Has anyone seen this yet??

Warning: this video is graphic.

http://www.lunitixx.com/sharefoo/22...pter_Kills.mpeg

Taken from

glocktalk

The link doesn't work.

Took all of 5 seconds to figure out:
http://www.lunitixx.com/sharefoo/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

Brent

I wonder were that was. It was pretty cool though.

Sorry guy's

It is a AH-64 in Iraq

Brents link doesn't work either.

I think this is what you guyz are looking for:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1055288/posts

... and in case you didn't read it the 1st time:
WARNING: THIS VIDEO IS GRAPHIC

Try this one.

http://webpages.charter.net/greg2505/224Helicopter_Kills.mp2

Well, thanks for that 5 seconds out of your busy schedule.

The reality of war is pretty gruesome stuff.

Pretty sweet, but pretty gruesome also.

I'm actually surprised he didn't tell us it was in the wrong forum...

some of the better video I've seen...bout time we stopped f'ing around and just exterminated them like bugs....thats why we have such problems over there...we treat them too kindly...if we dropped a nuke on Baghdad I guarantee there would be less American casualties at this point than there have been so far...When did war become a "Who can be nicer to the other guy" contest??

You're kidding, right? Drop a nuke on Baghdad? Any concern at all for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians that would be killed? Indiscriminate killing solves nothing and worse, it makes us as bad as Saddam and his bunch.

If the guys mowed down in the video were hardcore anti-coalition, great. If they were some unlucky goofballs drafted into a military where the alternative to serving is to be shot, then maybe it had to be done but it's nothing to gloat about.

actually....no, I am not kidding...I would rather that 1 million others die than 1 single American die...and therefore am perfectly willing to support any method that will kill as many of the enemy as possible with the fewest losses of life on our side--by the way...your proposed method is the same half-assed method that went on in vietnam for 12 years before we finally started carpet bombing their capital--INCLUDING CIVILIANS!! which brought them to the bargaining table hat in hand in a matter of a couple weeks!! Again...the methodology behind war is to kill as many of the opposite side as possible while at the same time losing as few of your side as possible...and I can think of no weapon that accomplishes that task any more effectively or quickly than a tactical nuke...

You're an idiot.

They came to the bargaining table hat in hand, eh? I guess that's why we see this picture (helicopter on Embassy):



The North Vietnamese ignored the cease fire when we started pulling out. What makes you think it would be any different in Iraq?

You are completely fucking insane.

, seriously.

I'll be sure to let my Iraqi neighbor know how you feel. I'm sure his innocent family that is in Baghdad would appreciate it too. :rolleyes:

I am just getting audio, no video

any good video links?

The biggest reason that you are an idiot is because we are trying to help the Iraq's, not "exterminate" them. What the fuck are you thinking? That is the same mentality that terrorists are using when they are fighting us. They want a small nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb or using an airplane to kill us. Cowards.

I wouldn't touch this one with a 10 foot chopstick.

Updated your Codecs lately???

While I do not agree with spalind on the nuke part, I do agree that we are being way to fucking nice over there. 8 soldiers wounded by a mortar attack and our guys couldn't return fire because the mortar came from a "residential" area....

The situation is now fucked over there. Nothing we do will be the "right" thing. civilians are a casualty of any conflict, and maybe the iraqi people would start to "actively" try and prevent their insurgents from planning these attacks if we weren't so "careful" on what gets destroyed and who gets killed in the process of taking out the insurgency......

If your buddies are planning an attack and you know the outcome of that attack is not going to affect you one way or the other, you will probably not get involved. If you know that the "enemy" will steam roll your neiborhood because of any attack, you may actually try to prevent one from happening.

You cannot tell me that a good portion of Iraqi people do not get wind of impending attacks on coalition forces. They don't tip anyone off because they are still more afraid of the iraqi forces then ours, Or their hearts are truly behind the insurgents (I think this is the case). We need to make them more afraid of our forces then the insurgents....

The biggest problem over there is that we are trying to help people that don't want to be helped! There are some that want our help, but lots of Iraqi's with weapons and a deathwish that don't want help. They still view us as Christians, and for that we are evil to them. Things are so tainted by religon over there. Ever try to help a drunk go to the hospital for detox? Impossible...I had to do it for my uncle a week ago and we ended up having to get the cops involved. You can't help people if they don't want to be helped, but we can't just leave Iraq in this unstable state either. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nuking all of them would be the dumbest thing to do. All you would do is get all of the Muslim nations that already hate us even more pissed off and they would take the fight to the U.S. once again.

Excellent point. SpalinD compared Iraq to Vietnam and those two wars do have something in common - we shouldn't have been there to begin with. In no way do I mean to dishonor those who served; the dishonor belongs to the politicians who make decisions that get good and brave people killed and maimed while the pols worry most about money and getting re-elected.

mmmm...wrong again there genius...Us pulling out was a POLITICAL decision designed to save face....getting them to the bargaining table to agree to a cease-fire(yeah right), was a MILITARY decision...and as far as wether I would think it would be any different in Iraq...somehow I don't remeber many Japanese acting too ballsy and still f-ing around with us after we incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki....oh, and saying because I think America should always use every weapon at our disposal to end every conflict as quickly as possible with the fewest American casualities means that I agreed with the extermination of the Jews by Nazis or that I am a fag because I feel this way is just another sign that you are dumber than dirt and have no intelligent or well thought out argument in return and therefore have to resort to name calling....just like most 3 year olds who dont have any clue as to how the real world works....Why dont you go back to school and get a degree in history or even better...join a division of the military and then come back and talk to me...

Dumbass. Are you actually comparing the situation in 1945 in Japan to the current situation in Iraq? They are completely different, and by making such a comparison you are showing true ignorance of a magnitude that cannot be put into words.

Again, you are completely fucking insane.

I ask again: , seriously.

Well, if we are speaking about the "real world", then we don't just go around dropping nukes on everybody! Saying let's just nuke them all is what is the uneducated thing to say. That is what little kids say that don't understand the seriousness of using nuclear weapons against human beings that we are trying to help is. I don't have a history degree, but I am in the Navy. The thing is guys, that everyone thinks that they have the answer...but there isn't any correct answer. Everyone is all over Bush's case, but what would you do in that situation? As the most powerful nation in the world, we can't just sit around while people are slaughtered and murdered because of their religon.

I'm sure you would like me to but I would hate to stop proving you wrong...Yes...I am comparing 1945 japan to the current situation...you have the same type of suicidal fanaticism practiced in the two seperate countries, albeit for two different reasons...The ONLY way to put down resistance is with force...you cant give candy to these people and expect them to suddenly love you....the hammer has to be put down and put down hard...violence is the only thing pygmies like these understand...to quote one of my favorite people "They've had some 3000 years to come up with a stable democracy on their own...what makes you think they are suddenly gonna start now?"...oh, and again...you could not refute anything that I said...all you can do is say that I am insane and stupid and tell me to be quiet...much as Eisenhower did to McCarthur, the politicals did to the military during vietnam and how the left wing loonies say we should have been "nicer" to the Japanese and not nuked them...instead we should have invaded Japan on the ground and lost another million men....Oh, and heres the real test for you...given its 1943 all over again...if developed first...would you have not used a nuke against Germany?? Yeah, I thought so....

Not to change the subject completely, but, dude...your wife is hot. Seriously.

Sorry...just had to lighten the discussion a little bit.

The fact remains...we were in a situation we couldn't win at that point. We would have pulled out anyway.

Quote:

somehow I don't remeber many Japanese acting too ballsy and still f-ing around with us after we incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

Where the hell were they going to hide, the Sea of Japan?

Quote:

just like most 3 year olds who dont have any clue as to how the real world works....Why dont you go back to school and get a degree in history or even better...join a division of the military and then come back and talk to me...

This coming from a 19 year old. You don't know what the fuck your are talking about when it comes to war, obviously.

violence is the only thing pygmies like these understand

You are a racist piece of shit.

Yes...I am comparing 1945 japan to the current situation

Based on what? We are no longer at war with Iraq, in 1945 we were still at war with Japan. In Iraq a minority of the population is rebelling against us, in Japan the entire country was against us. The potential loss of American (and Japanese) loss of life was huge (as in millions), the same potential simply doesn't exist in Iraq. There is NO reason to nuke Iraq! Do you still think only a minority of the citizens of Iraq would still be fighting us if we murdered a million innocents?

you could not refute anything that I said...all you can do is say that I am insane and stupid and tell me to be quiet

You are insane and stupid and I do wish you would be quiet. I just refuted what you said (see above).

Are you honestly incapable of distinguishing 1945 and the current situation? Think for a minute about what you are suggesting - genocide. And no I do not claim that dropping the bombs on Japan was genocide - the situations were different.

You need a dose of education and touch of common sense.

Thanks!! she does appreciate the compliment...

19 years old?? where'd ya get that from??? I may not be old but I'm not that young anymore...as far as us not being able to win the Vietnam war...that is one of the dumbest statements you've said yet...There was no DESIRE to win the war on the American politicians side, ie: cant fight in Laos, cant fight in Cambodia, can't bomb the capital, cant bomb civilians, etc., etc., etc., the RULES the politicians put in place PREVENTED the US from winning the Vietnam war...it had NOTHING to do with wether we were capable of winning the war...I dont understand your second comment about the Japanese hiding in the Sea of Japan but whatever....and as far as not knowing what I am talking about...I dont see much for your credentials at this point either so I dont believe there is any more weight to the things you say than my statements...

Spalind, I have two questions for you...

1)Do you own any firearms?

2)Will you ever be in the Richmond area?

That's all for now, thank you very much and have a blessed day.

#1--Racist POS??? How am I racist?? I am simply stating a FACT that the Iraqis are inferior in a # of ways in comparison to the US at this point...it has nothing to do with race...though it doesnt suprise me that you drop the race card at the very moment your arguments are put to the test--typical of left wing psuedo-intellectuals...

#2--I dont see how dropping a nuke on Baghdad is genocide...it simply is the simplest way to end a complex problem--note that I say we SHOULD have dropped a nuke on Baghdad...not that it is something we would be advised to do now that we have moved in and started some forward progress there...and I am capable of distinguishing between 1945 and now...in fact you and I seem to agree on the fact that nukes do have their place in warfare...you seem to agree that they were used correctly in 1945, you just argue that they do not have a roll in Iraq...Therefore we are just debating semantics...To me I would rather sacrifice an infinite # of the enemy be they civilian/military targets or some combination thereof rather than see a single American soldier/civilian die...You on the other hand think that some ratio of Iraqi vs. American dead is more appropriate....So tell me...what is the ratio that you find acceptable?? 100 Iraqi's to 1 American dead?? 50 to 1??? 20 to 1?? what is it??

For those of you who haven't seen the Vid yet, I found an ACTIVE link

http://home.comcast.net/~jmcno/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

Nope, no firearms...no reason for one at the moment...dont live in a high crime area, and I dont hunt...though I do believe in a citizens right to possess firearms without infringement from the government on this right...
Oh, should be passing through Richmond in about 2 1/2 months...like the end of March on my way to the Florida Keys....I actually like Richmond...nice area, nice people too, southern people are very friendly...

Wait, maybe Spalind is right...

We could go ahead and drop some nukes on Iraq.

Of course, that also means that...

Israel can drop them on Syria.
Russia can drop them on Chechnya.
China can drop them on Taiwan.
Pakistan can drop them on India.
India can drop them on Pakistan.

Spalind, I suggest you read up on the Geneva Convention. While I understand the argument that some make that we need to sink to the level of our enemy, that would mean no bitching from us if our troops who are POWs are treated like shit.

Better yet...go look for another hurricane...preferably by going out onto the ocean and meeting it head on.

I never said I was an expert on the nuances of war...but it's obvious you don't have a clue.

(oh...and my mistake...I added wrong on your birthdate in your profile)

I think that 19 year olds know not to drop nukes, that’s more of a 14 year olds point of view....

i would understand if you said that out of frustration and desire for the war to be over, but the fact that you legitimately want to do that is crazy/insane/stupid, what kind of person wants to kill innocent people?

the Geneva convention has NOTHING to do with how you conduct a war...only with how you treat prisoners and unarmed /surrendering/defenseless combatents...it says nothig about the use of weapons against legitimate targets...otherwise we couldnt have firebombed Japan---which by the way killed more innocents than the two Nukes combined, nor could we have bombed the hell out of Berlin...Now who should be reading up on the Geneva convention?? Eh...don't bother...kind of a useless piece of shit anyway...the only ones who pay attention to it are the good guys...bad guys dont really care if its against the Geneva convention to hack your arm off or not...

oh--Isreal can drop them on Syria??--Damn that'd be a shame...
Russia can drop them on Chechnya??--again..what a pity...
China on Taiwan?? OK here you have a point...that would be bad...however they never will as the economic impact on china would be too bad...
Pakistan on India and vice versa?? hmm...the region is overpopulated anyway...could probly use a "downsizing" or severe natural disaster anyway seeing as their efforts at birth control have failed miserably...

You really bring up zero valid points as to why it wouldnt be more beneficial to the US to have gotten this war over swiftly and severly and therefore I have to assume that your ability to properly analyze a conflict is on par with your skills at rudimentary mathematics...

Again....not 19 years old...but more to your point...I have NEVER said and NEVER would say that I thought we would be better off killing civilians...check the record...NEVER said it...you people just get your egos in the way and start inferring meaning into other peoples arguments...you all would make very poor lawyers....If there was a way to end the war swiftly and so severly that there was no attacks on our troups afterwards I felt that that is what we should have done...and the most straightforward way to do that I felt--and feel, is a nuclear warhead detonated in downtown Baghdad....now if you have legitimate ways to #1--decapitate the rulers of Iraq, #2--eliminate all military threats, #3--scare the shit out of the Iraqis so bad that they are on their hands and knees begging our mercy, in some other way without causing civilian casualties then I am all for it...I just dont see any other way to accomplish #1, 2, and 3 without American casualties...do you?? or all of you not willing to make to tough decisions required in the real world??

wow

Sorry to disappoint you, but yes, it does.

Here's a good place for you to start:
Guide to the Geneva Conventions
(It links to the actual text.)

Article 3 states civilians (people not taking part) are NOT to be subject to violence (a nuclear weapon would certainly fall under violence).

And later, Article 53. In the case of Iraq, it is NOT "absolutely necessary by military operations."

Or how about Article 57? "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects." Sure sounds like it refers to how a war is conducted, doesn't it?

AND, violating Article 57 is considered a GRAVE BREACH (article 85). That means...WAR CRIME.

First off, of COURSE it would be more beneficial to get it over quickly. However, nuclear weapons are NOT the way to go. Only a complete idiot would drop them.

Using them would be a knee-jerk reaction of someone who hasn't taken the time to analyze anything at all.

You have yet to give any valid arguments as to why they would be justified in this situation. (Well, other than trying to compare this to Japan, which is a joke, really.)

You said we would be better off dropping a nuke on Baghdad.
Baghdad contains many civilians.
Nuking Baghdad would kill millions of innocent civilians and you think this would we'd be better off this way.

And don't you think that nuking innocents would anger alot more people to the point of becomming terrorists? Plus mass murder on that scale would be a bigger war crime than anything Saddam is being tried for.

Your comments are as bad as NYMadman when it comes to murder in the Middle East. But even he doesn't defend mass murder as vehemently you do.


-Dustin

Or more to the point and maybe easy enough for him to understand.

We nuke them and someone will sure as hell nuke us.

Staying away from this topic, but for this:

Can any of you tell the difference between a friendly civillian and one planning guerilla warfare?

I think not, if they get in the way, they get taken out. If they are somewhere they shouldn't be, they get taken out.

Grow up children, we can't fight a war according to the liberal sissy left and their politically correct ideals.

It is absolutely true that in any war, there will be civilian casualties, either by accident or on purpose depending on the intent.

Spalind, there is one major difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Japan.

One is a war of liberation, the other was a war of self defense.

Dropping nukes on Japan was a nessesary step in ending that war quickly. The military was in the process of staging a coup in Japan. Millions were ready and willing to die to protect the main Island. It saved millions of American AND japanese lives in the long run.

We are trying to liberate the Iraqi people, dropping a nuke on downtown Bagdad would send the wrong message I believe. :rolleyes: "Hey Iraqi people, we came in because your leader was a threat and used WMD's against his own people. So here is a nuke in your capital to show you how much better we are than Saddam was!"

There were more people murdered in Philadelphia last year than there were soldiers killed in Iraq. So the nuke idea would be a bit overkill.

Thats not to say that I still think we need to bring the hammer more often and with greater force than our troops have been allowed to bring lately. The rules of engagement need to be changed. The terrorists know our rules, they count on it. So they lob mortars from civilian areas because they know we cant retaliate. (What horrible, stupid people we are that we follow our own rules!) Many times it seems like we are the only country that follows them.

The rules need to be relaxed. Business needs to get done.

I do agree with one thing you said, no amount of enemy lives, civilian or soldier, is worth the death of one American soldier.

But nukes? Comon....

couldnt have said it any better myself....

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?!?!?!?!?

I'll take that bet, thank you very much.

(Oh, and I see your wizardry at spelling is as good as mine is at mathematics. :rolleyes: )

Quote:

Personally I think getting rid of all the radical Muslims now is preferable to having them come here and kill us later...

Fine, get rid of all the radical muslims. I haven't a problem with that. But to destroy innocent lives just because they happened to be in the wrong spot... that's idiotic.

Pot...meet kettle.

(If anything, YOUR view is more based on emotion than anyone else's.)

Negative here Kitty-Cat....has nothing to do with emotions...has everything to do with seeing a problem and finding the most direct way to fix the problem while saving as many American lives as possible...and OK take that bet...we can sit on our hands and act like Clinton....pretend to be upset at being attacked....shoot a few cruise missles at empty targets and the claim that we did something about it...bzzzzzz...sorry, wrong answer....the correct answer is to exterminate the problem like bugs....

You are really out of control. Whether someones's life is worth more than anothers has nothing to do with what religion they are.

A real man doesn't doesn't handle a problem by killing everything in sight, pussy-ass bullies do.

Better call your Dr., I think your meds ran out.

It has nothing to do with religion, or skin color, or political affiliation, or wether they have sex with animals or not....simply has to do with the fact that they want to kill Americans...and therefore wether they live or die is not something I am going to be concerned with....

Well, hate to dissapoint you all but I have to go away for a day on business up to Maine so will be unable to respond for a little bit....but cheer up!!! You have all proven why America gets weaker and weaker every year and closer and closer to being on par with the wonderful 3rd world countries and their people that you seem to believe are as valuable as we are...

What a fuckin' waste of oxygen.

Suggestion: since this insane asshole is leaving for a few days, let's take this opportunity to let let this thread die. This guy simply cannot be reasoned with.

Be careful, I sure hope you don't get hit by a car or anything on your way to Maine. If you are on the side of the road dying and you need help, I hope the one person that stops to help you is an Iraqi with family back in Iraq. You can tell them how bad you want to Nuke the whole country and kill everyone. I am sure they will be happy to place a value on your life, just as you have on theirs.

edited to add:

Whoops, was posting at the same time.

Your rants are really entertaining.

So if an American life is more valuable, when exactly does that value kick in? Someone is worth less until he/she comes to America and earns citizenship? In the words of Charlton Heston in the old 'I love you, man' beer commercials: "Son, you frighten me."

Oddly, I agree with many of your points IF they're applied to enemy combatants. Where we differ is in your "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality, and that most people feel some empathy for those guys getting blasted if they happened to be schmucks who got forcibly "volunteered" for Saddam's army. They're combatants, so they're fair game, but it's a shame if they got drilled through no fault of their own.

Can't remember who, but someone stated that the U.S. can't just sit by while tyrants and warlords slaughter innocent people. We do just that every day. In the end it's about money. To cite one small example, if the world's largest oil or natual gas reserve was discovered in Burundi, our government would suddenly become far more interested in making some of this right:

// Burundi: War Crimes May Go Unpunished; New Report Documents Extent of Civilian Suffering
(New York, December 22, 2003) — The Burundian military and armed opposition forces have committed serious war crimes, including civilian killings and rapes, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The recent political agreement between the major parties in Burundi’s ten-year civil war should not have granted immunity from prosecution for such blatant and widespread crimes. //

Did you know there's been a 10-year civil war in Burundi? Me neither, until I did a web search for an example. I don't like the fact that money determines where we're willing to enforce what's right, or that we send our service men and women to die overseas at all if our country isn't directly at risk. Until now, our country didn't start wars and invade other countries.

And BTW, what about the part of the video where they smoke the wounded guy? Killing enemy wounded has to be against the rules, right?

They don't show enough of the video to determine the whole story. It would be against the rules of engagment if the wounded guy served no threat to anybody in the vicinity. I think that those Iraqi's were attacked because they were attacking a convoy, base, or checkpoint. The helo took them out from long range to stop them from attacking, I think.

That is because nothing goes on in Berundi that has any effect on our country or way of life. It sucks, but thats the way the world works. If you dont think that when an oil shiek in the middle east farts it affects our economy, you are fooling yourself. We must pay special attention to what happens over there. I feel bad for the Berundians(?), but you have to pick your fights.

Wow he is way out there now I refuse to go any further with him. I agree lets let the thread die.

That's my point. Our troops are dying for oil.

Anyway, you guys are right, no more on this.

Its all about resources.

no it's all about Xterra's

Maybe some day we'll be able to build bombs that can fly into a terrorist camp and conduct extensive interviews to see if the person it's about to blow up is actually a terrorist or just a nun riding a unicorn who happens to be photographing baskets of kittens in a terrorist camp. Until then, the best advice I can give innocent people is to stay a blast radius away from anyone making video tapes about how much they want to destroy America.

Now THAT'S what you call funny!

sorry...didnt die in Maine...though tomorrow I would have had a better shot at that...-9 with a wind chill of -45...pretty damn cold....I agree...let it die....we will all just have to agree to disagree on the point of wether we should have just premptivly nuked Iraq...I am heartend however to see that most of you support the troops and desire and end to regimes like Saddams, though I cant agree on the "blood for oil" opinions of some....doesnt it scare many of you that we'll probly end up voting for the same person come November??

Mostly it scares me that there isn't a worthy candidate from any side.

I don't really see what the problem is with voting for Bush. He's really a terrific President, and he's a really great guy, and just a terrific President...

Question, how many people have served in the military and of those who have, have you been in combat. Not the kind of combat the REMFs saw in Saudi ( the first go around) but the face to face shit?
Four years in the Army I saw more than I ever care to see again. MY combat experience pales in comparison to the heros of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I new a sorry sap in the army, he was a fucking new guy, he claimed he was in a gang in Cali. talked alot of shit prayed for war type of dick.
Well the sorry bastard got what he wished for, shortly after he came to our unit we were sent to Somalia. THe "shit storm " hit shortly after our arrival and where was Billy Bad Ass from Cali.?, cowering like a prison bitch.
For those who think war is cool, we should kill them all, sure there are some that need to die. There are others who want nothing more to do with war than any other person saine person.
For those who havent seen it and want an idea about how violent people are in war go to Ogerish.com and watch the propaganda video, it will turn your stomach.
While in Bosnia we found Mass graves containing bodies from old men to infants and everything in between.
Sorry to ramble but the shit sucks and I pray my kids dont have to see or experience it.

is that sight a porn sight? i went to it and was brought to some sort of porn newsletter?

not what i was expecting from this discussion...

THats funny considering the topic. OGERISH.com I just tried it and I had to go to my home page then typed it in small case, im not sure if it is case sensitive. once at the site go under search and put in propaganda and look for "WAR". What should follow is VERY disturbing.

ok when i enter that address, it auto switches me to porno.net, whats the deal? am i the only one that this is happening to?

I tried it from THis page and the same thing happened to me so I went to my home page and it worked.

http://www.ogrish.com/index2.php?search=propaganda

is this the sight?

i dont know if this is the right sight, but the people that make comments on this sight are really fucked up.

Yes, dont blame me for bad dreams. IF you have yet to the video to which I am refering then let it be known it is very graphic, and it proves we are capable of horrible shit.
Let me know what it is you see.

well judging by your warnings, i dont think i am going to watch the video... last time i watched that kid get hit with the skateboard (video forum), it pissed me off so much i couldnt stop thinking about it for a week...

i assume this would be much worse, and i dont really want to anger myself any more over these videos... i do think the war is just, i know some people in the middle east are capable of some very messed up shit, and i really dont think i want to see anything too brutal, due to the fact that it will just enrage me.

god bless our troops..

It is disturbing, I dont think it would enrage you, but more or less say to yourself "I cant believe this sort of shit goes on" and I can assure you that it does.
The video is during the Russian/Chechin (sp) War, Im not sure if it is a Russian soldier or viceversa, but the captured soldier is being held down by his captures and they cut of his head with a big knife while tapeing it. THe sound of the man gurgling as he exsanguinates.
It is fucked up.

If you have a weak stomach, weak heart, or get nightmares...then do not watch that video. Very gruesome and fucked up.

Great post Airborn (Thanks for your service)although my military experience 4+ active Navy, 8 Army Guard did not put me in the middle of one on one fire fights I was able to glimps the atrocities of war/terror. I spent 2 weeks digging small children from the Murrah building in OKC and was part of the MNPKF in Beruit in the early 80's.

The lad just doesn't understand. Join up dude. You wanna killem all I know a place you can get a weapon and a ticket. The USMC will be happy to help you out.

Originally posted by spalind:
...we will all just have to agree to disagree on the point of wether we should have just premptivly nuked Iraq...I am heartend however to see that most of you support the troops and desire and end to regimes like Saddams, though I cant agree on the "blood for oil" opinions of some....

I totally support our troops. It's the idiots in Washington who send them off to die for no good reason that I have a problem with. Oh, and people who imply that questioning the war in Iraq means you don't support the troops.

If you disagree about us being far more involved in places that just happen to have massive oil reserves, how about explaining why we aren't out there stopping every murderous dictator?

To answer the post about military service, I was in the Naval Reserve from '92 to '00 and never got close to combat, but my father was Army infantry in WWII...made 3 amphibious landings (Guam, Philippines, Okinawa) and twice earned the Bronze Star for valor. He also saw combat during two tours in the Korean War. He didn't like to talk about his wartime experiences.

TRihead and bluesky, Regardless of where you served or what you served in Regular military of reserve, the point is you served.
While in Saudi and Bosni I served next to reserve and They were good soldiers. Bullets are not prejudice, they wont divert from any target (I understand people kill people not guns, just covering my ass.) Bluesky godbless your grandfather those men are heros, my grandfather unfortunatly died in Italy. I could not imagine storming a beach into a wall of bullets.
War is a very sensitive subject as we all can see here, far be it for us to judge the actions of those in a combat situation where decisions must be made in seconds, same for the politicians, as much as I despise them I wold not want their job.

I'll drink to that. Seeing a guy with his knee blown off was bad. Watching 5 burned bodies get pulled out of a Black Hawk was worse. I think I'll be doing a lot of drinking when I get home.