Saddams Sons Killed

[10Dedfish]

Trickster,
You do stick to your guns and I applaud that. But I think that what I said was taken a little out of context. Sending in 200 very pissed off marines to kill 4 people would be considered Machiavellian. But, to send in that many to provide security for the troops, and to spend 4 hours trying to get them out does not tend to be the acts of barbarism. Yes, they were killed. But they refused to surrender peacefully and were firing on the troops outside. Yes, a young man was killed. This we cannot judge for we do not know the circumstances. He could have been a simple bystander, or he could have been the next suicide bomber. We simply do not know.
By saying that this is barbarism because it resorted to violence is plausible, and if the US had done a better job on intel before, none of this would be a factor.
I do have to disagree with you on us becoming like them. We have not murdered, we have not waged genocide, and we have tried to limit the damage to civilians and core infrastructure. We went to the building to capture if possible, kill if necessary. If it were Machiavellian, we would have just wiped the building out. By following your logic, you must also agree that Hitler was not an evil man for waging genocide, simply becuase it was in line with his political views.


10ded

[trickster]

[quote author=10Dedfish link=board=14;threadid=7421;start=0#msg68320 date=1058967193]
Trickster,
You do stick to your guns and I applaud that. But I think that what I said was taken a little out of context. Sending in 200 very pissed off marines to kill 4 people would be considered Machiavellian. But, to send in that many to provide security for the troops, and to spend 4 hours trying to get them out does not tend to be the acts of barbarism. Yes, they were killed. But they refused to surrender peacefully and were firing on the troops outside. Yes, a young man was killed. This we cannot judge for we do not know the circumstances. He could have been a simple bystander, or he could have been the next suicide bomber. We simply do not know.
By saying that this is barbarism because it resorted to violence is plausible, and if the US had done a better job on intel before, none of this would be a factor. [/quote]

Allright.

I do have to disagree with you on us becoming like them. We have not murdered, we have not waged genocide, and we have tried to limit the damage to civilians and core infrastructure.

We have not. However, we cannot say that, because they have done terrible things, we can do terrible things to them.

By following your logic, you must also agree that Hitler was not an evil man for waging genocide, simply becuase it was in line with his political views.
10ded

I would have to agree, if I believed in that the ends justifies the means. But as I have pointed out before, I don't. I was pointing out the error in the argument mentioned earlier, saying that killing the kid was necesary.

[10Dedfish]

I apologize then for misquoting/misunderstanding your intentions.

10ded

I just saying, the kid could have been innocent for all we know - okay if he shot back he knew what was coming. But just because he hangs out with criminals doesn't mean he is one.

I personally see it as a tragic when ever anyone is killed - be that a good guy or a bad guy, I would have liked to see them put before a court of law for crimes against humanity, I know that these guys were the scum from which the scum of the universe was made but that doesn't remove the fact that they were human beings.

I'm not to eager about the whole idea of man being eager to deal out death and judgement, I don't think that's the way to create a tolerant society. This goes for Islamic extremists as well as american hardliners, what gives anyone the right to kill his peer?

Like Gandhi said:

The old law of an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind.

[coltrane]

color me skeptic

but between the mysterious death of the iraq survey scientist, and this, something just doesn’t quite add up in my knoggin'. I don’t trust it.

i blame kobe

[Stuart]

It's a conspiracy. I don't seriously know what to make of it.. lol, I am kind of tired, so on the front page I saw "Saddams Sons Killed by coltrane" and then "Saddams Sons Killed by Lovechild" and I thought to myself "what?!"
lol

[BJ250]

Well, we tried to put them in court. Thats why we sent guys. If we really wanted to kill them, we just needed to send a missile or an air strike.

And I was listening on CNN today, the 14 year old DID fire back. Everyone in the house fired back. We tried to come up to the door after announcing to them that they were surrounded, and as soon as we got up to the door, they fired on a few of our guys, injured 2 or 3 i believe, and then we exchanged fire, brought in helicopters, and blew the house to smitherines with the TOW Anti Tank Weapon.

[cloverm]

This article gives a lot of details about the events that led to the well deserved death of the son of a bitches. They had a chance to surrender and save the sorry lives, but started firing first instead.

[stryder144]

While I can agree with spirit of Tricksters posts, I find it telling that the Sheik and his son plus people in neighboring villas were moved out of the area. It was as much for their protection as it was for the protection of the soldiers. One thing to remember is this: whether you like Bush and company or not, the US soldiers are making a huge effort to minimize damage to the civilians and to make sure that only minor damage is done to buildings, roads, utilities, etc.

Cheers

[BurntAsh]

in the words of southparkl...

We cannot found a country based on war. We cannot found a country that is afraid to fight! *rabble rabble rabble*

I believe if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war hungry and violent to the rest of the world. however, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. so what if we form a country that appears to want both.

yes, yes of course. we go to war and protest going to war at the same time. right, if the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish. then some will support the war, then some will protest it. and that means as a nation we can go to war with whomever we wished but at the same time act like we didnt want to. if we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless. it's like having your cake... and eating it too!

think of it, an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another. and we will call that country,... the united states of america.

you people who are for the war, you need the protestors. because they make the country look like its made of sane caring individuals.. and you people who are anti-war, you need these flag wavers. because if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protestors, we'd get taken down in a second. thats why the founding fathers decided to have both, its called having your cake and eating it too.

;D