Shooting some people is a 'hoot'

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I've heard the Arab countries in the Middle East that like us are the UAE, and Kuwait.

 

[E-Raser]

I would call them people if they acted like them sometime, it's pretty simple.

Act like an animal and don't respect the laws of land warfare, your going to be treated like one.


Then again in the saftey of your home, your not really one to judge. Come to the sandbox soetime and get a flak jacket, see for yourself.

Get serious-
How many times do you think in Vietnam the laws of land warfare had been disresoected by GI's also. Would you consider them animals?

Torturing POW's in jail (as proven from US and UK Soldiers) is due to land warfare laws? Are those guys animals?

If USA would be invaded by enemy troops. How much you'd care about those laws in this case? I'm sure you'd fight 'em by ANY means, would't you? Would this transform you into an animal?

Taliban may be crap from you point of you, may be indeed. Doesn't matter, anyway they remind human beings and if you consider killing them is fun visit a psychater, that's my advice.

And another point to think over- if you consider them animals you reach the same level as they are in your opinion on.

As far as I'm concerned I denied being a conscript at all. If it ever happens to me to kill somone not accidently than only from personal self defence, but not out of nationalistic ideas or because a politician has told me so. If they have trouble they should fight themselfs but I'm not going so serve anyone's needs exept mine.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Most, like Arafat, say one thing in english and another in arabic. It's rather auseing since I got to watch a good amount of arab media and it's outrageous in what they put out as news... and once I saw myself, yes me, in a short clip on aljazera! that was pretty cool.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

How many times do you think in Vietnam the laws of land warfare had been disresoected by GI's also. Would you consider them animals?

Ah yes the Vietnam coeback, classic. A lot of dirt happened on both sides in that war, no denying that. Do I consider the men that went out of there way to rape, pluncder and kill needlessly animals? yes

Torturing POW's in jail (as proven from US and UK Soldiers) is due to land warfare laws? Are those guys animals?

Yes, they are... then again from what I saw there was nothing that does not happen in prisons across the world going on, in, suprise a prison!

If USA would be invaded by enemy troops. How much you'd care about those laws in this case? I'm sure you'd fight 'em by ANY means, would't you? Would this transform you into an animal?

By law and oath I am required to fight according to the laws of land warefar, and you should look them up sometime to get a good idea of what I am talking about... they are not humane laws in the slightest, they are there own to curb the most brutal of excesses.

And another point to think over- if you consider them animals you reach the same level as they are in your opinion on.

The day I start snatching people off buses and excuiteing the for wanting to vote, beheading journalists and civilians or straping bombs to children with down syndrome is the day I will put a 9mm to my head and use it to clean my sinuses.

If they have trouble they should fight themselfs but I'm not going so serve anyone's needs exept mine.

This does not suprise me at all, I enjoy serveing my goverment and my people in the capacity that I do. If that means I must kill men that would try to kill me ( and trust me, I have scars showing they have tried ) than so be it.

 

[E-Raser]

I accept your point of view although I don't share it. It may be honourable to serve, although I don't accept this to me.
What for sure is honourabel - If you are convinced by some ideals and you defend them, this is honorable! So due to this I owe you respect!
Nevertheless I am convinced someone who enjoys killing has a serious mental illness.
Nevertheless I think you compares humans with animals is upon the wrong way.

I am also happy about your critic about western warcrimes. I beleived you're not biased in this case and first it seemed so to me. Therefore even more respect.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Thank you, I appricate that, Many people see e as a Marine and they automaticly have an opinion, I direct the all to the president of my fanclub, Rhymes.

 

[Rhymes]

Thank you, I appricate that, Many people see e as a Marine and they automaticly have an opinion, I direct the all to the president of my fanclub, Rhymes.

Come on, have a little humour.....

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Can't help it, you make such a great target.

 

[joacqin]

So a person who fights against foreign invaders is an animal not deserving to live? No matter the reason for the invasion, even if all the altruistic things we hear are true about them many people would still fight foreigners with arms in their land. Wouldnt you Bronx? Would you believe the Canadians if they invaded and said they wanted to free you from your tyrannical regime? (whether you would have a tyrannical regime in your eyes is a whole other point)

Fighting to defend ones country, however vile its leaders might have been is usually seen as something quite natural. The real animals are the people who voluntarily cross the world to go shoot and kill people in foreign countries for shady political reasons. Especially if they enjoy it.

 

[Rhymes]

So a person who fights against foreign invaders is an animal not deserving to live? No matter the reason for the invasion, even if all the altruistic things we hear are true about them many people would still fight foreigners with arms in their land. Wouldnt you Bronx? Would you believe the Canadians if they invaded and said they wanted to free you from your tyrannical regime? (whether you would have a tyrannical regime in your eyes is a whole other point)

Fighting to defend ones country, however vile its leaders might have been is usually seen as something quite natural. The real animals are the people who voluntarily cross the world to go shoot and kill people in foreign countries for shady political reasons. Especially if they enjoy it.

That used to be my opinion, but always arguing with militaristic conservatives in this forum has made my opinion shift towards them. Its good to get back to the sources......

 

[joacqin]

Well, mine has shifted a bit but reading what people like Bronx and Geddon writes puts me right back on square one. One example of the opposite of Bronx would be A'ralongcomplicatedname.

The essence of the matter is that one part in this conflict crossed the entire world out of their own free will to what in the end always amounts to killing people while the other are poor, desperate, more or less brainwashed kids who are fighting a foreign invader on their soil. The US troops may be poor, desperate and more or less brainwashed kids but they sure as hell isnt fighting off foreign invaders on their soil.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

The overall strategy of the US is to fight our enemies BEFORE it ever comes to a land invasion. To not wait for another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to occur. And it is a sane one, considering my mother almost lost her cousin on 9/11 due to the fact he worked at the WTC, but was (Thank GOD) taking a personal day.

Both sides in a war aren't always both the bad guy. US soldiers are losing there lives daily, and yet you (joacqin) are comparing them to the people who are cutting off people's heads.

Last I checked, the voter turnout amongst Iraqis surpassed even the US during the recent Presidential election, even Iraqis living in my country(The US), happily(And I mean that) voted. Its a small minority(a small WRONG minority) that makes up the Anti-Democratic Insurgeants.

 

[joacqin]

Well, there are plenty of American soldiers committing atrocities as well. It is what happens in war. How do you decide who is your enemy? How do you know? Who would ever be capable of launching a land invasion to the US? The US is afraid of its own shadow, it is as simple as that. Frightened beings lash out at everything, real threat or not.

I am of the opinion that more or less anyone participating in an armed conflict is in the wrong, however I do not really blame the poor sods doing the fighting. I pity them for being pawns who are tricked into sacrificing their lives or their sanity to satisfy the pride and fear of delusional old men.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

While I respect you for your compassion and hatred of war and suffering, I really don't think its that simple. No country should go to war unless its in self-defense, otherwise it would be Imperialism, and thats evil. But you can't just ignore possible threats.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

A General publicly states that under certain conditions, killing people can be fun. Its a very simple straightforward statement. What he said has nothing to do with George Bush, the war in Iraq, Republicans or Democrats. Its a personal statement, he's speaking for himself. If a police official or anyone else had said it, he'd be fired for being a dangerous nut. But because a Marine general said it, people leap to his defense and attack anybody who even questions it. Why?

 

[joacqin]

Geddon, you said it yourself, possible threats. Possible, who decides when it is possible enough to justify a war costing lives and billions of dollars. Possible. I can stretch myself to saying that it might be right to defend yourself if you are attacked, but attacking someone because they might possibly attack you has nothing to do with defense. It is aggressive warfare, it as you said, imperialism. Might be easier justifying removing a scumbag like Saddam ruling over a piece of sand unable to defend itself against water baloons than launching a full scale attack on the UK but the principle is the same.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

don't respect the laws of land warfare

Historically the "laws of land warfare" are BS brought up by the superior force to berate the tactics of their enemy. I point you to the revolutionary war, which could not have been won using the rules of warfare of the time.

 

[joacqin]

Not to mention that the US is doing their best to dismantle the laws that are in place by their belittling of the Geneva Act and hte like.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Im not shocked by his comments at all, most professional soldiers feel the same way dont they? If they didnt theyd go insane.

Have to say no here, though I'd say many lose little or no sleep when it comes to killing the enemy. Everyone adjusts to killing and seeing death differently. Many will have nightmares for a long time, or question whether 'it' will amount to anything. The folks I met that fought in Somolia (I wasn't there) had a much harder time after we pulled out because they thought all the efforts were useless - they killed, they had friends killed, and the country fell back into disarray anyway.

Since I've never had to kill anyone I can only guess how I'd feel. I don't believe in capital punishment, so I could never 'pull the switch'. I also would probably have nightmares if I accidently shot a civilian. However, I don't think I'd lose any sleep if I killed a terrorist (or other like enemy) in combat.

But because a Marine general said it, people leap to his defense and attack anybody who even questions it. Why?

This couldn't be said by just any General, as has been seen in the past by some comments, but it is about who he is. If he was brutal towards all he would have been gone long ago. However, he has championed the cause of helping civilians in action, so he gets a pass from most when talking about killing brutal men as fun.

Imagine the good feeling you might get if you stopped a rape from occuring. Now multiply that feeling to stopping the rape of a nation. Whether you agree that that is what he is doing or not, that is what HE believes he is doing, hence the feeling. (Note: again, people will react differently. Some react bad because they have to be there at all.)

Fighting to defend ones country, however vile its leaders might have been is usually seen as something quite natural. The real animals are the people who voluntarily cross the world to go shoot and kill people in foreign countries for shady political reasons.

I have to partially agree, but I would call the terrorist who came to the US to fly civilian planes into civilians structures, killing thousands of civilians intentionally, to be vile, evil men instead of animals, but that's semantics. The US response in Afghanistan legitimate. Of course if you mean Iraq then we need another thread, but that is just a continuation of a war that was started by Saddam back in '91 just as WWII was just a continuation of WWI in many respects. You'll also notice in Iraq that foreign terrorists are there and that the insurgents are former Saddam loyalists, not most Iraqis. Most Iraqis are being killed by these terrorists and insurgents. In fact, some might say that if you can stop a murder and you don't you are somehow culpable. Isn't this what the West did on a grand scale for over 10 years regarding Iraq? I look at the world since WWII. Two superpowers for a long time - US & SU (same, but aptly opposite initials). SU spread tyranny, the US spread freedom.

Historically the "laws of land warfare" are BS brought up by the superior force to berate the tactics of their enemy.

Partially true. However, many nations signed the Geneva Convention to ensure wars between them would be more 'civilized' for lack of a better term.

 

[Rhymes]

If I had to kill a guy to prevent a rape, I would have the feeling of having done the right thing, but I certainly would not have fun doing it!