http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.htm I'll leave you with that. I give up trying to make a point. It's obvious everyone here has their own agenda and is for the most part unwilling to be open minded. We're committing acts against humanity every single day why we pretend to be the world's savior. I love our country and our freedoms and I chose to criticize these atrocities because I fear losing the very freedoms we all cherish. Good luck to all of you and good luck to our government and our country doing a better job in the future. Peace Edit: So hard to stay away... Here they are killing civilians: http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/apachehit.mpg When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander's stated intent in the operations order. The pilot's exclamation of satisfaction, “Aw dude!†at the end just underlines how this casual sadism comes to dominate the psyches of those who are part of a military occupation force, and how the ground reality become “race war.â€" http://globalresearch.ca/images/Massacre of Civilians.wmv http://www.newsgateway.ca/apache_original_video.htm
Heard it all before. HRW, we should be fighting with spit balls. Acts against humanity means taking credit for zarqawis efforts. I'm only concered with what we can find to sell out our country and give credence to thosenever mentioned. I fear loosing freedoms, says the man that never served a day in their life. It's always about I.
Perhaps during a war time situation, you'd prefer they land their aircraft, approach them bringing gifts of tea and chocolates and strike up casual conversation about whether they have any intent on hurting them? Hmm, I wonder what zarqawi would do? I wonder who would give his credit to others
That is not the point or the point as I see it. Of course civilians are going to die, but when we use it as a reason to attack another country either by force or by words which we often do how can we in return not expect to be attacked if even by words only for instances such as this happening?
I had no expectation you would see it that way. When I post something, I usually know what your position is going to be. I know when you will persue something further and with whom, and when you will not. And I didn't expect you would ask such questions as where it came from, is it validated, what context was it taken in, what were the surrounding factors, etc. There's no moral equivalence for me.
As I know where you usually will avoid. I'm not stating at all if we were in the right or not, if others are in the right or not, simply stating that if we are guilty of killing civilians yet we attack other countries for civilian deaths in war time it's hard to make our case to the world.
I've actually disputed all sides, not just one in this debate on many issues even though of course in this debate I am against how the war was lead. I am not fearful to take on a post if I feel it's untrue, or I take exception to it even if the person posting usually agrees with me or I them. Can many other people say that on here in all honesty? It appears 2 sides, and in those 2 sides nobody will question anyone on their side, I however have questioned both sides on several issues, yes more questions to your side of things, but that's only because more issues have been raised in which I disagree with from your side. Other instances I am not disagreeing, only placing my overall opinion on things. Just in this case I feel and understand both sides, I however am split more in the middle than taking either extreme view.
Yet we have killed civilians in Iraq, even if totally not on purpose and we tried everything at all to stop them from happening. I am not stating the US or our troops should be put down for it, simply that civilians deaths will happen in war reguardless of which side you are on. When we attack other countries for civilians deaths in time of war, it's hard for us to do the same. I am not talking about outright genocide or intentional killings of civilians, nor have I ever been in any of my previous posts on this matter.
I'll be sure and watch more closely. I definitely see taking both sides of many issues. Which of course, gives an advantage of not arguing either, or when someone points out one thing, refer back to the other side of the issue taken. Don't see much value in that myself, but I suppose everyone has a strategy. But at the end of the day, it's all water under the bridge.
Actually if you have any rational thought of your own you will disagree to an extent of both sides, to have the exact same opinion on every single issue either makes you afraid to challenge someone who usually sides with you or a puppet in most cases. I will argue, as I have against both sides. I would think this makes me more open and not closed minded.
It was a generalized statement, if I realy must I could probally find many articles where either our press or our government has ripped another country for civilian deaths. Even the insurgents attacking Iraqi police stations and or US troops get ripped apart for civilians losses. I am not arguing against our troops, calling them bad names, etc. Simply stating it's hard for us to uphold the high moral ground when we ourselves kill civilians even if it is by accident.
Ah, hypothetically. I get it now! Civilians are killed in wars, it's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life that some would sell their country out whining and crying about it. That's just the way it is. We are the high moral ground. That there are a few that get caught being stupid is not reflective of the whole. But you can bet that's all that will be pointed out, right? Had to step out for a trip to the devil worshiping Sam's Club, followed by a visit to the slave wages and terrorist Walmart regime to get some groceries
I wanted to just bring up the drinking age once more, since it went no where. Funny thing is that the federal government has 18 year olds serve in the military and as far as I know the federal law is 18 for drinking. Unless someone can point me to the federal law showing 21?? Most states addopted the 21 year old drinking laws back in 88 or so. I remember living in Idaho and right before my brother turned 18 they changed the law to 21.
Not exactly certain on a federal law for it, however the feds forced the 21 age on states by stating either you accept that is your drinking age or get much lower amounts in highway funding. The state laws are a direct result on federal policies, at least some of them not sure on a state by state basis, sure the info is out there. My brother turned 18 the year of or just before the law took place in Wisconsin allowing him to be grandfathered under the old law -edit the law being the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, a link for some info on it http://www.youthrights.org/legana.shtml
Sometimes you just come across something that says it all on a topic that's hitting home: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701703.html
Personally think it was a good read, sounds much like many other articles I've read but a good read all the same. I do enjoy reading articles that show our soldiers bravery and sacrafice and feel they deserve more than the news does show at times, as a whole though much of the news hasn't even covered Iraq much anymore at least when compared to 6 months ago.
There was a blogger that used to keep track of all the good news the media refused to report. I think he retired doing that though. Was a shame that all the MSM focused on (other than the one network that doesn't sell out their country for headlines) is the negative. But that's their agenda. See ya tomorrow. g'night hrbl.