AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES

Do you agree that the US takes drastic steps to reduce the deaths of civilians? Far greater steps than any other nation has?

In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.

Craven de Kere wrote:

In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.

And what is hard to understand about that coherent, on target (no pun intended) statement I'd like to know?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.

And what is hard to understand about that coherent, on target (no pun intended) statement I'd like to know?

Nothing. I quite agree with his statement. My argument, as I have now repeated several times, was with the claim that the US targets civilian, not with the idea that civilians die. What's so hard to understand about that?

McGentrix wrote:

Do you agree that the US takes drastic steps to reduce the deaths of civilians? Far greater steps than any other nation has?

Within military engagement yes. But the decision to engage in the first place is also a point at which a "step to reduce the deaths of civilians" is available.

IMO, we show exemplary will to reduce civilian casualties within an engagement and a comparative willingness to engage in the first place.

I also believe they are connected, minimizing civilian death allows for more frequent and prolonged engagement because of the reduction in war weariness.

Que sera sera.

Most of the papers see signs that the Shiite and Sunni rebels are beginning to team up just a bit. The Post, for instance, notes that they made a joint raid earlier this week on a U.S. patrol in Baghdad. The NYT emphasizes that what coordination there is seems to be low-level and haphazard.

Where are they now, the cheerleaders for war on Iraq? Where are the US Republican hawks who predicted the Anglo-American invasion would be a "cakewalk", greeted by cheering Iraqis? Or the liberal apologists, who hailed a "new dawn" for freedom and democracy in the Arab world as US marines swathed Baghdad in the stars and stripes a year ago? Some, like the Sun newspaper - which yesterday claimed Iraqis recognise that occupation is in their "own long-term good" and are not in "bloody revolt" at all - appear to be in an advanced state of denial.
Others, to judge by the performance of the neocon writer William Shawcross and Blairite MP Ann Clwyd, have been reduced to a state of stuttering incoherence by the scale of bloodshed and suffering they have helped unleash. Clwyd, who regularly visits Iraq as the prime minister's "human rights envoy", struggled to acknowledge in an interview on Monday that bombing raids by US F16s and Apache helicopter gunships on Iraqi cities risked causing civilian deaths, not merely injuries. The following day, 16 children were reportedly killed in Falluja when US warplanes rocketed their homes. And yesterday, in what may well be the most inflammatory act of slaughter yet, a US helicopter killed dozens of Iraqis in a missile assault on a Falluja mosque.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.

And what is hard to understand about that coherent, on target (no pun intended) statement I'd like to know?

Nothing. I quite agree with his statement. My argument, as I have now repeated several times, was with the claim that the US targets civilian, not with the idea that civilians die. What's so hard to understand about that?

with your location and ability to backpeddle so well you should be teaching at clown college down there.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.

And what is hard to understand about that coherent, on target (no pun intended) statement I'd like to know?

Nothing. I quite agree with his statement. My argument, as I have now repeated several times, was with the claim that the US targets civilian, not with the idea that civilians die. What's so hard to understand about that?

with your location and ability to backpeddle so well you should be teaching at clown college down there.

I have had only one point which you seem constitutionally incapable of comprehending - I admit that civilians have died, but not that they were targetted. I do not see how stating this same point over and over constitutes backpeddling. Since you claim that I have backpeddled in this thread, please cite one example.

May I raise my hand and answer, Please. I know you did not mention me in your "quotes" but I would like to answer anyway.

I have read in newspaper columns, and I have heard President Bush say-- also I have heard Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld say--- (all of this hearing by way of seeing them on my tv set). And I have seen all the 'press conferences' given by high ranking military officers...
...that it is compassionate to have a war where we have SMART BOMBS.
And they further said, their targets were "military", "strategic", and aimed toward destroying tanks, other weapons, Military bases, anything where Saddam and his helpers were lurking---ie: the men on the 50 cards most wanted.
I have also heard them say they would NOT target civilians. They said they were very sorry for collaterol damage, but the civilians would NOT be their target.
Then, they have admitted over and over - they will shoot those who attack them. Doesn't matter if it is a 12 year old, or if a bunch of private citizens are behind a wall where the U.S. Military are being shot at, they are among the shooters and are in grave danger of being shot.
No, they are not targeted. No, I don't believe an American Soldier would just jaunt down an Iraqi boulevard, pick himself an old lady carrying a loaf of bread and a kid--- and use her for target practice.
No, Brandon. The United States Military ARE NOT trained to go after civilian targets. No, they are NOT TARGETTING civilians.

And the military is not HELD to the same standard that you are.
In this United States, You MAY go forth to work one day... zipping down a four-six-- lane somewhere, and suddenly feel an AWFUL CRUNCH AS YOU BRAKE AND BRAKE, but nothing happens. You TRIED to stop. Hitting the little woman in front of you was the LAST thing you'd ever think!! But someone dies as a result of that crash.

Now, you are in court for Involuntary Manslaughter. Accidental.
The woman who's child died, SCREAMS at you. She wants you to tell her WHY did you kill her child!!
"If you had not been following me too closely--- if you had kept your brakes perfect, if if if....

Now of course, you did not 'target' that child....

Let me ask you a question Brandon9000--
What do you think a court should DO, to the perpetrator of the accident, in the case of a scenario I have drawn?
(and it is not fiction...just contains persons I would not name for it is not my business to publish their name.)

Will you answer my question? I believe I answered yours.

Listen to me now...."I did NOT have targetted relations with those civilians......it depends on your definition of target".......PLEASE PAGE KEN STARR

No, because the question is itself unfair. I ask that the US be held to the conventional standard for countries engaged in warfare. By your apparent logic, every modern war, e.g. WW 2, would have been unjust too.

Brandon9000

Quote:

No, because the question is itself unfair. I ask that the US be held to the conventional standard for countries engaged in warfare. By your apparent logic, every modern war, e.g. WW 2, would have been unjust too.

War is always unjust Brandon--- on which planet do you live?

Let me end my communication on all these subjects by saying:

I have read the Blogs posted by Gelisgesti many times, in the topic, The U.S., the U.N., and Iraq.

Today, he posted another one-- and since reading it,
compounded by the article day before yesterday in Al Jazeera's news -- with all the pictures of the dead and dying babies and children, and old people--
And learning the U.S. Military was ordered to seal Fallujah off from the rest of the country, because of the four men killed and mutilated...

I feel there is nothing more for me to say about "targetting". This ENTIRE city is targetted. I heard Bush say it, did you? Did you Brandon?

My countrymen, ladies/men---old/young--- all who took an oath to serve the military without question--- are required to do what they are told. While they are doing it, roads to food are blocked, hospitals are unavailable, death and flies are smelling on the floors of buildings, and a people who had little hope, finally have just about given up.
NO wonder they sit hungrily and broken and say, 'Death to America'