Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by vodkakov

I'm guessing that the Vietnam comments're addressed at Kuci's comments.

that be the reason for my responses of which I made and am done just adding me own $0.02worth

Gramps

[Ned]

Well, V, here in the US we never at any time declared the war ended or the war won. We did state in May 2003 that major combat operations were done. Given Fallujah, that statement was obviously a bit premature.

Also the war changed in character when Saddam was captured. Leadership then fell to the most senior Iraqi commanders and to Zarqawi. Since then, those commanders have agreed to swear allegiance to Zarqawi as Commander in Chief.

Until Falluja fell, the enemy continued to control territory in Iraq. But still, even after its fall, the war is not over, in my view. I believe the Iraqis captured in Fallujah will be accorded POW status.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
I believe the Iraqis captured in Fallujah will be accorded POW status.

Does that mean they only get moderately tortured?

[Grandpa Troll]

If anyone evr wants to know up close and personal how War or Combat or a Police Action affects an individual...


Read Marine Corps Lt. Clebe McClary's account..

it will really bless your heart to hear of a true American hero

Gramps

By the way, he spoken several times at our church in Jacksonville North Carolina, home of Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River-McCutcheon Field

Gramps

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Does that mean they only get moderately tortured?

Why, yes, Sava. Whatever the Geneva convention proscribes. They may even have the right to have visits from the Red Crescent, receive mail and otherwise be tortured.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


Why, yes, Sava. Whatever the Geneva convention proscribes.

Don't you mean "whatever the White House counsels' interpretation of the Geneva convention" is?

Maybe we can ask Enron lawyer, and new attorney G, Alberto Gonzalez what he thinks.

I suspect he'll only approve moderate torture and beat downs for "insurgent" POW's... that is... the POW's that don't get executed by US soldiers.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Sava
Don't you mean "whatever the White House counsels' interpretation of the Geneva convention" is?

Maybe we can ask Enron lawyer, and new attorney G, Alberto Gonzalez what he thinks.

I suspect he'll only approve moderate torture and beat downs for "insurgent" POW's... that is... the POW's that don't get executed by US soldiers.

then we have more beheadings and then we have more beatings and more unauthorized shootings..toss in a few disloyal Americans who wanna help the terrorists..
then mix it up and start it all over again...

[Sava]

hey Gramps

how many Americans would be beheaded if there were no Americans in Iraq?

how many Americans would be blamed for murdering Iraqis on Al-Jazeera and the rest of Arab media if there were no Americans in Iraq?

didn't you make some remark about soldiers being pawns of politicians during Vietnam? what's changed?

send Bush and Cheney to Iraq

carry on

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Sava
hey Gramps

how many Americans would be beheaded if there were no Americans in Iraq?

how many Americans would be blamed for murdering Iraqis on Al-Jazeera and the rest of Arab media if there were no Americans in Iraq?

didn't you make some remark about soldiers being pawns of politicians during Vietnam? what's changed?

send Bush and Cheney to Iraq

carry on

Hey Sava

I dont agree with beheadings first and foremost...

The people doing humanitarian aid to help the non-aggressors..why should they die?

As for people making money off this war..now that I have a problem with but am unable to do anything about, personally, I would not go work there..if I was still active duty then yes I would go and offer my self up for my Commander In Chief

Bush and Cheney dont need to go the troops do..

Now have we accomplished what we started to do..not sure as I am not privy to the plan..you see plans tend to get changed when too many eyes see them...

Yes soldiers are indeed very often pawns in war..thats the way it has been I suspect since day one of being a commander

sad but thats the way it is..

Oh and for the record if there were no Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan...how many more terrorrists would now be in training or completed training to the next level..or did I miss something..9-1-1 I was working in an office when some terrorists towel-head told some more terrorist towelheads to fly planes into buildings..am i missing something?

What should of our response been..?

wring our hands and "HOPE " they might go away?

I dont think thats the way it works..we tried that..we went over to IRAQ and left and terrorism didnt stop?

Ok..I dont have all the answers and you dont nor does Dan or Ming.. .. well..maybe MING has answers to 'Poly Problems..but for real it is a very complex issue..doing nothing and sitting on our hands and going "Woe Is me" aint the answer...
Just my $0.02 worth


Gramps

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Bush and Cheney dont need to go the troops do..

Yes soldiers are indeed very often pawns in war..thats the way it has been I suspect since day one of being a commander

Well, that´s the difference to the good old times,
where the Leader personally would lead the charge of his knights and share with his soldiers the risk of getting wounded or killed.

Medieval times in Europe i think, and somehow longer in Japan
(although in Japan the daimyo normally wouldn´t lead the charge, but be at least present at the battlefield, so that the troops by seeing him during the Battle would get moral support and fight harder)

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Well, that´s the difference to the good old times,
where the Leader personally would lead the charge of his knights and share with his soldiers the risk of getting wounded or killed.

Medieval times in Europe i think, and somehow longer in Japan
(although in Japan the daimyo normally wouldn´t lead the charge, but be at least present at the battlefield, so that the troops by seeing him during the Battle would get moral support and fight harder)

I wonder and dont have a basis to dispute but for real wonder how much is lore and how much is truth to how close they got exactly?

I mean they didnt have 1 mile + sniper rifles then..nor did they have 5 mile mortar file..nor did they have airborne weaponry..

I ask hbecause somehow we evolved or perhaps better terminolgy departed from that mode of thinking..was it becasue of modern technolgy or at least the advancements of the day?

I also when watching civil war battle rage think how fricking stupid it was to march straight toward an enemy and shoot..

one shoots then one reloads and so forth..sure skirmish lines where several riows fired or reloaded..

I know we fight from a distance but we still have commanders on the field..


I believe and if I am wrong please share with me, that the general consensus is if the President and V P had to be in battle we might not jump as quickly or stay as long..
Indeed this might be the case..

It was in Chili yesterday!!

[Proteus_MST]

Well,
either that
or having as a rule, that each member of congress, senate and white house with children must have at least one of them in the military, in a unit which would really do frontline duty in the case of war.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
hey Gramps

how many Americans would be beheaded if there were no Americans in Iraq?

how many Americans would be blamed for murdering Iraqis on Al-Jazeera and the rest of Arab media if there were no Americans in Iraq?

didn't you make some remark about soldiers being pawns of politicians during Vietnam? what's changed?

send Bush and Cheney to Iraq

carry on

How many Americans would not have died had we not saved Europe from Nazi Germany, and Asia from Imperial Japan?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Well,
either that
or having as a rule, that each member of congress, senate and white house with children must have at least one of them in the military, in a unit which would really do frontline duty in the case of war.

and we know we cant change preferential treatment as that is human nature and goes on almost everywhere..although would be nice..

I dun think if I was in the middle of a firefight I would want a man or woman who has led a sheltered life and goes and freaks out under pressure..not that they are the only ones mind you just if they had been spoon fed eevrything it might not be the time to get ahead of the curve

[Lonestar]

Seems to me we're throwing common sense out the window.

After the tenth "wounded" guy has booby-trapped himself and killed some of your buddies, what are you suppose to do? What goes through your mind in that situation? I'm not asking to be a smartass, but it seems to me that it's possible the marine (who was undoubtably twitchy after a few hard days of fighting) was reasonably in his Precaution.

Or he could have just waited around for him being awarded a Darwin.