The Marine who shot dead an injured man

[Guest INXS]

Stringing up the bodies of treasoners/rebellers is not Arabic culture - it's Iraqi culture and has been for 100's of years.

Well that's certainly astounding, because Iraq hasn't even existed for one hundred years, let alone several of them.

 

EDIT: by "astounding" I mean "fucking ignorant"

Iraq has been Iraq since the 8th Century, thus making it 100's of years old.

 

I suggest you become better educated on the subject of Iraq before you attempt to criticize me.

 

Truly astounding.

[Guest MikeSC]

Iraq didn't become independent until 1932.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

That's irrelevant, Iraq was Iraq since the 8th century.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's irrelevant, Iraq was Iraq since the 8th century.

It was no more Iraq than Germany was Germany.

-=Mike

...Iraq was part of empires for years --- independant state they were not...

[The Czech Republic 0]

Stringing up the bodies of treasoners/rebellers is not Arabic culture - it's Iraqi culture and has been for 100's of years.

Well that's certainly astounding, because Iraq hasn't even existed for one hundred years, let alone several of them.

 

EDIT: by "astounding" I mean "fucking ignorant"

Iraq has been Iraq since the 8th Century, thus making it 100's of years old.

 

I suggest you become better educated on the subject of Iraq before you attempt to criticize me.

 

Truly astounding.

Iraq was invented by the British after World War I. They simply carved out a chunk of the Ottoman Empire.

[Styles 0]

INXS's lack of any historical knowledge to go along with his lack of common sense is astounding. Pretty much the whole reason Iraq is such a mess is because it was a 20th century creation. It's made up of 3 distinct nations that were partioned as a British mandate...

[Guest Cerebus]

That's irrelevant, Iraq was Iraq since the 8th century.

Are you really that stupid? Iraq was invented by the British out of NOTHING. That's why it has Shi'a Arabs, Sunni Arabs, & Kurds (and at the time, a fair amount of Christians and Jews) all in one place because the boundries are politcal ones left over from the post World War I period. The first "King" of Iraq was the third son of a Saudi Emir that had been overthrown. He had, in fact, been King of Syria before he was kicked out by the French and given the NEWLY created Iraq as a conciliation prize. What a long and glorious history eh?

 

Iraq is a modern invention by the British when the Ottoman Empire fell. Being British, I'm surprised you don't know this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Here's a former Navy SEAL's take on this situation:

 

Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

 

By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.

 

UPDATE: Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kind of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

 

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.

 

What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

 

If you are a veteran then everything I have just written is self evident, if you are not a veteran than at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for war crimes. Be advised, I am not talking to my readers, but if this post gets linked up, I want regular folks to get this message loud and clear. Froggy OUT.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Froggy OUT.

 

This dude is awesome.

 

The comment about "firing from Sanctuary" is an interesting point, though. Overall, a great perspective from a guy who's obviously been there.

[cbacon 0]

Actually, it was. Repeatedly. Just because you don't remember --- or chose to ignore --- does not make it so

 

Out of curiousty, when/where was this mentioned? Pre-invasion Bush was touting that the reason for going to war would be if Saddam would not leave and disarm, the latter of which he obviously couldnt do with any WMD. That was the justification what was fed to the public.

 

Yes, there's been a humanitarian crisis for years. As we've seen, the UN can do approximately SQUAT about humanitarian crises. So, we gave them about 12 years and they failed. Over and over.

 

Somebody had to actually do the work.

 

So I ask you, why now all of a sudden does the US care? Why, conveniently after the attacks of 9/11, did they choose to liberate the Iraqi's? Why did the US 12 years to tell the UN to go fuck themselves?

 

Can you provide even REMOTELY impartial sources for any of this?

 

It's been reported by the Red Cross.

 

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/ar...000121.php#more

 

Iraqi body count had the number up to 600 this weekend

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

 

Then where does that leave countries like France?

 

I can't belive your using that as excuse. "But they did it too!". Weak.

 

Your timeline, while quite interesting, is both irrelevant and REALLY makes Europe look bad, since they willingly took bribes from this man knowing all of this, while we refused to do business with him.

 

It's only irrelevant because it's inconvenient for you to admit. Constantly pointing the finger at Europe to focus the blame on them dosen't exactly cover up for the US's own atrocities.

 

So, in simple terms, you hate suffering --- but you hate doing ANYTHING to stop it that much more?

 

Interesting morality ya got there.

 

Of course, interesting meaning shitty in this case.

 

And doing something to you means going to war and wiping out civlians to achieve this goal. Obviously the US won't do this to their pals, but a moral stance should at least should be taken, like not supporting them.

 

 

And allow WORSE governments? Yeah, BRILLIANT plan. Allowing the Shah to go and be replaced by the theocracy has worked wonders thus far.

 

The US is no stranged to allowing worse goverments take over, or even placing them in power for that matter. And what I said didn't imply that anyway, so I don't know what your getting at.

 

Heck, even acknowledge that they are and that these counrties are with atrocious human rights records.

 

Actually, we do. You might want to read up on things.

 

Where exactly? The average American would have to look up guerrila media outlets to find of such relationships and it's rendevous with tyranny. Most Americans are in the dark as to what they're government has done or is presently doing.

 

Europe and the world have a nasty habit of selling people to slaughter to fatten their own wallets.

 

As does the US, what's your point? That it's ok if other nations have a history with tyranny?

 

The evidence is ALSO there that he was actively seeking them and the moment his sanctions went away (which heartless shits such as yourself support), he'd ramp it all up. Big-time.

 

Yes, i'm a heartless shit for condoning actions that led to the deaths of thousands. Good one. Good to know your waging wars on assumptions of what he might do.

 

"Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification.

They were infinitely better than the alternatives.

 

That, my friend, is an outright lie. Go tell that to the people of El Salvador, Chile or Nicaragua. In fact why don't you tell me why i'm wrong about places like this? You've told me in the past that i'm wrong about Nicaragua and that the US actually HELPED people there, but nothing more. Apparently your the be-all and know-all of such coup's, so how did the Nicaraguans benefit? Why is it necessary for the US to install contras that led massive attacks on the city and intentionally attack soft targets in the form of civlians? Why was it necessary for the US to install a regieme the Nicaraguans didn't vote for and ultimately led to brutal living coniditions?

 

And the argument for using past communist regiemes as a pre-text for military coup's holds absolutely no merit. If the oppression of citizens was really the intentions for intevention, the US wouldn't have aided military attacks on various cities or installed regiemes that were in many cases WORSE than how a communist regime MIGHT have been. The truth of the matter is , they intervened for the reasons I previously outlined.

 

 

Blame Bush Sr. for listening to the world. He should have learned that most of the world lacks any sense of morality.

 

That statement is quite the contradiction of itself. "Bush Sr." and "morality" should never be that close together. Furthermore, that dosen't exactly justify the sanctions, but anything other than passing the blame onto the world seems to help further your cause, so be it.

 

Actually, Chomsky is a joke. This is the man who DENIED the existance of the Cambodian genocide for a decade. He denies that Castro suppresses dissent. In every single situation, he blames America and excuses Communist excesses.

 

He also is VERY close with neo-Nazis in Europe. Just to let you know where the anti-Semite joke of a linguist (yes, his linguistic theories have been shot down LONG ago as well) stands.

 

And, try to follow his citations. Go ahead. The vast majority of them either cite him --- or cite people citing him.

 

He did not deny the existance of the Cambodian genocide. That's a huge mis-conception that critics have. I'm very doubtful that he's close with neo-Nazi's , if he is, I wonder if his relationships are closer to that of Prescott Bush back in the day. Hmmmm.

 

Given Chomsky's activism and his advocacy of human rights and political unjustices, I highly doubt he is anything but anti-semtic. But if you can provide me with some that isn't some right-wing slander piece, i'll be happy to read it.

 

I do follow his citations, I have many of them infront of me, all of which are diverse ranging from various sources around the world, and none of which actually cite himself or appear to be other people citing him.

 

Unlike you, I'm not defending the other tyrannies.

  -=Mike

 

Sure you are, your own administration .

 

I defended tyrannies? Buh!? I don't know how your able to mis-interpret or spin-doctor some of the things I say, but hey, if it helps justify your 'arguments'.....

[Justice 0]

Wow, C-Bacon, you've truly shown yourself to be the new Unger. Congrats. What he had in utter distastefulness, you've made up for in conspiratorial bullshit.

 

I won't respond to everything, since, again, it's like talking to a wall, but I'll address a few things:

 

Our help was incredibly minor compared to that of Russia, France, and other European nations. Iraq's chemcial and biological warfare armament was NOT built up by the US: After the First Gulf War, we found out that all the WMDs he DID have were homegrown, i.e. they didn't have a US Vintage on them. You say we sent over arms to them, but you ignore the fact that everything in their army and Air Force is either Soviet or French in nature. And the fact that you ignore their much more gracious help (Considering the French and Russians were doing it throughout sanctions and the Russians even right up until the invasion) shows how much you'll ignore to try and make the US to be the ultimate bad guy.

 

 

Explain to me how lighter sanctions would have worked when Saddam was able to get around these sanctions. And give me proof that the Shiites could rise up against the second most formidable military power in the Middle East.

 

On the Reasons for going in: We've known about the Humanitarian Crisis, but frankly, the UN would have laughed us out of the chambers had we asked. It's been brought up numerous times before the war, perhaps not by the Administration (Whose job it was to convince the UN), but it was fairly well understood that we weren't going to leave Iraq a hell-hole. On WMDs: Well, considering most of our intell came from a multitude of other organizations from around the world, pretty much everyone thought he had WMDs. His top advisors admit that he may not have had them, but he always maintained illusion that he did to keep looking strong against the rest of the world. He never tried to dispell the illusion, he actually promoted. Regieme Change: Your reasons are the product of your abject hatred of this administration and the US itself, not of fact. Of course, if you want to keep believing, go ahead.

 

On your 'solution': Wow, vague rhetoric. Really nice.

 

No, that's not what I asked for. I asked for a realistic solution. You haven't given me one outside of 'stop the imperialism', and in the real world that's not gonna work anyways. You implied that we should invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt if we invaded Iraq. Well, I've given you reasons why we didn't. Of course, you once again reverted to "BIG BAD AMERICAN IMPERIALISM" to defend yourself, so apparently this doesn't work.

 

To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively.

 

Oh, I beg to differ. Stalin's Purges and 5 year plans for one are an excellent example of oppression and detriment to the citiziens. Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia as well, and Mao's slaughters in China, too. And what of the poverty Jung Il forces his people to live in? Nothing in Latin America compares to these. You seem to ignore what basic history has taught us: Communist regiemes without fail have bloody purges. Please, explain these away. I'll be glad to never talk of them again if you can somehow explain all these occurances away. It's not just that we have stuff down there, it's that we don't want these things happening in our backyard. Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if another Communist Nation were to spring up and Russia was to try and ship missiles or arms to them? Letting Communist regiemes spring up in Latin America during the Cold War is not something that we wanted, and understandably so. Of course, you can't get off your high horse to see the God damn dead surrounding every other Communist regieme that got it's feet off the ground, so I really don't expect you to get it.

 

"Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification.

 

Sorta like the whole Pol Pot thing, where no one intervined, right? Let's compare body counts.

 

Pinochet: 3,000

Pol Pot: 1,700,000

 

Huh, a bit of disparity there, eh? I suppose, though, that was just "your bad", right? Because Communist Regiemes don't kill off their citizens...

 

I can't understand how you can say "America needed to intervine!" all the time throughout this whole Iraq thing, then say "The Shiites could take care of it in a few years", and then completely damn us. It's a huge contradiction. The Shiites couldn't do anything, and we didn't intervine because of the UN. We intervine now, but it's obviously because of imperialistic reasons, compared to when it wasn't (Whenever that was). You are trying every which way to try and damn the US and you are basically contradicting yourself as you do it each time.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It never ceases to amaze me why you people bother with replies -- I wouldn't have the patience...

[Justice 0]

So I ask you, why now all of a sudden does the US care? Why, conveniently after the attacks of 9/11, did they choose to liberate the Iraqi's? Why did the US 12 years to tell the UN to go fuck themselves?

God, I've outlined this before, you just never actually read it. Fuck if I'm going to write it all out again. Suffice to say, it's because all other options outside of placing down Democracies to push out Islamofacism and pressure the place we can't invade (Saudi Arabia) into changing.

 

 

It's been reported by the Red Cross.

 

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/ar...000121.php#more

 

Iraqi body count had the number up to 600 this weekend

 

<a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/' target='_blank'></a>

 

Hilariously enough, Iraqi Body Count is well below the 100,000 mark you love to flaunt. And, well, are there any names to these workers, or are they just another bunch of no-names that we can't confirm actually, well, work for the Red Cross?

 

Then where does that leave countries like France?

 

I can't belive your using that as excuse. "But they did it too!". Weak.

 

It's only irrelevant because it's inconvenient for you to admit. Constantly pointing the finger at Europe to focus the blame on them dosen't exactly cover up for the US's own atrocities.

 

Of course, constantly ignoring that Europe had the largest piece of the pie by far when it comes to funding, aiding, and arming Iraq seems to be pretty convenient too, eh?

 

The US did give some aid to Iraq. That aid wasn't very substantial in terms of the aid that Iraq was getting overall. To try and make this as a case of US Tyranny fails because of the massive amount of support Iraq has gotten from Europe before and AFTER (note the 'after' there) the First Gulf War.

 

And doing something to you means going to war and wiping out civlians to achieve this goal. Obviously the US won't do this to their pals, but a moral stance should at least should be taken, like not supporting them.

 

Yes, because we are obviously just wiping out civilians. Explain to me how to run an operation like this in Iraq. Again, give us a solution or an alternative before making a stupid claim like we are just wiping out civilians.

 

The US is no stranged to allowing worse goverments take over, or even placing them in power for that matter. And what I said didn't imply that anyway, so I don't know what your getting at.

 

You don't quite understand the fact that we didn't think that they could be worse when they took over, and that in comparison they are fairly small to the places where we didn't intervine. Once again, all those countries body counts combined have nothing on Pol Pot slaughtering 25% of his population.

 

Where exactly? The average American would have to look up guerrila media outlets to find of such relationships and it's rendevous with tyranny. Most Americans are in the dark as to what they're government has done or is presently doing.

 

Oh God, this is like a Rage Against the Machine song... (In a bad way)

 

As does the US, what's your point? That it's ok if other nations have a history with tyranny?

 

Well, the main difference is this:

 

The US puts someone in power, turns out to be bad. Damn all. It's an accident more than anything else that things turned out bad, but obviously they saw the risk for a much worse situation down there.

 

Europe: Tends to continue to fund and support these sorts of nations. In Iraq, we were helping them to trying and beat back Iran since they were our #1 Concern in the region. We didn't help them after sanctions were put on. Europe, on the other hand, has continually funded them even after sanctions. I suppose that's where the differnce lies, though I'm sure you see it much differently through your eyes.

 

 

Yes, i'm a heartless shit for condoning actions that led to the deaths of thousands. Good one. Good to know your waging wars on assumptions of what he might do.

 

I think he means that you don't consider the slaughter of so many innocents in the Communist Regiemes that shaped US foreign policy 50 years, I'd say yes. Let's look at that quote again:

 

To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively.

 

Well, considering much of the world was saying "Yes" to our intelligence and "No" to our line of action, I'd say that most people thought it was more than an assumption. Of course, if you want to believe that everything was fabricated so that Saddam would end up at the sticky end of another American Imperialist plot, then cool.

 

That, my friend, is an outright lie. Go tell that to the people of El Salvador, Chile or Nicaragua. In fact why don't you tell me why i'm wrong about places like this? You've told me in the past that i'm wrong about Nicaragua and that the US actually HELPED people there, but nothing more. Apparently your the be-all and know-all of such coup's, so how did the Nicaraguans benefit? Why is it necessary for the US to install contras that led massive attacks on the city and intentionally attack soft targets in the form of civlians? Why was it necessary for the US to install a regieme the Nicaraguans didn't vote for and ultimately led to brutal living coniditions?

 

Please tell the people of Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, and China this, please:

 

To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively.

 

 

 

And the argument for using past communist regiemes as a pre-text for military coup's holds absolutely no merit. If the oppression of citizens was really the intentions for intevention, the US wouldn't have aided military attacks on various cities or installed regiemes that were in many cases WORSE than how a communist regime MIGHT have been. The truth of the matter is , they intervened for the reasons I previously outlined.

 

You act as though we KNEW that they'd be worse. How does it work out for the US when they 'install' a harmful dictator? What bonus prize do they get for that? The argument that we knowingly allowed worse people to take over is purely based on your own belief, and nothing else.

 

And the assumption that it couldn't possibly be better than a Communist regime is completely speculative. There are very few communist regimes that haven't committed massive amounts of murders; why should we let one go and assume it'll be the exception, not the rule?

 

That statement is quite the contradiction of itself. "Bush Sr." and "morality" should never be that close together.  Furthermore, that dosen't exactly justify the sanctions, but anything other than passing the blame onto the world seems to help further your cause, so be it.

 

Considering that the World is the one who didn't want to do anything about this mess, I'd say so. The world has a way of keeping with the status quo (See: Darfur). Of course, blaming anyone other than the US for anything seems to be a concept completely foreign to you.

 

He did not deny the existance of the Cambodian genocide. That's a huge mis-conception that critics have. I'm very doubtful that he's close with neo-Nazi's , if he is, I wonder if his relationships are closer to that of Prescott Bush back in the day. Hmmmm.

 

He tried to push it off the Communist Regime and onto the US's shoulders for some reason, though. And I don't know about any Neo-Nazi connections, but what the hell does Prescott Bush have to do with anything right now? Seriously, if you are trying to connect Bush with his great grandfather and possible Nazi dealings, it's pretty sad.

 

Given Chomsky's activism and his advocacy of human rights and political unjustices, I highly doubt he is anything but anti-semtic. But if you can provide me with some that isn't some right-wing slander piece, i'll be happy to read it.

 

Oh God, all Chomsky writes is left-wing slander anyways. Anything leveled against him can't be worse than his own works.

 

I do follow his citations, I have many of them infront of me, all of which are diverse ranging from various sources around the world, and none of which actually cite himself or appear to be other people citing him.

 

Sure you are, your own administration .

 

I defended tyrannies? Buh!? I don't know how your able to mis-interpret or spin-doctor some of the things I say, but hey, if it helps justify your 'arguments'.....

 

You pretty much said "Let the Shiites do it themselves", which is literally an impossibility. You said INXS has been dead on in this thread, and he's proven that he supports the 'Insurgency' (read: Foreign terrorists) more than Coalition forces on the ground. Yes, you support people who supported Saddam. Nice one, bud.

[2GOLD 0]

It never ceases to amaze me why you people bother with replies -- I wouldn't have the patience...

 

I don't get it either. These guys must have nerves of steel.

[Slayer 0]

It never ceases to amaze me why you people bother with replies -- I wouldn't have the patience...

 

I don't get it either. These guys must have nerves of steel.

And the free time of an unemployed

[Justice 0]

Eh, C-Bacon just irks me. Plus, if you actually read his posts, they aren't nearly as long as you'd think. There's so much insubstantial bullshit in there that I can now just fly through them. It doesn't hurt that's he's using the same argument over and over again. :\

 

And yes, I'm a college student, if that explains anything. I do have a job, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, it was. Repeatedly. Just because you don't remember --- or chose to ignore --- does not make it so

Out of curiousty, when/where was this mentioned? Pre-invasion Bush was touting that the reason for going to war would be if Saddam would not leave and disarm, the latter of which he obviously couldnt do with any WMD. That was the justification what was fed to the public......

Numerous speeches. If you missed it, it's a little sad. Bush laid out reason after reason. He went with WMD for the UN (there was a long presentation on the humanitarian problems ready) because the UN wouldn't give a damn.

Yes, there's been a humanitarian crisis for years. As we've seen, the UN can do approximately SQUAT about humanitarian crises. So, we gave them about 12 years and they failed. Over and over.

 

Somebody had to actually do the work.

So I ask you, why now all of a sudden does the US care?

Well:

1) We always cared

2) We had a President for 8 yrs who didn't like doing much of anything.

Why, conveniently after the attacks of 9/11, did they choose to liberate the Iraqi's? Why did the US 12 years to tell the UN to go fuck themselves?

We should've told them to fuck off a decade earlier --- but it cannot be claimed that we did not give the UN enough time to fix the problem.

Can you provide even REMOTELY impartial sources for any of this?

It's been reported by the Red Cross.

 

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/ar...000121.php#more

 

Iraqi body count had the number up to 600 this weekend

Wow. When the source speaks on the condition of animosity over "fear" of the US --- the "source" isn't a terribly good one.

Then where does that leave countries like France?

I can't belive your using that as excuse. "But they did it too!". Weak.

More like "We'd like to have not 'done it alone' --- but the options presented to us weren't terribly good.

Your timeline, while quite interesting, is both irrelevant and REALLY makes Europe look bad, since they willingly took bribes from this man knowing all of this, while we refused to do business with him.

It's only irrelevant because it's inconvenient for you to admit. Constantly pointing the finger at Europe to focus the blame on them dosen't exactly cover up for the US's own atrocities.

US learned of the problem. US stopped dealing with the problem. Not exactly rocket science.

So, in simple terms, you hate suffering --- but you hate doing ANYTHING to stop it that much more?

 

Interesting morality ya got there.

 

Of course, interesting meaning shitty in this case.

And doing something to you means going to war and wiping out civlians to achieve this goal.

If we did go out and just "wipe out civilians" --- our number of deaths would be a TINY fraction of what it currently is.

Heck, even acknowledge that they are and that these counrties are with atrocious human rights records.

Actually, we do. You might want to read up on things.

Where exactly?

Arabia is very much on our Human Rights watch list over here.

The average American would have to look up guerrila media outlets to find of such relationships and it's rendevous with tyranny.

Because it's hard to take conspiracy theorists all that seriously.

Most Americans are in the dark as to what they're government has done or is presently doing.

But you got it, in spite of an utter lack of knowledge in MANY basic areas.

Europe and the world have a nasty habit of selling people to slaughter to fatten their own wallets.

As does the US, what's your point? That it's ok if other nations have a history with tyranny?

No, that we're one of the precious few who FIX the problem, rather than always profit from it.

 

Again, you aren't speaking German due to OUR efforts.

The evidence is ALSO there that he was actively seeking them and the moment his sanctions went away (which heartless shits such as yourself support), he'd ramp it all up. Big-time.

Yes, i'm a heartless shit for condoning actions that led to the deaths of thousands. Good one. Good to know your waging wars on assumptions of what he might do.

Good to know that you seem to hold Saddam in higher regard than the U.S which has wasted untold billions protecting a continent full of petulant children.

"Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification.

They were infinitely better than the alternatives.

That, my friend, is an outright lie. Go tell that to the people of El Salvador, Chile or Nicaragua.

You mean the Nicaraguans who, when given the choice, OPTED for the side we supported them, and not the side put in place by the Soviets?

 

THOSE Nicaraguans?

In fact why don't you tell me why i'm wrong about places like this? You've told me in the past that i'm wrong about Nicaragua and that the US actually HELPED people there, but nothing more. Apparently your the be-all and know-all of such coup's, so how did the Nicaraguans benefit?

I know, in your Chomsky-addled brain (like my Chomsky quote in my sig? I dedicate it to you), America is the Great Satan.

 

Again, why did the Nicaraguans VOTE FOR THE SIDE WE SUPPORTED?

Why was it necessary for the US to install a regieme the Nicaraguans didn't vote for and ultimately led to brutal living coniditions?

Confusing the US for the Soviets, eh?

Blame Bush Sr. for listening to the world. He should have learned that most of the world lacks any sense of morality.

That statement is quite the contradiction of itself. "Bush Sr." and "morality" should never be that close together.

Because Bush Sr. was SUCH a TOTAL bastard.

Actually, Chomsky is a joke. This is the man who DENIED the existance of the Cambodian genocide for a decade. He denies that Castro suppresses dissent. In every single situation, he blames America and excuses Communist excesses.

 

He also is VERY close with neo-Nazis in Europe. Just to let you know where the anti-Semite joke of a linguist (yes, his linguistic theories have been shot down LONG ago as well) stands.

 

And, try to follow his citations. Go ahead. The vast majority of them either cite him --- or cite people citing him.

He did not deny the existance of the Cambodian genocide.

The quote AND source are in my sig, moron. It's even bolded.

That's a huge mis-conception that critics have. I'm very doubtful that he's close with neo-Nazi's , if he is, I wonder if his relationships are closer to that of Prescott Bush back in the day. Hmmmm.

Ask Chomsky about who publishes his works in France. Ask him about Robert Fourisson, who he supports (and who is a rather well-known Holocaust denier in France).

 

You support a man you are more than a little clueless about.

Given Chomsky's activism and his advocacy of human rights and political unjustices, I highly doubt he is anything but anti-semtic. But if you can provide me with some that isn't some right-wing slander piece, i'll be happy to read it.

Read up on La Vieille Taupe, the group who publishes his book in France and a neo-Nazi group if ever there was one.

I do follow his citations, I have many of them infront of me, all of which are diverse ranging from various sources around the world, and none of which actually cite himself or appear to be other people citing him.

You, flat-out, are incorrect.

 

You really are a moronic troll.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Another, in my opinion, good essay on the situation. This juxtaposes the shooting of the insurgent with the murder of Margaret Hassan:

 

... context is crucial when judging actions under fire. The very job of a rifleman is to close with and destroy his enemy—in essence, to kill the bad guy before he can kill you. But what separates the Marines from the rabble is their professional discipline—what a Harvard political scientist called the "management of violence" in describing the U.S. military. And so, this incident stands out for two reasons. First, it shows a breach of discipline, albeit under very stressful circumstances. But it also shows the extent to which the U.S. military will throw the book at one of its own. Already, the entire 1st Marine Division staff is involved with the case, and the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday that "t's being investigated, and justice will be done."

 

* * *

On the same day as this story, the tragic news broke that CARE International worker Margaret Hassan had been executed by her captors in Iraq. Already, there have been cries of moral equivalence. One Iraqi told the Los Angeles Times: "It goes to show that [Marines] are not any better than the so-called terrorists." Al Jazeera fanned these flames of anti-American sentiment by broadcasting the shooting incident in full while censoring Hassan's execution snuff tape. (U.S. networks refused to air actual footage of both killings.) There is a simplistic appeal to such arguments because both events involve the killing of a human being and, more specifically, the apparent execution of a noncombatant in the context of war.

 

Yet it is the differences between these two killings that reveal the most important truths about the Marine shooting in Fallujah. Hassan was, in every sense of the word, a noncombatant. She worked for more than 20 years to help Iraqis obtain basic necessities: food, running water, medical care, electricity, and education. The Iraqi insurgents kidnapped her and murdered her in order to terrorize the Iraqi population and the aid workers trying to help them.

 

By contrast, the Marines entered a building in Fallujah and found several men who, until moments before, had been enemy insurgents engaged in mortal combat. A hidden grenade would have changed everything, and the Marine would have been lauded. As it turned out, the Iraqi was entitled to mercy, but Hassan was truly innocent. There is no legitimate moral equivalence between a soldier asking for quarter and a noncombatant like Hassan.

 

There is another key difference that reveals a great moral divide between the Marines and insurgents they fought this week in Fallujah. The insurgents choose the killing of innocents as their modus operandi and glorify these killings with videos distributed via the Internet and Al Jazeera. They recognize no civilized norms of conduct, let alone the rules of warfare. The Marines, on the other hand, distinguish themselves by killing innocents so rarely and only by exception or mistake. Collateral damage is part of warfare, and civilians will die no matter how many control measures are in place. Yet the U.S. military devotes a staggering amount of resources to ensuring that civilian deaths do not happen, from sophisticated command systems to control precision bombs to staffs of lawyers at every level of command to vet targeting decisions. And when such breaches do occur, as they apparently did on Saturday, U.S. military commanders act swiftly to punish the offender, lest one incident of indiscipline blossom into many. (Indeed, one Army captain currently faces charges for killing a wounded Iraqi after a firefight and pursuit through the streets of Baghdad.)

 

War may be hell, but no honorable warrior likes to spread the hell unnecessarily. Killing Hassan, regardless of any attenuated argument the insurgent apologists may make, was both unlawful and amoral—and beneath what any warrior would do. Killing the insurgent in a split second because it was instinctual, on the other hand, was a tragedy, not an atrocity.

[Guest INXS]

I'm going to backtrack on what I said earlier in this thread - although the way in which the soldier snuffed out the Iraqi was particuarly callous I can see how given the situation I would have more than likely "double tapped" into the guy too. The thing about this event though is that to me, the soldiers actions personifies the American attitude in Iraq of being shoot (or bomb) first, ask questions later which has lead us to a humanitarian disaster and of course untold civilian casualites.

[Guest BDC]

Wait, so you credit the guy, then say it was callous and America was evil.

 

Got it.

[Guest INXS]

I think you need to re-read my post and make a better attempt and understanding it.

 

I said that the manner in which he did it was particularly callous - especially the nonchanlance manner of the soldier and of the disgusting comments made after shooting the suspected 'insurgent'. I said that the act personified American's attitude in Iraq and it does - that's not to say that what happened is equal to America's overall attitude, it just personifies it.

 

I hope that made things a little clearer for you.

[Guest BDC]

You're bitching over the manner a SOLDIER killed a TERRORIST.

 

Good God, you make my head hurt.

[Guest INXS]

I don't think that the victim was a terrorist - more than likely an Iraqi freedom fighter or 'insurgent'.

[Justice 0]

I don't think that the victim was a terrorist - more than likely an Iraqi freedom fighter or 'insurgent'.

Whether or not his an 'insurgent' or a 'terrorist' doesn't dull the fact that he was fighting as an illegal combatant from a place that is supposed to be effectively safe from any sort of combat. He completely deserved what he got. The 'freedom fighters' of this country have shown how much they truly love it by car bombing their own people, trying to deny them a new democratic government, desecrating their holy places by turning them into bunkers and weapons caches. Wow, something to be admired there, eh?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm going to backtrack on what I said earlier in this thread - although the way in which the soldier snuffed out the Iraqi was particuarly callous I can see how given the situation I would have more than likely "double tapped" into the guy too. The thing about this event though is that to me, the soldiers actions personifies the American attitude in Iraq of being shoot (or bomb) first, ask questions later which has lead us to a humanitarian disaster and of course untold civilian casualites.

Please, just shut up. You've already proven yourself to be anti-Semitic and somebody who blows terrorists.

I don't think that the victim was a terrorist - more than likely an Iraqi freedom fighter or 'insurgent'.

Who was firing at troops from a mosque. He should have been killed for being a fucking idiot.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

I don't think that the victim was a terrorist - more than likely an Iraqi freedom fighter or 'insurgent'.

Whether or not his an 'insurgent' or a 'terrorist' doesn't dull the fact that he was fighting as an illegal combatant from a place that is supposed to be effectively safe from any sort of combat. He completely deserved what he got. The 'freedom fighters' of this country have shown how much they truly love it by car bombing their own people, trying to deny them a new democratic government, desecrating their holy places by turning them into bunkers and weapons caches. Wow, something to be admired there, eh?

Just like the American Revolution, right!?

[Guest INXS]

I'm going to backtrack on what I said earlier in this thread - although the way in which the soldier snuffed out the Iraqi was particuarly callous I can see how given the situation I would have more than likely "double tapped" into the guy too. The thing about this event though is that to me, the soldiers actions personifies the American attitude in Iraq of being shoot (or bomb) first, ask questions later which has lead us to a humanitarian disaster and of course untold civilian casualites.

Please, just shut up. You've already proven yourself to be anti-Semitic and somebody who blows terrorists.

I don't think that the victim was a terrorist - more than likely an Iraqi freedom fighter or 'insurgent'.

Who was firing at troops from a mosque. He should have been killed for being a fucking idiot.

-=Mike

Nice attempt pal, but the fact is that I am NOT anti semetic ("It is not anti-semetic to criticize the policies of israel - Colin Powell") and nor am I "somebody who blows terrorists", infact I despise all violence especially violence directed towards innocent civilians. Although I don't know the exact figures, I am willing to bet that more Iraqi civilians have been killed by Americans since the invasion than any terrorist group have killed civilians in the last decade.

[bob_barron 0]

Well considering most terrorist attacks don't occur over 18 months- you'd probably be right.

 

That's still a horrible comparison though.

 

And your views and total ignorance towards Israel make you an anti-Semite

[Guest INXS]

Well considering most terrorist attacks don't occur over 18 months- you'd probably be right.

 

That's still a horrible comparison though.

 

And your views and total ignorance towards Israel make you an anti-Semite

How many fucking times mate - listen, Israel could be made up of Christians, of Hindus or Muslims I couldn't give a toss! It's their actions that I am oppossed to! I am a dirty liberal, a peacenik! I don't hate!

[bob_barron 0]

How many fucking times mate - listen, Israel could be made up of Christians, of Hindus or Muslims I couldn't give a toss! It's their actions that I am oppossed to! I am a dirty liberal, a peacenik! I don't hate!

 

Except for Americans and Jews.

 

The fact that you're opposed to Israel trying to co-exist peacefully in the Middle East despite being attacked time and time again is pretty appalling.