watch this! (violent apache helicopter footage)

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by reckanize


I think you may be misinterpreting me.

A. I don't have a problem per se with apache pilots defending themselves against attack, aggressors or not. I do have a problem with apache pilots killing possibly unarmed and/or already severely injured 'combatants' without having come under fire.

B. Yes I do have a problem with 'shoot first ask questions later'. I also condemn the bombing of civilians and aid workers by either side. You seem to be saying it's ok for us to do anything they do. By this logic you'd be fine with us gassing them.

C. I don't know for sure what they're fighting. I suspect they don't either, but your 'enemies of freedom' crap is straight off Faux News. Nobody fights against freedom. I hope the Iraqis do enjoy freedom and equality, but those are a long way off right now. And for a psychopathic despot, just check the White House. Saddam's bodycount, though reprehensible, is chicken feed compared to the US over the years. What gives us the right anyway to charge in wherever we like because the premier is subjugating his own people? It's not morally motivated. We let worse crimes go unpunished elsewhere, even supporting them.

1)Maybe I'm misintepreting you. I'm not for excessive force either. If the guy was unarmed and willing to surrender I don't think he should be shot. But if you don't know and have all other evidence pointing to these guys being very dangerous and using deceptive white flag tactics I don't what I'd do the guy was wounded though so I think that was overkill without knowing anything else.


2)Nope, by my logic I say it's not only OK but our responsibilty to kill or capture the people responsible for attacks on fellow Iraqis, International aid workers, and the soldiers there(they are not all American so I'll stop saying American soldiers.

Gassing "them" if you mean gassing an area where the "militants" are is ridiculous. It would do no good to use Saddam's mass murder tactics to rebuild the country and free it from the sick mess it's been for decades.

3) Faux news, I'm a little insulted. But I guess they are not always wrong, however they are dishonest in their objectivity a la the BBC.
Many people fight against freedom in Iraqs case it's mostly the Tikrits and Sunnis who fear the loss of their priveleged status and war criminals fighting against prosecution. They may be fighting for freedom to rule over others or freedom to set up an Islamic regime but they are not fighting for the freedom and equality of Iraq and it's different peoples.
On all that other stuff about the U.S. President being worse than Saddam, later for that. We'll have to agree to disagree cause that's whole other ball game.
On where do we get the right to invade: whole bunch of resolutions gave us the right.

If it(the liberation of Iraq/Destruction of the Hussien Regime) was for the shadiest of reasons i guess I can sum it up with how I feel about slavery The evil philosphy of racism pales in comparison to the evil practice of slavery.

[cauchy]

Originally posted by randall fairbrook


okay..this is war or an action of war..not the boy scouts.....if soldiers started second guessing or refusing to follow the orders of their commanders....then the system will break down even further...it is bad enough the number of folks who have died over there in accidents....we do not need people getting soft in critical times to cause even more coalition deaths or casualties...if the choice is between dying or killing....what do you think the decision would be...?

I would like to know if in your mind this "war" is justifiable? You tend to speak in very vague languages. At best it is misguiding. How were we in imminent danger again? Or tell me this, who put those soldiers in danger to begin with? Do not tell us about "this ain't no boy scout" shit, it obviously isn't. We aren't tying no knots here. It only steers the conversation away from being actually communicative. (I don't mean to sound mean. I would like to know the logic behind your thinking.)

my assumptions are determined by both the media i receive and my personal beliefs...

war is barbaric.....but how else do we get through it..throw down our weapons and surrender....let everyone we come across live another day....give them another chance to kill...i only know what i saw on the videotape.....i do not assume that the us soldiers see people then kill them automatically..i assume there is a chain they have to go through...decisions that have to be made under pressure..there really did not seem to be too much time to run this decision by a focus group or oprah winfrey.....

Once at war, unfortunately it seems that fact alone justifies it.

i am sure there is a hell of a lot more to this than we are being told.....

Well the very nature of military decision making is to be covert no? War created the first VPN since the Ancient Greek times.

[reckanize]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite

On where do we get the right to invade: whole bunch of resolutions gave us the right.

There was no UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq. We went in anyway. A resolution would only have served to legitimise an unprovoked invasion of another country anyway. The US and to a lesser extent her allies, have scant regard for the authority of the UN. On your other points, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've been giving the issue some thought and of course while it's easy for both of us to argue our points, you and I are not out there. We don't run the risk of getting shot or blown up every day and I'm sure being in that situation must put a different complexion on things. I just hope the situation over there calms down, the Iraqis get their sovereignty, and the coalition forces can come home. We don't need another Israel/Palestine cauldron in the world.

[KING]

Originally posted by 35ft6
We're already way past that. They don't have to make it look attractive, they just don't let you see any of it period.

Well, they obviously wanted you to see this.

Leaking images like this is the new millitary parades.
The motives are the same.

do the forces that we are fighting have apache class or comparable helicopters? do they have helicopters?

[reckanize]

They have Toyota Hi-Lux pickups.

[Asmodeus]

did any one you guys happen to see the first guy go into his truck, pull out an rpg launcher, run across the road and throw it into a field, only to have the other guy run across the road and throw some rpg ammo near the launcher...? if you guys see that, then come back and tell me what you saw was so horrific... jesus, you people are so fucking spineless it's pathetic to even read your bleatings about how terrible it is that our guys just off'ed suppliers of weaponry to the terrorist insurgency...

or do you think that the terrorist insurgency should be allowed to find pre-placed weapons out on roads and use them in suicide attacks against US forces... because that is basically what you would be advocating, but then again, i keep forgetting where i am... arabist central...

[Kosmopolite]

Originally posted by reckanize


There was no UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq. We went in anyway. A resolution would only have served to legitimise an unprovoked invasion of another country anyway. The US and to a lesser extent her allies, have scant regard for the authority of the UN. On your other points, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've been giving the issue some thought and of course while it's easy for both of us to argue our points, you and I are not out there. We don't run the risk of getting shot or blown up every day and I'm sure being in that situation must put a different complexion on things. I just hope the situation over there calms down, the Iraqis get their sovereignty, and the coalition forces can come home. We don't need another Israel/Palestine cauldron in the world.

The whole cease fire agreement stipulated that if Saddam does not fully cooperate with the U.N. and inspection teams he will face invasion and be deposed. They thought he was reasonable and actually cared about more than doing things his way. He didn't. He knew the U.N. was weak. The process dragged on for over 12 years and he still wanted to play the game. He finally got what was coming to him.

The foot dragging and weakwilled nature of the U.N. only helped degrade the confidence of the U.S. and her allies. If it's not condemning Israel the U.N is not that interested. But that's another story.
I agree with you're last point. We are safe in hour homes typing life and death while the soldiers' every actions determine it.

[onique]

that was some grim ass shit.

and we wonder why the ppl iraq are pissed.

[filipEMO]

91 rounds for 3 guys.. wack

learn to shoot

[golivar]

Originally posted by filipEMO
91 rounds for 3 guys.. wack

learn to shoot

those cannons fire 3 rounds per second, tough guy.

[onique]

Originally posted by puppy fields
^

it would be really morbid...but I think it would be interesting to have displayed a clock or gauge measuring how much money is being spent on a specific action. kind of like a real time tv odometer or something.

lmao, yea sure would be nice to see the national debt in realtime via the cost of fraging some poor dirt farmer in a far away land

[Kosmopolite]

You know it's not like we have anything better to do. Fragging dirt farmers is all that's left.

[slackerbot]

Originally posted by filipEMO
91 rounds for 3 guys.. wack

learn to shoot

the targeting system is controlled by the pilot's head/eye movements. so it's kinda hard trying to focus on a small target, while piloting the apache, while avoiding getting hit by some freak with an RPG hiding in the bushes somewhere. overall i think he shot quite well.

[35ft6]

Originally posted by Kosmopolite


The whole cease fire agreement stipulated that if Saddam does not fully cooperate with the U.N. and inspection teams he will face invasion and be deposed. They thought he was reasonable and actually cared about more than doing things his way. He didn't. He knew the U.N. was weak. The process dragged on for over 12 years and he still wanted to play the game. He finally got what was coming to him.

The foot dragging and weakwilled nature of the U.N. only helped degrade the confidence of the U.S. and her allies. If it's not condemning Israel the U.N is not that interested. But that's another story.

On one hand, you seem to be saying that Saddam had it coming because he ignored the UN's wishes (much as the USA does whenever we feel like it), and on the other hand you're saying the UN's actions are dubious, e.g. in their handling of Israel. So why should he have have listened? Why did he have it coming to him?

Bush senior had a chance to completely destroy Saddam's regime back in Gulf War 1, but for mysterious reasons allowed him to use helicopters to crush his opponents, who were gaining great momentum.

In one of history's perhaps more curious twists, the first Bush administration relaxed the military pressure against the Saddam Hussein regime at a time when it was in the best position to squeeze the Iraqi leader.

Concerned that the American military would be portrayed by the media as piling on in a one-sided rout, the Bush administration halted the 1991 ground war at 100 hours, a move that allowed much of the Republican Guard in Iraq, the most effective and loyal force in Saddam Hussein's military, to escape.

Nor did the Bush administration rush to impose a no-flight zone in southern Iraq when Shiite rebels were attacked by Iraqi helicopters in the wake of the Gulf war. The Bush administration did not declare a southern no-flight zone until August 1992, some 18 months after the end of the war.

Every war is sold on the basis of good versus evil, but very rarely is it about that. Even WW2, we didn't join the fight just to stop the Nazi's or to save the Jews. There was more to it. It's like when big corporations engage in charity. Yes, it's good, but you know they wouldn't be helping if they didn't think they'd get something back. Something valuable.