They attacked first? Are you referring to 9/11 or some other attack?

In every spiral of violence, every attack is in the response to some earlier attack by the other side. I am sure that the 9/11 attack was in response to other attack(s) by the US, as perceived by the people responsible for the 9/11 attack.

[goodguy_1]

thnx granny.. I dont have a deathwish.Haliburton is not a company I would choose to work for in the US or Iraq.

I think we should attempt to hand over the reigns fairly quickly and return home.If not this is going to become a quagmire and I dont want to see that happen.

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
It is very clear that the US, and the rest of the western world, value US citizens/other westerners HIGHLY above other human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think any country should consider the well-being of its citizens most important? If your answer is no, tell me why we have nation-states, or organized societies, at all in the first place.

Or are you going to tell me that Muslim nations value American lives or Jewish lives just as much as they value Muslim lives?

Please.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not surprised at the terrorism going on. I don't like any terrorism, but the worst kind of terrorism is the kind that is carried out by governments, and especially democratic governments, like Israel and the US.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure the Kurds in Iraq feel the same way about terrorism. Luckily for them, they understand the difference between terrorism and warfare. Evidently you don't.

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
as perceived by

[/ QUOTE ]

These three words serve as a nice disclaimer to excuse any activity, no matter how brutal or unjustifiable.

If I "perceive" the lady next door as a threat to my "way of life" because she doesn't keep her yard neatly manicured, as myself and other neighbors do, it must be okay for us "neutralize" her. Right?

After all, nobody else can tell us how we perceive anything. We see her as a threat; even if every rational human being thinks that's insane, it doesn't matter. Whatever we do to her is now justified because of our "perception".

[GrannyMae]

If not this is going to become a quagmire

imho GG, i think we are past that point. however, we can't do a damn thing about it and that's the shame. if we pull out, there will be civil war and genocide. if we stay, there will just be US forces killed, but we won't have abandoned them in the same way we did after george sr.'s attempt at this.

i saw a comment that was made by powell i believe. it was taken out of context, but the comment suggested that if the iraqi's want us gone 6/30, we will go. within an hour the entire administration was clarifying and back-pedaling because the fear was that we are gonna cut and go on 6/30. powell (or whichever puppet who said it) was adressing the fact that we would respect sovrienty on that date, but the fear that this statement caused was immediate and severe.

we are stuck there, and i don't see anything that could keep the quagmire from getting more pronounced. we really can't win. some would suggest on 6/30 that we pull back to the edges of towns and cities to mitigate our losses, but if we do that, then we are stuck there even LONGER. we have to stay right in harms way to get the infrastructure back, and to assure that the fundamentalists don't take the country.

we will pay a high price for it, but it really is the only way out. we need to let another 1 or 2 thousand boys and girls die until they get at least electricity and fresh water. if not, then 200,000 more iraqis will die. if you think people hated the US now...

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as perceived by

[/ QUOTE ]

These three words serve as a nice disclaimer to excuse any activity, no matter how brutal or unjustifiable.

If I "perceive" the lady next door as a threat to my "way of life" because she doesn't keep her yard neatly manicured, as myself and other neighbors do, it must be okay for us "neutralize" her. Right?

After all, nobody else can tell us how we perceive anything. We see her as a threat; even if every rational human being thinks that's insane, it doesn't matter. Whatever we do to her is now justified because of our "perception".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think those words serves as a disclaimer, just as an explanation, but at any rate, what you go on to describe fits like a glove for GWB and the current US government's view of things, obviously, as they have justified a lot of very ugly things with the "terrorist threat", e.g. throwing out the Geneva convention, and getting rid of important privacy and legal protection within the US.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think any country should consider the well-being of its citizens most important? If your answer is no, tell me why we have nation-states, or organized societies, at all in the first place.


Or are you going to tell me that Muslim nations value American lives or Jewish lives just as much as they value Muslim lives?

Please.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course a nation's first responsibility is to the safety and wellbeing of its own citizens, but that does not mean that that justifies anything. It does not mean that it is OK to view non-citizens' lives to be of less value, it does not mean that it is OK to actively kill non-citizens to save a citizen's life. A nation's commitment to its citizens is an organizational thing, not a moral thing, if you understand what I mean. To view "other" people as fundamentally of less importance is always WRONG. And when a so called civilized nation is engaged in warfare, it is in my view more important with the distinction soldiers/civilians than with the distinction between nationalities.

And these views of mine is for all nations/cultures/humans. Including muslim nations.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the Kurds in Iraq feel the same way about terrorism. Luckily for them, they understand the difference between terrorism and warfare. Evidently you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you call the Israeli revenge attacks with civilian palestinian children killed warfare? Pardon me, but I call that state terrorism.

Also, the US, in the shape of the CIA, is responsible for some of the worst terrorist attacks ever.

[daveymck]

Also Americans seem to forget that their government have sponsered a lot of freedom fighter/terrorists (dependant on what view you take), eg Bin Laden etc.

Also in the UK a lot of the IRA's funding came from the States but I didnt notice any armies rolling into New York irish community after the Docklands and Omarh bombings.

The other amazing thing really is that 9/11 is almost seen as a beginning (eg the guy in the post before saying 9/11 was like pearl harbour), its when a lot of US eyes were opened mainly cos it was the first attack on US soil, but it is not all this has been going on for decades and will go on for years to come, although I can never see a 9/11 scale attack being repeated.

[GrannyMae]

although I can never see a 9/11 scale attack being repeated.

i can't remember where the plot was uncovered. perhaps GWB will help me out (greece? italy?). anyway, the recently planned, sulphuric cyanide bombing that was foiled would have killed many more. i know it was not ever planned for US soil, but an attack like that anywhere will spook the crap out of the entire world and perhaps shake up the global economy.

it is speculated that the most dangerous time for attacks on the US are from now until presidential election day. i think it is important for the world that we avert this.

[daveymck]

Yep they are trying, a few plots have been foiled in the UK and other countries, but I think since 9/11 the intelligence agencies have woke up to the fact that these groups will try these large scale attacks, but I suspect these more complex attacks are more open to being sniffed out.

There will still be large bombings though, Madrid Bali etc are just tasters.

I think the biggest threat this year is to the olympics more than an attack on the US. I suspect the terrorists would want GWB out and a more moderate government in (but I dont know much about US politics to know if the other side is more moderate), I think stratigically if I was a terrorist an attack on the US or UK would be the wrong way to go as public opinion is swaying, having said that with the results in the spanish elections who knows.

[GrannyMae]

There will still be large bombings though, Madrid Bali etc are just tasters.

i wanted to type in the thread about the kid who won the WHUPC seat that he should "stay off the trains", but i thought people would think i was being tasteless and joking. i think there is as big of a threat in cities that have already been hit as there are in one's that seem to be less of a target.

i AM convinced the olympic games will be incident free because not only is the whole world sending security, but there is billions of dollars being spent on new security and new security technology. perhaps there would be soft spots in travel hubs leading to athens, but i think athens may be the safest place on the planet during the actual games.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
(but I dont know much about US politics to know if the other side is more moderate)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about Kerry, but I would be surprised if he is not much better than the Bush administration.

I watched a speech by Al Gore on 9/11 and what has happened since, and boy, do I wish he would've been elected president instead. Oh, wait...I just remembered...he WAS.

Anyway...he seemed very sincere, and I do believe that the world would have been a safer place today had he been the president.

For those interested, you can find a link to the Gore speech on www.fileheaven.org (http://www.fileheaven.org)

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not mean that it is OK to view non-citizens' lives to be of less value

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be in the minority, but in my opinion the life of a terrorist who willingly and purposefully kills or maims innocent civilians for political or fundamentalist reasons is worth much, much less than that of a person who would never even consider such an action.

It also seems you're making the argument that the United States military is in Iraq simply killing Iraqis indiscriminately. I don't think that could be further from the truth. Of course during a war there are unfortunately going to be civilian casualties. That again is much different than the intentional murder of civilians.

Normal people value life more than terrorists. It's that simple. If you don't believe it, watch the Berg video, then make the argument that the lives of the men in that video are worth just as much as everyone else's.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
It also seems you're making the argument that the United States military is in Iraq simply killing Iraqis indiscriminately. I don't think that could be further from the truth. Of course during a war there are unfortunately going to be civilian casualties. That again is much different than the intentional murder of civilians.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I was talking about when it comes to the military attack on Iraq was that the US obviously choose to rather risk the lives of innocent civilians that to risk US soldiers.

Let me explain: The US chose to launch a massive bombing campaign that they KNEW would kill a large number of Iraqi civilians. They would rather NOT have killed these civilians, of course, but they knew that they would not be able to avoid it with such a massive bombing campaign.

Now, instead of this massive bombing campaign, they could have started out with less bombing and more ground troops. They did not do this, because it would have meant more US soldier would have been killed. Hence, they choose, with open eyes, to sacrifice large numbers of Iraqi civilians, including children, over risking their own soldiers lives. This, in my opinion, is despicable.

That was what I was talking about specifically in Iraq in this matter. You might find it natural and fine to make the choice that the US did, but I don't.

[goodguy_1]

Head of Governing Council
In Iraq Killed in Car Bomb

Associated Press
May 17, 2004 4:56 a.m.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The head of the Iraqi Governing Council was killed Monday in a car bombing near a U.S. checkpoint in central Baghdad, Iraqi officials said.

The killing was the second of a member of the U.S.-appointed council since last year and dealt a blow to U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq ahead of a handover of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

Abdel-Zahraa Othman, also known as Izzadine Saleem, was among four Iraqis killed in the blast, according to Redha Jawad Taki, a member of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite Muslim organization.

As the current council president, a rotating position, he was the highest-ranking Iraqi official killed during the U.S.-run occupation. His death occurred about six weeks before the U.S. plans to transfer power to Iraqis on June 30 and underscores the risks facing those perceived as owing their positions to the Americans.

Mr. Saleem, the name he went by most frequently, was a Shiite and leader of the Islamic Dawa Movement in the southern city of Basra. He was a writer, philosopher and political activist, who served as editor of several newspapers and magazines. The position of council head rotates monthly.

Six Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers were injured in the bombing near the coalition headquarters, which is called the Green Zone, U.S. Army Col. Mike Murray said. Three cars waiting in line to enter the headquarters were destroyed.

Smoke rose from the site of the blast on the west side of the Tigris River. Firefighters and about 10 ambulances raced to the scene.

Mr. Saleem was in a convoy of five vehicles, and the car carrying the bomb was adjacent to the council chief's car when it exploded, said witness Mohammed Laith. He said Mr. Saleem's driver and assistant were among those killed.

Coalition officials said they couldn't confirm Mr. Saleem's death, but released a statement that read: "Due to unforeseen and tragic events, the football game scheduled for Monday afternoon between the coalition press officers and Iraqi media will be postponed until further notice." Mr. Saleem was the second member of the Governing Council to be assassinated since the group was established last July.

Aquila al-Hashimi, one of three women on the 25-member body, was mortally wounded Sept. 20 when gunmen in a pickup truck ambushed her car as she drove near her Baghdad home. She died five days later.

Meanwhile, fighting persisted in the Shiite heartland in southern Iraq, where American jets bombed militia positions in the city of Nasiriyah early Monday after fighters loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr drove Italian forces out of a base there. Residents said seven fighters were killed in overnight battles.

An Italian soldier on Monday died of wounds suffered during an attack on the base of the Carabinieri paramilitary police the day before in Nasiriyah, the Defense Ministry in Rome said.

The Italian troops in Nasiriyah have been under attack for three days. At least nine others were injured in the clashes with armed Sadr supporters, who launched an uprising against the coalition last month and faces an arrest warrant in the killing of a rival moderate cleric last year.

The soldier was the 20th Italian to die in Iraq, after a suicide truck bomb in Nasiriyah killed 19 on Nov. 12.

Despite the overnight bombing, militiamen were in control of some government buildings in Nasiriyah, and some people were taking advantage of the chaos to loot cars, residents said.

The Italian troops evacuated their base on Sunday as it came under repeated attack. Portuguese police were called out to support the Italians, their first action since the force of 128 deployed to Nasiriyah in November, a Portuguese duty officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Italians relocated to the nearby Tallil air base.

Also in Nasiriyah, a convoy transporting the Italian official in charge of the city, Barbara Contini, came under attack Sunday as it neared the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Two Italian paramilitary police were wounded.

There were intermittent blasts and gunfire overnight in Najaf, another southern city where Sadr supporters and American forces have fought in recent days. The new U.S.-appointed governor of Najaf, Adnan al-Zurufi, said Monday that unidentified assailants killed his uncle, Kadhim Abbas al-Zurufi.

Amid the continuing violence, the U.S. is looking to move some of its 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to bolster forces in Iraq, South Korean and U.S. officials said.

"The U.S. government has told us that it needs to select some U.S. troops in South Korea and send them to Iraq to cope with the worsening situation in Iraq," said Kim Sook, head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American Bureau.

A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said any shift in troops from South Korea would be part of the next rotation of American troops in Iraq, set to begin late this summer.

Tapping into the U.S. military force in Korea would be an historic move by the Pentagon, underscoring the degree to which the military is stretched to provide enough forces for Iraq while meeting its other commitments The coalition, which has fought Mr. Sadr's militiamen in Baghdad and several southern cities in the past week, is struggling to disband the cleric's army and sideline its radical leadership before handing power to a new Iraqi government.

[Stagemusic]

Wow...I thought this was dead after Granny's thread last week. Apparently emotions are running high in the Zoo and some of the most amazing statements have cropped up. I will apologize in advance to those of you who think brevity is paramount. However, I really feel the need to respond to alot of the comments here.

First let's go to the most eloquent of arguments. Well written but the view of the poster seems to be a bit through a prism...

[ QUOTE ]
Aleo Magnus

When Afghanistan attcked on sept 11, that was in response to an American forign policy that had a lot to do with Afghanistan being more littered with landmines than pretty much every other country in the world combined. Bombs that had USA written on then had been falling on those people from both sides for a long time.

Then Iraq moves in and America comes to Kuwaits aid. A few hundred thousand more Iraquis die. But America decides instead of removing Saddam, it is a better idea to enforce UN sanctions for about a decade and seize most of their exported oil. Saddam doesn't want to be told how to spend his money and about a million more Iraquis (mostly children) die as a result of sanctions.

Ask yourself something honestly - If Al-Queda somewhow prevailed and America fell into complete disarray over the next fifty years... If Islamic businessmen controlled your economy and Islamic corporations funded groups which killed millions and kept your country in misery... If Islamic sanctions had killed a million american children in a decade...

This is probably the best analogy I have heard to get this point across. These people have suffered immensely for decades in the name of capitalism. Their methods may be wrong in our viewpoint, but if someone were to come here and do the same to us I know I would stand up and fight to defend my family and home. Kinda reminds me of the movie Red Dawn for some reason. Our government tries to sanitize war, as if it's strictly between the governments involved, and not the people...BS. It's weird, our country became independant because it's citizens organized to fight imperial england...like it or not, there's some similarity there.


[/ QUOTE ]

A. Afghanistan did NOT attack on 911. Let's get that straight. Afghanistan was targeted as a country that was lending aid to the Terrorist Network. They were given multiple opportunities to sever those ties and give up the terrorists...they chose not to.

[ QUOTE ]
Then Iraq moves in and America comes to Kuwaits aid. A few hundred thousand more Iraquis die. But America decides instead of removing Saddam, it is a better idea to enforce UN sanctions for about a decade and seize most of their exported oil. Saddam doesn't want to be told how to spend his money and about a million more Iraquis (mostly children) die as a result of sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got your dates messed up here by about a decade or so. This was after the Gulf War in 1990. And please do explain how UN (not the US) sanctions resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of Iraqui children. I would love to see that.

The truth of the matter is simply that Saddamm was all about exterminating the Kurds after the Gulf War. Sanctions were put on him because of the attack on other SOVEREIGN nations. The US didn't sanction anyone. We only enforced sanctions voted on by the UN General Assembly. Oh yeah...England, France, Germany, etc...all voted to impose these sanctions. Quit trying to revise history.

Now to Baulucky...shortsighted and yet totally misinformed.

[ QUOTE ]
It is very clear that the US, and the rest of the western world, value US citizens/other westerners HIGHLY above other human beings. Why all the silent minutes and honoring of the memories of the victims of 9/11, and nothing like it for other much worse disasters, let alone all the innocent people that the US have killed after 9/11 in response to that event, far surpassing the number killed on 9/11?

That one fact is disgustingly fascinating in itself - the fact that more innocent civilian people have been killed by the US after 9/11 in response to 9/11 than was killed in the 9/11 incident, and that most people for some reason seems to be OK with this?!? Oh, yes, they were not Americans... Not even westerners...


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...quite a statement. Are you talking about civilian casualties PURPOSEFULLY killed and targeted by the United States? If so, I want the documentation and proof. If you are talking about collateral damage as a result of war, then you are probably correct. I will get to the response to the war question in a while. Hang on.

Granny...

[ QUOTE ]
if you and "losing all" are serious and still interested, i know this operation has projected staff shortages for the next 5 years.

http://www.halliburton.com/careers/index.jsp

i'll remain completely non-political about the company in this post, but the rate of morbidity for contractors is approaching or passing those of the troops. but hey, the money is great.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, I clicked on the link out of curiosity and the link for the Middle East has "no jobs offerred" on it? Why do you think that is?

Beach Whale...again

[ QUOTE ]
Do you call the Israeli revenge attacks with civilian palestinian children killed warfare? Pardon me, but I call that state terrorism.

Also, the US, in the shape of the CIA, is responsible for some of the worst terrorist attacks ever.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the Nation of Isreal targeted Palestinian children as a policy of their government? If so, I am sure that would interest the world community. If not, then are you saying that it was because the terrorists that target women and children (proven fact) also use women and children as sheilds and casualties are hard to prevent... It has to be one way or the other...no middle ground here.

And this one has to top them all in the total ignorance category. This poster has absolutely NO idea what the hell he is talking about.

Beach Whale

[ QUOTE ]
What I was talking about when it comes to the military attack on Iraq was that the US obviously choose to rather risk the lives of innocent civilians that to risk US soldiers.

Let me explain: The US chose to launch a massive bombing campaign that they KNEW would kill a large number of Iraqi civilians. They would rather NOT have killed these civilians, of course, but they knew that they would not be able to avoid it with such a massive bombing campaign.

Now, instead of this massive bombing campaign, they could have started out with less bombing and more ground troops. They did not do this, because it would have meant more US soldier would have been killed. Hence, they choose, with open eyes, to sacrifice large numbers of Iraqi civilians, including children, over risking their own soldiers lives. This, in my opinion, is despicable.


[/ QUOTE ]

So it is dispicable to use high level technology in order to protect the lives of our own men and women? Is it dispicable to target military command and control centers rather than risking the lives of our own? The job of our military commanders is really simple. To attain the objectives of a mission with MINIMAL risk to his troops using any means available within the ROE...(that's Rules of Engagement) The ROE are usually set by civilian authority for political or strategic reasons...Bosnia and Somalia are examples of ROE's that Mr. Clinton set. This is such a no brainer question that I shouldn't even have to point out how wrong you are. The fact is, do I want our commanders in the field using every bomb, bullet, radar screen, laser, you name it, at their disposal in order to minimize the risk to my countries men and women...YOU BET YOUR ASS I DO.

[WLC4Ever]

Thanks you Stagemusic, you just saved me a ton of typing.

Just wanted to add a couple points here. First, has anyone seen pictures on the news of all the Iraqi cities? You might notice something, they're all still there. Posters are accusing the US of going on homicidal bombing runs, but anyone with two eyes can see that the collateral damage is reletively minor. Visit some European cities that were bombed in WWII sometime and you'll see what indiscriminate bombing looks like.

On the same note, there is a huge, huge difference between killing civilians, and targeting civilians. It's what seperates us from Al Queda and the Iraqi insurgents and what seperates the Israelis from the Palestinians. Collateral damage is unfortunate but unavoidable, targeting civilians is terrorism.

[David]

I say our government should immediately........

1) withdraw from all foreign soil
2) tell Europe to defend themselves
3) tell Korea to defend themselves
4) tell all foreign countries except Mexico and Canada to defend themselves (we do need some kind of buffer zone)
5) tell every foreign leader and government that any attack on the US that is launched from their soil, with their aid, or even allowed by their ambivilance shall be answered by collosal and devastating destruction of their country from above. But, hey at least no American soldier will ever set foot in their country.
6) tighten restrictions on foreign visitors
7) almost abolish immigration
8) tell any country that doesn't like it to kiss our a$$.

You cannot accuse us of meddling with or in others affairs then. We will not tell the countries of Europe or anywhere else how to run their affairs then. All the world can live or die as they wish. We will not interfere or intervene. I would love to see where the world would be in 20, no even in 10 years. The peoples of the middle east have been cutting each others heads off for centuries. It was nothing we did to get them started on that. I say we withdraw, leave all of our guns and ammunition there and they WILL kill each other in a very short time and save us the trouble and expense.


By the way.......from the limited knowledge I have, yes we do value American lives more than we do middle eastern lives. But, on the other hand we still value middle eastern lives more then many middle easterners do. And as for me, I value the life of my dog more than I do the lives of 200 million Muslims (or however many there are). Maybe a sad fact, but a fact.


Have a nice day! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GWB]

I just found this out:

John Kerry's ancestors were major Opium traders in China! (http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/forbes_family)

3 selected quotes:

In the United States, the Forbes family of China and Boston, of which John Forbes Kerry and John Murray Forbes are members, amassed a huge fortune in the China trade dealing in opium to the wealthier Chinese during the Opium Wars

the Forbes family became known in China during the Opium War in the 19th century as the 'Opium Dynasty'

Following John Murray Forbes into China were several brothers and cousins, including Francis Blackwell Forbes, the great grandfather of John Forbes Kerry.

[AleoMagus]

Ok, a few comments

It's interesting to me which 'amazing' atatements you have refered to in your post. Truth be told, there have been some amazing statements, but I'd have picked a different set

This whole post for example:
[ QUOTE ]

I say our government should immediately........

1) withdraw from all foreign soil
2) tell Europe to defend themselves
3) tell Korea to defend themselves
4) tell all foreign countries except Mexico and Canada to defend themselves (we do need some kind of buffer zone)
5) tell every foreign leader and government that any attack on the US that is launched from their soil, with their aid, or even allowed by their ambivilance shall be answered by collosal and devastating destruction of their country from above. But, hey at least no American soldier will ever set foot in their country.
6) tighten restrictions on foreign visitors
7) almost abolish immigration
8) tell any country that doesn't like it to kiss our a$$.

You cannot accuse us of meddling with or in others affairs then. We will not tell the countries of Europe or anywhere else how to run their affairs then. All the world can live or die as they wish. We will not interfere or intervene. I would love to see where the world would be in 20, no even in 10 years. The peoples of the middle east have been cutting each others heads off for centuries. It was nothing we did to get them started on that. I say we withdraw, leave all of our guns and ammunition there and they WILL kill each other in a very short time and save us the trouble and expense.


By the way.......from the limited knowledge I have, yes we do value American lives more than we do middle eastern lives. But, on the other hand we still value middle eastern lives more then many middle easterners do. And as for me, I value the life of my dog more than I do the lives of 200 million Muslims (or however many there are). Maybe a sad fact, but a fact.


Have a nice day!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll get to this in a moment, but first I'll address questions and concern you had about my original post

First, I just said Afghanistan attacked because I don't think it really mattered who attacked. Perhaps I should have said 'people from Afghanistan' or al-Queda or whatever. Same point with the same reasons behind the actions. The fact that the Taliban did not sever ties is again tied to these reasons (landmines, war funded on both sides by the USA and the systematic desolation of that country by the USA and Soviet Union during the Cold War.)

Secondly, I did not get any dates mixed up. I was recapping Iraq's history in order to illustrate why Iraquis might be upset with the USA. I stated that this was after the Regan Administration and in fact gave no specific dates whatsoever. I conclude by saying that after a decade we are now involved in the current war. Perhaps I was unclear.

Thirdly:
[ QUOTE ]
And please do explain how UN (not the US) sanctions resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of Iraqui children. I would love to see that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said millions of Iraqi children. My quote is actually in your post right above this point and I said about a million Iraquis, mostly children. Exact figures are unclear but a low estimate by conservative sources still puts this figure at 500,000. You can read about this here:

Sanctions (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm)

Now, back to that 'Amazing' example of my own because I think it is really important

I agree with david, but lets be clear what we are agreeing on. By withdrawing from foreign soil, lets also withdraw corporate interests. No more sweatshops and no more funding of anybody who might kill anybody else in order for you guys to have cheap VCRs, watches, oil, diamonds, sneakers and whatever else you think you need.

All the world will only live or die as they wish once your trade practices allow them to. It's not your soldiers they are most upset about. It's oil companies paying off sudanese militants and contractors 'lending' the third world billions in order to develop infrastructure which relocated hundreds of thousands and gets paid back to skilled american engineers. Lending other countries money with the intent of pumping it back into your own economy is not a favour at all.

The world trade center was not a coincidental target. Your foreign economic policy has led to the deaths and destitution of billions.

I'm not actually singling the US out on this one. The entire first world is at fault here.

People like David, and I suspect most other americans don't get this. You can't isolate youself now and expect to lead any kind of life like you are currently enjoying. Your wealth comes at a human cost other places in the world and if you separate yourself from them, well...

Everything is gonna get a lot more expensive.

...

But sure, lets do it.

Regards
Brad S

[GrannyMae]

Granny, I clicked on the link out of curiosity and the link for the Middle East has "no jobs offerred" on it? Why do you think that is?

i saw a segment on ABC that showed hundreds of men lining up daily in texas to fill out applications. i figured the website would allow for this as well, but i guess people have to go in person to apply for these. it was a predictable scene when jobs that typically pay 30k in the US are being offered at 80k TAX FREE for the same job there.


wonder why they pay that premium?? </sarcasm>

[AleoMagus]

Sorry, I can't stop thinking about these things lately and I've got more to say

Stage,

I'm not trying to revise history. Frankly, I'm not sure that you read my original post as much as other later quotes from it. Read the original again and you will see that none of your concerns are correct

I never stated that the US sanctioned Iraq. I stated that it was UN sanctions in the original post. I apologize for pointing the finger a lot at America but really, it's just one of many nations I'd like to see revise their policies.

My dates were never mixed up. Yours were. The gulf war was in 91, not 90.

History speaks for itself and nobody even seems to notice. It goes back even farther than I described and no exaggeration is necessary. The republicans and the Bush Administration will tell you the same Govt/Military history.

What is left out of most history books however is the role American (and other first world) corporate and economic influences have had on today's world.

This is what most of today's terrorists are fighting against and precisely why they don't see 'innocent' americans (or first world in general) as innocent at all.

There are millions of us who could never conceive of cutting another human's head off yet almost every product we buy has blood on it and we never think twice about it. The diamond that you buy a fiance almost certainly puts money in DeBeers pockets at some point and these are people who are maintaining control of mines in Angola by funding hardcore killers. So sure, we would never cut another person's head off. We don't need to. We get other people to do it. I could give a hundred examples like this easily.

They see us all as guilty and while I agree that their rationalle is somewhat flawed, it has some merit. In some sense we are guilty. If I am caught paying thugs to terrorize your neighborhood and murder innocents, am I free from blame?

So sure, I guess all those people who say 'they attacked first' are right, but would you be a bad guy for retaliating against me after you found out I hired those thugs.

Afghanistan served as a pawn for the USA during the cold war and their country has suffered immensely for it. Now we are doing the same in Iraq but there isn't even an ulterior enemy (unless you count a faltering economy).

In my original post I said that every time palestinians attcak Israel kills twice as many in return. Since that post, 13 Israelis and 30 palestinians have died. I guess I was wrong on that one. I should have said more than twice as many. Do an experiment youself and just watch the news for a few months and add up Israeli and Palestinian deaths. It shouldn't take too long to at least feel a bit of sympathy for the Palestinians.

Bush and Rumsfeld keep calling terrorists and other nations 'enemies of freedom' but it is false. Many of these enemies are slaves to American corporate imerialism and want nothing more than freedom. Frankly, I want it too.

I am tired of this way of things...

Seriously, I am kept up at night by this stuff and I don't know what's gotta be done anymore. America is in a mess and I can't say with any certainty what is right anymore. I don't think leaving Iraq is the right thing now. It is definitley time to start being the moral high ground for the world though and ignoring the geneva convention is not a good way to start.

sigh

Regards
Brad S

PS - Sorry all. I criticize the zoo all the time because you guys never seem to talk about poker and just look at me. Still a good thread to get some things off my chest and actually not bad discussion with very little totally crazy comments.

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
i saw a segment on ABC that showed hundreds of men lining up daily in texas to fill out applications. i figured the website would allow for this as well, but i guess people have to go in person to apply for these. it was a predictable scene when jobs that typically pay 30k in the US are being offered at 80k TAX FREE for the same job there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you should wonder about that. There has always been a premium on "like" positions in the middle east. The conditions are quite harsh, the environment really sucks, the rules are strict. To attract skilled personnel, companies have always offerred 2-3X the going rate for jobs.

As far as the tax free matter, when you are working overseas (and that includes Japan, Europe, even Australia), your first 80K of earnings are indeed tax free. I don't know the reasoning for this but it has been that way since I can remember.

This part of our converstation is just a little ironic. I recently was contacted by a company inquiring about my interest in travelling to the middle east for a position. I am a Telecom Engineer with a number of years of experience at many levels of responsibility. Although the offer was really monetarily attractive, a number of considerations prevented me from accepting. Not the least of which is the fact that I am definitely allergic to lead and other metal projectiles at high speeds. I also hate the smell of cordite. Plus, why would you live on the worlds largest beach when there is no water to play in???

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, I am kept up at night by this stuff and I don't know what's gotta be done anymore. America is in a mess and I can't say with any certainty what is right anymore. I don't think leaving Iraq is the right thing now. It is definitley time to start being the moral high ground for the world though and ignoring the geneva convention is not a good way to start.


[/ QUOTE ]

Brad,

Of all the things you had to say, this is the most telling. Your feelings are shared by many too. I have said before that my stake in this is even a little higher as I have a son who is serving in the military. He has been in harms way and there wasn't a moment that went by that my mind was on him and his mates.

I also agree with you about not ignoring the Geneva Convention. I am a supporter of our President and our Military. However, I am also not blind or stupid. I surprised many people who know me by the depth of my outrage over the treatment of those people. The utter disregard for human dignity is exactly what we are supposed to be there to stop. You can talk "interogation technique" or "they don't have any rights" all you want. What I saw in those pictures makes us appear to be very little better than what we are supposed to be fighting. Kept me up a few nights too.

The rest of our "argument" is simply perception. We are both probably wrong. A wise man once said..."the truth lies somewhere in the middle". In this case, that's probably true.

Clif,

Stage /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GrannyMae]

Interesting that you should wonder about that. There has always been a premium on "like" positions in the middle east

agreed. not only in the middle east, but also in our very own alaska. the suprising part, and the difference in this situation is the sheer number of openings. there are literally thousands of jobs that need filling. this includes short-order cooks for 80k/annum. these are jobs that used to be military and are all contracted now. we are moving 5,000 troops from korea to iraq. soon we will be out of troops and you fill see fighting divisions being contracted. THAT would be scary.

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
we are moving 5,000 troops from korea to iraq. soon we will be out of troops and you fill see fighting divisions being contracted. THAT would be scary

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that would be scary but I really don't see it happening as a policy decision by the military. I could however see it happening as a "Police/Security" force hired by an oil or some other company. That would be just as scary. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[LikesToLose]

[ QUOTE ]
The diamond that you buy a fiance almost certainly puts money in DeBeers pockets at some point and these are people who are maintaining control of mines in Angola by funding hardcore killers. So sure, we would never cut another person's head off. We don't need to. We get other people to do it. I could give a hundred examples like this easily.

They see us all as guilty and while I agree that their rationalle is somewhat flawed, it has some merit. In some sense we are guilty. If I am caught paying thugs to terrorize your neighborhood and murder innocents, am I free from blame?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that I didn't hire any thugs to get my diamond. That diamond mining business is in another country. Should America take over that country to impose our morals and laws on it? Talk about a lose/lose. Either we don't help or our influence spreads like a cancer and we should not interfer in other nations.

The dual aurguements of "America didn't do anything here" and "America shouldn't have gotten involved here" abound through this entire thread.

Also, do I force Muslims to drink Coke Cola? Please don't blow up the WTC again. Just don't buy the soda if you don't like it. I also do not force anyone to work in a sweat shop, regardless of how many 'Made in China' T-shirts I buy.

If I didn't buy that T-shirt and the sweatshop did not need to hire a 12 year old for $.50 a week, what would that 12 year old do? The answer may mean the difference between malnuitrion and starving to death. Both of which existed and flourished before capitalism and America's cultural shadow fell over the world. In fact, the $.50 a week is a better option than what else he has. Sucks, but true

While America would be in much different economic shape if it weren't for world trade, the rest of the world benefits as much as America, although the wealth is too often not shared. Think of Saddam's royal palaces that he maintained during the 10 years of UN sanctions with millions dead. I don't see how America is the cause of this. The entire Middle East would not be able to maintain the cities it has without world trade and 'evils' of capitalism.

Another note: Why is America evil for buying oil, but the Saudi princes are not evil for selling it?

I probably have more questions than answers, but hey don't we all?

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow...quite a statement. Are you talking about civilian casualties PURPOSEFULLY killed and targeted by the United States? If so, I want the documentation and proof. If you are talking about collateral damage as a result of war, then you are probably correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am talking about what is called "collateral damage". But when you make a choice that you KNOW is going to result in large "collateral damage," and you had another choice for reaching your goals that would have resulted in less "collateral damage," it's practically the same thing as purposfully killing those extra persons.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the Nation of Isreal targeted Palestinian children as a policy of their government? If so, I am sure that would interest the world community. If not, then are you saying that it was because the terrorists that target women and children (proven fact) also use women and children as sheilds and casualties are hard to prevent... It has to be one way or the other...no middle ground here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same situation as above, but probably even worse. "Look! A terrorist in a crowd! Fire a rocket at him! Ooops... Collateral damage..."

I'm saying the Israelis don't care enough (or at all?) about protecting the Palestinian civilians. Or care for them at all.

You have to take all measures possible to avoid innocent bloodshed. If you don't, "collateral damage" is no defence.

And the world community IS interested (even if they don't do even close to enough) - most countries in the world are EXTREMELY critical to Israels behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
So it is dispicable to use high level technology in order to protect the lives of our own men and women? Is it dispicable to target military command and control centers rather than risking the lives of our own? The job of our military commanders is really simple. To attain the objectives of a mission with MINIMAL risk to his troops using any means available within the ROE...(that's Rules of Engagement) The ROE are usually set by civilian authority for political or strategic reasons...Bosnia and Somalia are examples of ROE's that Mr. Clinton set. This is such a no brainer question that I shouldn't even have to point out how wrong you are. The fact is, do I want our commanders in the field using every bomb, bullet, radar screen, laser, you name it, at their disposal in order to minimize the risk to my countries men and women...YOU BET YOUR ASS I DO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess that we just disagree on this. I feel that it is a higher priority to not harm innocent civilians than soldiers. Of course it has to be within reason. But it was clear to me in the beginning of the invasion that the US prioritized it's own soldiers 100%, and the innocent Iraqi civilians had 0% priority. If they could be avoided, swell, but if not, "collateral damage!". One extremely important reason for this prioritizing probably was internal US public opinion, that would have stopped supporting the invasion if US soldiers started coming home in body bags. Iraqi civilians wasn't very, or at all, important in this regard, and their deaths could more easily be hidden (from the US public) than the deaths of US soldiers.

And I hope that you didn't believe in the propaganda about "precision bombing" - of course it's better than it once was, but it's far from what they try to make people believe it is. You can't believe a word that is said in the news when a full blown war is raging. The war is faught, and obviously faught quite well, also in the media. And the US is second to none when it comes to duping the public through the mass media.

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
But it was clear to me in the beginning of the invasion that the US prioritized it's own soldiers 100%, and the innocent Iraqi civilians had 0% priority. If they could be avoided, swell, but if not, "collateral damage!".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think the commanders should NOT prioritize the casualties with our own forces first? Dumbest idea I ever heard. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Get a grip.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I am talking about what is called "collateral damage". But when you make a choice that you KNOW is going to result in large "collateral damage," and you had another choice for reaching your goals that would have resulted in less "collateral damage," it's practically the same thing as purposfully killing those extra persons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hyperbole. Nothing more. Nothing less...how can this be "practically the same thing"...perspective please.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's far from what they try to make people believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to have a video of some pretty amazing targeting as my proof. Where is yours of the opposite? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'm done with this for now...

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
And you think the commanders should NOT prioritize the casualties with our own forces first? Dumbest idea I ever heard.

Get a grip.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, within reason, when it comes to the choice between risking the lives of your soldiers and civilians, it is the soldiers lives that should be risked. I can't see what is so strange about this. We obviously have different ethics regarding this.

So you think that it is fine to use torture to get information that will save your own soldiers or citizens lives? You might think that this is a rediculous question, but using your logic of prioritizing I figure you would think that torture would be fine.

And I think that my grip is fine, thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
Hyperbole. Nothing more. Nothing less...how can this be "practically the same thing"...perspective please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perspective? Let's put some numbers on it: "If I do this, 500 persons not really involved will die - but if I do this 5000 such persons will die. OK, I choose the latter, which will kill 5000 in 'collateral damage'." How could you NOT be extra responsible for those 4500 more you kill because of that choice? Yuo have with open eyes made a choice to let 4500 more than necessary die. You must have a pretty far-away perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to have a video of some pretty amazing targeting as my proof. Where is yours of the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you have a propaganda video... Good for you.

I have seen numbers on how many civilian Iraqis that were killed in the bombing campaign, collected afterwards. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were far greater than what the US propaganda would have it to be.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm done with this for now...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that you are.

[HUSKER'66]

On another note, just found out on the news that two teachers are on administrative leave for showing a video of the execution at my old high school. Apparently they showed it to three classes....the parents are livid! (as I think they should be)

I have not viewed the link, nor do I have any desire too.

Husker

[Jim Kuhn]

There are 10,000 civilians claimed to be killed in Iraq. Many were killed by suicide bombers though. I did not do the math but did find this website interesting: link (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm)

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, within reason, when it comes to the choice between risking the lives of your soldiers and civilians, it is the soldiers lives that should be risked. I can't see what is so strange about this. We obviously have different ethics regarding this.

So you think that it is fine to use torture to get information that will save your own soldiers or citizens lives? You might think that this is a rediculous question, but using your logic of prioritizing I figure you would think that torture would be fine.


[/ QUOTE ]

If it comes down to risking my soldiers lives vs MY OWN civilians' lives, you are correct. Otherwise, nope.

As to the last part of this, do not presume to put words in my mouth. You don't know me. You know nothing about how I feel about ANY subject up to and including whether I think sh!t is anything other than pink with purple polka dots.

The rest of the crap that you wrote is total BS and I don't know of ANY General or military leader that would go out of his way to choose a battle scenario where MORE civilian casualties are probable when the objectives of the mission can be reached without putting them in harms way. You are a sick person if you do. Seek help.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know of ANY General or military leader that would go out of his way to choose a battle scenario where MORE civilian casualties are probable when the objectives of the mission can be reached without putting them in harms way.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I'm not sure which civilians we are talking about here. If, as you suggest with this line:

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes down to risking my soldiers lives vs MY OWN civilians' lives, you are correct. Otherwise, nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean your own civilians, you are probably correct.

If you think military leaders would not endanger civilians in foreign countries before their own troops you are wrong. One a person to person basis, this is a no-brainer for any military leader and even on a 5-1 person basis I think this is still true for many.

This is to say that many generals would rather see 5 dead civilian iraquis than 1 dead american marine. There are publicity and propaganda issues involved here, to be sure, but with civilian deaths just as a result of what appear to be meaningful strikes with military objectives, this is ok.

And you bet this is sick. What is most sick about it is the very point you initially made about perspective.

We look at this from a perspective of people ten thousand miles away who really don't care about people we will never meet. Because they are so removed from us, they are simply not as important. This is understandable to a degree, but gets taken to extremes.

I'd bet if you asked any American mother of a US marine over there right now (you said you have a son in military service didn't you Stage?) this question:

"You (somehow) have a choice
A) 10 iraqi civilians will die
B) Your son will die

which will you chose?"

I think we'd see a lot of dead Iraqis. This is what American leaders were thinking about when they rained fire on Iraq with tomahawks before any ground troops got involved.

This is also what American leaders are thinking about when they convert and train foreign civilians into fighting forces to do their fighting for them. At least this way they haven't been civilians for a few days I guess.

I wonder, after Bush Sr. convinced the Shiites to rise up in '91 they were all slaughtered after he subsequently pulled out and broke his promise to help - do most consider that kind of casualty 'combatant' just because they died with a gun in their hand when many were civilians days earlier.

On an individual soldier basis, I think fear and poor training is the basis for immoral decision making about human life.

Just one example that hits home for me - In Afghanistan about a year ago one of your National Guard pilots dropped a bomb on a squad of Canadians in a training area. He saw fire on the ground and felt in danger. 4 Candain soldiers died as a result. I can tell you, fear or no fear, the first thing that should go through any soldiers head when he feels like he is in danger is 'am I sure that I'm shooting at the right person?' or 'Am I sure that I really am in danger here?'.

Well trained soldiers think this way because they know their life is not as important as the lives of many. That many can mean their squad, another allied nation, or even civilians from the occupied nation. It should be so at any rate.

It is this fear and poor training which is now motivating generals because their job keeps getting more political all the time and in the end they need to follow the will of the masses. A scared and untrained masses who likes to armchair general their army along with fox news consultants and doesn't understand anything about what is really going on.

Regards
Brad S