Future of Politics

[Iceberg]

on another note, with todays date being november 16, the total iraqi civillian casualty count with your figure of 32 per day is 19,456... fascinating, as this is less than 20% of the claimed 100,000+ by the same folks who wish for more dead coalition troops... (yes, i made a connection there, and i have no plans to rescind it) with a gap of more than 80,000, there are a few scenarios that might explain the difference...

- crappy reporting
- crappy sources
- reporting based on assumption and/or propaganda
- many of the alleged civillian dead werent civillians after all
- mr cass could be deranged
- reporting of numbers based on hopes, rather than facts, much like cbs and the new york times

one wonders if the likely grossly over-reported civillian "death toll" would have eventually exceeded the population of the country... stranger things have happened...

In response to this, have a look at this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-02.htm

How many of these incidents have happened? This can't be the only one. I'll bet that upwards of a thousand innocent civilians have been shot just because they were "in the way" or that "they were threats."

Sure, this one was an insurgent. However, he was UNARMED. Shooting unarmed people, no matter their affiliation, is horrible and should be considered a war crime.

I know now why Bush is opposed to the US joining the International Criminal Court. It's because several hundred of their troops would be charged with crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The US supports other nations' war criminals being brought to justice at the ICC, but they disagree with having their own charged under this body. That's brutal hypocrisy!

What's worse is that the soldier is likely to get away with it. :x

 

[Gatorman]

How many of these incidents have happened? This can't be the only one.

It's so easy to sit in the comfort of one's safe little home, thousands of miles from a war, and render judgment. I'm not going to say that these insurgents were still armed (supposedly they weren't, but who knows) but minutes before they were trying to KILL these soldiers. How can you know for certain how you would act in the heat of the battle? I'm not justifying the action but I can certainly understand how these kind of things happen. Talk to some 'Nam vets about the "innocent" women and children that approached them time and time again. l If you haven't been there, you don't know how you would react.....

 

[Iceberg]

It's so easy to sit in the comfort of one's safe little home, thousands of miles from a war, and render judgment. I'm not going to say that these insurgents were still armed (supposedly they weren't, but who knows) but minutes before they were trying to KILL these soldiers. How can you know for certain how you would act in the heat of the battle? I'm not justifying the action but I can certainly understand how these kind of things happen. Talk to some 'Nam vets about the "innocent" women and children that approached them time and time again. l If you haven't been there, you don't know how you would react.....

This guy was lying on the floor of a mosque, without a weapon, being no threat whatsoever to the soldier who shot him. The soldier thought he was faking being dead, so he made sure he was dead by shooting him from only a few feet away.

This breaks both Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention, the latter of which the US has really pissed all over in the last couple of years. There's no excuse for this behaviour, at all.

 

[Zinista]

This breaks both Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention, the latter of which the US has really pissed all over in the last couple of years. There's no excuse for this behaviour, at all.

War fucks up people pretty bad.. We can only make a wild guess at how these guys are feeling at that exact moment in time and why they did or didn't do...

 

[Stingray]

How many of these incidents have happened? This can't be the only one. I'll bet that upwards of a thousand innocent civilians have been shot just because they were "in the way" or that "they were threats."

Sure, this one was an insurgent. However, he was UNARMED. Shooting unarmed people, no matter their affiliation, is horrible and should be considered a war crime.

Just a few tidbits here:

A) of course its not the only one. There was a handful of visual reports at the start of the war showing Iraqi military using civilians as shields, and throwing them into the line of fire. Likewise, I'm sure at least SOME Iraqi civilians have been mistaken for the enemy. That kinda thing's gonna happen when your in a war overseas. Not everyone speaks the same language, so someone shouting warning or just shouting, could easily be thought of as a threat/hostile gesture/etc.

B) Yes, shooting an unarmed man is a horrible thing. But it's a war. The enemy is the enemy, armed or not. If you're fighting a marine or army solider, and he's unarmed, does that make him any less dangerous? Of course not. If you're fighting someone, and they suddenly stop throwing punches, are you just gonna turn around and walk off, trusting they won't take another swing? Of course not. And as such, the soliders must act accordingly to protect themselves and civillians in the area when dealing with the enemy, in this case, the insurgents that just refuse to stop fighting and help rebuild their own damn country.

C) I'm not justifying anything....just trying to put it into perspective.

 

[cableguy]

a voting machine that added DEMOCRAT votes??? say it isnt so!!!

regarding the new news story; several things are worth noting that were left out of previous posts, but that definitely must be factored in to this mess, if indeed it is one...

-- the soldier that pulled the trigger had, the very day before, been shot in the face by an insurgent/terrorist
-- the soldier that pulled the trigger had lost a fellow trooper either the day before, or two days before, when a booby trapped corpse exploded...

now, given this information, and given that said terrorist was thought to be "playing dead," how many soldiers would have made the same decision??? also noteworthy is that at least one other wounded terrorist was NOT shot...

i may be wrong, but i believe booby trapping a corpse is probably against the geneva convention, and i am certain that beheading is... unless i am mistaken, there is also something in there about intentionally targeting civillians... tell me then, where is your outrage at what the insurgents/terrorists are doing?? this duplicity would be amusing, were the topic not such a serious one... oh, and if your response is that the geneva convention doesnt cover them (which i believe it doesnt), then coalition troops are AUTOMATICALLY absolved of ANY wrongdoing via the geneva convention... there is a single rule book, all sides must use it.. you cant absolve one side just because you favor them... if one side abandons the rule book, is it not reasonable to expect the other side to follow suit?? that said, this country has a long history of NOT abandoning said rules... and of punishing those who do...

stay on your pedestal, far above the fray, in the safety of your own home, and pass judgement on those who you know little about... even without the additional information i have provided, i would be inclined to side with the soldiers on the scene, as i have NO idea what the specific circumstances were... what if that terrorist had had a grenade?? his inaction could have cost his life, and the lives of several other soldiers, AND the camera crew that filmed it... the terrorists have done this kind of thing, and continue to... think what you will, but regardless, remember one thing... YOU WERE NOT THERE...

 

[Dexterdoe]

I think the whole point the soldier will make is that the prisoner was faking being dead, which is deception, which is not cooperating, which is not acting like a POW, which is acting like an enemy combatant(sp?) which makes shooting him at point blank justifiable. The sad slipery slope begins when all POW's get shot. It is easier than taking a chance on boobie-trapped bodies or suicide prisoners. Those POW's had been left tied and bleeding for over one day, if I remeber the newscasts correctly. He should not get tried for murder, but the commanders should do what it takes to maintain level heads on the battle field. They are professionals. Easier said than done, but that should be the goal.

 

[Zinista]

**Putting it in perspective..
Remember in 'Saving Private Ryan' and the young guy pleading his fellow soldiers to let a captured soldier go.. They did and he came back later on to fight them again and killed a few.. I'm sure next time you were in the same situation you'd feel like shooting first and asking questions later..

 

[Da' Pimp]

YOU WERE NOT THERE...

Im using your Quote in General Cable....


I've been there, I've Seen it, I've Lived it, I would've Done The Same.

Let my C.O.'s do what they do, but My actions would not have Changed.

 

[Iceberg]

you cant absolve one side just because you favor them

Hell, I don't favour the Iraqi insurgents. I was just as happy as you were when Saddam was captured. However, it's just horrible all the atrocities that are occurring these days.

As for the "in the heat of battle" argument, I do understand it and I do think soldiers who get entrapped by battle not to use as much rational thought are almost victims, too. However, those who are not psychologically up to the task shouldn't be in the battle in the first place. If what you said is right, Cable, and the soldier had been shot and had such a traumatic experience, he should have been given a bit of time off to recover, rather than being sent out again immediately into battle where he wasn't mentally prepared for the task.

 

[Gatorman]

If what you said is right, Cable, and the soldier had been shot and had such a traumatic experience, he should have been given a bit of time off to recover, rather than being sent out again immediately into battle where he wasn't mentally prepared for the task.

Yo Pimp, can't ya just get a few days "R&R" when you're not quite feeling up to fighting that day? Or maybe, call in sick?? :roll: Iceberg we're supposed to be respectable gentleman in this forum so I'm gonna be polite. I sincerely hope that you're attending some terribly liberal college somewhere and that's why I'm gonna be nice and not attack the crap you've written. It sounds like the plot outline for an upcoming Michael Moore flick....... :roll: :lol:

That being said, let's talk about the American soldier's "Rules of Engagement." "1. If the enemy is approaching and armed, kill him. 2. If the enemy is retreating and armed, kill him. 3. If the enemy is wounded and armed, kill him. 4. If the enemy is wounded and unarmed, do not kill him." Number 4 causes the problem. The insurgents have repeatedly faked being wounded, booby trapped themselves when they are wounded and even planted explosive devices on their dead comrades. Now, think about it, here you are, a young soldier in a terribly stressful situation, forced to make a quick decision that has life or death consequences, based on the information right in front of you.........what do you do? :?:

 

[Da' Pimp]

Yo Pimp, can't ya just get a few days "R&R" when you're not quite feeling up to fighting that day? Or maybe, call in sick?? :roll:

We get/got 2 and a Half days for Every 30 Days we Serve/d.

 

[cableguy]

thanks pimp... were those 2.5 days available at your request, or were you told when to take them?? just for clarification...

iceberg, what atrocoties??? this one can be chalked up to a rational act of self defense that on hindsight, proved unnecessary, abu graib cant count, unless embarrassment is an atrocity... IF you were referring to booby trapped bodies, bombs exploded in population centers, and beheadings and executions of noncombatants by the terrorists, then disregard this whole comment... if not, inquiring minds want to know...

i didnt say being shot was "such a traumatic experience." i believe, due to the facts available, his facial wound was minor, but still caused by a bullet... also, consider that he might have WANTED to go back out... people who have never been soldiers probably cant grasp that concept too well, myself included, but it does happen... probably more than any of us will know...

i believe all US servicemen and women take a psych evaluation... those that are deemed unable to handle combat are placed in non combat roles or washed out... if someone can confirm this or show it wrong, please chime in...

 

[Supafly]

I find it funny that no one seems to care about "The Rules of Engagement" Or "The Geneva Convention" until they think the U.S. has done something wrong.

Explain to the wives and children of the four contractors murdered and hung in the street Iraqi why you weren't raising your voice about the rules of engagement then. Explain to the parents of Nicholas Berg why you didn't stand up and shout about the Geneva Convention when he was beheaded.

 

[oscaraustin]

The Geneva Conventions, etc, sure sound nice and make our world sound like it is moving towards that whole star trek utopia mankind deal, but you have to realize they were written and signed in by non-combatant military officers and politicians. The only real rule of engagement when you are on the ground is "protect yourself and your comrades." Split second possible life or death decision = shoot.... as bad as it sounds to possibly kill someone who shouldn't have been there, it is better than looking back and seeing that your not shooting allowed for the deaths of some of those you were responsible for.

 

[Da' Pimp]

thanks pimp... were those 2.5 days available at your request, or were you told when to take them?? just for clarification...

It Depends on the Situation. If I wasnt Deployed, and just working Homeland, I could take leave Pretty much whenever I wanted. If I was Deployed to or in a Combat area say anywhere from 8 months to a year, I would not be able to use my leave until I returned Homeland (or to my respected Base anywhere around the world). In each case my leave could be Terminated by the Marines at any time, and I would have to return within 24 hours (no matter where I was) if Something should Happen. Theres like a damn Book about the Rules and shit for Leave, but that should cover your question.

 

[cableguy]

thanks pimp... i was just looking for someone that knows for sure... the point i was looking for is that a marine, or an army soldier, or sailor, or airman, can NOT call in sick in a combat zone...

 

[Da' Pimp]

the point i was looking for is that a marine, or an army soldier, or sailor, or airman, can NOT call in sick in a combat zone...

Nah, not gonna happen. I mean if you get pneumonia or some crazy shit, you are allowed Light Work Duty, but as soon as you're Better, you're out Fighting again.

 

[cableguy]

thought i would bump this with something i posted in a different thread, that seems more at home here...

somewhere between half and 3/4 of the US federal budget is made up of unconstitutional transfer payments... for those who dont know, a transfer payment is taxing one person, only to give some or all of that tax money to another individual.. this activity is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and thusly is illegal...

the latest battle cry from the left is that the blue states pay the most in taxes, and the red states recieve most of the benefits... i have been outraged at much of the federal budget for a number of years, and am happy to join forces with democrats in saying this is unreasonable, and must be stopped... taxes are too high, most federal spending is illegal..

this trend must end, and i believe the democrat party might be the impetus that is needed to get this done... are you willing to stop paying out so much of other peoples money to third parties?? will you support a drive to end transfer payments altogether?? it seems this is the logical extension of this latest complaint... i am all for it, it cannot happen soon enough to fully satisfy me... no more corporate welfare, no more individual welfare, no more subsidies to ANYONE... with half to 3/4 of the federal budget removed, there would be an instantaneous erasure of the deficit, the debt itself could be paid at will, AND most importantly, taxes could be cut drastically... how about making everyones tax rate about 5-10%??? this talk from the democrats and liberals about spending discipline has me rather excited.. i look forward for this to be implemented in the first year of the second term of President George W. Bush...

what do you democrats and democrat supporters say to this???

ps: notice all the GOOD economic news appearing in newspapers and on tvs all across the country now?? where was this news in october??? september??? august?? july??? should certain news items fall prey to the petty politics of "news" outlets??

pps: i am saddened that there has been no outrage, internationally or here, for the unilateral, unsanctioned by the un, and unnecessary intervention of the french military in the ivory coast... france, behind their battle flag (a white fleur de lis on a white background) has managed to impose its imperialistic will on a smaller nation, armed primarily with machetes... this cannot be allowed to stand... NO BLOOD FOR COCOA!!!

 

[Saint]

somewhere between half and 3/4 of the US federal budget is made up of unconstitutional transfer payments... for those who dont know, a transfer payment is taxing one person, only to give some or all of that tax money to another individual.. this activity is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and thusly is illegal...

Myabe I misread this but u do realise that Social security is a transfer payment. I don't know where it would fit in percentage wise but I would assume that its one of the larger portions.