Longinius

The only point this guy has is that the US got away with all that because they are the US. Most other countries would be under heavy UN sanctions for actions like this. While I also agree that the way the UN works need to be revamped, I think supporting the murder of UN employes is sick and disturbing. And if anything, deserves measures taken from the mods.

I'd also like to point out that there is an enormous difference between people in the 60's digging tunnels in the jungle, and contstruction workers in our present day trying to build an enormous under ground bunker in the desert. Satellites would pick that construction up in no time, or the hard ware running to and from the site any way. Or are you telling me that the coalition, with all their intelligence sources and satellites, wouldnt pick up on a constuction project that size, in a country they basically have under siege?

Its scary how voulnerable an advanced society like the US actually is. All this mess related to a lightning strike hitting a powerplant near the Niagra falls. As for this being a minor inconvinience, I think its a bit more than that. The power was / is out in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto and Ottowa. Subways stopped dead in the tracks and elevators got stuck in the shafts. Thats a pretty big problem... (to those in the subway and elevator of course). According to Swedish news, several nuclear powerplants also had to be closed, as well as seven major airports. The fact that radio and TV was out didnt really help either, as people had no idea what was happening. An estimate said that around 10 million people were without power. Now, to me, thats a lot. Since its the entire population of Sweden Imagine if this had been a terrorist attack, or the prelude to a war. Easy way to put a large portion of the US out of commission, really, really fast.

I could give it a try... I think Bush is doing a great job. We know Saddam had the WMD's, we have seen it. TBA has proof of it, they have told us so. After all, he is a mad man and he had to be stopped. Its not about the oil, and anyone saying that is just plain ignorant. Show me ANY proof that it has to do with oil? Also, the Iraqi people needed, no, they had to be liberated. That is the only reason the US attacked, because the impotent UN wouldnt. And those Euro weaklings didnt want to commit because they were after the oil for their own communist and socialist use. But I stress, the US never had ANY interest in the oil. .... ....doing good so far?

Even if you did, wars would still be fought. Because the decision makers rarely have to go into the field themselves, nor send their loved ones. This was all ready pointed out. I think the response what that people wouldnt accept it if war was very terrible. Well, people have always accepted it. And what is there to accept anyway? If some moron manages to rally his soldiers to attack, you got a war wether you like it or not. And even evil men can get his soldiers to go to war, simply by threatening to have their families killed if they dont. War will always exist, no matter how terrible. So then you might as well try to make it less terrible.

I dont think you would crush peoples will and desire for freedom. The nazis did pretty much that. Didnt work on very well in most occupied territories. France being one example. When french freedomfighters had attacked Nazis, the Nazis would execute civilians and any suspects. This didnt stop future attacks though, to some extent, I think it gave fuel to more opposition.

No, which means it clearly was a reference to GW2. In GW1 they had the choice to replace the government, and chose not to. Again, only something a winner can chose, not a loser. And even if they had gone in with brute force and bombed everything to bits, we'd still see US soldiers die. Unless they killed all people in Iraq. Because the people now killing US soldiers are not only former Iraqi military, but also civilians and most likely a couple of terrorist cells. These elements would have existed even if the US had used their entire arsenal to beat the enemy. Unless of course they killed everyone in Iraq (which would be kind of counterproductive as they were "liberating" the Iraqis).

"Should the US troops get involved if they see cops chasing someone? I think they shouldn't get mixed in the Iraqi police affairs unless they're asked to." As long as they are an occupying force, I think they have to. I could be wrong though.

Not in my eyes. The coalition and the US beat the regular opposing army. They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own. That to me is winning, as much as an occupying army can ever win. Yes, but the fact that one side DID play by the rules resulted in less human casualties. The US could have simply nuked, gased and napalmed the sheit out of Iraq. Maybe a few friendly casualties, mostly airplane pilots, but other than that no ill effects to themselves. But they didnt. Thats not the only reason. You can never win a war by taking terrain and then giving it back. This was probably one of the main reasons.

Maybe we will eventually see warfare done like in one of the old Star Trek episodes. Simulated warfare, done on computers. X number of citizens was then promptly executed after each strike, corresponding with the simulated casualties.

Of course you can. It was done. The US and the coalition won both GW1, GW2 and in Somalia. Dispite these tactics. And while there might have been some breaches of the "rules", over all, it was by the book. (During the actual fighting mind you, I wont get into the legality of GW2.) You didnt see western soldiers execute civilians by the dozen, they didnt take to using human shields, they didnt pick up babies as shields. They followed the rules and won regardless. How can you say it doesnt work after actually having seen the results?

Of course not. Its easy to make mistakes. But the thing that suprises me is: 1. The police in the unmarked car had uniforms. There was a marked police car close to it, participating in the chase. The US soldiers could obviously see the occupants of the car. Whats the deal here? 2. Isnt there such a thing as properly identifying your targets? Would they have fired just as recklessly if it was an American marked police car / military vehicle and not an Iraqi one? 3. This still does not explain the second kill and the assault on the third police officer.

Conventions and rules are a good thing. They let those that declare war know that if they go to far, they will be held accountable. Without these conventions and laws, no civilian in any warzone would have even the slightest right or safety. As it is now, there is atleast hope. And hope is quite important. Further more, these rules and conventions remind a soldier of what is moraly right and wrong. While its not always followed, I think that if it saves atleast some lives its worth it. No, it will never work 100%. But I can settle for 10%, or 20% or 22%...or whatever. As long as we dont see "modern" warfare carried out like the wars between tribes in Africa, with machetes cutting limbs of civilians and so on I think there is a point.

Actually, there wasnt any cars chasing the police cars. The unmarked police cars were chasing a van with criminals. They fired on it in an attempt to stop it, and thats when the US troops got involved.

Source is AFP and TT, quite respected news agencies. Different doesnt mean its automatically wrong... So? They must have known this was a possibility from day 1. Enemies posing as police, firefighters, paramedics and what ever. This still doesnt give them the right to shoot people that are surrendering. I would say that this depends on how close the target is to you or what you are protecting. The IDF for example are very used to the threat of suicide bombers, yet they often apprehend suspects alive. They couldnt do that if they shot them all on sight. So? You can beat up a guy for a good time without breaking bones, if you just have a clue about what you are doing. I have seen guys worked on with batons, with just bruises and quite a lot of pain. Its a matter of where you hit, and how. And if I am thinking about the same hooligan, he had a lead or iron pipe with which he beat the policeman. His intention was probably to kill him, so he went for the head, back and so on. If this had been done by Iraqi police officers, and the victims had been US soldiers. Had you defended the Iraqis the same way?

Yeah, thats my reaction aswell. I can understand the first death. Accidents do happen, no matter how stupid or terrible. But the second shot and the following beating is just to much.

http://www.expressen.se/expressen/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=356&a=53481 Two Iraqi police officers shot by US soldiers, one beaten up. They were chasing criminals in an plain civilian car when a US patrol spotted them. There was a gunfight going on and the US soldiers opened up on the police men (uniformed, in a civilian car). The first police officer was shot dead in the back seat. The car stopped, the second one got out, hands raised identifying himself as a police officer. He was also shot, one round impacting the right eye. The third police officer was then dragged out of the car. He knelt down, holding his hands in the air and displaying his badge. He got kicked in the back and fell down. Then two kicks to the head, followed by a boot pressing down the head on the ground. This followed by a beating lasting for several minutes, resulting in wounds and bruises all over his face and upper body. Yeah, those American soldiers are sure doing a great job...

I think there are several gems in the old series of books I think is called "Survivors". Its just a guess, a direkt translation from the Swedish title (De Överlevande). Basically it was a bunch of books by various writers, all taking part during or after a WW3 nuclear holocaust. The ones during the conflict were probably my favorites.

Well, it wasnt about oil. Remember, they told us so.

"How many allied soldiers were spared death and multilation by changing the Japanese minds about surrendering faster rather than dying for their immortal Emperor in a war started by Japan, in a true axis of evil with the Nazis?" And how many innocent lives were claimed that might have survived if the bombs werent dropped? We will never know. All we know is that a nuke is one of the most terrible weapons around. It does not only kill and wound on detonation, but its effects linger on for generations resulting in deformed children and effects on nature and wildlife. But then again, this isnt so bad as long as it isnt your children and your back yard, right?

So you are not opposed to the use of WMD's, Schoeler?

Never been shot, but I have been stabbed once... And burnt by boiling grease on the wrist. I dont know how a stab wound compares to a bullet, but I do know how a burn compared to a stab. The stab, while quite painful, cant really compare to the burn. The burn was just insane. First quite intense pain, followed by shock at which time I didnt feel much. After putting my arm in a sink with water, shock started to go away and pain took over. I dont know what the burn classed as, I suspect a second degree one. Anyway, I'll take a stabbing over a burn.

Schoeler: OK. If we are talking about instant and not prolonged death, you are correct. It doesnt matter how you died. But, napalm doesnt kill all victims instantly. Most die as a result of the burns, some time after the use of the weapon itself. This means, most victims of napalm will suffer horribly before dieing. If napalm killed instantly, no matter how horrible, I wouldnt object to it. But it doesnt, and thats the point. It takes a long time for most victims to die, and that long time is filled with intense suffering.

No, of course not. This discussion is not about choice though. Its about napalm, and if it should be used or not. The reason the UN banned it I suspect is to remove that option from the battlefield, so people wouldnt have to be subjected to it. The only reason choice entered the discussion is because people seem to think that some ways arent nastier to die than others. And I disagree with this. Or maybe you'd like to see executions by napalm instead of by lethal injection or firing squad for example?

Yes, but the system doesnt stay permanently shut down. Lets say you survive the blast and the pain shuts down the system temporarily. Then you wake up later on, with those burns. Still think you wouldnt feel pain? As for the system shutting down, yes, I am sure this happens. But I doubt it works the same on all people, and I doubt they wouldnt feel initital pain anyway. Keyword being "often". And how many napalm victims have you met by the way? My brother was involved in an incident where a man threatened to torch his home and his family, using a jug of gasoline and a lighter. Luckily, only the man got burnt. Sadly, quite seriously. According to my brothers account that man felt quite a deal of pain after the flames had been put out. So given a choice of death, between say being put down with a drug or napalm, you wouldnt choice either because it wouldnt matter to you? Of course they wouldnt want to die. But that is besides the point since we are actually discussing ways to die, or kill, as it were.