I've had enough of us killing women and children

[nicky g]

"So we've now determined you despise both the US and British Armed Forces. I really hope the day doesn't come when you need to rely on the very people you hate."

I didn't say I hate them. I said that I didn;t respect them. I'll admit that as a blanket statement that was pretty stupid; I should have said I don;t have a lot of respect for how ether of them are conducting themselves in Iraq, or for the political uses they have been put to. In their respective histories, there are things they've done I respect and things I don;t, and uses they've been put to I respect and uses I don't. On the whole I am not a big army guy; I appreciate their role in protecting people but I'd rather they stick to that in the main than be sent off an half-arsed adventures round the world, and I certainly don't think they are suited to a policing role.

"if you think for one second the US and British forces are deliberately killing women and children your a damn fool."

Both British and US forces have been charged with murdering Iraqi prisoners in their detention, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows if that would ahve even happened if the photos and subsequent outrage hadn't emerged. In battle situations, where it is much harder to gather evidence or ascertain someone's intentions, I see no reason to assume that no individual soldiers are doing the same (Channel 4 news recently scrrened footage of a helicopter gunship shooting a severly injured man; possibly not a civilian but an ct requiring the same degree of callousness) . On the whole that is obviously not either army's intention but in many cases they have been so grossly negligent and put other objectives so far ahead of the well-being of local civilians that it amounts to much the same thing. Shooting anything that moves isn't precisely the same as deliberately picking out children but it's not a whole lot better.

[nicky g]

"Where were you when Suddam Hussein was killing women and children? When Suddams thugs were pulling innocent people out of their homes and torturing them, killing them, raping their wives & children. What a life they had, how dare we disrupt such a harmonious life. "

What do you mean, where was I? I can't criticise US actions without having a detailed record of having criticised Saddam? Where were you? Out on the streets demonstrating every day, I'm sure. Where are you while peope are being enslaved by the thousands in Burma? What right do you have criticising Saddam when we've yet to hear a peep out of you about Robert Mugabe? Where were you when your own government was supporting Saddam? Trying to make a citizen's arrest on Donald Rumsfeld?

I don't see what this has to do with what we've been discussing, but regarding the war: The war ultimately was an issue of costs. Of course getting rid of Saddam was an admirable objective. Noone here's opposition to the war was based on a desire that Saddam remain in power. The point was that removing him had enormous costs: it took a war that killed many thousands, it had the potential to create disastrous consequences and has in fact had some pretty terrible consequences, including massive instabilty and terrible violence in post-war Iraq. Furthermore if the intention was to go out and make a big effort to save lives, make the world a better place, then there were other competing causes that never even got discussed. Far more lives could probably saved by a variety of sorts of internventions in Africa for example for the kind of money toppling Saddam and "rebuilding" Iraq has cost, and with a much smaller political and human cost (in fact, the opposite). On a different note, entirely the wrong people were doing it; people's whose efforts were bound to be seen as venal (and probably were) through their close ties to various industries and lobbies that stood to benefit, notorious unilateralists, people with past involvement in the undermining of democracies and the support of dictatorships (including Saddam's) throughout the world, and with a dismal record in the Middle East. If the US had suddenly decided that the best way to deal with dictatorships is to topple them through force, that would be one thing; but that's clearly not what happened, and it retains close ties with many other ones. Not being able to solve all the world's problems doesn't mean we shouldn;t try to solve any but this wasn't about solving problems or saving lives, it was about strategic interests in the Middle East, and if there had have been a serious debate about teh best humanitarian intervention available, the one that could save the most lives at the smallest cost, I doubt Iraq would have been the winning candidate.

[Gamblor]

Of course here the validity of the war is indefensible, except by head in the sand morons or by greedy, selfish jerks.

You just couldn't resist could you.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being culturally insensitive, what is it with Arabs and firing guns into the air to celebrate? People accuse Americans of being gun nuts, not without some justification, but even in the old West, they threw rice at weddings, not bullets. For one thing, firing guns into the air is dangerous in and of itself. The bullets come back down, and they come back down with enough velocity to kill or wound. Doing it in a war zone is really stupid, because you're really likely to be mistaken for combatants. Maybe the army needs to produce a training film on how to distinguish between a middle east wedding party and a guerilla attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

bullets come down with the same velocity that the left the gun with if the gun was shot straight up into the air.



Well, there might be some air friction.... but it's nearly the same.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being culturally insensitive, what is it with Arabs and firing guns into the air to celebrate? People accuse Americans of being gun nuts, not without some justification, but even in the old West, they threw rice at weddings, not bullets. For one thing, firing guns into the air is dangerous in and of itself. The bullets come back down, and they come back down with enough velocity to kill or wound. Doing it in a war zone is really stupid, because you're really likely to be mistaken for combatants. Maybe the army needs to produce a training film on how to distinguish between a middle east wedding party and a guerilla attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it with Arabs engaging in "honor killings" when a girl has been raped (i.e. killing the victim, the the rapist)?

There are a lot of things wrong with this culture (not the least of which is the cult of death, teaching children to hate Jews, teaching children to become suicide bombers, etc.).

The firing of guns into the air at weddings is just stupid. People can call me culturally insensitive, I don't really care, thats just the way it is. We americans may have some dumb traditions, too, but nothing like this.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course here the validity of the war is indefensible, except by head in the sand morons or by greedy, selfish jerks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be sure I am placed in the correct category please label me one of the "greedy, selfish jerks." A dead terrorist is the only good form of a terrorist. That includes baby carrying terrorist mothers and itty bitty terrorist-to-be kiddies. To paraphrase a memorable bumper sticker: Kill em all and let Allah sort them out.

Jimbo

[ACPlayer]

We will create a special category for you, Herr Jimbo.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
That includes baby carrying terrorist mothers and itty bitty terrorist-to-be kiddies. To paraphrase a memorable bumper sticker: Kill em all and let Allah sort them out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Utterly disgusting sentiments.

[ThaSaltCracka]

here is the problem with this story, both sides have conflicting stories. The U.S. says it was a safehouse that they attacked with an AC-10 gunship. The Iraqs claim it was a wedding celebration and that it was attacked by either helicopters or bombs from aircrafts, or it was from "shells". Clearly there is some confusion here, and IMO, neither sides story should have any more weight to it than the others.
I am glad to see many of you have all ready jumped to the conclusion that the U.S. is wrong, who knows, I think much more investigation needs to be done here.

[ACPlayer]

It will likely come down at the terminal velocity for a bullet. Perhaps one of the gun enthusiasts would know that number for a typical assualt rifle bullet. It is likely less than the muzzle velocity (by quite a bit).