|
Originally Posted by Carrera
There was an American military man on a BBC chat show this morning who would also agree with you. I think the older American military figures totally disagree with these present policies. In fact, what this guy said is that the U.S. is trying to fight an ideological war on terrorism by using traditional territorial strategies - thinking in terms of linking terrorists to one particular country of piece of terrain. So, he said the same as you. And John Kerry talked a lot of sense so it's a real shame people he didn't manage to get his message across (maybe he was too lacklustre).
History is there to be learned from since the Russians got it wrong in Afghanistan, America got it wrong in Vietnam and the Brits and French miscalculated in Suiz. It's not so much that Americans are dumb but I think humanity as a whole tends to be a bit dumb. As Einstein said, human stupidity is infinite. |
|
Originally Posted by limerickman
Kind of ironic, don't you think ?
What's ironic - you say ? The number of tranatlantic contributors here who calim some sort of military experience - who have chosen to stay quiet about the tactics (ore more accurately, the lack of startegy) employed by the US Cannon fodder. Zapper, Iknowbogall, White Luft, Bert/Marion, all claim to have some sort of attachment to the USA military at one time or another. None of these illustrious cyberwarriors have had any comment to make about the tactics employed, especially in Fallujah. Amazes me. I see Mr.Zarqawi has posted a message on the internet urging people to target the US forces. So the US flattens Fallujah, yet the leader of the insurgents still has the capacity to drop messages in to cyberspace at will. There's a pattern developing here : they went in to Afghanistan and the Taliban and Mullah Omar disappear and regroup.. They go in to Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden disappears and regroups. They go in to Iraq and the insurgents disappear and regroup. If I was cynical, I'd say that the USA could well want the enemy to remain - so as to justify all this war. But that would be cycnical. Maybe they're just totally incompetent ? Cynical and incompetent, perhaps ? |
|
Originally Posted by Ssushi
I havent read all the posts here and I'd say that some of you chaps know an awful lot more about this than I do but I see it this way:
1) We should not be in Iraq in the first place 2) We are in Iraq 3) We finish what we started in a dignified, gentlemanly manner 4) If the chaps who are killing us are in Fallujah, we'd better sort it out as we per point 3) - it that means assulting the place, in we go. 5) If the reports are true today about the US Marines killing injured insurgents - shame on them. In reality however, this would have happened in all other wars by all sides. The US is just stoopid enough to let the press come with them and film it all - doh! |
|
Originally Posted by FredC
Good Gracious grow up will you. The Murkyan film crews are there to show 1) winning hearts and minds. 2) benevolent conquistadors at work 3) Winning hearts and minds. 4) kissing babies. 5) carrying a bucket of water for an old lady. 6) winning hearts and minds etc. The filming will be edited by the chief of defence staff, and distributed to all major networks to be shown at exactly the same time.
|
|
Originally Posted by Ssushi
Soo sorry, what was I thinking...
What the US really need to do is to move onto Iran now, that way we'll all focus on the NEW news and forget all that Iraq nonsense, a bit like Afganistan... |
|
Originally Posted by pomod
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think?
|
|
Originally Posted by pomod
So I'm curius what, if anything, will happen to the marine who killed the unarmed and wounded Iraqi at that mosque the other day. Even the US brass investigating this incident says it's possibly a war crime. How much time do you think this guy should or will do? Or, will it be considered too "demoralizeing" to the troops for him to be actually tried as war criminal?
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think? |
|
Originally Posted by pomod
So I'm curius what, if anything, will happen to the marine who killed the unarmed and wounded Iraqi at that mosque the other day. Even the US brass investigating this incident says it's possibly a war crime. How much time do you think this guy should or will do? Or, will it be considered too "demoralizeing" to the troops for him to be actually tried as war criminal?
Slap on the wrist? dishonourable discharge? what does everyone think? |
|
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage. There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy. 1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants. The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given. By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty. 2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder. So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities. Yes, we have had several spokespeople from the US army waffling on about there being a full investigation/soldier being suspended/possible booby trapped dead insurgent bodies. In essence, just more of the same US waffle. |
|
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage. There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy. 1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants. The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given. By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty. 2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder. So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities. Yes, we have had several spokespeople from the US army waffling on about there being a full investigation/soldier being suspended/possible booby trapped dead insurgent bodies. In essence, just more of the same US waffle. |
|
Originally Posted by limerickman
Just to update you on what we're being told here in Europe.
The murder of the injured Iraqi is getting widespread coverage. There are two issues : seems that the "rebels" in that Mosque came under fire the previous day from the Marines - the following day another Marine unit went in to the same Mosque and deliberately shot the guy. 1. The first Marine unit are guilty of leaving the scene where there are known to be injured combatants. The rules of engagement state that where an enemy is injured, the victors are obliged to capture the injured and ensure that medical treatment is given. By leaving them there, the first Marine unit is guilty. |
| 2. The second Marine unit - if they shot a defenceless enemy combatant, is guilty of murder. So there are questions to be answered on both counts by the US authorities. |
