From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/21/2004 1:18 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/20/2004 6:45 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Steve R." wrote in message
news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...

I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and
actually
believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
Steve R.
(son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox,
going
back
in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there

Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?

Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped.

Hopefully.

If a civilian bears arms against
coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides
behind
civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.

Right.

As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how
is the
guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
still
attacking the vehicles?

Er... common sense?

I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
found
anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
were
openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do with
the
attack and are then valid targets.

Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that.

If the jouralists were that close to a military action then they were too close
or not under cover. Accidents happen. Please don't try to suggest they were
targeted as a result of U.S. policy because it isn't true. All that happens
when journalists are deliberately targeted is bad press.

Was your combat
experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask yourself
if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good idea?

What strategy do you refer to? It was a tactical action. My combat experience
is at the tactical level. Please don't confuse the terms.

If they were there a day later common sense
would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not wearing
uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the Geneva
Conventions.

I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are allowed
to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
opposition?

I didn't say that it did. I said the enemy isn't wearing uniforms. The Geneva
Convention allows killing civilians bearing arms against you. If unarmed
civilians enter a valid target, in this case the vehicle and its immediate
vicinity, they put themselves at risk. I seriously doubt the Appache crew was
aware the people on the vehicle were unarmed.

Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
me.

You keep using the term "common sense" so you really should apply it to
yourself as well. The U.S. military has gone out of its way to reduce civilian
casualties and colateral damage. When the bad guys fire from mosques they can
be legitimately targeted. You haven't seen that done by U.S. forces.

There is not now, never been or is there going to be a U.S. policy of targeting
innocent civilians. To do so is counter productive as you say.


There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.

As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
lot
of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.

All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons as
ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.

True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government has
too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!

If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much effort
telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S. forces.

I suspect they may not read Usenet!

You missed the point. You have criticised the U.S. forces, but not the bad guys
who slowly saw hostage's heads off or blow up innocent children with car bombs.


I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
invasion
and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
just
the negative news.

Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
of, I'll let you know.

I take it you don't approve of getting rid of hussein, improving the
infrastructure in most of Iraq, allowing a relatively free press, cell phones,
internet access, access to international news etc?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired