 |
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:08 AM by jsobecky
|
 Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, we did cover it. This reasoning is callous.
*places self in Ahmed's shoes*
"okay, we have no way out of town, but they are going to be going after the bad guys. we'll lay low in our house, keep our heads down, let the
exchange take place and then crawl back out. We'll be fine honey."
damn - I didn't consider the air was going to be set on fire and embedded flaming particles would burn through my soft tissue...
hmm - i'll do it different in my next life. 
Callous, Val? Sorry you feel that way.
Actually, if Ahmed had stayed in his house with the doors and windows closed, he would probably have been protected from the WP.
If we are held to the standard of not firing until we are absolutely sure there are no civilians in the area, we may as well give up. Otherwise, what
is to prevent Abu from sitting in the center of the action with a baby on each lap, taunting us with "Nyah nyah ! You're not allowed to shoot!
 "?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:46 AM by Harlequin
|
then please explain why the british cause far less casualities for similar successes
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:48 AM by Seekerof
|
Give source links to those given British similiar situations, Harlequin.
seekerof
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:59 AM by Harlequin
|
in basra in 2003/2004 , they took the city and quelled the unrest without anywhere near as much violence - in fact they went so far as to not wear
body armour/ helmets , and peacefully took the city.
different methods of dealing with situations - the british learnt how to city fight from many years of dealing with the NORAID sponsored IRA , whilst
the US army learnt from Israel (how to perform crowd control)
[edit on 18-11-2005 by Harlequin]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 12:18 PM by XphilesPhan
|
news.bbc.co.uk...
Doesnt sound very 'peaceful' to me, i personally think UK troops did nothing wrong as it is a war, but dont be blowing smoke about it either.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 12:32 PM by Harlequin
|
Seven British soldiers have been killed in a spate of attacks involving roadside bombs since May.
More people have died in accidents on teh UK roads than that
In September, two British soldiers who were believed to be working undercover, were arrested by Iraqi police.
Now that makes for something interesting - as i can`t ever see any US forces being `arrested` can you?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 12:57 PM by deltaboy
|
OMG this is news. i just found out the British use WP as well in their sector. this is big news indeed. OMG!!!!! any comments? 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 01:01 PM by Esoterica
|
Originally posted by maidenwolf
Esoterica....can you not see a difference for yourself? I'm asking seriously with no sarcasm or anything like that. If I told you that you had a
choice of deaths...gun or acid poured on you...which would you pick? Or how about burning to death or being shot? It wouldn't matter to you?
Honestly. Think about it before you answer. Think about how different those deaths would be. How about not even death...you could be shot and live or
have acid poured on you and live. Or burn. Or being made to breath a chemical that might not kill you but would damage your internal organs...with GOD
only knows what long term effects it would bring on top of it? Which would you pick?
Dead by burning, dead by bullets, you're still dead.
Civlians getting cooked by WP, getting shot by itchy triggerfingers, getting blown up in insurgent bombings... these are all symptoms of the problem.
Stopping the use of a certain weapon is just a band-aid, it'll make stuff slightly better for a while. The real problem is that the insurgency
exists and they take root in population centers. Any battle that takes place is going to harm and kill civilians, changing which weapons we
use to do the job won't stop that. If you want civilians deaths to end, you need to get the fighting out of people's backyards.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 03:43 PM by grimreaper797
|
Lied about using white phosphorus, now unless someone wants to prove why they lied (which in my book wont be reasonable either way) then go ahead.
but the truth is they lied, go ahead and talk about that instead of whether or not it was morally right or if civilians were killed. people are
people. we invaded there country, plain and simple.
say a country wanted to invade us and "free" us from our government of lies and deception as they saw it as. they say their target is to rid the
government and install a better one. because the govenrment has done things they see as unjust. well how does that settle in your mind? next thing you
know this country is telling you leave or be caught in the fighting. ok so now your forced to leave your posessions at your house which may end up
being destroyed. but you stay because you feel that it shouldnt possibly be. would you evacuate your home because another country decided to invade it
and attack?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 04:55 PM by jsobecky
|
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Lied about using white phosphorus, now unless someone wants to prove why they lied (which in my book wont be reasonable either way) then go
ahead.
Well, it looks like you're approaching this with an open mind. 
The "lie" has been covered already. Today, as a matter of a fact.
say a country wanted to invade us and "free" us from our government of lies and deception as they saw it as. they say their target is to rid
the government and install a better one. because the govenrment has done things they see as unjust.
I don't mind discussing "what if's", but I have to chop yours off at the knees. There's no way the US is going to be invaded, not with our
geographical advantage of the two major oceans as half of our borders. It would be impossible to deploy a force large enough to occupy us without
being detected far in advance.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 06:59 PM by grimreaper797
|
what im saying is lying isnt reasonable, and please give me a link to its 'reasoning'. open mind? why should i they lied, totally contradicted their
statements eairlier. either show that the original statement they made denying it was false or the statement of them using it is false, those are the
only arguements.
so what, is the government using little white lies now? sorry but they lied about something pretty serious, so your reasoning is probably garbage,
unless you can prove other wise. (which i said either way wouldnt be reasonable because i cant possibly think of a reason for lying about its use
unless they have something to cover up)
if it was legal and not a chemical weapon, and its aloud. then why would they lie? there better be some pretty damn good reasoning behind your answer.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 07:55 PM by jsobecky
|
Originally posted by grimreaper797
what im saying is lying isnt reasonable, and please give me a link to its 'reasoning'. open mind?
Once more, just for you. It was the State Dept.'s "lie", if you want to call it that. I bolded the "lie" for you.
The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public
relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.
The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces
"do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".
The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to
provide smoke for camouflage.
news.bbc.co.uk...
why should i they lied, totally contradicted their statements eairlier. either show that the original statement they made denying it was false or the
statement of them using it is false, those are the only arguements.
You'll have to re-phrase that paragraph. I honestly cannot understand what you are saying/asking.
so what, is the government using little white lies now? sorry but they lied about something pretty serious, so your reasoning is probably garbage,
unless you can prove other wise. (which i said either way wouldnt be reasonable because i cant possibly think of a reason for lying about its use
unless they have something to cover up)
My reasoning is probably "garbage"? Tsk, tsk. No need for that kind of talk.
if it was legal and not a chemical weapon, and its aloud. then why would they lie? there better be some pretty damn good reasoning behind your answer.
Whaa? I'm not a spokesman for the administration. I'm merely a seeker of the truth, as I am sure you are. I've been around long enough to see that
this was no massive conspiritorial cover up, merely a new, overworked, under-briefed ambassador, who tried to answer a question on the fly without
doing research. He got bit, and I doubt he'll ever make that type of mistake again. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 09:08 PM by grimreaper797
|
to me your reasons is garbage UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE
then fine, if you dont want to consider it a lie, the person at fault should be fired. that will sent the message that if you screw up your gone, so
dont screw up.
i dont know about you but i dont want people who just jump to conclusions giving me the first line of information on a war. IMHO, if one person is at
fault for the lie, then off with his head and get some one more responsible to do the job. if you cant handle the responsiblities of your job then you
shouldnt be doing it.
sorry for my paragraph that made no sense, i was currently watchin the cspan debate and idk what i was thinking. guess i wasnt paying attention,
sorry.
so either the pentagon lied, or this ambassador is at fault, either way some one needs to be punished for it because im sick of these guys getting let
off the hook.
[edit on 18-11-2005 by grimreaper797]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 09:42 PM by maidenwolf
|
I asked you to honestly ponder the question, including how different those deaths would be, and then answer. Dead is dead is a cop-out. I'll answer
my own question....give me a bullet. I don't want to suffer in excruciating pain for GOD knows how long before I die. I want it as quick as possible.
I can't imagine making anyone else suffer either. There IS a difference in these scenarios....
EDIT: Removed quotes and fixed unclear sentence.
[edit on 11/18/05 by maidenwolf]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 10:28 PM by jsobecky
|
grimreaper797
I'm not in the ambassadors' shoes, so I can't speak for him. I can only read what you can: the reports in the media.
Personally, I think he reacted over the word napalm when he answered. But I don't know for sure.
I think that it is a bit harsh to fire him for this, especially if he does the right thing and goes back to the press with the correct information.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 10:31 PM by grimreaper797
|
you and i personally feel different. i feel we should be as harsh as possible when such important people can 'overreact' in a way and come out
publicly with false statements. yes its one thing to over react. its another thing to go off making statements about it that you havent clarified true
yet.
he either wasnt taking his job serious enough, or just wasnt using his head. either way that makes me uncomfortable with him being in the position hes
in.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:48 PM by rogue1
|
Originally posted by maidenwolf
I asked you to honestly ponder the question, including how different those deaths would be, and then answer. Dead is dead is a cop-out. I'll answer
my own question....give me a bullet. I don't want to suffer in excruciating pain for GOD knows how long before I die. I want it as quick as possible.
I can't imagine making anyone else suffer either. There IS a difference in these scenarios....
Most people who get shot, don't die straight away you know and it can be just as excrutiating as being burned. Or what about having your legs
blown by a bomb or artillery shell, is that more humane than WP, IMO No.
Seems we are more worried in the methods used to kill people, rather than the fact they've been killed
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-11-2005 @ 02:23 AM by Harlequin
|
news.bbc.co.uk...
UK troops have used white phosphorus in Iraq - but only to create smokescreens, Defence Secretary John Reid has said.
MPs are worried by the admission by US forces that they used the controversial substance in the Iraqi city of Falluja - something they had previously
denied.
Good grief everyone is using this nasty s***. And there are moves to include WP as a chemical weapon under all the present treaties.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-11-2005 @ 05:09 AM by Souljah
|
US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon'
Update!
 Independant
Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had
characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon."
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defense website. The file was headed: "Possible use of
phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory
against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and
the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."
According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr. Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it
inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
So, let me get this Straight:
IF Saddam uses it its called Chemical Weapon,
when US Forces use it, its NOT?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
I certain Word, starting with an -H- pops to Mind.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-11-2005 @ 06:59 PM by moshegirl
|
Friendly WP fire
Yea- I seen this stuff in combat action- both as a 81 motar and as grenade.
It's nasty stuff- i used white phos as a maker for sighting in motars. Direct hits on places, people and things. Wanna know how nasty it is go to a
military hospital and ask a recently wounded vet recovering from friendly fire white phos- nasty scars
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
