The Iraqi murder by Americans video leaked by Wiki-leaks..

325ad wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Here;s an interview wit the Head of Wiki leaks.. about the video that decrypted and released..

I watched him on NBC earlier yesterday. That guy looks about as queer as a 23 dollar bill! Talks in a femine manner as well! Just saying Razz

How come no one slammed this post? "Just saying" nothing.

The first portion of the video is understandable to a degree. Given the location of the fighting, they could be attacked from literally anywhere, and to best protect themselves it does serve their interest to be a little paranoid. However, not so paranoid that you're like the guy assessing the situation; who did a very poor job and clearly assumed a lot of details.
Attacking the van was definitely unnecessary.
Annnnd I think the claim that they're acting like it's a video game, while somewhat warranted, is mostly forced throughout TYT's commentary on the video.

_________________

oh come one.. if you've ever played cod4 or the remake and played from the helicopter mode.. its Exactly like what we see in this footage. Of course the video game comparison is analogous.

_________________

Kamerad Ash wrote:

oh come one.. if you've ever played cod4 or the remake and played from the helicopter mode.. its Exactly like what we see in this footage. Of course the video game comparison is analogous.

Cod is not realistic.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

Modern warfare definitely de-humanized killing. Point and click form a distance isn't the same as having to get up close and personla and hack someone to death.. like the "good" ol days.

..

_________________

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Modern warfare definitely de-humanized killing. Point and click form a distance isn't the same as having to get up close and personla and hack someone to death.. like the "good" ol days.

..

I am not even really referring to that. Dehumanizing your enemy is a concept to battle that all ages of humanity has had to deal with. I am just talking about its realism, which is to say, lack thereof.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

Number of posts: 121 Age: 23 Registration date: 2009-07-27 Points: 532

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Modern warfare definitely de-humanized killing. Point and click form a distance isn't the same as having to get up close and personla and hack someone to death.. like the "good" ol days.

..

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them. I wonder, why should I feel sympathetic for the terrorists, especially when they continue to fight alongside those in, say Baqubah? But maybe not having been there, I don't know. Perhaps, I can just defer to Marine sniper who was asked by Katie Couric "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" His response? "A slight recoil." I wonder, was it video games that dehumanized the killing or the reality of the enemy that you people try to fantasize about and make seem more heroic than it truly is?

But, what's the point in arguing with you? After all, you are the one who constantly, constantly defended the Nazis and if you can't even be happy to see them all destroyed, who can you be happy to see destroyed? Oh yeah, Conservatives...

I saw the video, I am not convinced that the Young Turk was being fair, but his remarks are similar to an "arm chair" response.

His remarks are all "Hindsight", not what is going on in the mindset of the soldiers. He keeps calling it as if these people are playing a game. But he has no idea what these soldiers live through in Iraq, he sees a video and hears their comments and assumes they are playing a game.

He makes snaps judgments that are irresponsible. Did these soldiers makes a mistake? In hindsight yes. But they could not have known it, they live in Iraq were they had 700 terrorist attacks a month on average.

Many of the people they worked with were killed by these terrorist, they have seen many civilians killed by them as well.

Were they over zealous? I would say so, but they had no way of knowing it. Their reaction is most likely how they handle the stress, they dehumanize it. Because they are dealing with people who dehumanize them and the population of Iraq.

I know people who fought over there, my brother was knew several people that were there as well. I have heard horror stories by some of the soldiers, what they had to do to survive.

While we sit back here and tear their judgment apart, in the comforts of our home, and we make snap judgment on them. You live over there and fight. You drive a truck and if a child steps into the road and you are forced to run him over because, if you stop there maybe an IED next to the kid!

You see your buddies blown up by IED's, you see their bodies ripped apart by shrapnel. You see civilians killed by homicide bombers, you have to see their mangled bodies, while preparing for a possible attack on you, while securing the scene.

Then tell me that these guys are just playing Modern Warfare 2.

_________________

LastFirstborn wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

oldschooldoom wrote:

War sucks!

yea but unfortuantley it is sometimes necessary

Killing 600,000+ civilians is not.

Unfortunate, the Bush administration did not have a plan in place to secure Iraq after the war, they assumed that Iraq would see the as liberators.

I dispute that is the death toll. But from what I can ascertain from average death tolls by terrorist, the toll would be between 50-100k.

If you want a more balance view on the war I would recommend "State of Denial" by Woodward and Fiasco by Thomas Ricks.

The both lay out the failure of the war to secure the country.

ASH is blaming the troops, the blame goes to Donald Rumsfield and GW Bush. Not the troops.
The Young Turk is blaming the troops.

_________________

LastFirstborn wrote:

There is no excuse for killing civilians. None.

In a perfect world that would be true. But this is not a perfect world.

Civilians die in war, no matter how careful we are. They will be killed either by accident, wrong place wrong time, human shield, terrorist attack, stray bomb, stray bullet, IED, etc.

It is Military Doctrine to minimize civilian deaths, most of the deaths in Iraq stems from terrorism to accidents. Most on terrorism by Sunni or Shiite death squads and terrorist.

_________________

As much as the terrorists hate us...they hate moderate muslims even more. They see them as worse than infidels because they view them as traitors to their form of islam.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

olias wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

We liberated Iraq,

They didn't want to be liberated or need to be. Hussein also did nothing ot be invaded.

Quote:

there is a relative modicum of stability there.

There was lots of stability before we invaded.

Quote:

It isnt perfect, however, Al-Quaeda is out, a

Al queda isn't out.. and was never there until we got there. Hussein was an enemy of Al queda, cause he wasn't even a muslim.

All we have done in IRaq is create more terrorists by behaving like terrorists.. create more enemies by invading a country and killing 600,000 civilians for no good reason.

Quote:

But we are now on the tails of the Taliban, and with 80% of the Afghan people supporting the US presence there, the Taliban are fighting on borrowed time.

Hmm,, The Taliban. I wonder who created teh Taliban.. Oh yea. it was the USA, who fromed them during teh Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.. during which the US recrruited this guy names Bin Laden as the Talibans PR man... hmm..

Interesting also how most of the 911 terrorists came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.. and yet we have not invaded those countries too tkae out Alqueda and the Taliban.... or invaded the other 100 countries were Al Queda exists....

..

I have iraqi friends who can pretty much tell you that everything you have just said is outright bullsh*t.

And Paul (Lord V.) had an Iraqi pastor come over to his church and tell him just how much better Iraq is now that people have a taste of freedom.

Quote:

and was never there until we got there.

Military intelligence would beg to differ.

Quote:

Hmm,, The Taliban. I wonder who created teh Taliban.. Oh yea. it was the USA, who fromed them during teh Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.. during which the US recrruited this guy names Bin Laden as the Talibans PR man... hmm.

Yes, an Iraqi pastor came to school earlier this year and stated Iraq is in better state than under Saddam. There are problems there, but for the first time, many Iraqis see a light at the end of the tunnel.

He mentioned that the president of Iraq has commissioned him (whatever that may mean) to chrisitanize Iraq.

What he has said also, is that the people of Iraq are more open to the Gospel then ever before.

_________________

olias wrote:

As much as the terrorists hate us...they hate moderate muslims even more. They see them as worse than infidels because they view them as traitors to their form of islam.

I am kind of out on whether there is such a thing as moderate muslim.

I do know there are people who just want to live out their life and do not care about islmaic politics.

I guess that can be seen a "moderate". But it can also be seen as "keeping the mouth shut, so they do not get killed" or "Silence is acceptance".

From what I have heard from former muslims is that most fall between these two extremes.

_________________

No, there are moderate muslims. I am friends with one who is from Israel. And I knew a few turkish muslims back when I lived in Japan who were great fellows, who were friends with an Israeli jew.

That said, to truly follow Al-Quran and the Hadiths is to follow a fundamentalist approach.

Contrary to popular belief, Islam isn't just one giant monolith. Like in Christianity, there are different strains of belief. The Taliban and Al-Quaeda view muslims who don't subscribe to there belief (which, despite their fundamentalist nature, changes a lot and is often contradictory) as being muslims who have perverted the din (arabic for "path").

This is why 80% of the afghan population is friendly to US forces. Because the taliban won't stop killing normal everyday afghans just trying to get by.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

Quote:

I dispute that is the death toll. But from what I can ascertain from average death tolls by terrorist, the toll would be between 50-100k.

According to two university studies.. the death tole is over 1,000,000 civilians. 600,000 from American and allied forces.. and then the rest from waring factions.. terrorists and other factors.

Off the top of my head. I cannot remember whic universities.. but it was one from England and one from the US.. It can be googled or you tubed.

.. so yea, when you kill.. whether by accident or not.. 600,00o people of thepeople you are trying to liberate.. don't expect them to view you as lierators at all. Let alone the other 600,000 deaths that were caused by you invading in teh first place and destabilizing the dictatorship they had.

..

Quote:

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them.

I don't have sympathy for Terrorists that we kill. But very few olf the people we kill are actually terrorists.. Since they don't wear uniforms.. we end up killing a majority of non enemy, non terrorists.

And then ironically.. by killing so many non terrorists..we increaess recruitment by the terrorists.. for more terrorists.

Do I have sympathy for innocent people that get killed? Yea, I do. For Iraqi's? Ye, I do.

Iraq was never our "enemy" and there was not one IRaqi in the 911 attacks. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld is the one who put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 80's and provided him with weapons. including chemicals weapons.. to fight against Iran.

Your idea that everyone we kill is our Enemy is a Sentiment of Ignorance and of a Simple Mind. Not everyone we kill was or is our enemy.. They are very often people in the worng place, at the wrong time. And yes, I do have Sympathy for those people.. as should all Americans.

_________________

Number of posts: 121 Age: 23 Registration date: 2009-07-27 Points: 532

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

I dispute that is the death toll. But from what I can ascertain from average death tolls by terrorist, the toll would be between 50-100k.

According to two university studies.. the death tole is over 1,000,000 civilians. 600,000 from American and allied forces.. and then the rest from waring factions.. terrorists and other factors.

Off the top of my head. I cannot remember whic universities.. but it was one from England and one from the US.. It can be googled or you tubed.

.. so yea, when you kill.. whether by accident or not.. 600,00o people of thepeople you are trying to liberate.. don't expect them to view you as lierators at all. Let alone the other 600,000 deaths that were caused by you invading in teh first place and destabilizing the dictatorship they had.

..

Civilians? Um, that's not true? Whoever believes that is a bit desperate.

Let's look at this study. You're relying on the study by the Opinion Research Business survey of Iraq War casualties or the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties. You stated that a university helped, so that means it's probably the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties since Johns Hopkins University embarrassed themselves by releasing this with their name attached.

The original survey on October 29, 2004, put the excessive death toll at about 98,000, I guess that was the median of their estimation of 8,000 194,000. The second one released on October 11, 2006, had it at 654,965, a median of 392,979 to 942,636.

So, this has been deconstructed already, so I'll just go to a response to it from the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

So, that right there is a problem with the interviewing.

In fact, the article continues with some other interesting things:

Quote:

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

There's more out there to disprove it, but that's just the easiest of it all as it shoots a whole through the biggest part of it all.

Number of posts: 121 Age: 23 Registration date: 2009-07-27 Points: 532

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them.

I don't have sympathy for Terrorists that we kill. But very few olf the people we kill are actually terrorists.. Since they don't wear uniforms.. we end up killing a majority of non enemy, non terrorists.

Apparently, you don't read the news. They have to determine that the person they are shooting is the enemy. As that video at the beginning clearly shows, it's not a recent thing, it's been in place for years and is used by troops to limit civilian casualties. They aren't out there blowing away town after town with little or no regard, that's absurd.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

And then ironically.. by killing so many non terrorists..we increaess recruitment by the terrorists.. for more terrorists.

And at what point do the civilians turn against the terrorists who are, unlike us, actually tries to kill them civilians, whether muslim, Christian, or anything else. You expect blind hatred of Americans in the face of evil? I have a distrust of humanity in general, there's too many idiots everywhere, but to believe this? You really gotta think they're stupid or really gotta hope they are.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Iraq was never our "enemy" and there was not one IRaqi in the 911 attacks. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld is the one who put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 80's and provided him with weapons. including chemicals weapons.. to fight against Iran.

So, now we're back to the war? Weren't you the one who previously stated, as I previously quoted, saying don't turn this into a discussion about the war?

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Your idea that everyone we kill is our Enemy is a Sentiment of Ignorance and of a Simple Mind. Not everyone we kill was or is our enemy.. They are very often people in the worng place, at the wrong time. And yes, I do have Sympathy for those people.. as should all Americans.

It's not simple mindedness, I never said we don't kill civilians. It's true, we do, though it's not intentionally, however you portray it as if service members are going out and intentionally aiming for them. That's ignorance and simple mindedness in its simplest form: looking for no answers, only reading with utmost certainty that anything that will make America look bad, must be true, because, after all, it's America.

I have sympathy for those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, I do, like the people who are bombed by terrorists. But at some point one must ask(Which you seem to not be doing): What led that person to being at the "wrong place at the wrong time"?

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them.

I don't have sympathy for Terrorists that we kill. But very few olf the people we kill are actually terrorists.. Since they don't wear uniforms.. we end up killing a majority of non enemy, non terrorists.

We aren't allowed to shoot unless shot at first. I don't know how many non-terrorists are going to be shooting at us.

claim d-e-b-u-n-k-e-d

I do think that law should be done away with. It is getting our men killed.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

olias wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them.

I don't have sympathy for Terrorists that we kill. But very few olf the people we kill are actually terrorists.. Since they don't wear uniforms.. we end up killing a majority of non enemy, non terrorists.

We aren't allowed to shoot unless shot at first. I don't know how many non-terrorists are going to be shooting at us.

claim d-e-b-u-n-k-e-d

I do think that law should be done away with. It is getting our men killed.

So everyone we kill is by default of "being killed" .. an enemy?

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Iraq was never our "enemy" and there was not one IRaqi in the 911 attacks. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld is the one who put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 80's and provided him with weapons. including chemicals weapons.. to fight against Iran.

Strawman argument. That move was a "lesser of the two evils" decision. Iran was becoming an absolute monster. While Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, they were very poorly trained and could get overwhelmed very easily by a smaller power.

They also wanted no part of the Islamic Revolution that was going on in Iran at that present time, which was making them that "monster". Paul could elaborate, as he likely knows more about all of this, but, since the US viewed the revolution as worse-than-communism (not to mention they had a very strong dislike for Iran after they took 66 American hostages in the US embassy in Iran in 1979 and held them for 444 days), they decided to help Iraq.

As the old saying goes: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Iraq was never our "enemy" and there was not one IRaqi in the 911 attacks. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld is the one who put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 80's and provided him with weapons. including chemicals weapons.. to fight against Iran.

Strawman argument. That move was a "lesser of the two evils" decision. Iran was becoming an absolute monster. While Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, they were very poorly trained and could get overwhelmed very easily by a smaller power.

They also wanted no part of the Islamic Revolution that was going on in Iran at that present time, which was making them that "monster". Paul could elaborate, as he likely knows more about all of this, but, since the US viewed the revolution as worse-than-communism (not to mention they had a very strong dislike for Iran after they took 66 American hostages in the US embassy in Iran in 1979 and held them for 444 days), they decided to help Iraq.

As the old saying goes: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The history between Iraq and America has been very unusual and very mixed.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he actually believed that America would support such an action, since it support Iraq in the invasion of Iran. When Bush sent an emissary over to Iraq to get Iraq out of Kuwait, Saddam misunderstood it and assumed it was America "showboating", because the emissary did not "forcefully" say "Get out of Kuwait", he was apparently very cordial and friendly in presenting the message.

So Saddam dug in.

At the same time, Bin Laden wanted to go into Kuwait and fight Saddam with his Mujaheddin fighters, the King of Saudi Arabia said "no", thus starts the war between Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wanted America to liberate Kuwait, and so America got permission to form on "holy land" to invade Kuwait and Iraq. Thus, starts the hatred between Bin Laden and America.

Since Bin Laden did not have a war to fight in Afghanistan as he did a few years pass, he was looking for a place to fight, which is why he traveled to Africa and back to Afghanistan. 9/11 was done by Bin Laden so he could have a war to fight, he wanted to Fight America, he believed if he could get America into Afghanistan he could defeat America as he did Russia.

So America invades Kuwait and Iraq, this starts the cold war between America and Saddam. Bush, I believe, wanted to invade Iraq, since we were already in Afghanistan, to isolate and corner Iran, since they would have two American armies on both of their borders.

The strategy failed, due to the politics and the incompetence of Donald's Rumsfield (D.R.) and the his lackeys in the Pentagon. He wanted to create a "super strike force" with the American military, which under manned both wars. We could of had Bin Laden in Dec. of 2001, D.R. or someone under him denied 800 Rangers to be brought in and secure the Pakistan border, on the other side of Tora Bora, instead this "official" wanted Pakistan to do it, and Bin Laden escaped. Also the Army wanted the "Crusader" to be built which would have made the Army the best artillery corp in the world, this would have surpassed what we have now, this weapon would have allowed American Artillery to accurately land shells in the Tora Bora mountains. D.R. canceled the project and denied any more troops to go into Afghanistan, because they "reached their man limit".

Also this time they were planning to invade Iraq, so they needed all the men available to do that mission.

Now the rest is history.

_________________

Kamerad Ash wrote:

olias wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote:

So, we're supposed to have some sympathy when the enemy is killed? That's absurd. Their depravity knows no bounds and you're trying to humanize them.

I don't have sympathy for Terrorists that we kill. But very few olf the people we kill are actually terrorists.. Since they don't wear uniforms.. we end up killing a majority of non enemy, non terrorists.

We aren't allowed to shoot unless shot at first. I don't know how many non-terrorists are going to be shooting at us.

claim d-e-b-u-n-k-e-d

I do think that law should be done away with. It is getting our men killed.

So everyone we kill is by default of "being killed" .. an enemy?

Yes, if they are shooting at us, I'd say so.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!

So if they re not shooting at us, they are not an enemy?

_________________

Kamerad Ash wrote:

So if they re not shooting at us, they are not an enemy?

In most cases ( I am stressing most here) you can't shoot targets who haven't shot at you. even if you have positively identified your target as being an enemy combatant.

_________________
"People love to be selfish and materialistic and biological. It takes a strong person and a strong reason to reject those urges in favor of something better." – Cassidy Ringwald (R.I.P.)

Quote:

[12:45:11] olias : Cazz Grim Banger

[12:45:28] olias : this place is gonna suck without you so I am just doing that one last time
[12:45:31] olias : RIP

Quote:

[22:14:32] Stender : dat sum guud weed dem tr00 arcan steele blak kvlt musick

Quote:

[23:01:39] Stender : I have a huge black forest and triumphant mushroom castle that bieber is missing...

Hguols wrote:

Made boner disappear by thinking of Janet Reno

I AM TEH SEKS MAJIC MAN!