going back to the Geneva convention issue...I dont believe it would apply here...the Iraqi population is...for the most part...culpable in the actions of their leaders...especially those in and around Baghdad...but still, I do believe that if there is a way to NOT kill civilians that we should take that route...if however taking that route endangers our troops and our people that taking a more severe course of action is called for...and non of this falls under "mass-murder" as you call it...no more so than the bombing of London, bombing of Berlin, bombing of Hanoi, Tokyo, Seoul, etc., etc., it is simply part of war...

So what you are saying is that none of the Iraqi population should be treated as civilians...all should be considered enemy combatants?

Spalind, you are missing the whole war of liberation vs war against aggression difference.

We bombed civilians in WW2 because they were part of the German/Japanese war effort.

If we are indeed fighting to liberate these people from an oppresive government, we just cant go around killing all of the people we are trying to liberate.

I agree that the Iraqi people should be doing more to stem the tide of insurgents that seek to harm them as well as American soldiers.
I guess we will disagree as to how "culpible" the Iraqi civilians are in helping the terorists.

They need to realize that if they see a guy setting up a mortar outside thier house, they should get their AK-47 (all of them have at least one in the house dont they?) and kill the bastards.

I bet if they knew we were going to retaliate to that area, that would motivate them to put a stop to it. But since we are not allowed to retaliate, what good does it do to stop them?

But we all must remember that when that bomb drops on that mortar position, and a few innocent houses are destroyed, the homeowners will not blame the terrorist for bringing the steel rain to them, they will blame the US for launching the steel rain.

We would do well to convince the Iraqi populace that it is in thier own best interests to help us fight the terrorists.

no, I dont believe that they should be treated, in general, as enemy combatants...but if they are in the way of us accomplishing our goal...so be it....

The Apache's ASP-30mm Chain Gun is kind of like Ian's(XOC) Prairie Dog Hunt game for the U.S. Army.

After clicking on the link... press the play button an start looking thru the things the gun can do.

In my previous job... I manufactured the Bushmaster 25-mm and ASP 30-mm Chainguns.

The Geneva Conventions definatly apply here. So do the rules of engagement. What about Kosovo when we were liberating the people from Milosovic? Should we have dropped a nuke on them? We went there to free those people from a ruler that was commiting genocidea against his people and we met some resistance. We went to Iraq to free the people from the ruler of the insane Sadam Husein. The only reason we are still there is because we have to restore stability in the area. It is hard because a lot of people there don't want our help and it is religously fueled. It will just take some more time, and unfortunatly more American lives. It angers me that American lives have been lost helping others, but good people always make sacrifices to help weaker, less fortunate people. When people are frustrated (as you are spalind), they search for the easiest way out of a situation. Dropping a nuke would be easy, but would definately not be the best way. You said that you didn't mind if Russia would drop on Chechyna ect... Ever heard of the horror of Nuclear war? Have you ever studied the order of battle of countries in the middle east? Do you have a secret security clearance to know who has nukes, and who doesn't? Well, I do..and dropping a nuke on a Muslim country with the horrible reasons that you come with as an excuse would bring horrible revenge and war to America. There will probably never be another nuclear attack on this earth as long as the human race is alive. Nukes are used as deterents, and we are slowly decreasing our inventory. The day that a nuclear weapon is used, it will be the end of the world.

One of the problems with "returning fire" on mortars is that there is usually no point. Even if the Q-36 (counter battery radar) detects the rounds, the bad guys usually shoot and scoot. They fire 2 or 3 rounds and move out. Takes about 30 seconds to pull the tube out of a trunck, hang the rounds, break it down and drive away. They don't sit there and calculate the angle and adjust fire. It's purely an annoyance and lucky shot thing. We don't have guns up ready for counter battery fire. The best chance we have is a cop or concerned citizen, and occasionally a chopper that happened to be in the area - and that would make for some really dumb bad guys. We do have the concerned citizens and cops - several reports come from them - vehicle descriptions, types of weapons, etc. Since the bad guys suck at aiming, rounds tend to land on houses, schools, etc, people do have an interest in letting us know. While I disagree with a 1-year rotation, I think we are accomplishing some good things here. We are leaving Mosul in the hands of the 2nd ID a much safer and cleaner place than it was when we landed.

Ok, so it's the Hague Convention. FYI: dropping bombs from aircraft is also inviolation.

oooooo...we are all impressed with your "supposed" top secret security clearance...too bad that doesnt equate with the ability to analyze the current situation...and are you kidding with the "the day a nuclear weapon is used it will be the end of the world" you sound like some left wing hippie Dean supporter...no one besides the US and Russia even has the #'s of nukes to "end the world" and I dont see either of us turning the world into a smoking pile of rubble at this point...and just who would declare war on America that hasnt already?? and who is going to hate us more than they do already?? answer--No one...and you do not explain in any way how the rules of engagement or Geneva convention would apply here..you just use blanket statements...like most people who allow emotions to rule their decisions...I simply state facts on the other hand...Fact #1--I want the fewest amount of Americans to die, Fact #2--I want the most amount of the enemy to die so that they never cause a single problem again, Fact #3 dropping a nuke in the general vicinity of wherever Saddam was at the beginning of the war would have accomplished this....would it have been better if instead of using the word Nuke if I just changed it to carpet bombing?? does that prevent your panties from getting in a bunch?? Is it just the knee jerk emotional response that using the word "nuke" seems to bring out in all of you?? Fine, dont nuke them, Napalm them, use a MOAB, whatever...as long as it kills the highest # of the enemy as possible with the lowest casualties on our side...and if we knock down a few mud huts in the meantime....neither I nor our soldiers who would be safe in their beds are gonna lose much sleep over it....

I love it!! This proves my point exactly...if we listened to most of the people on this we would be shooting spit-balls at the enemy just so that we dont accidently hurt anyone...Are you kidding me?? This is war, not tinkertoys...its bloody, ugly, horrible, brutal, and all the other cliches you can think of, but one thing its not is fair...

You just don't get it do you. :rolleyes:

What I get is that you think the lives of Iraqis are more valuable than the lives of American soldiers...

Nope...obviously he doesn't.

Spalind,

Do you have any idea what the result of using a nuke on Iraq would be? Instead of having a few crazy Islamic groups pissed at us, we would have most of the Islamic world pissed at us. I am sure that our allies (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) in the middle east would also turn their backs on us and possibly start funding the terrorists (even more in the case of Saudi Arabia).

And since we are in control of Iraq, we would be paying for any and all costs to clean up the mess we had made and support the economy which would surely go in the tank after we level their capitol city.

Using nukes would result in the loss of more American lives (military and civilian), than what we are doing now.

I am sure when Donald Rumsfeld runs for office, he would love to pick you for Sec. of Defense. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try thinking with your brain instead of your ass.

I do understand and comprehend everything you people have said...I just happen to disagree...My belief is the the quicker you kill as many of the enemy as possible the better...which I believe most of us would agree on...where we disagree is how much consideration should be placed in the protection of civilians and non-combatants...your contention is that a high value should be placed on them, so much so that we delay the progress of the war in hopes that we can foster good feelings within the Arab populace thus causing us to have an easier time of it in the future...I disagree with this viewpoint and believe that we cannot ever get these people to not want to kill us as our cultures are too vastly different at this point and therefore they must be dealt with in the harshest manner possible in order that we preserve the safety and well being of our soldiers....

and what has Rumsfeld done wrong?? I think he is the backbone behind the Bush administraion and that is more of a compliment to me to say that you hope I should be his Secretary of Defense...Thank you very much...I am proud to have you think that I belong in the same vein as Rumsey....

Resorting to nukes won't just piss off the Arabs, think about our other allies like the EU and Russia. Aside from the UK, they didn't want this war to begin with, what do you think will be the fallout (no pun intended) after we level Baghdad? Second, if we set the precedent of lobbing nukes at our problems, whats to stop the other nuclear powers of the world from doing the same?

I know, Russian should solve its Chechnya problem with a few tactical nukes. They aren't American lives, right?

Should China nuke Taipei because they want the island back?

Maybe Indian and Pakistan should just nuke each other and be done with it?

How about North Korea nukes the DMZ, Seoul, and Tokyo just because?

God I hope you are trolling.

Looks like someone already went there...so, nevermind.

First of all, I don't see you in any branch of the service doing anything about the current situation. You sit home on your comforable chair, spewing what you think we should do. I am a Sonar Technician in the United States Navy and have been for 6 years, and you are required to have a secret security clearance to be one. I also have to add that was the most imature statement I have ever read on XOC. I say that the day a nuclear weapon is used it will be end of the world because that will open the door for everyone to start using nukes against each other. How do you know who has nukes and how many they have? You are a jackass. There are more countries out there with nukes, or allies that have nukes than you know. Calling me a "left wing hippie dean supporter" when I am in the military, that makes sense. You ask "Who is going to hate us more than they do already?" Have you ever even been outside of the U.S.? Every been the the Northern Arabian Gulf? Ever been to Egypt. I suggest you go visit those places and see for yourself. There are countries with nuclear arsenals that we are holding at bay. They are just looking for one little excuse to escalate the situation with us. As far as the Geneva Conventions, they were already explained to you how they apply here. The way you would apply rules of engagement to this situation is that you only use enough force to eliminate the threat. You don't just go dropping nukes on footsoldiers with automatic weapons and small explosives.

Fact #1 - I want the fewest amount of Americans to die also

Fact #2 - I want the enemy threat neutralized. They will always hate us, don't you understand? It is religiously fueled and if we wipe out the whole Iraqi country, then it gives all the Muslims of the world even more reasons to hate us and attack us.

Fact #3 - Dropping a nuke on Iraq would have caused us to lose all of our allies (whatever we have left), and all Muslim nations would have declared war on us on a much greater scale. Our president would have been tried at the Hague for war crimes.

Fact #4 - If we drop nukes on Iraq, our kids will have to deal with it till the day they die. We are trying to make America safe, not give people more reasons to hate us and attack us.

I understand your caring for American lives, we all do. Don't you think that human life in general is important? Killing innocent civilians doesn't bother you? The majority of Iraq wants our help. What about all of those people? We would be murdering them. Dropping a nuke would be killing hundreds of thousands of people when our target would be about half of that. Women and children would be slaughtered. You have some valid points, but there is no easy way out of this situation in Iraq.

Rumsfeld is a double talking, no question answering, warmonger. That man scares me the most of all the people in Bush's cabinet.

You thinking he is the backbone of the administration explains alot.

OK, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you...Rumsfeld is no warmonger...because the liberal press calls him a "hawk" you believe it...he is doing what is right for the future survival of the country...maybe sometime you and Barbara Streisand can get together and discuss your well informed views of the world...

Fuck the Iraqis.

It is just not wise at all to nuke them. That is what you do not get. I have several friends over there and do not want to see them die either but nuking the city is by far the stupidest thing possible.

Whatever, I have no urge to get together with Babs to discuss anything. I support the war in Iraq, I just don't agree with the way Rumsfeld is running it.

As far as "well informed views of the world" go, yours seems pretty cut and dry-Nuke the shit out of anyone that opposes us.

I'd like to converse some more, but I'm off to build that fall-out shelter I've been meaning to build but keep putting off.

Ya know I was just beginning to think I might be the only one who thought this way but then just a couple minutes ago on my way home my favorite talk radio host begins talking about the same exact thing (Jay Severin on 96.9 in Boston--with the #1 rated radio show I might add in New England, so there are alot more people than just me who think this way!!) and it seems as if he and I share the same views...you all have been brought up thinking that somehow other peoples lives are worth just as much as an Americans life...its just not true...to save an Americans life I'd nuke Iraq, Iran and whoever else, then I'd have a big dinner and a nice long nap and not think twice....I can see all the incredulous faces and anger building up in you all now...but thats when you are sitting here all comfy at home...Talk to me when the bombs start going off here or the first smallpox attack in San Fran....How much ya wanna bet you'll be calling for the president to turn the entire middle east into a wastteland?? Personally I think getting rid of all the radical Muslims now is preferable to having them come here and kill us later...

Just because you were born in the U.S., your life is worth more than anyone else's on the planet?

No wonder everyone else in the world thinks American's are a bunch of arrogant pricks.

You think that nuking the middle east is going to stop terroists from attacking us?
To quote the esteemed Dr. Fraiser Crane "What color is the sky in your world?"

Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe an American life is worth more than Iraqi, Iranian, Russian, Chinese, whatever you wanna put in theres life...evidently then if we are all equal why don't we just roll over and let the radical muslims/communists/anarchists/etc., etc., come in and take over everybody..that would be the most sensible answer right?? NOBODY dies in that case...better yet...why dont we all convert to radical muslims!?!?!?! that would make them happy, stop the violence and everyone could get together 3 times a day, get on our knees, face Mecca and pray and everything would be peachy keen...Jesus Fucking Christ!! Where have all the real men in this country gone?!?!?!?!?