Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 While I think it's clear that atrocities will happen in war, this particular example is of a rarely seen especially brutal and barbaric type. This type of atrocity cannot and should not be expected. 143726[/snapback] What I was trying to say only much more succinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 While I think it's clear that atrocities will happen in war, this particular example is of a rarely seen especially brutal and barbaric type. This type of atrocity cannot and should not be expected. 143726[/snapback] What I was trying to say only much more succinct. 143727[/snapback] In one article I read someone pointed out that the difference bwtween this case and what happened in Iraq under Hussein is that now justice can be sought. I hope that's right, I really do. Incidentally, why do you think the lower-rank soldiers who murdered children in cold blood should be let off, and only the officers charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. 143639[/snapback] And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Leazes says we are naive. I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] thats what we all said about S Vietnam......................... Give them another 30 years and they'll have forgotten all the lessons............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Incidentally, why do you think the lower-rank soldiers who murdered children in cold blood should be let off, and only the officers charged? 143729[/snapback] Because of this and this. The peer pressure within a squadron will be immense. It's the ranking officers job to set the boundaries of what's acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Incidentally, why do you think the lower-rank soldiers who murdered children in cold blood should be let off, and only the officers charged? 143729[/snapback] Because of this and this. The peer pressure within a squadron will be immense. It's the ranking officers job to set the boundaries of what's acceptable. 143736[/snapback] Well I'll wait until there's a full trial before I make my judgements but personally it sounds to me like they went on a rampage. If that was authorised at the top, then the whole lot can cop it, if it was made at an individual level then its plainly a matter of personal prosecution. Incidentally, I doubt a few psychological experiments on peer pressure are going to stand up in court. Would you murder a family, even under direct orders? And do you admit you are now condoning the actions at the level of the soldiers involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Well I'll wait until there's a full trial before I make my judgements but personally it sounds to me like they went on a rampage. If that was authorised at the top, then the whole lot can cop it, if it was made at an individual level then its plainly a matter of personal prosecution. Incidentally, I doubt a few psychological experiments on peer pressure are going to stand up in court. Would you murder a family, even under direct orders? And do you admit you are now condoning the actions at the level of the soldiers involved? 143742[/snapback] I wouldn't be in that position. But as the second link I provided shows, almost 70% of people will go as far as killing a total stranger they can hear screaming, if they have someone in authority allowing it. You can say you wouldn't, but these are famous experiments with much stock placed in them. I condone nothing. But the only action I can't understand is that of ranking officers unable or unwilling to calm their soldiers down and give them orders to suit the situation. All it takes is "cease fire!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I take HF's points and feel some are perhaps more responsible than others for what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Well I'll wait until there's a full trial before I make my judgements but personally it sounds to me like they went on a rampage. If that was authorised at the top, then the whole lot can cop it, if it was made at an individual level then its plainly a matter of personal prosecution. Incidentally, I doubt a few psychological experiments on peer pressure are going to stand up in court. Would you murder a family, even under direct orders? And do you admit you are now condoning the actions at the level of the soldiers involved? 143742[/snapback] I wouldn't be in that position. But as the second link I provided shows, almost 70% of people will go as far as killing a total stranger they can hear screaming, if they have someone in authority allowing it. You can say you wouldn't, but these are famous experiments with much stock placed in them. I condone nothing. But the only action I can't understand is that of ranking officers unable or unwilling to calm their soldiers down and give them orders to suit the situation. All it takes is "cease fire!". 143754[/snapback] Thing is, those experiments (which I was aware of) don't tally up with what I've seen of some of the more gung-ho soldiers, who psyche themselves up listening to heavy metal and shoot anything that moves. I belief a sizable proportion like what they are doing, and are not under duress at the times of the worst atrocities. I'm happy to let a court decide though, I hope it's a fair one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 We should never had gone in in the first place. But hindsight is a wonderful thing 143518[/snapback] No hindsight needed to be involved in this one. 143566[/snapback] so you think that Saddam should still be torturing, murdering and terrorising his own people...and breaking the terms of the original surrender thereby sticking 2 fingers up at the world, along with developing chemical weapons and potentially nuclear ones You're like chemical Ali. You will deny Iran are a danger to the world when they are nuking Israel in the backround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I fail to see the relevence with regard to this particular incident Leazes. I notice you've avoided what you were asked earlier too. To widen the debate though, you were in favour of pulling out about a week ago, now things have gone tits up. Don’t you realise that would make things even worse than they are now (given life in Iraq is already worse than it was before Saddam was deposed)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Also, how come the US couldn't even concoct, let alone find, any evidence of Chemical / Nuclear weapons development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 We should never had gone in in the first place. But hindsight is a wonderful thing 143518[/snapback] No hindsight needed to be involved in this one. 143566[/snapback] so you think that Saddam should still be torturing, murdering and terrorising his own people...and breaking the terms of the original surrender thereby sticking 2 fingers up at the world, along with developing chemical weapons and potentially nuclear ones You're like chemical Ali. You will deny Iran are a danger to the world when they are nuking Israel in the backround. 143762[/snapback] As usual, you are grossly oversimplify things Leazes. To cut a long story short though, there is no way in hell I would have gone into Iraq, as Hussein posed no threat whatsoever. The weapons inspectors knew this, and they said it at the time, to anyone who would listen, and lo and behold, nothing was found. Not a single bit of evidence of WMD. I would also avoid going into Iran at all costs. I take it you want to invade do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 How the fuck am I like Chemical Ali anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I fail to see the relevence with regard to this particular incident Leazes. I notice you've avoided what you were asked earlier too. To widen the debate though, you were in favour of pulling out about a week ago, now things have gone tits up. Don’t you realise that would make things even worse than they are now (given life in Iraq is already worse than it was before Saddam was deposed)? 143765[/snapback] What I find hilarious is Leazes playing the humanitarian card. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Leazes wants to broaden the debate because he couldn't answer stuff he was asked previously tbh. A common tactic of his. See: Threads relating to Shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. 143607[/snapback] I take it you haven't read the reports about what supposedly took place then Leazes? The fact that US Senators have already been briefed about what happened and the fact that some have already condemned the purpetrators says it all to me. As does your refusal to condemn what happened. Feel free to justify the killing of a two year old in the circumstances by all means. 143609[/snapback] I'm not justifying anything. I'm just agreeing with GF that some things happen that are terribly sad, but war of any kind is sad. I hope you will condemn the next arseholes that are in this country and blow people of any age up somewhere, then disappear under a cloak of anonymity to the dole office, rather than admit the twats shouldn't be here in the first place. [not specifically you, but those who spout this shit]. You are obviously also unaware of the fact that terrorist gunmen often use kids to fool soldiers and peacekeepers [whatever you want to call them] to lower their rifles then shoot them ? What would you do, exactly, if you thought you were in this situation. I'm only pointing out the type of "pressure" that GF is getting at, and an adult rather than a hand wringing reponse would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. 143639[/snapback] And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Leazes says we are naive. I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] Iraq wasn;t a threat ? Did they have chemical weapons, yes or no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. 143607[/snapback] I take it you haven't read the reports about what supposedly took place then Leazes? The fact that US Senators have already been briefed about what happened and the fact that some have already condemned the purpetrators says it all to me. As does your refusal to condemn what happened. Feel free to justify the killing of a two year old in the circumstances by all means. 143609[/snapback] I'm not justifying anything. I'm just agreeing with GF that some things happen that are terribly sad, but war of any kind is sad. I hope you will condemn the next arseholes that are in this country and blow people of any age up somewhere, then disappear under a cloak of anonymity to the dole office, rather than admit the twats shouldn't be here in the first place. [not specifically you, but those who spout this shit]. You are obviously also unaware of the fact that terrorist gunmen often use kids to fool soldiers and peacekeepers [whatever you want to call them] to lower their rifles then shoot them ? What would you do, exactly, if you thought you were in this situation. I'm only pointing out the type of "pressure" that GF is getting at, and an adult rather than a hand wringing reponse would be welcome. 143773[/snapback] Read about what happened, then get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) Thing is, those experiments (which I was aware of) don't tally up with what I've seen of some of the more gung-ho soldiers, who psyche themselves up listening to heavy metal and shoot anything that moves. I belief a sizable proportion like what they are doing, and are not under duress at the times of the worst atrocities. I'm happy to let a court decide though, I hope it's a fair one. 143761[/snapback] Absoloutley. I said earlier in the thread how that gung-ho, rock music, shades on, top off approach disgusts me. But it's a culture that is cultivated because such bravado is required when basically good men are required to kill anyone. I suspect most of the soldiers out there are good men who will suffer years of pain if they killed anyone, let alone a defenceless child. Those in charge have a responsibility to limit that, and when they allow such bravado to get out of hand they let down everyone. Edited June 1, 2006 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. 143639[/snapback] And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Leazes says we are naive. I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] Iraq wasn;t a threat ? Did they have chemical weapons, yes or no ? 143774[/snapback] Apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. 143607[/snapback] I take it you haven't read the reports about what supposedly took place then Leazes? The fact that US Senators have already been briefed about what happened and the fact that some have already condemned the purpetrators says it all to me. As does your refusal to condemn what happened. Feel free to justify the killing of a two year old in the circumstances by all means. 143609[/snapback] I'm not justifying anything. I'm just agreeing with GF that some things happen that are terribly sad, but war of any kind is sad. I hope you will condemn the next arseholes that are in this country and blow people of any age up somewhere, then disappear under a cloak of anonymity to the dole office, rather than admit the twats shouldn't be here in the first place. [not specifically you, but those who spout this shit]. You are obviously also unaware of the fact that terrorist gunmen often use kids to fool soldiers and peacekeepers [whatever you want to call them] to lower their rifles then shoot them ? What would you do, exactly, if you thought you were in this situation. I'm only pointing out the type of "pressure" that GF is getting at, and an adult rather than a hand wringing reponse would be welcome. 143773[/snapback] Leazes, for the millionth time not a single person on this forum supports terrorists, but what has that got to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Course it's fuicking predicatble I've said time and time we shouldn't have gone to war, but I'm not so naive as to think that bad things won't happen in war. I refuse to squeal and weep everytime there's an atrocity for the fear that it's all I'd do. We shouldn't have supported the Hussein government by selling them guns, we shouldn't have dealt with tyrants just to get a short term gain. Leazes says we are naive. but you are if you're surprised that horrible things happen at war I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. and although I can't speak for Leazes I'd say that those statements are correct. unfortunately I'm not one of those.I'm fully aware that this is a rediculous exercise. Also I'd add to that list. People who think that men and women trained to kill, who have had the enemy systematically de-humanised, will not seek revenge for the endless atrocities that are heaped upon them. This isn't condoning the soldiers acts, if you look at the posts I've made, I've referred to them as terrible, horrific, etc. etc. so don't be so narrow minded as to think that by expecting them that I accept them. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] you should go further back than simply this war, if the US knew the consequences they may not have done a million things. oh and I hope that you're not calling me a right wing bigot, because that's just petty name calling and a little to frivilous when you're rtalking about something like this. I think both sides agree think that this is a tragedy, it appears that one side expected, but still condemns it, while the other seem surprised that it happened. 143712[/snapback] which is of course, fantastically naive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. 143639[/snapback] And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Leazes says we are naive. I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] Iraq wasn;t a threat ? Did they have chemical weapons, yes or no ? 143774[/snapback] No, they didn't. I'll tell you another thing - chemical weapons aren't really dangerous anyway - they don't work. That's why we don't use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Leazes, have you read the reports of what happened btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Leazes, have you read the reports of what happened btw? 143783[/snapback] Why let a few details like that get in the way of a good rant against do-gooders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now