The Iraq Thread 2

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well, ok...

Read Balschoiws post with those chopper pilots. They were told on radio that the targets they wanted to engage were friendly. Repeatedly. They didn`t care first, they wanted to blow them up. That`s at least a mixture 50:50 evil and stupidity.

Regarding pissing of the americans here on the forums, I`m deeply sorry, but it`s a fact that there`s a mentality in the US forces in some groups which is mainly defined by a "kick-someone`s-ass-attitude" and I`m unsure if those guys with that kind of urge to kill would decide between friendly and hostile if it just blows up nicely. Afterwards you can always say that you couldn`t identify your target... if you`re a psycho of course. There`s a book written by an US sniper who couldn`t get a deadly shot on someone and is now driven by his urge to kill which was trained into him. He says that need to kill is hard to control. I`ll do some research and I`ll come up with author and title when I`ve found it. That book could be kinda interesting.

[turms 0]

Back on topic....BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Two U.S. soldiers in Iraq were killed and four were wounded in a spate of guerrilla attacks in which at least two Iraqis also died, the U.S. military and witnesses said Monday.

Reuters

[FallenPaladin 0]

The book I mentioned is "Jarhead" written by Anthony Swofford, 35, who was sniper in GW1.

Check this for reviews and here you find an excerpt from the book.

[raedor 8]

No American in his right mind wants to kill an ally and if he did, he would most certainly go to prison for it.

sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No American in his right mind wants to kill an ally and if he did, he would most certainly go to prison for it.

sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

Because we deal with this sort of thing through the UCMJ.

[raedor 8]

and if the rest of the world joined it, why didnt the US do (yes, i know, they joined, but they retreated)? i dont know UCMJ, but i think it's an US institution,  am i right?

the russians always say that soldiers who comitted crimes in chechnya or anywhere else will get punished... but only by a national court. the same for the US. and u know, those national courts are in no country really strict.

that's why i think every country should join ICC.

but let's get back ontopic...

[FSPilot 0]

Fallen Paladin

Quote[/b] ]Anyone who knows that the A10 is a slower aircraft to destroy tanks should know (from theory of course) that the visibility has to be better in an A10 than in a F15 flying faster and higher. That leads to a better possibility of identifying the target which should anyone with it`s finger on the trigger do before shooting. The A10 pilot failed in his first run on the British tank, either because he was unqualified or had some other problems... (or he just ignored the fact that it was a british tank) , but then he did his second attack run. Now you tell me that I don`t know what I`m talking about and that I should shut up, while a A10 pilot does a second attack run at a friendly target. Who`s not knowing what he does? That pilot when he did his second was either totally incompetent or ignored that his target was British because he wanted to blow something up like in the movies. It`s very hard to find any "positive" reasons for that A10 pilot firing at that british tank. FSPilot, explain us based on your experience and knowledge why he attacked this friendly tank with the British flag on it driving in a British convoy. What made him do so?

Maybe you need to re-read my post. I'm not saying I know better than you, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote[/b] ]The A10 incident is a "fact". Then there is Balschoiws post where he points out those gunship pilots who wanted to blow up friendly tanks, too. If Balschoiw writes something like that I take it for granted because he surely is the one here on the forums with the most experience when it comes to military and field experience. If you want more FF incidents use google.com, because if I listened them here it would just be biased and ignored by you.

I'm not just going to take your word for it. Post a link.

Quote[/b] ]Read Balschoiws post with those chopper pilots. They were told on radio that the targets they wanted to engage were friendly. Repeatedly. They didn`t care first, they wanted to blow them up. That`s at least a mixture 50:50 evil and stupidity.

Or maybe they noticed tanks near a friendly column and were so concerned about the friendly lives they wanted to make sure the tanks were friendly. Instead they were yelled at by an impatient commander. Even Balschoiw, whether he's telling the truth or not, doesn't know what's went on inside the cockpit.

Quote[/b] ]Regarding pissing of the americans here on the forums, I`m deeply sorry, but it`s a fact that there`s a mentality in the US forces in some groups which is mainly defined by a "kick-someone`s-ass-attitude" and I`m unsure if those guys with that kind of urge to kill would decide between friendly and hostile if it just blows up nicely. Afterwards you can always say that you couldn`t identify your target... if you`re a psycho of course. There`s a book written by an US sniper who couldn`t get a deadly shot on someone and is now driven by his urge to kill which was trained into him. He says that need to kill is hard to control. I`ll do some research and I`ll come up with author and title when I`ve found it. That book could be kinda interesting.

I've met a lot of combat experienced people in my day, including a vietnam vet. They're regular people, not ingrained with an innate "urge to kill". Even if they were they'd be ingrained with an innate urge to protect friendly troops, and they'd doublecheck.

raedor

Quote[/b] ]sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

I think the ICC is designed to prevent war crimes, not friendly fire. either way, we didn't join because there are so many hopelessly biased people out there (which is evident by spending 5 minutes reading this thread alone), the president didnt want to risk not getting a fair trial for his troops.

Quote[/b] ]and if the rest of the world joined it, why didnt the US do (yes, i know, they joined, but they retreated)? i dont know UCMJ, but i think it's an US institution, am i right?

the russians always say that soldiers who comitted crimes in chechnya or anywhere else will get punished... but only by a national court. the same for the US. and u know, those national courts are in no country really strict.

that's why i think every country should join ICC.

The UCMJ is the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, it's enforced by the Judge Advocate General, MPs, SPs, OSI, generally by the military itself.

Look at it this way: I think It's fair to say that most people on this forum hate me. Now say Denoir (I know he's gone, just for an example) is a judge in the ICC, and Tovarish, you, and Warin are all selected for the jury.

Am I going to get a fair trial?

[FallenPaladin 0]

I'm not saying I know better than you, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Great sentence! You just stated that you don`t know what you`re talking about, too.

[FallenPaladin 0]

either way, we didn't join because there are so many hopelessly biased people out there (which is evident by spending 5 minutes reading this thread alone), the president didnt want to risk not getting a fair trial for his troops.

Yes, the only true sight of things comes from the USA.

The whole rest of the world wants to harm the USA, the sole good state in the world. That`s just blablabla!!

An international court is a good thing and it`s better with any country more in it, because any new country brings in own points of view and new insights. The more the better and fairer because you`ll get lots of Pro and Contra statements then which can lead to a fairer trial. If you find a way to prevent too much bureaucracy of course.

[FSPilot 0]

Fallen Paladin

Quote[/b] ]Great sentence! You just stated that you don`t know what you`re talking about, too.

I've already said that before, actually. At least for the purposes of judging A-10 pilots, I'm in as good a position as you are to do so.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the only true sight of things comes from the USA.

The whole rest of the world wants to harm the USA, the sole good state in the world. That`s just blablabla!!

Don't put words in my mouth. Maybe you should re-read my post until you get it right.

Quote[/b] ]An international court is a good thing and it`s better with any country more in it, because any new country brings in own points of view and new insights. The more the better and fairer because you`ll get lots of Pro and Contra statements then which can lead to a fairer trial. If you find a way to prevent too much bureaucracy of course.

You get the same thing in any US court, just cut out the international politics and potentially biased judges and jury.

[Tamme 0]

I think the ICC is designed to prevent war crimes, not friendly fire.  either way, we didn't join because there are so many hopelessly biased people out there (which is evident by spending 5 minutes reading this thread alone), the president didnt want to risk not getting a fair trial for his troops.

The UCMJ is the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, it's enforced by the Judge Advocate General, MPs, SPs, OSI, generally by the military itself.

Look at it this way:  I think It's fair to say that most people on this forum hate me.  Now say Denoir (I know he's gone, just for an example) is a judge in the ICC, and Tovarish, you, and Warin are all selected for the jury.

Am I going to get a fair trial?

Would you get a fair trial in the UCMJ? How do you know that UCMJ is not biased? They might not hate you, but they could just sweep the case under the carpet. Afterall an american soldier committing war crimes is bad PR.

[Warin 0]

Look at it this way:  I think It's fair to say that most people on this forum hate me.  Now say Denoir (I know he's gone, just for an example) is a judge in the ICC, and Tovarish, you, and Warin are all selected for the jury.

Am I going to get a fair trial?

LOL.

I dont think its fair to say that anyone hates you. I know that I frequently find you a little infuriating, but I dont hate you.

I think an American has as good a chance of anyone to get a fair trial in the UCC. It is too public a forum for politics to enter into it in the degree you seem to think.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think an American has as good a chance of anyone to get a fair trial in the UCC.  It is too public a forum for politics to enter into it in the degree you seem to think.

We've argued this one up and down, and I see that still nothing has changed. You know where I stand, so I won't tire my fingers out retyping the same arguments.

[raedor 8]

raedor

Quote[/b] ]sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

I think the ICC is designed to prevent war crimes, not friendly fire. either way, we didn't join because there are so many hopelessly biased people out there (which is evident by spending 5 minutes reading this thread alone), the president didnt want to risk not getting a fair trial for his troops.

Quote[/b] ]and if the rest of the world joined it, why didnt the US do (yes, i know, they joined, but they retreated)? i dont know UCMJ, but i think it's an US institution, am i right?

the russians always say that soldiers who comitted crimes in chechnya or anywhere else will get punished... but only by a national court. the same for the US. and u know, those national courts are in no country really strict.

that's why i think every country should join ICC.

The UCMJ is the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, it's enforced by the Judge Advocate General, MPs, SPs, OSI, generally by the military itself.

Look at it this way: I think It's fair to say that most people on this forum hate me. Now say Denoir (I know he's gone, just for an example) is a judge in the ICC, and Tovarish, you, and Warin are all selected for the jury.

Am I going to get a fair trial?

i think the only one here who hates anyone other are you... i dont hate you. you have not my opinion... so what? why should i hate you? i can accept it.

in this thread post i post my own opinion. if i were a justice, i would try to be unbiased.

"generally by the military itself." i thought we had left behind "self-control" since voltaire... i dont know the correct name of it in english, maybe sepatration of powers (Gewaltenteilung in german). if one "power" is controlled by itself it is just a joke, cos why should it admit that it has done mistakes? why cant the army be controlled by real american courts?

back ontopic: it's the same with CIA: the CIA has to check if it said the truth about saddam's abilities to get/produce nuclear/biological/chemical weapons or not... why should it say "oh, yes, we said something wrong!"?

[FSPilot 0]

Would you get a fair trial in the UCMJ? How do you know that UCMJ is not biased? They might not hate you, but they could just sweep the case under the carpet. Afterall an american soldier committing war crimes is bad PR.

The UCMJ may be biased, but it's not nearly as prone to bias as the international court would be.

And the UCMJ has tried people for friendly fire before, so they don't just sweep it under the carpet.

Warin

Quote[/b] ]I dont think its fair to say that anyone hates you.  I know that I frequently find you a little infuriating, but I dont hate you.

So how do you explain the cows head in my bed?  My brakes being cut?  A sudden increase in the number of Swedish special ops hanging around leavenworth?    

Anyway my point is that when you mix justice with the political agendas of politicians, you get more politics than you do justice.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Anyway my point is that when you mix justice with the political agendas of politicians, you get more politics than you do justice.

Yeah, just look at the Supreme Court.

[FallenPaladin 0]

So how do you explain the cows head in my bed?  My brakes being cut?  A sudden increase in the number of Swedish special ops hanging around leavenworth?    

Geez... being here on the forums is more dangerous than I first thought!!!

[Schoeler 0]

No American in his right mind wants to kill an ally and if he did, he would most certainly go to prison for it.

sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

Would you want foreign governments judging your actions? Consider the fact that we feel justified as a sovereign nation in fighting this war with Iraq. Now consider that some other countries consider this wa war crime. Do you really think the U.S. as the world's only superpower is going to surrender any of that power or subvert its own sovereignty by allowing those smaller foreign nations to judge us based upon a different system of morals or ideas of proper international relations? Those other countries have their own interests and agendas just as we have ours. I don't agree with surrendering our sovereignty and subverting our national interests in the interest of meeting theirs.

[Warin 0]

Going back to the subject of Iraq:

Looks like 3 more casualties today.

Not doubting the will of americans for a moment, how many casualties after the war has 'ended' do you think it will take to sink Bush's re-election bid. Couple that with a former US envoy claiming that his report on the African Uranium claim was completely distorted by the Bush Administration. How will support fot the Administration weather these things?

I feel sort of down every time I hear about anther US serviceman being killed in Iraq. Being sent to war is bad enough, but being sent to a war predicated on lies and deceit is pretty horrible.

[Schoeler 0]

Read Balschoiws post with those chopper pilots. They were told on radio that the targets they wanted to engage were friendly. Repeatedly. They didn`t care first, they wanted to blow them up. That`s at least a mixture 50:50 evil and stupidity.

Well, again I very much doubt those pilots wanted to kill friendly forces.  They were probably a bit too gung ho, and they probably had a difficult time telling enemy apart from friendly, but men don't get into a positioon in society where they have the authority and responsibility to fly Apache gunships and kill other men unless they have demonstrated a consistent and reliable rationality and good mental health.

How in God's name can you say with any inkling of authority what was in those pilots minds?  The information you've used as the basis for your entire argument here is taken third or fourth hand.  Analyzing your argument from the basis of simple Aristotelian logic, your statements are just jam packed with fallacies.  You believe that those pilots were a mixture of 50-50 evil and stupidity based upon what some guy whom you've never even met in real life (Balschoiw) told you.  How do you know who he is?  How can you take his argument as gospel when you don't know how reliable it is, or he is?  How do you know what his agenda might or might not be?  He may have recieved that information second or third hand himself, which makes your argument even more flawed.

Quote[/b] ]Regarding pissing of the americans here on the forums, I`m deeply sorry, but it`s a fact that there`s a mentality in the US forces in some groups which is mainly defined by a "kick-someone`s-ass-attitude" and I`m unsure if those guys with that kind of urge to kill would decide between friendly and hostile if it just blows up nicely. Afterwards you can always say that you couldn`t identify your target... if you`re a psycho of course. There`s a book written by an US sniper who couldn`t get a deadly shot on someone and is now driven by his urge to kill which was trained into him. He says that need to kill is hard to control. I`ll do some research and I`ll come up with author and title when I`ve found it. That book could be kinda interesting.

Your "fact" about the mentality of our troops is dubious at best (and I'm being extremely generous here).  I can tell you haven't spent much time in military service or in the company of American servicemen, so again the information which you've based this entire argument upon is taken third or fourth hand and is completely unreliable.  How you can state that it is a "fact" that American servicemen are driven by an uncontrollable urge to kill, I don't know, because you have absolutelyZERO experience in this area.  The sum total foundation for your argument is based upon conjecture and specualtion, not fact.

See, now I spent six years serving in the American military, so compared to you, I'm a world renowned expert on the mentality of American servicemen!   Get some of your own experience or get a first hand source of information that can be confirmed before you cast any judgement on others.  Anything less and you've voyaged from the province of sound logical argumentation into the realm of sounding like a retard.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!  Hear that sound?  Its the line playing out from the reel, because you've taken the bait offered up by anti-American propagandists, swallowed it whole without assessing it first, and now you're being jerked around like a struggling fish.

[Schoeler 0]

Going back to the subject of Iraq:

Looks like 3 more casualties today.

Not doubting the will of americans for a moment, how many casualties after the war has 'ended' do you think it will take to sink Bush's re-election bid.  Couple that with a former US envoy claiming that his report on the African Uranium claim was completely distorted by the Bush Administration.  How will support fot the Administration weather these things?

I feel sort of down every time I hear about anther US serviceman being killed in Iraq.  Being sent to war is bad enough, but being sent to a war predicated on lies and deceit is pretty horrible.

I'd have to say if definitive evidence fails to appear that we were imminentlly threatened by Iraqi WMD, then Bush is screwed.

That, or if we suffer a major and well organized attack by Iraqi resistance where lots of casualties are generated and it become apparent that they are well organized and getting stronger every day. If it looks like its becoming another Vietnam, then Bush is sunk.

Or, if he continues to completely horsefuck the economy, he'll suffer the same fate as his father.

[FSPilot 0]

Bush has already got my vote in 2004, why? Look at the democrats. There's no way I'm putting Jesse Jackson in office.

I think the civil unrest will die down once we get Iraq running back to normal. Right now there are still problems with the power. I think water and food are doing fine, but the power is out in some places. Once those issues are taken care of the civilians should be happy, then we just have to deal with the remaining Saddam loyalists and we'll be done.

I don't see this turning into another Vietnam, this war has a forseeable ending.

[Schoeler 0]

I heard the guerillas are intentionally attacking and re-attacking the power grid, so we are going to have to "fix" them before we fix that!

[ran 0]

I think the civil unrest will die down once we get Iraq running back to normal.  Right now there are still problems with the power.  I think water and food are doing fine, but the power is out in some places.  Once those issues are taken care of the civilians should be happy, then we just have to deal with the remaining Saddam loyalists and we'll be done.

what kind of fairy tale have you been reading lately ?

[FSPilot 0]

I think the civil unrest will die down once we get Iraq running back to normal.  Right now there are still problems with the power.  I think water and food are doing fine, but the power is out in some places.  Once those issues are taken care of the civilians should be happy, then we just have to deal with the remaining Saddam loyalists and we'll be done.

what kind of fairy tale have you been reading lately ?

what kind of fairy tale have you been reading lately?