It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



I've seen so many different inflated numbers on "civilian" deaths, it's enough to make your head spin. Thus, I don't pay much attention, and could generally give a rat's fuzzy pucker.


That’s what’s meant to happen when you ‘don’t do body counts.’


There are so many old scores being settled between different groups - but some act as thought the US military is killing them. If the US military decided to go after civilians, you'd see complete de-populations of many segments of the country.


Pre – invasion quote; ‘The planned invasion of Iraq is nothing more than the premeditated murder of thousands of people in the name of saving them from their dictator.’ We were fed all kinds of mince propaganda prior to the invasion. Lol...we were told that the Iraqi’s would be out on the street dropping flowers at the soldiers’ feet. Funnily enough – the Iraqi’s didn’t quite see it that way.




Are profits made during war? You betcha! That hasn't changed since the first recorded battle in 1479 BC, but a bunch of naive kids on here think that profit in war is a new, very recent, evil development distinctly American.


Well because of your political system i.e. easily bought by commercial interests, and the inception of your military industrial complex the US has been going to war for profit not because the country was directly under any kind of threat. The profit is not a side effect of conflict it is the motivation for it....hence the almost constant skirmishes the US has been involved in since WWII.


About that "torture" thing. One man's aggressive interrogation is another man's torture.


Nah....’ The 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture narrowly defines torture within the confines of the second form. The Convention defines torture as any act which intentionally inflicts severe mental or physical pain on a victim for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession or for punishing the victim for conduct or suspected conduct. Torture may also occur when the infliction of pain and suffering is motivated by any form of officially sanctioned discrimination. Another facet of the Convention definition of torture is that pain or suffering is administered at the instigation, consent, or acquiescence of a public official or another person acting in an official capacity.[26] Therefore, the Convention Against Torture does not necessarily prosecute acts that fall under the first version of torture, namely those that are not inflicted with state sanction.[27]

Source - Harvard.Law.Edu



Here's the thing. When a non-unifomed combatant picks up a weapon, he LEGALLY ceases to exist. You catch him and the ranking soldier - even if he's a Private all by himself, can hold a summary execution in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Every breath he takes is at your convenience.


Laughable really....were it not so galling.

Geneva Convention
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:


(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.’



Logic says, if the non-uniformed combatant legally doesn't exist - then how in hell can you break the law by using aggressive interrogation techniques before busting his punkin?

Can't happen. And that's another screw-up we in the US have with our military leaders. They don't know their business. There should be no "detainees" at Gitmo. They should have been executed long ago in the field where they were found.

All these sensitivities - and you are bitching about things you have no legal standing to bitch about.


See the law above for a step for a hint as to how wrong you actually are here.




Profits in war will be made. Civilians, aka enemy enablers, will be killed in the prosecution of battle. Rules of war will be followed most of the time. You may not like some of the allowances, but you don't make the rules.

Get over yourself.


No problem when all those highly paid private contractors cop it then.

edit on 5-1-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Feel very sorry for you my friend. You are loved. Was someone forcing you to partake and be the aggressor? Ever heard of not contributing to something that is not morally right in the first place? Who twisted your arms as a young buck? Gladiator movies? I feel sorry that you did not find the inner courage to call a spade a spade and do what you know was right deep down back when you were getting your early doses of brainwash. There is a time for killing and its called self defense.
Try shaking a bee hive in the woods one time. But don't expect too much sympathy when when you complain of the bee stings.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Thank you for that, it is refreshing to see someone use facts rather than opinions to set things straight. It seems a lot of people have forgotten that fact trumps opinion every time.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rcanem
 


Agreed. I was sort of going with the playground approach to prove these turkeys wrong. You left emotion out and with clear facts, did the same thing. Very scholarly. Thanks



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
You are a fool and I am looking for you as you read this



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


No invasion, no insurgents... How many dictators are there in the world? I'm pretty sure most of the countries who are our allies in the "war on terror" are run by dictators. But Saddam, he was the dictator that needed urgent removal. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan can keep their dictators so long as they help us keep the bombs blowing, the oil flowing and the poppies growing.

United States of Cosa Nostra.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by FarArcher
 



I've seen so many different inflated numbers on "civilian" deaths, it's enough to make your head spin. Thus, I don't pay much attention, and could generally give a rat's fuzzy pucker.


That’s what’s meant to happen when you ‘don’t do body counts.’


I recall how the hippies screamed bloody murder about the "callousness" of body counts in Vietnam, but now folks are upset because there aren't any body counts?



Pre – invasion quote; ‘The planned invasion of Iraq is nothing more than the premeditated murder of thousands of people in the name of saving them from their dictator.’ We were fed all kinds of mince propaganda prior to the invasion. Lol...we were told that the Iraqi’s would be out on the street dropping flowers at the soldiers’ feet. Funnily enough – the Iraqi’s didn’t quite see it that way.


Which government official planning the invasion made that "quote"?




Well because of your political system i.e. easily bought by commercial interests, and the inception of your military industrial complex the US has been going to war for profit not because the country was directly under any kind of threat. The profit is not a side effect of conflict it is the motivation for it....hence the almost constant skirmishes the US has been involved in since WWII.


Which part of the MIC are you an insider of, that you can expound on their "motivation"?



About that "torture" thing. One man's aggressive interrogation is another man's torture.


Nah....(large quote removed)


That was cute, what the UN had to say there. So it ain't torture unless a government official OKs it? Can you begin to see why I say the UN is completely useless? There are lot of folks around who will no doubt be ecstatic to find out they weren't "tortured". Also, going by the UN definition you posted there, if Obama tells Michelle she has "thick ankles", she's been tortured. I hope he does that - we can snag him for a "war crime" since it occurred during wartime.




Here's the thing. When a non-unifomed combatant picks up a weapon, he LEGALLY ceases to exist. You catch him and the ranking soldier - even if he's a Private all by himself, can hold a summary execution in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Every breath he takes is at your convenience.


Laughable really....were it not so galling.



Geneva Convention
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:


(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.


Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


I highlighted a part you seem to have missed, "as defined in Article 43". This is Article 43, which that assertion hinges on. It's pretty self-explanatory:


Article 43.-Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia , shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.


You also glossed over the section where legitimate combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Convenient, no? That would be where they aren't trying to hide among the civilians, which is what was under discussion. We'll get to the part you quoted about Mercenaries soon enough. I can see where you were headed with that inclusion because of this subsequent comment:



No problem when all those highly paid private contractors cop it then.


No, really no problem at all. They cops their dime and takes their chances. They are acutely aware of what happens in war, being as how that's how they make a living, and harbor no illusions about it. They are almost painfully aware that no one really gives a rat's ass if they live or die except the enemy who, generally speaking, wants them to die. Everyone else (that would be folks like you) just views them with an active distaste. There is a reason they are called "the whores of war" by folks like that. Their employer just views them as expendable cannon fodder - that's one of the reasons they get hired in the first place. That, and the fact that they get results, much more so than the national soldiers of many third-world turd holes that employ them.

There's also a reason that they are perhaps the most feared, and thus shunned, folks on the battlefield.

They are also ACUTELY aware of the Geneva Conventions, and the part they play in them.

Now we get to your specific assertion, that the Military Contractors in Iraq somehow fall under the provision you quoted about "Mercenaries" - otherwise, why would you have bothered to include it? The VAST majority of them do not fall under it, specifically because of 44.2d. The vast majority of them were nationals of one or the other of the belligerents. One exception I can think of were the South Africans, who showed up in surprising numbers, considering that they took their chances with not only the Geneva Convention, but also their OWN national law, which has stiff punishments for such activity. I believe that after the enemy took over South Africa, they made it an offense punishable by 10 years imprisonment.

Still, they came. They knew where they were needed.

Teach ME about the Geneva Conventions, oh wise one!



edit on 2011/1/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Feel very sorry for you my friend. You are loved. Was someone forcing you to partake and be the aggressor? Ever heard of not contributing to something that is not morally right in the first place?


Thanks, but there's no need at all to feel sorry for me. I've got severe doubts about the "loved" part, but I'm at peace with that. No, I wasn't forced. I was not a conscript, or anything of that sort, not even a"soldier" in the National Army sense of the word. I can go into details another time, but I was among the "evilest" sort of "mercenary", not a national of any belligerent party - and thus subject to summary execution of captured.

That's why I'm VERY aware of the Geneva Conventions.

On the other side of the coin, I had the luxury of NEVER having to "contribute" to anything I found morally reprehensible. I could just take my ball and bat and go home if it looked like it was going that way. National Service Soldiers don't have that luxury, except maybe in Norway as Spy66 says.



Who twisted your arms as a young buck? Gladiator movies?


No one "twisted my arm", and movies were few and far between up in them hills back then



I feel sorry that you did not find the inner courage to call a spade a spade and do what you know was right deep down back when you were getting your early doses of brainwash. There is a time for killing and its called self defense.


"Inner courage"? Tell me all about that. Right after you march into a shooting war that ain't yours, one you can just walk away from, just because you see some jackass abusing their own civilian population. You can tell me all about "inner courage" after you've done that, and dodged THOSE bullets.

As I said before, that "brainwashing" business can be viewed from another angle. Try seeing it from a battlefield sometime. That gives you a REALLY different angle.

Yeah, there's a time for killing alright, that much we can agree on. I think we may see different times for that necessity, though. There are far more reasons to stir up the dust than just saving your own damn precious hide. Matter of fact, a man who's only willing to look out for himself may never be able to comprehend it. There's other folks that need looking after than just me. If I only looked out for myself, I could be rich by now, rather than just so damned dashingly handsome!




Try shaking a bee hive in the woods one time. But don't expect too much sympathy when when you complain of the bee stings.


I gave up on expecting sympathy from ANY quarter long before I ever heard my first shot fired in anger. I can sure as hell get along without any false sympathy, like folks telling me how sorry they feel for me just before proceeding to try to trash me and my motivations.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by christina-66
 


Thank you for that, it is refreshing to see someone use facts rather than opinions to set things straight. It seems a lot of people have forgotten that fact trumps opinion every time.


Yeah, it is.

Yeah, they do.

Half-facts, not so much.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by rcanem
 


Agreed. I was sort of going with the playground approach to prove these turkeys wrong. You left emotion out and with clear facts, did the same thing. Very scholarly. Thanks


"Turkeys"? Did you "feel sorry" for your Christmas turkey this year as well?

To take a "play ground" approach, one should really choose a playground where he knows the lay of the land.

Agreed, though, that an emotionless presentation of half-facts truly IS the most scholarly appearing form of propaganda.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unionoffreehumans
You are a fool and I am looking for you as you read this


Looking for who? Which of us? I'm not hard to find.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


A) Why get into a gunfight that isnt yours?

B) I am selfish for not wanting my fellow man to die over BS?

C) You are full of contradictions. Killing another human being is not right, no matter who you are or why you are doing the killing. Self defense is the only exception.

Dont you care about people in this world who want nothing to do with fighting. War is not neccessary in todays age yet we keep the ball rolling with this violence because its a lot of peoples ojbs at stake. Just like bailing out the auto industries and keeping banks alive, the gov helps perpetuate these wars.

Killing another human is wrong and you know it, Stop making excuses. Be a man.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Unionoffreehumans
 


Come & get me then! I call your bluff! idle threats of physical violence from a website forum! tut tut tut! lol
edit on 5-1-2011 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by nenothtu
 


A) Why get into a gunfight that isnt yours?


Because there are those who are incapable of doing it for themselves, and the world needs them a LOT more than those who would butcher them.



B) I am selfish for not wanting my fellow man to die over BS?


Depends on what you consider your "fellow man", and what you consider "BS". Maybe. Probably, in fact, going by your posts.


C) You are full of contradictions. Killing another human being is not right, no matter who you are or why you are doing the killing. Self defense is the only exception.


Thank you. I've been told that I'm full of much worse than that.

Some of those other "human beings" just plain NEED killing. If you ever run into one of them, you'll probably know it, but at that point it may be too late. If one of them goes after your family, you can tell THEM you're going to sit this one out, because it's not YOUR skin on the line, and after all, SELF defense involves nothing and no one else.

Some times, killing another "human being" is the ONLY right thing to do.



Dont you care about people in this world who want nothing to do with fighting.


Indeed I do. They are the very reason I do what I do, and have done what I've done. So they don't have to, and because most of them CAN'T even if they did have to.



War is not neccessary in todays age yet we keep the ball rolling with this violence because its a lot of peoples ojbs at stake. Just like bailing out the auto industries and keeping banks alive, the gov helps perpetuate these wars.


War is and will always be necessary. As long as there are two people left, and a spare stick or stone laying around, greed and lust for power will get the better of one or the other of them. You can whine about the MIC, or corporations, soldiers or mercenaries all day long, but that whining will do NOTHING to stop the power seekers and would be tyrants. All it will do is keep you distracted, so they can go about their business of destruction and enslaving.

The ONLY thing that slows them down is vigilance and occasional action.



Killing another human is wrong and you know it, Stop making excuses. Be a man.


I know no such thing. YOU make nice with the monsters out there. I'm not going to. As I said above, some folks just plain NEED killing.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Alright alright....don't get your knickers in a twist...


I recall how the hippies screamed bloody murder about the "callousness" of body counts in Vietnam, but now folks are upset because there aren't any body counts?


Yep that’s right, that’s why they ‘don’t do body counts.’ During Vietnam tptb thought that releasing these stats would convince the folks back home that they were winning. Instead it realised the humanity of the population. Every death = another atrocity.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.


I appreciate you pointing out the end of the first sentence of paragraph 3 – if you could just go on and read the rest of the paragraph and keep right going til you reach the end of paragraph 4.


Their employer just views them as expendable cannon fodder - that's one of the reasons they get hired in the first place. That, and the fact that they get results, much more so than the national soldiers of many third-world turd holes that employ them.


What you mean is that they are scum who kill for money.


They are also ACUTELY aware of the Geneva Conventions, and the part they play in them.


I don’t know why they’re acutely aware of the convention, as you rightly pointed out those fighting for personal dosh can be shot on the spot.


The VAST majority of them do not fall under it, specifically because of 44.2d. The vast majority of them were nationals of one or the other of the belligerents. One exception I can think of were the South Africans, who showed up in surprising numbers, considering that they took their chances with not only the Geneva Convention, but also their OWN national law, which has stiff punishments for such activity.


Hocum – the town nearest me has a large military population, many of whom, disgruntled at the crappy army pay, did their time and returned as private contractors for big money. It’s a legitimate form of employment – doesn’t make it right.

I don’t need to teach you about the Geneva Convention – it’s really quite a straight forward document.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I wish people would get the "war" idea out of their heads. It's not a war, it's an occupation. The US and it's allies are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries by themselves never did anything to provoke us, therefore we occupied their countries.

Furthermore, you can't have a "war" against something that doesn't really exist (terrorism). If that were true, then we would be at war with our own country due to the fact that we have domestic terrorists as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Because there are those who are incapable of doing it for themselves, and the world needs them a LOT more than those who would butcher them.


Such as?



Some of those other "human beings" just plain NEED killing. If you ever run into one of them, you'll probably know it, but at that point it may be too late. If one of them goes after your family, you can tell THEM you're going to sit this one out, because it's not YOUR skin on the line, and after all, SELF defense involves nothing and no one else.

Some times, killing another "human being" is the ONLY right thing to do.



So by your logic why can't you strut with your tough guys down to Mexico and show them who's boss? Or do you need to pick a fight with guys who can barely handle an AK-47. Many Americans talk tough when it comes to weaker fights. I don't see any Americans doing a good job fighting against the cartels, who by the way are more of a threat to your nation than Iraq ever was.



Indeed I do. They are the very reason I do what I do, and have done what I've done. So they don't have to, and because most of them CAN'T even if they did have to.


Now that isn't true at all, is it? You didn't join for the thrill, excitement, and the money? I guess you're one of the few that joins to be one of the "good guys". And most of them fight can once they are pushed to their limits. People don't give humanity enough credit. When anything is pushed into a corner they have no choice but to fight their way out.

I guess you just can't see why you really are fighting for. It isn't the American people or the majority of Iraqi's. Just to let you know that I am an Iraqi. By people saying the Iraqi's are there thanking us and etc, is a load of BS. Many people would be thanking Russia if their forces conquered the United States. The reasoning behind that would be because people are scared and they want people to throw them whatever scraps they don't want from their plate.



War is and will always be necessary. As long as there are two people left, and a spare stick or stone laying around, greed and lust for power will get the better of one or the other of them. You can whine about the MIC, or corporations, soldiers or mercenaries all day long, but that whining will do NOTHING to stop the power seekers and would be tyrants. All it will do is keep you distracted, so they can go about their business of destruction and enslaving.

The ONLY thing that slows them down is vigilance and occasional action.



Ignorance at it's finest. You are making an assumption without taking into account that humans evolve. While it is true that greed and lust for power will always be around, there will be a time when a balance between unity and diversity will produce peace.



I know no such thing. YOU make nice with the monsters out there. I'm not going to. As I said above, some folks just plain NEED killing.



Sir, by your text it would seem that you are the monster you sought out to conquer. You think you can change the world by killing a few monsters? You kill some monsters others will rise up. This is because they don't see you as a liberator but rather a monster who wants nothing more than the special interest that is vested in those nations.

Is it a coincidence that Iraq has a lot of oil? Is it a coincidence that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars worth of precious metals? Why do you think USSR invaded Afghanistan? Why did they map out where the precious metals are?

The fact is that the US has been tampering with every other nation and not the other way around. You guys fight for corporations rather than civilians, many Americans already know this. You talk about the lust, power and greed and if you go down the checklist I think America fits in pretty nicely, don't you think?
edit on 5-1-2011 by Equinox99 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by elderban
 



I 100% agree. This was the plan to justify continued military spending at the end of the cold war. As opposed to a never-ending war on an adjective we now have a never-ending war on a noun? PROPER NOUNS ONLY FOR DECLARATIONS OF WAR PLEASE. It's ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Alright alright....don't get your knickers in a twist...


Don't wear 'em. Too binding, and you'd not believe the rash that sweating in the heat will cause them t leave on you!



Yep that’s right, that’s why they ‘don’t do body counts.’ During Vietnam tptb thought that releasing these stats would convince the folks back home that they were winning. Instead it realised the humanity of the population. Every death = another atrocity.


Body counts in Vietnam became a political spectacle, with various and sundry officers inflating them and trying to "outdo" the next with inflated figures. They were otherwise useless, and only seen as "callous" by them that actually believed them.

"Atrocity"? I reckon that's in the eye of the beholder. I can name off a few "atrocities" as well, but I'm sure they're ok by you, and not atrocious at all, because they occurred to actual innocents, rather than the inflated and slanted figures being cited here.

They're just not fit fodder for the propaganda machine.





I appreciate you pointing out the end of the first sentence of paragraph 3 – if you could just go on and read the rest of the paragraph and keep right going til you reach the end of paragraph 4.


I did. Same response. Nothing is changed in paragraph 4, all the way to the end. I actually took that into account in my first response.



Their employer just views them as expendable cannon fodder - that's one of the reasons they get hired in the first place. That, and the fact that they get results, much more so than the national soldiers of many third-world turd holes that employ them.


What you mean is that they are scum who kill for money.


Yeah, something like that.


I believe I made clear what you would think of them, and damned if I wasn't right! S'ok, they'll still "save the sum of things for pay", as Houseman put it, regardless of what you think of them. "Scum"? I've been called worse by better. It really makes no difference to me. It's probably a bit presumptuous to decide for them WHY they do what they do, since that will vary from person to person, mercenary or not, but you can presume away, all you like, and thank a trigger twitcher that you've got that luxury.



They are also ACUTELY aware of the Geneva Conventions, and the part they play in them.


I don’t know why they’re acutely aware of the convention, as you rightly pointed out those fighting for personal dosh can be shot on the spot.


Not necessarily. Knowing the Convention is how you can avoid that bit of unpleasantness, assuming the captor actually pays attention to it. Again, "fighting for personal dosh" is an assumption of motivation imputed to folks you don't even know, and never will. See above about "presumptions".



The VAST majority of them do not fall under it, specifically because of 44.2d. The vast majority of them were nationals of one or the other of the belligerents. One exception I can think of were the South Africans, who showed up in surprising numbers, considering that they took their chances with not only the Geneva Convention, but also their OWN national law, which has stiff punishments for such activity.


Hocum – the town nearest me has a large military population, many of whom, disgruntled at the crappy army pay, did their time and returned as private contractors for big money. It’s a legitimate form of employment – doesn’t make it right.


How is that "hocum"? Are these former soldiers and newly minted contractors NOT nationals? Does your nation have a habit of employing foreigners in it's military that are prone to leave that military because the pay and the food suck, only to roll over for more of the same in the private sector? What do you consider "big money" for dodging bullets, sometimes unsuccessfully? Can you name a price that would make it worth it, without some OTHER motivation alongside the money? Personally, I can't think of ANY dollar amount that is worth my mother's One and only son. There always has to be more than that. I can rake in dollars just snapping widgets together on an assembly line, and not have to dodge things that go BOOM!



I don’t need to teach you about the Geneva Convention – it’s really quite a straight forward document.


No, you don't, Yes, it is, and a fluency in Legalese helps.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by nenothtu

Because there are those who are incapable of doing it for themselves, and the world needs them a LOT more than those who would butcher them.


Such as?


Are you asking for examples of folks who need protecting, or folks who need killing? Please clarify.



So by your logic why can't you strut with your tough guys down to Mexico and show them who's boss? Or do you need to pick a fight with guys who can barely handle an AK-47. Many Americans talk tough when it comes to weaker fights. I don't see any Americans doing a good job fighting against the cartels, who by the way are more of a threat to your nation than Iraq ever was.


I suppose that could be done - but WHY? I can step out my front door and go to war with 'em. No need for travel.

I've picked fights with the folks who INVENTED the AK, and they knew how to handle it pretty well. DAMNED well, I might add. "Weaker" and "smaller" are also in the eye of the beholder. A virus is not a huge thing, but it can ruin your whole day. One man launching bullets at you is pretty much the same as another - that's one area where size doesn't matter so much.




Indeed I do. They are the very reason I do what I do, and have done what I've done. So they don't have to, and because most of them CAN'T even if they did have to.


Now that isn't true at all, is it? You didn't join for the thrill, excitement, and the money? I guess you're one of the few that joins to be one of the "good guys". And most of them fight can once they are pushed to their limits. People don't give humanity enough credit. When anything is pushed into a corner they have no choice but to fight their way out.


To be brutally honest, I initially went for the money, knowing that if things went south, I could just go home. After I got there on the ground for the first time, and saw the differences between what was REAL, and what was being reported back home, things changed a bit. Nothing like helping to pick up the remain of a family that didn't want to go along with the guerrilla's program to give you an attitude adjustment in a hurry. The kids are the worst, but none of it is pretty. It'll really give you a new perspective on just who needs to be on the far end of your sights.

To my dismay, I realized that I couldn't just walk away after that. In for a penny, in for a pound.



I guess you just can't see why you really are fighting for. It isn't the American people or the majority of Iraqi's. Just to let you know that I am an Iraqi. By people saying the Iraqi's are there thanking us and etc, is a load of BS. Many people would be thanking Russia if their forces conquered the United States. The reasoning behind that would be because people are scared and they want people to throw them whatever scraps they don't want from their plate.


If you'd be so kind as to allow me to decide for myself what I'm "really" willing to fight for, that would be ever so civilized of you. Just to let YOU know, none of my wars were in Iraq. Close, but no cookie. Had a chance, didn't go - and it turned out to be the right decision. That place is a Chinese fire drill, or at least it was back then. I'm more prone to take the word of the folks coming back from there as to the conditions than I am either the news OR a forum post. I learned my lessons between reality in the zone and news reports back home long ago.

Russia can come on over for the invasion any time. I'm game. I'm not as fearful of that particular threat as you might think, since I've seen the Bear that went over the mountain already.




War is and will always be necessary. As long as there are two people left, and a spare stick or stone laying around, greed and lust for power will get the better of one or the other of them. You can whine about the MIC, or corporations, soldiers or mercenaries all day long, but that whining will do NOTHING to stop the power seekers and would be tyrants. All it will do is keep you distracted, so they can go about their business of destruction and enslaving.

The ONLY thing that slows them down is vigilance and occasional action.



Ignorance at it's finest. You are making an assumption without taking into account that humans evolve. While it is true that greed and lust for power will always be around, there will be a time when a balance between unity and diversity will produce peace.


"Ignorance". Yeah.

Tell you what, when they've "evolved" enough so that I can hang up my gunbelt and break out the plow, let me know, OK? Why won't that "evolution" put an end to the greed and lust for power? Are humans incapable of evolving that far? If they are, what good IS that "evolution"?

Be advised that "balance" involves opposing forces. Those will ALWAYS be with us, in spite of "unity" and "diversity" and all those other cute little trite catchphrases that are so abstractly in vogue these days.




I know no such thing. YOU make nice with the monsters out there. I'm not going to. As I said above, some folks just plain NEED killing.



Sir, by your text it would seem that you are the monster you sought out to conquer.


That's pretty likely. I'm NOT a very nice guy. Strangely, kids and puppies seem not to realize that. I dunno what's wrong with 'em.



You think you can change the world by killing a few monsters?


Just small parts of it. That's really all we can hope for.



You kill some monsters others will rise up. This is because they don't see you as a liberator but rather a monster who wants nothing more than the special interest that is vested in those nations.


Of course they will, that's what I've been saying, and that's the nature of the beast. There is always someone willing to step into the vaccuum and take what folks don't want to give. That's the ones you watch and bushwhack when you can. Everything after "but.." there is stock verbiage, nebulous, without much meaning on the ground. What website did you get it from?



Is it a coincidence that Iraq has a lot of oil? Is it a coincidence that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars worth of precious metals? Why do you think USSR invaded Afghanistan? Why did they map out where the precious metals are?


It probably is, but I couldn't say for sure. I still believe that the Iraq war was sparked by wounded pride more than anything else, over what I consider a "loss" that Daddy Bush gave himself when Saddam tried to erase the border with Kuwait the first time. I know there was a lot of speculation back then that Saddam was after... more oil as well, but that's not what HE said, so I have to take him at his word concerning his motivations.

Afghanistan I can be more sure of the coincidence in. Those "precious metals" were only discovered fairly recently, and so far NONE of them have been mined out, so if that's the draw, what's the hold up? Yes, the Russians mapped the entire country, at several scales. My guess was that it was for tactical and strategic planning, not because of any "minerals". I happen to have a couple of the Russian maps captured during that war, and mineral deposits are not marked out on them. One in particular, the Tora Bora area, has around 64 cave mouths mapped out, but nothing of economic value, just strategic and tactical value. As an aside, they didn't find nearly ALL of the cave entrances there. That place is like a honey comb.



The fact is that the US has been tampering with every other nation and not the other way around. You guys fight for corporations rather than civilians, many Americans already know this. You talk about the lust, power and greed and if you go down the checklist I think America fits in pretty nicely, don't you think?


Again, it would be ever so civil of you to allow me to determine who I fight for all by myself. Even if a corporation is paying me, only I know why I'm taking that money.

Yes, lust, power and greed fits certain elements of America quite well, as they do every other country on this planet. The only thing I'd add would be "spoiled", and in some cases "glaringly stupid".



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join