There must be a database error, maybe Red Havest and Redlegs accounts got switched!!!~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Printable View
There must be a database error, maybe Red Havest and Redlegs accounts got switched!!!~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I've waxed ad hominem in regard to Red Harvest's posts more than once, but he's definitely one of the few people on this board that genuinely comes up with independent opinions.
You should hear him speak on France's culpability on the US invasion of Iraq.
So, let me get this straight. It is fine for the Americans to use white phosphorous in urban areas, where it undoubtedly killed civilians (I even saw some pictures of dogs burned by it today-- they must have done something evil, I'm sure, to warrant a firey death), because the civilians 'chose to live there'?
The Americans are the people that actually invaded this nation and turned it into a war zone in the first place-- but they can do anything they want to the terrified people sitting quietly in their homes, waiting to be burned to death?
Strange logic.
Here's a thought experiment for you: would it have been fine, during the US revolutionary war, for the British army to carpet bomb Boston or New York city with napalm (imagining they had napalm back then)? You're telling me you'd have been fine with this, and would not see it as a war crime?
Come on. Can you see things from the other side in any way, shape or form? Is there any capacity for empathy, for at least attempting to see things from the other side, here?
Thank you, :bow: that is one of the kindest compliments I could ask for in regards to the issues. I don't claim to be moderate on most issues, but I do try to weigh things myself without just accepting what any group wants me to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
There is a world of difference between "fine" and "reluctant necessity." I believe the latter would more accurately summarize the view of most of those arguing in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Again, you proceed from the premise that everything was "fine" in Iraq until we chose to invade. Implicitly, you thereby suggest that the USA is fully [solely?] responsible for any and all consequence resulting subsequent to the invasion. I do not accept that premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Even were I to accept it -- purely for the sake of argument -- I would suggest that you are playing the terrorist's game for them exactly as they designed it. They purposefully base themselve in the midst of a civilian population in order to limit the responses we may use against them without generating sharp criticism. We are then left with a series of less-than-palatable choices (as I noted above) and simply try to make the best of it. If you can divine some means of "making an omelet" without "breaking any eggs" we'd love to know of it -- all of the soldiers involved would be glad of a workable idea demonstrably better than using the willie-pete.
The analogy isn't exact enough. Clearly, the use of such wholesale means against a strictly civilian target would be abhorrent. During the rebellion, neither city was a base for US military activity in the sense that Fallujah [sp?] had been for terrorist forces. Where US irregulars were based, notably farms and plantations in the Carolinas, the British regulars and irregulars did destroy civilian property and, on occasion, the civilians who were acting as a support network for American irregulars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I am cognizant of your belief that the US decision to invade Iraq was wrong. Though I disagree with you, I can easily recognize that some [many?] Iraqis are vehemently and perhaps violently opposed to our efforts. It would be unreasonable to assume that ANY Iraqis --even those who agree with the efforts we are undertaking -- actually like the current state of affairs. It is perfectly natural for them to desire an Iraq that is of, by, and for Iraqis. In the long run, that is our goal as well, and I believe that most of them are aware of this and are willing to tolerate the current state of things while they build their own future.
What I disagree with, Seamus, is the argument that some were making, which is that any civilians caught in a war zone are fair game, that they 'chose' to be there and so don't have any right to protest when chemical weapons are used indiscrimanately against them. Arguments along the lines of, 'Yeah, but how can we kill the terrorists then?' thus carry no weight. The same arguments would justify dropping atomic bombs. This reasoning leads down a slippery slope to atrocity. Chemical weapons should not be used against civilian populations, period.
Especially by a government that claims to be fighting terror.
Besides, some of the arguments put forth to the effect of the civvies being "fair game" amount to little more than claiming collective guilt by association; "if they live in a terrorist stronghold, they must be terrorists or avid sympathizers themselves and hence no more human beings worth consideration" sort of thinking.
To give a parallel, I'm fairly certain the logic of Irish extremists blowing up pubs frequented by people of the other religious persuasion went along the same lines - any of "their own" caught in the blast would obviously be traitors and whatnot, as no decent Protestant or Catholic would socialize with the "enemy" now would they ?
Kill them all and let God sort them out. And these people are supposed to represent freedom, democracy and human rights ?
Besides, AFAIK the one "playing the terrorists' game" is the US of A. Atrocious idiocy like the Fallujah WP case only helps make the militants' case look that much better, and the Americans' that much worse, in the eyes of their target audiences, and when it comes down to that scare tactics like that do not to my knowledge work too well for discouraging guerilla movements. If anything, assorted relatives and so on of the 'collateral damage' casualties are only more likely to "head to the hills" in search of vengeance. Doubly so in "vendetta country" like Iraq, where blood feuds are still a living tradition.
Heck, the insurgents have for quite a while already done their damnedest to encourage the US troops to overly liberal use of firepower, just for the effect the inevitable resulting civilian casualties have...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Your also using the same type of arguement in calling White Phosphorous a chemical weapon. Again White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon it is an incedenary smoke round.
I don't believe in fighting next to a civilian population because it is messy and the risk is great to not only the civilians but to soldiers also - but war doesn't always give you that possiblity. Care must be exercised weighing the lose of civilian life against the necessary requirements of the military operation. Unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have, which give such statements as I have seen in this thread to come about.
So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.
Enemy civilians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
How did they earn this status? Do Iraqi civilians in general count as enemies or only if they happen to be co-located with terrorists and/or insurgents?
By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.
I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.
However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...
Sajida al-Rishawi was more what I was thinking. I can't wait until she's hooked up to some fake electric chairs and has a lion roar at her while staying in a Romanian gulag.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Do we really need to know your dubious tastes ?
Not technicalities at all - but facts. Try it sometimes versus the hyperbole of calling soldiers mercs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
and you would be correctQuote:
I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.
You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.Quote:
However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...
...Quote:
And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.
And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...
All it requires one to do is read an older thread - do you need the link because of your own inablity to look for information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You might want to look at calling soldiers mercs for a start. Typical crap of the far left to call soldiers mercs without knowing anything about them. Oh and don't attempt to mention conscripted service is different - all soldiers get paid - even conscripted ones.
Give you a hint though because I am feeling generous - now you will find it toward the end of the thread
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56758
You could just have quoted the thing, you know.
...so what was your point anyway ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Er, no because those targets were military the the potential for civilian casualties may have been low (I don't know the circumstances). Also, more importantly, the WP rounds were being used to their primary purpose of marking targets.
In the recent case the rounds were being used as offensive ordinance (sp?) due to their incendary nature. Any chemical effects associated with the rounds are seconadary (side-effects if you like) and enough to classify the ammo as conventional. Unfortunately the chemical effects do exist, contrary to various pendantic posts above, and are more likely to have an harmful effect in enclosed spaces eg burning buildings. If you use such weapons, and HE is not much better, in civilian areas, especially as a "liberating" force then you better be ready to face any political fall out. First on the list of things to do should not be "lie about it to your electorate". I repeat my previously stated belief that most people would not particularly care in this case so long as the authorities were honest. To the home audience, especially those already sceptical, the lies (or half-truths, the essence is the same) are worse than the facts. For example in WW2 we sank the French fleet and bombed French cities in the name of liberty, but these facts were not hidden and were regarded by government and the governed as necessary.
All those who declare that the civilians choose to live in the warzone show a severe lack of empathy and humanity, but I am not really surprised by it.
PS
To call all soldiers mercenaries a foolish thing to say. In a modern volunteer army the pay is not a big factor. How can it be, when the salaries are so low considering the privations and dangers involved? Why not train as a plumber instead?
You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.
That is a seperate issue isn't it Red , though it does make a nonsense out of all those saying "they could have left , they chose to live among terrorists so deserve to die" . Now the thing is this distasteful practice is ongoing and has occured in at least 3 towns in the past month .
But back to the WP , the Iraqi government is complaining and launching an investigation to get to the bottom of the issue .
Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are. It's not my concern where they chose to live if they are going to harbor terrorists.
Well it appears that you may be blind then Harvest , but don't concern yourself about where people live in their own country eh .
Perhaps they should actually try the political process and try to find a way out, rather than resorting to terrorizing their neighbors and political opponents? I don't feel sorry for them, they are making their own path, and they will have to figure out how to live with it.
Now are you talking about the Shia terrorists , the Kurdish ones the Sunni Arab ones , the foriegn ones the American backed ones or what ?
Interesting torture facilities that turned up this week wasn't there , oh but they are run by the Iranian/American backed terrorists who were terrorizing their political opponents were they not . So those must be OK .
Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.
Quite peaceful Xiahou , compared to what ? But of course the terrorist attacks , murders and kidnapping in those peaceful portion wouldn't appear in the Liberal media would they , but luckily your government , the Iraqi government and various NGOs and political agencies do report on them . Oh that damn liberal media , why do they hide the stories eh ?
Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Except of coursethe US never signed any treaty that would forbid us from using this. Its a war crime in your eyes. That doesnt make it so.Quote:
Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.
The use of indiscriminate weapons in urban environments is criminal regardless of what treaties the US has signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So if there were no law fobidding the mass murder of [insert name of target group here eg Welshmen] I could get away with it? Or if there was a law making the slaughter of [insert name of target group here] compulsory then that would make it right? Fantastic. *runs off to check statute books*
This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?Quote:
So if there were no law fobidding the mass murder of [insert name of target group here eg Welshmen] I could get away with it? Or if there was a law making the slaughter of [insert name of target group here] compulsory then that would make it right? Fantastic. *runs off to check statute books*
Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.
Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.
Yes it does. Of course I can see it now. Hey Lt lets toast some civilans with WP. Yes sure their only Iraqis anyway.Fire whan ready Gridley. The insurgents would never think of using civilans as cover. We all know at least they obey the rules of war unlike the US.Quote:
Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.
Your the one squirming here.Quote:
Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.
I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that and I believe that you will fail. In fact until you stepped in with your nonsense reply to Hurin (my post which you quote was aimed at that) I was not even talking to you. My previous posts have been aimed at primarily at Redleg who believed (that others believed) that the mere use of WP would label him a war criminal, which was clearly wrong. I also called into question his argument that WP is not a chemical weapon. While WP is self evidently not designated a chemical weapon it is nevertheless a weapon with some harmful chemical properties, which may be highlighted by the use of the munition as an incendiary in a built up civilian area as opposed to its primary role of providing smoke for cover or targeting. In this case the use of such a muntion while tactically useful is politically damaging. Trying to hide the full story is, as I have said, more so. I just wish politicians had the balls to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The comments about lack of empathy were aimed that those immature enough to suggest that it was all somehow the fault of the civilians. My comments about mercs were addressed to a similar audience.
And I never said you did. I was replying to watchman.Quote:
I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that
Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.
Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.
Quote:
Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.
This is a quote from you?Quote:
Watchman Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.
Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.
They did. This is news to me. Maybe you could provide some proof. Wow only women and children were allowed to leave huh?Quote:
Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.
Of course I knew it was a strawman - just like I know calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon is a strawman arguement. Edit - therefor you now see how ridiculous I see the calling of White Phosphorous as a chemical weapon. Get off the Chemical aspect and concentrate on what the weapon is - smoke and an incedenary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
An incedenary being used in a city - I am not normally for that type of use of the munition - because you never know what fire is going to do. But as an allegation of chemical weapons use - the arguement falls flat on its face because its nothing but a strawman arguement.
Now there is valid tactical reasons for using WP in a city to mark targets for aircraft and even to mark and area for manuever - but when one focus on only calling it a chemical weapon - well you defeat your moral outrage of using a incedenary in a city - into the typical leftist ranting against the military. Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.
Care to guess why smoke munitions were added to the Chemical Weapons treaties and refused to be ratified by both the United States and the USSR when the treaties came out? Something I am afraid those who can't remember the cold war or have no knowledge of things military have fallen victim to forgeting to look into regarding the history of the treaties.
BTW - I will given you a hint the former USSR wanted to have all smoke munitions labeled as chemical weapons to prevent battlefield smoke - to include smoke generators, smoke pots, and the ability for combat vehicles to generate smoke.
Mi'lud Gawain I refer you to post #104 (by you) which quotes post #103 (by myself). #103 was originally posted in response to post #101 (by you).
Hope I got that right or this could get even more confusing. This thread hopping is not helping much either!
They did. This is news to me.
Perhaps you should pay more attention ~:rolleyes:
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .
Hey I wonder who the Serbs let go in Srebrenica , but of course that was different wasn't it , as the men were all terrorists weren't they , they must have been because they lived there .
If you go back and check the posts you will notice I asked if that was your position . I didnt say it was.Quote:
Mi'lud Gawain I refer you to post #104 (by you) which quotes post #103 (by myself). #103 was originally posted in response to post #101 (by you).
Hope I got that right or this could get even more confusing. This thread hopping is not helping much either!
So the place was never evacuated then as everyman remained in the city. Can you provide a link?Quote:
Perhaps you should pay more attention
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .
Here is the link Aurelian posted in the previous thread.http://http://www.underthesamesun.or...between_1.html
And peace of the article from that link, that pretty much clears it up:
November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town
All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:
As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.
"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.
"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.
Most of what you need to understand the nature of this war is right there when Army Col. Michael Formica advises Fallujans how to "live through Fallujah".
To this Army Col., Fallujah is not a place or a town but an operation to be lived through. It's a phase, a thing to be done and gotten over and through with. These people, on the other hand, live in Fallujah.
There's another thing about turning back men. It's a war crime.
Human rights experts said Friday that American soldiers might have committed a war crime on Thursday when they sent fleeing Iraqi civilians back into Fallujah.
Citing several articles of the Geneva Conventions, the experts said recognized laws of war require military forces to protect civilians as refugees and forbid returning them to a combat zone.
"This is highly problematical conduct in terms of exposing people to grave danger by returning them to an area where fighting is going on," said Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Army prosecutor.
James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, said, "If that's what happened, it would be a war crime."
A stream of refugees, about 300 men, women and children, were detained by American soldiers as they left southern Fallujah by car and on foot. The women and children were allowed to proceed. The men were tested for any residues left by the handling of explosives. All tested negative, but they were sent back.
Note that these men tested negative for handling explosives. They weren't detained. They weren't charged. They were simply sent back into the war zone for the crime of being the rightful resident of a city that we are pounding into rubble.
A lot of people ask, well, why didn't they leave earlier? Forget the legality of everything we are doing and why people should have to leave their homes so we can flatten a city -- the effect of which will be to simply spread the "insurgents" around the country, as many experts have already pointed out. Forget the experts, that much is obvious if you think about it for more than ten seconds.
Remember this rule has been in effect since the cordon began. Men have been trapped in that city for sometime. Would you leave your 15 year old son, your husband, uncle, all your male relatives behind and go? Obviously, many people stayed with their families because, well, that's what families tend to do: they don't listen to your instructions to abandon their men. Of course, this "family values" administration neither understands or nor cares about such humanitarian concerns.
Gawain why ask me at all since that was not an issue which I had raised. Jeez even getting someone to admit to misreading who was saying what is impossible.....
~;)
So then all males were not turned back. You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back. Also the casulaities everyone is complaining about seems to be women and children. Do you really think US soldiers intentionaly targeted women and children?Quote:
November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town
All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:
As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.
If you read the whole article it was stated that many families simply turned around, because families tend to stick together. If US forces suspected those men as insurgents.Why didnt they just capture them?
About your question, artillery shell really doesnt ask you if you are an civilian or insurgent. If you look at the previous thread there is also an article from embedded journalist who was with an mortar section and described the mortar fire as random. Even the battalion Doctor came by and shot few grenades in the city. Im not starting to argue about some formalities with you on this subject. I cant prove that shelling a city full of civilians is intentionally killing civilians. Im sure that the intention was to kill insurgents. But its simple as it rejecting civilians a free passage out of an fighting zone is a war crime and thats it.
This topic really seems to put your knickers in a twist, Redleg. Any particular reason ? Just curious.Quote:
Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.
Incidentally, I'd appreciate if you actually read the basis of my curious typologies that I helpfully explained. You'd notice that for one I don't consider all soldiers to be mercenaries, or there to be any emotional baggage attached to the term... I'll take my flak when need be, but only for things I actually did or said if you don't mind.
So then all males were not turned back
Learn to read ~:doh:
Only....only ...only ...only
You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back.
Yes and told to stay under cover , but someone was using WP to bring people out of cover and into the open .
Besides which it is not reasonable to return people to an area that is about to be assaulted , it is a war crime .
If they were under suspicion then they should have been detained .
That is weak Gawain, really weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So many strawman arguements, so many potential flames, something is going to blow.
The US can legally drop as much incendiaries as they want on an enemy position.
Is this the nice thing to do? No.
Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.
Are USA soldiers mercenaries? No.
Is there any physical object that is not a chemical? Well Yes, they are called neutron stars...
You are right using WP is not illegal for US, but turning civilians back in the fighting zone is.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well thats your usual strong reply.Quote:
That is weak Gawain, really weak.
Sums it up nicelyQuote:
So many strawman arguements, so many potential flames, something is going to blow.
The US can legally drop as much incendiaries as they want on an enemy position.
Is this the nice thing to do? No.
Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.
Are USA soldiers mercenaries? No.
Is there any physical object that is not a chemical? Well Yes, they are called neutron stars...
...and suggests you consistently fail to grasp the point of the issue.
You might want to read about what happens to mercs in war - then you might begin to understand. Calling soldiers who serve in a national army mercs is nothing other then pure BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Read it and regarded it for what it is - hyperbole and BS. BTW I guess the army of your nation is full of mercs to - since you do have some career soldiers along with the conscripts.Quote:
Incidentally, I'd appreciate if you actually read the basis of my curious typologies that I helpfully explained. You'd notice that for one I don't consider all soldiers to be mercenaries, or there to be any emotional baggage attached to the term... I'll take my flak when need be, but only for things I actually did or said if you don't mind.
Well since it seems your the one calling soldiers mercs - and one of the ones calling White Phosphorous a chemical munition - I think Papewaio's post shows your failure to grasp the point also. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.
So , the battle was to clear fallujah of terrorists and deal a cruching blow to the insurgency , the insurgency is as active as ever and terrorists are back in Fallujah , besides which those that it said it was vital to get were not even there . So what battle is it they won ?
Hearts and minds , hmmm ... neccesary to stop the insurgency and curtail the creation of new terrorists , oops lost that one as well .
So despite all the crap about it being neccesary and vital to the operation it has achieved bugger all , in fact it has has negative results .
Congratulations , empty victories and negative publicity are really the way to win a war .
Shouldn't you be thanking me for providing another pointless detail (the merc thing) to get stuck on so you can get some variety to your usual fare about WP classification, 'Leg ? ~:handball:
It's not like I ever claimed it to be anything more than a personal categorization that to me appears logically quite sound... but then again the reading you did on the whole thing was obviously cursory indeed.
Judging by your impassioned reaction to the term, I take "merc" is a four-letter word in more than the most literal sense in some circles ?
YawnQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It seems you can't argue your point about mercs or WP very well. What was that comment earlier about resorting to statements such as above - oh yeah - BS. Play the ball not the man.
Again read it and regarded it as the BS that it was. It seems you have no knowledge about the military and can not defend such a baseless accusation of soldier being mercs without resorting to the typical BS in your first sentence.Quote:
It's not like I ever claimed it to be anything more than a personal categorization that to me appears logically quite sound... but then again the reading you did on the whole thing was obviously cursory indeed.
When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discussQuote:
Judging by your impassioned reaction to the term, I take "merc" is a four-letter word in more than the most literal sense in some circles ?
In regards to the issue of mercenaries:
I personally do not find any negative connotation in the word, though I can obviously understand why most people do (and why Redleg does). My interest is more academic. I have done essays on mercenaries in medieval Europe, when the distinction between regular soldier and mercenary was even more difficult to make. At that time, mercenaries were in many ways better than 'feudal' troops-- they stuck together over long periods of time (rather than serving only for 40 days a year), and in a sense were more 'regular' than the knights summoned by a feudal ban (who appear more like reservists than regulars). These mercenaries often had a highly developed code of honour (their lives would be lost without it) and were recognized as more professional than other troops.
In the research I did, however, there was always a nagging question that I was never able to answer: what constitutes a mercenary? Are knights mercenaries if they are serving anyone other than their liege lord? Do they have to be foreigners? What about when knights started receiving pay for their services, even when fighting for their own king? Are all those who are paid for their services mercenaries? And the idea of defining them by motivations is inherently problematic. Who knows why anyone fights, except the fighters themselves? This seems a flawed as a method of definition.
So, my attempts to discuss some of these issues were not at all intended to demonize modern armed forces, nor US troops in particular. I'm still trying to reach a satisfying definition of mercenary, because I never have been given one. US troops are no different than Canadian or British or Iraqi troops in this regard. My question was theoretical, not polemical, in its intent.
To avoid further confusion and flaming, I will start another thread on this issue.
I think I can consider that a yes.Quote:
When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discuss
Out of curiosity, if I went and said I was wholly in error on the whole merc thing, denounce all my arguments in that direction and generally take back the whole issue (which I can well do - I've no strong feelings about it), would that make you stop getting jammed on the question like an ant in tar ? 'Cause you know, the fact that your arguments are currently riding mostly on that issue (plus the WP thing, but I've nothing to do with that one) is getting fairly boring...
Since we are bringing up treaties I think we should refer to the grand-daddy of them when referring to warzones and the definition of Mercenaries:
Note point 1 and you can understand why most soldiers do not want to be classified as mercs.Quote:
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
That is because those are the two issue which have been presented - both are in a nutshell incorrect and baseless. Stick to the actual violations of the rules of war and the conduct of such - which is the possible turning back of civilians males which resulted in civilians being unneccessarily caught in the war zone, and the issue of the administration attempting to cloud the issue by first denying the use of WP, then in error stating it was used of illumination. (why that error happen could also be debated - was it a error by an un-informed spokesperson - or was it a delibrate lie by the State Department.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
But as long as some wish to argue that soldiers are nothing but mercs and WP is a chemical munition - well your stuck with the arguement you have created.
Discuss the real issue not the red herrings that you have presented so far.
BTW - I do agree that an investigation from outside the United States Military needs to happen in regards to the civilians being turned around when they at first attempted to flee the combat zone.
Oh Goddammit, give it a rest willya ? I never said they were mercenaries from any sort of official standpoint ferchrissakes. ~:pissed:Quote:
But as long as some wish to argue that soldiers are nothing but mercs...
You asked - I gave you an answer - and it seems that you don't like it because it stays on the topic in which you brought up in the first place. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
A topic to which you made some curious alterations.
Look, this is getting stupid and was pointless to begin with. Let's just drop the damn thing.
Actually the ill informed and curious alterations were made by yourself - ie your mentioning of soldiers as mercs and the red herring of WP being a chemical weapon. But don't let facts get in the way of emotional appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I am still waiting for the public withdraw of the statement; Soldiers of the United States Military are mercenaries. Call me anal if you wish - but your are the one that attempted to apply the term to soldiers not I. I do image however you and others will continue to attempt to state WP is a chemical munition because you have fallen typical leftist slant on incendary muntions and more so with smoke munitions started by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.Quote:
Look, this is getting stupid and was pointless to begin with. Let's just drop the damn thing.
*breep* I will have you know that I have consistently agreed with your view that WP is not a chemical weapon. Check if yourself if you want to.
Please refrain from being overly categorical. Although I dislike your way of getting stuck on that issue; it's pointless and looks silly.
Now can we stop this pointless pissing contest and get back to something sensible ? I'm through with the merc issue here; if you want to keep it up you'll have to do it by yourself.
Yes, that has been the funny thing about this and the other thread. There have been very relevant aspects where I feel some U.S. officials have things to answer for. Unfortunately, the discussion has been totally sidetracked by lengthy useless debates over techinical definitions that are already established and have been for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
It's like debating whether something is red or blue, then checking to see where it falls according to an existing specification. If it is red, it is red. Continuing to call it blue after that is dishonest. One might not like the definition of red or blue, but there it is.
Its good to see that you are man of reason redleg.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Nah - I wouldn't call me reasonable when you call soldiers Mercenaries. :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
On a serious note - I do find that more then a little distrubing. Because if its true its a clear violation of both the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions - neither give the opposing forces wiggle room for sementics about what protections your suppose to give civilians who are leaving the combat area. For civilians that willing remain in the area - they put themselves at risk, but not allowing men to leave because of age - will prevent families from leaving because they do not want to be seperated in a chaotic (SP) situation.
Of everything brought out in this thread or the previous one - that is the only issue that has to be addressed - everything else is either emotional appeal - or just a side show compared to that. I wonder if anyone that has been reading the daily congressional news has seen if the United States Congress has weighed into the discussion about this type of allegation?
I agree. Well im pretty sure this cant be hidden. Im sure we are going to here more about this matter sooner or later. I just hope this kind of treatment of civilians doent turn into normal practice.
I just ran into a new bit of information regarding Army policy on the use of WP:
The Army sounds pretty confused to me. The textbook says that it is "against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets". The Pentagon spokesman says "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned". I guess he's saying that WP itself isn't banned (obviously). However, I fail to see the difference between 'employing WP against personnel targets' and 'dislodging insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted by high-explosive ammunition.' It seems to me as if that's still 'employing' WP against personnel targets. That's a pretty weak dodge.Quote:
US Army rules say: 'Don't use WP against people'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 19 November 2005
The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.
A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
The row has raged since last year when US troops cleared the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah during a two-week operation that resulted in the deaths of 50 US Marines and more than 1,200 insurgents. Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.
But military specialists said the "laws of land warfare" taught at the CGSC are the guidelines that the US Army teaches as general principles. The GCSC generally teaches officers of senior rank such as major and colonel. John Pike, of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "These are the general principles about proportionality, doctrine and so on and so forth."
The Pentagon said it could not account for the discrepancy between its admission that WP was used at Fallujah and the guidance in the teaching manual. A Pentagon spokesman, Lt-Col Barry Venable, said: "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned ... It's also important to remember that WP was used in Fallujah to help dislodge insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted with high-explosives ammunition."
He also quoted the Army Field Manual, which states: "The use of weapons which employ fire ... is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."
The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits use of incendiaries against civilians and demands that forces using them against military targets take all available steps to avoid civilian casualties.
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said: "The evidence available suggests that that may not have been done."
LINK
From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm
Quote:
Chemical Weapons Convention
The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.
The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
Sorry English Assassin...Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I think for the sake of completeness you should also have quoted the following part:Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
Quote:
So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.
The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.
I actually hadn't read that far when I posted it. :hide:
Still, that's the BBC's statement, while the stuff I posted is not. Peter Kaiser obviously thinks that WP's caustic properties are its toxic properties.
Here is a good one. In a 1995 Pentagon intelligence document called "Possible Use of Phosphorus Chemical", the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters was described as a use of "chemical weapons".
There are a number of links in the original article if you're so inclined.Quote:
Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”
The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”
But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.
The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.
To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right. LINK
Here is the original declassified document:
So, even the Pentagon gets confused about whether or not WP is a chemical weapon.Quote:
SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.
TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS --
A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS ALONG THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER, AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND
REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN
ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND
SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI
AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI
BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN
NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.
D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM
U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO
RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING
"DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL
AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. LINK
So let me get this, it's hard to eat, to much hypocresy in my sandwich.~:eek: So when the USA military uses WP against an enemy it's called "incendiary", and thus avoiding problems with international justice, but when an enemy uses it, it's called chemical? This tragi-comic, a real piece of "black" humor.
So, Aury, what do you suggest?
Facing a non-conventional force in a built-up urban area, especially when that non-conv force is purposefully mixed in with a (mostly) innocent civilian population, is a thorny tactical problem.
Do we:
1) Use WP to force everyone out, harming some civilians
2) Target HE on suspected/conjectured stong points, killing some civilians "collateraly"
3) Obliterate the entire area regardless of civilian casualties
4) Go door to door taking horrible losses ourselves and still getting civilians killed
5) Quit, let the guys who use civilians as shields win, and go home
If I had the precise intel necessary for #2 with a minimum of civilian risk I'd order that, but lacking it.....
How about an option #6:
Don't conquer nations that hate you.
Put this way: it's a bit odd to angrily ask what else you're supposed to do other than step on the paint after you've painted yourself into a corner.
Interesting how it always seems to come back to some variant on
Americani ite domum!
It's moments like these that make me wish we could and would. Perhaps ya'll need to see 8 years of a Pat Buchannan presidency.
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS ARGUING ABOUT?
White phosperous Is NASTY.
You aint suposed to use it on people simple as,
Any 1 who thinks its ok Probably thinks Hiroshima was ok,
"Nuke the lot of them and thats the end of that."
Its babaric, although efective its fundimentaly wrong.
thats why rules are made to controll the usage of these things,
If America had signed and said we will play by the rules,
And iraq used White phosperous on Americans,
Could you imagine the up roar?
Thats not the case, So some of you are here saying the wepons are fine, Atleast less of our Soldiers died,
america seems to have decided they dont like the rules and have gone to play by them selfs again,
Some kids never make freinds do they :)
Hiroshima saved lives.Quote:
Any 1 who thinks its ok Probably thinks Hiroshima was ok,
"Nuke the lot of them and thats the end of that."
Ah but we didnt. And do you think these people follow any rules?Quote:
If America had signed and said we will play by the rules,
And iraq used White phosperous on Americans,
Could you imagine the up roar?
Once again its America whos cheating while these brave insurgents go strictly by the rules. Get a grip.Quote:
america seems to have decided they dont like the rules and have gone to play by them selfs again,
Also why the hell are we investigating it then. We dont care right?
1 Hiroshima was Wrong Is wrong and people are still dying now,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
2. Becous they dont follow rules Every 1 shoud neglect rules?
I think its you who should get a grip.
3. Your Investigating it becous Denying it did not work.
It was right. Also did you know its one of the healthiest places on earth to live? It seeems the bomb also killed wiped out a hell of a lot of germs.Quote:
1 Hiroshima was Wrong Is wrong and people are still dying now,
If Im in a fight with you for my life and your not following any rules Illl be damned if Im gonna follow any. This isnt a game of monopoly. Im gonna killl you anyway I can. And Ive been trained to do so ~:joker:Quote:
2. Becous they dont follow rules Every 1 shoud neglect rules?
I think its you who should get a grip.
Always the same silly arguing. I'm fairly sure the Iraqi insurgency/AQ members are excusing their acts with the same argument. Way to go if you want foreign people to love america ~:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
@ Gawain of orkney.
Well IMHO, its attitudes like yours that Cause situations where people get killed,
Its unfortunate that People hold Ignorant beliefs about life and How it is able to be taken away,
Lets just hope that people with your mental comprehention of desctruction and death dont ever get in to situations of power,
Its 1 thing to die,
Its a nother thing to live in pain and mizery for a nother 50 years becous some 1 said Who cares its a fight.
I supose ignorance is bliss,
Just a shame that i cant have the same ignorance on the matter as you seem to hold,
Its quite impressive